, 1885-08-29
A WAR OF WORDS
Endicott and Sheridan at a
Difference.
Prize Fighter Sullivan Unavail.
ingly Arrested.
Satisfactory Arrangement Con-
corning the Strike.
Differences Between Endicott and
Sheridan.

Differences Between Endicott and
Sheridan.
WAsHINGToN,-Aug 2s.-Some time
ago a statement was ~telegraphed from
this city that II conflict OF authority had
arisen between Secretary Endicott and
Lieut.. Gen. Sheridan, also that a similar
conflict had occurred between ex-Secretary
Lincoln and the Lieutenant general of the
army. 1t is stated that the ex-secretary
wrote a letter to Gen. Sheridan defining
the authority of both. All these asser.
tons arc denied by army officers. That
ex-Secretary Lincoln did communicate
with Gen. Sheridan, is shown by the fol-
lowing letter. dated January II last, which
will be published tomorrow by the Army
and Nary Journal.
"GENERAL:-About one month ago, l
had occasion to ask your consideration of
a question as to whether in issuing an
order to the q%uartermaster general you
had not overlooked some considerations
as to the proner channel Of command, for
the overlooking of which by him, in the
case Of an officer in his department, de-
tailed on the staff Of Maj. Gen. Hancock,
you had sharply criticized the quarter
master general. / said then: L see no
reason for dissent from the remarks
made by your directions, hat there are
not two channels of command to a
staff officer serving with troops.
one through the line of general officers,
and the other through the chief of their
staff department, in so far at least as the
command relates to or would interfere
with or obstruct the transmission of any
business, which by said regulation or
orders has been committed to officers of
the line in command of troops; but l wish
20 invite your consideration as to whether,
in making the order of Oct. 90, 1884, to
the quartermaster general instead of REQ
ommending to the secretary of war action
by him, you have not yourself overlooked
the affection Of your remark to the case Of
the quartermaster general. who has not
been and could not be detached from the
staff Ito use a military phrase) of the sec
rotary of war, and authorized to obey the
orders Of any officer of the army, whom
soever, without abandonment by the sec
rotary of war of the duties specifically i'm
posed upon him by law, he and the sub
ordinate officers of his department are not
detailed to settle under commanding Off
GERS, but are necessarily under the sole
direction of the secretary of war. Not
having heard from you to the contrary, /
supposed you had acquiesced in my view,
that the quartermaster general and
the officers of this department, no or
dered by the secretary of war to report
fer duty to military commanders, are not
subject to the orders of the lieutenant
general, and the same principle applies to
all staff departments, whose heads are
chiefs of bureaus of the war department,
excepting the inspector general and adju-
t%ant-general Recently the commissary
general of subsistence, having in a com
munication to me taken exceptions to
receiving orders from the lieutenant
generals, you remarked t~hereupon as fol-
lows; Il have no further remark to make
on the d~isresDectful attitude assumed by
by the commissary general of subsistence.
It. does not admit Of argument in
regard to the relation he bears to
the commanding general of the army. than
that he is a part Of the army of the
United States, and that the president
placed me in command Of the army, by
order dated, war department. Washington,
Oct. 10, 1888. | do not care to make any
point upon the fact hat only the express
sion of your view on the subject, made
after my letter to you, disposes of my
remarks in that letter in 20 brief a manner,
but | deem it my duty to point out to
you that, in my opinion, your claim to
command every officer in the army, as the
in section ] ,094, revised statutes, under
the terms Of assignment to duty under
which you are now acting, is not tenable,
and that if it were tenable, il would be
the imperative duty on the part Of the
secretary of war, to recommend to the
president such change OF terms of your
assignment to duty as would prevent the
possibility Of such a claim. The claim
made is, so far as | am advised, without
precedent in II history. | do not find
in the statutes any definition of the lieu
tenant-general, or indeed of any general
officer, other than the chiefs Of bureaus,
who have by law the rank of general
officers. There is, of course, a perfectly
established understanding as to the duties
which may appropriately be assigned to
them, aud the present organization of
military commands are such that an ar
arrangement is appropriate uzder which
all brigadier- generals mot chiefs of
bureaus) are under command of major
generals and all major-genenls under
command Of the lieutenant general. now
the highest officer in the service.
The secretary quotes at length from
precedents and general orders, showing
that chiefs Of staff corps, departments
and bureaus were considered as with
drawn from the orders Of the general
commander of the army.
Grapes, pttslsss peaches,
apples and pears at The