The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1885-08-29
.FRONE THE CAPITA.L.
snERlDAN

/ r.
Corre,ponaercs Between, the General Of the
Army ana tho Secretary q, 20 tho Jafls.
die,ioa q Their oniess- Moro Fourth.
elias. Pestmas.srs Appoiated.
wAsnIGdTos, d. o, August 2s.-some-
time ago q statement was telesraphed from
this city that q conflict in authority had
arisen between Secretary Endicott and
Lieut. Gen. Sheridan, also that q similar
conflict had occurred between ex-secreta-
~ Lincoln and the Lieutenant General Of
the Army. II was stated that theex-
Secretary wrote q letter to General sheri-
dan defining the authority Of both.
These assertions are denied by the army
officers. That ex-secetary Lincoln did
communicate with General Sheridan upon
this subject is shownib the following let
ter, dated January 17th last, which willbe
published tomorrow by the Amy and
Nary Journal: q e a e IA s
iENERAI:-About month ago / bad
occasion TO ask your consid liberation ofga
question as to whether in issuing an order
TO a Quartermaster General yon had not
Overlooked some consideration as to the
proper channel OF command, for the over
looking OF which by him in case Of an
officer Of his department detailed on the
staff of Major General Hancock, you had
sharply criticised the Quart rtertnaster Cen.
eral. Esaid then, 81 see no reason TO. dis
sent from the remarks made by yourdi-
reetion; that there were not two
channels Of command 70 9 stall
officer serving with troops, one
through tile line of a general officer
and the other through the chief OF their
staff department. j wish 10 invite your
consideration as to whether IN aking the
order OF October 90, 1884, the Quarter
master General instead Of recommending
TO the Secretary Of War action by him,
you had not yourself overlooked the ap-
plication OF yourremark 10 the case OF the
pnartermastef Genera. who has not been
aud could not be detached from the stah
|of the Ssctetafy Of War, aud authorized
10 obey the orders Of any officer Of the
army ,whonisoeyer without abapd pdonment
|byof the Secretary Of War OF duties spes
Icifcally imposed upon him by law. He
/ and the subordinate officers ef his depart
ment. were not detailed 10 settle under
IcommRnding officers, ara necessarily IN.
der the sole direction The Secret y;ot
War. Recently the Commissafy General
OF Substance having In 8 eommln lnication
to me taken exception 10 receiving orders
from the Lieutenant General you remark
ed thereppon as follows
sIfERipa sIEETi;Is. y$l
u hayaYno further remark To make on
the disrespe eetiul attitude assumed by the
Gommissary General Of Subsistence. It
does not admit 81 argument in regard to-
the relaionthe bears 70 the commanding
General oi,the army than that he sapart
oithe army ot the United States and that
lthe President placed me in command Of
the army by an order date at The War
lDspattment, Washington, October 18Th,
| 1855 y q
Ideemit my duty to point out to yous
that in myiopinion Of your claim 10 5eonl-1
mand every officer in the army as the
army Is described in section lpA revised
stafiites under terms oil assignment To-
ifi,ty ai,der which yot are now ne tins, rs
I not fenabls. and that u It were tenable, ~
would be the impefat I've duty on the part
lof the Secretary Of War 10 secommend 10
the President such chang IN tae tsfpas q
| the ,passib ibility Of such q. claim. The claim
made issso far IS j ani advised without
precedent in our history. 4 do not find
| in the statutes any dssnttiaR il. got o.
the daties el .as s.si otise. asbsr Inn
cSisis sgass n R sRareais Who hsye 5by law the
rank of general officers. There Il, OF