The Washington critic., 1885-08-08

ascertain and report IL there had been |
any acts which were mot In accord
ance with military subOrdinatlon or
Dropriety ?" Or were the proper ex-
plantations" which he states explicitly
II Il been made, private and coniiden-
tialY There IL reason to believe that
the official records already published
contain all the explanations Of an Off
cia character which are in existence.
II there are any others they must be
among the private papers OF General
Halleck.
1t Is evident from the context OF these
dispatches TINT the initial complaint
went from ST. Louis to Washington,
from IIalleck to Mcclellan, and not
from Washington to st. Louis, as Hat
leck declared. A careful search through
the Official Records shows no dispatches
from Washington, except this one from
Mcclellan and the one heretofore
quoted from Thomas, the Adjutant-
General, to Halleck, complaining OF
Grants conduct In any way.
On the 9TH of March General Grant
telegraphed to General Haleck that
he had done his very best to obey or
ders and carry ont the Interests of the
service. "If my course Ia not satisfac-
tory" he says, ''rcmove me ut once. |
do not wish to impede in any way the
success of our arms" In this dispatch
he also expresses the opinion that he
must have enemies between Ilalleck
aud himself who were trying to impair
his uscfuless. General llalleck says
in his reply: "You are mistaken. There
Is no enemy between you and me, "
and again calls attention to the fact
that he has never yet received any
statement ~ to the number aud dispo-
sition OF his command. On the 9th of
March, however, General IIalleck writes
as follows 10 General Grant at Fort
Henry:
Your letter of the 9th instant, Just received
contains the first and only information of your
actual forces. If you have reported them be
fore have not seen them, General McClel
Ion has repeatedly ordered me to report to him
daily the numbers and positions of your forces
This could not do, and the fault was Ger
tainly not mine, for telegraphed TO You time
and again for the information but could get No
answer. This certainly indicateda great. want
of order and system In your command, tn,
blame of which was partially thrown ON me
and perhaps justly, as 1t Is the duty of every
commander to compel those under him to obey
orders and enforce discipline. Don't let
such neglect occur again, for It Is equally dis
10 you anu 10 me.
On the 18th of March General Grant
telegraphed TO General Halleck:
Yours of the 9th inst, inclosing an anony
nous letter to the Hon. David Davis, speaking
of frauds committed against Government, i
Just received Irefer you to my orders to sup
press marauding as the only reply necessary
There is such disposition to find fault with m
that again ask to be relieved from furthe
duty until can be placed right in the estima
ton of those higher in authority.
TO the foregoing General lIallccl
: replied, on the 18th Of March, as fol
lows:
You cannot be relieved from you command
There is no good reason for il. ! am certai
that all which the authorities at Washingto
ask Is that you enforce discipline and punis
the disordery. The power Is in your hands
\ use II and you will be sustained by all abov
you. Instead of relieving you, wish you, q
soon as your new army Is in the field, to a.
sumo the immediate command, and lead 10 o
to new victories.
replied TO General lIalleck as follow:
4 Afteryour letter nclosing copy of anonymor
letter upon which severe censure was based
= felt as though it would be impossible for me [
= serve longer without a court of inquiry. You
: telegram of yesterday, however, places such
n different phase upon my position that wi
+. again assume command and give, every eiol
! to the success of onr cause. Under the worl
/ circumstances would do the same.
In all The correspondence that passe
j. between Halleck and Grant, ut this IL
8 teresting period, no reference is mad
II to the ''habits" OF the latter, exceptin
= that contained in the communication {
General Halleck to General Grant, date
Is March 4. Yet the declaration cOntaine
), in General Halleck's communication [
J. Thomas on the 10Th of March is specific
u is clear, that General Grant has mad
c the proper explanations" a qucstiO
y for the future historian is, Where al
they and what were they? Did Geners
n Halleck or anyone else ever send t
s. General Grant copy of the message c
G March to General Mcclellan, and
Is so, what was and where Is Generf
d Grants reply thereto? 1t is, of course
y possible that private correspondent
|. may have taken place between Genera
It Halleck and General Grant upon tn
IS important subject, and the curior
|. omission of everything relating to til
a rumor that General Grant had resume
If 'his former bad habits" from the otlici'
Il correspondence, would seem to supper
II the probability Of this view of the ma