The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-21
Title of the Measure Is a MisnOmer,
for Lit Reorganixes Nothing that
Now Exists.
IT PROVIDES MORE SOLDIERS
AND ALSO CHANGES CERTAIN DE-
TAILS OF APPOINTMENT,
But the STAFF System, of Which So
Much Has Been Said. Remains as
In the Present Law.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.--The army bill
passed by the Senate Is continually spoken
OF as a Reorganization of the army. 1t
Il nothing of the kind. 1t enlarges the
army and changes certain details of APP
pointment, but II reorganizes nothing that
now exists. Ii is supposed by many per-
sons. among them some who voted for
the measure to reorganize the staff. 1t
Goes nothing of the sort. 1t provides that
hereafter staff positions, save the medical
and Judge advocate generals departments
and the corps of engineers, shall be filled
by temporary details instead of by perma-
rent appointments as heretofore. Why
the Judge; Advocate Generals Department
and the corps of engineers were excepted
and the Ordnance Department included 1t
would puzzle the traditional Philadelphia
lawyer TO find out, for certainly the duties
that fau to the lot of an ordnance Of
ficer are quite as scientific and technical
T., their way as those which fall TO an Of
ficer in either of the other staff corps and
demand as high a grade OF ability properly
TO perform. However. let us examine the
claim that the bill 'reorganizes" the staff
of the army and look little into the al
legged reasons for the necessity for such
reorganization and find. IL we can. why it
was not programmed, provided such re-
organization were needed.
1t is a simple fact that neither the
original Root bill nor any Of the trans
formations through which 1t has passed
in the House and Senate contain a line
word which changes the existing staff
system in any respect whatever. They
all leave the bureaus In precisely the same
relation to the secretary OF war
on the one hand and to the
line OF the army the other.
as existing laws now on the statute books.
They do not touch In the slightest the
duties. powers and responsibilities of
bureau officers nor the statutory conditions
under which they act. Their entire effect
upon the staff departments is confined to a
change In the mode OF acquiring their
personnel and the periods of individual
tenure. Even this change is to be oper-
alive only as the present personnel Is
eliminated. by casualty.
Officers who would be detailed to staff
service would find themselves in exactly
the same organism as already exists, sub
tect TO the same laws. regulations. con-
troller's decisions and general orders, the
same powers and limitat lions of power, the
same responsibilities. the same duties, the
same trammeis as their predecessors. The
staff proposition relates wholly to per-
sons and not 10 methods or TO organiza-
ton The question at issue Is. therefore.
narrowed down to this: VIII the perma-
nent or the detailed officers likely be
the more efficient? Those who claim the
latter will so prove have upon themselves
the burden of proof. Calling staff officers
barnacles is not argument. IL remains TO
hear how and why detailed officers under
the same conditions would be any better
than permanent ones.
Possibly we are TO infer that the pres
ent officers are bad and that therefore
any change will probably be for the bet
fer. This seems to be the drift of ar
gument- And in support of the proposition
that the present officers are inefficient the
troubles az Tampa and Chattanooga are
often cited to illustrate IL. Let us be
honest. Was IL the staff that ordered
regiments TO leave their rendezvous half
armed ard half equipped before company
officers knew how 10 draw their rations, or
10 cook and serve them? Was IL the
stan that ordered sixty or seventy thou
sand raw recruits TO Chattanooga where
the railroad facilities were hardly ade-
ouate for twelve thousand? Was II fhs
stan that ordered sixty thousand men "a
Tampa. where the terminals were made
quate for zen thousand! Was il the stan
that changed the destinations OF whole
divisions by rail three four times I'm
a single week. throwing the whole SUNNY
service into confusion and chaos? Was :.
the stan that ordered the dispatch OF a
large expeditionary force by sea when
the government had not a single transport
and when the War Departments would no,
condescendi TO ask the help OF the navy
IN transporting them? Let US be honest
The plain sruth is that these orders orig
mated In the secretary's Office and the
bureaus. and th,ir subord.nates obeyed
their orders with zeal and intelligence
which does shem the highest credit and with
our which disaster would have fallen with.