Evening star., 1926-08-22

In order that the relative value Of
cart and pack transportation might
he determined, Company d of the
93d Infantry demonstrated the use
of carts, while Company NJ of the
42d Infantry demonstrated the use Of
pack equipment, the test being held
in the vicinity of Fort Clayton. Canal
Zone. The route over which the test
was held includes all types of trails
and ran for a distance of 7h miles,
and both companies not only marched
over the route, but were required TO
cut trails, go into action, counter
march, and to conceal themselves from
air observation. There was practically
no difference between the two types
of transportation when operating on
the easy trails, but as the terrain be-
came more difficult to ira verse, the
superiority of the pack transportation
became apparent. The cart company
found il extremely difficult to accom-
plish the steep slopes of the trail, their
marching time being Az hours, com
pared to 3 hours for the pack company.
Both men and animals of the cart COM
pany were in an exhausted condition
at the conclusion of the march. while
those of the pack company were COM
paratively fresh. The test con-
clusively proved the superiority Of
pack transportation in the Canal
Zone, which has now been adopted,
and brought out in glaring way
the disadvantages of cart transpor-
tation such as occupying more space
on the trail, they were more diff
cult to conceal from air observation,
and their countermarching on trails
proved to be diff1cult and lengthy.
Nfr
lately that a considerable number Of
Army officers Of over 30-years' serv-
ice would be extended an opportunity
to retire, has been emphatically de-
MED in the War Department. Unal-
terable opposition has been voiced by
Secretary of War Davis on this sub
iect from time to time, which ac-
counts for the few 30-year retire
ments which have been accepted by
the President. In view of the many
congressional inquiries which were
addressed to both the War and Navy
Departments during the last session.
II is very evident that the inquirers
entertain the opinion that there is
something radically wrong with the
method of retirement.
REPRESENTATIVES Begg, Blanton and
Speaks, and Hill of Maryland have all
expressed the opinion that there
should be greater uniformity IN
transferring officers from the active
list. Some of them favor confining
retirement to disability and so re-
tanning officers on the active list, re-
gardiess of length Of service or age.
This ignores the opportunity for cre-
ating vacancies, 1t Is pointed out,
which would aid promotion. 1t also
overlooks the fact that officers en-
tered on a military career with the
impression that they will be entitled
to retirement for service or at the
age OF 81 years. as we'll as for inca
pacity. The crystallization of this SEN
timent on the part Of Congress, it is
said, Is the cause of the perceptible
check on the War Department prac-
tice of retiring officers for 30 years
service. The refusal Of the depart
ment to grant this privilege is having
a detrimental effect upon the military
personnel, so those officers who de-
sire retirement on this account. not
only confidently expected, but are
still of the opinion that they have
rightfully earned retirement. They
naturally hold a grievance because OF
this hard and fast rule. especially
those colonels who feel that they have
no chance Of selection as brigadier
general.
On the other hand, it is held, any
unusual number of transfers to the
retired list for 30 years service
would undoubtedly cause adverse
comment in Congress. which it would
be desirable to avoid
The general Congressional opinion
ia that retirements should be limited
to those physically incapacitated for
duty in any branch of the Army.
The implication is that an officer must
he SO physically UNFIT that he cannot
he useful in any capacity. For ex-
ample, an officer of the Cavalry arm
might be considered as physically
ca apable-whether or not he was pro-