Year: 1879




organization of the army with carefully
prepared explanatory remarks by the pres
ident of the committee has been followed
up by the views of some three or four prom
inent generals, to which wide publicity has
been given, apparently with some intention
of influencing public opinion on the sub
jcct We have heard from three generals
and one heutenant-coonel in favor of the
bill, none of whom are iniuriously affected
by ii in the least, one Of whom is materially
benefited by it, and all of whom are given
increased powers and prerogatiyes. But 1t
is regarded as somewhat singular that we
have not heard from the far larger majority
of generals, colonels, and lieutenant-col-
onels, many of them officers of well-known
ability and national reputation, whose
capacity for organization and execution are
recognized by the country. The fact is
that the army generally, both STAFF and
line, do not favor the bill. the provisions Of
which are regarded MS mischicyous and
cruel beyond precedent; and public opin-
ion, at first largely influenced by the views
referred to, is, upon more mature consid-
Grafton of the bill, gradually but surely
setting against it.


Aside from the extraordinary and ap-
parently unconstitutional provisions of the
bill, granting almost unlimited personal
powers IN some directions, and curtailing
what have been regarded the lrightful pre-
negatives of the Executive in others, all Of
which will doubtless be discovered and un-
tremendously dealt with nj the hands the
shrewd and able constitutional lawyers in
both Houses, the bill contains provisions
most dangerous to the effectiveness Of the
army itself it proposes to destroy in
great measure the admirable staff system of
our army, which has been the gradual
growth of many years of experience which
has withstood the strain of n great war, ex-
panding with its necessities and contracting
with its close; which has been the admira-
tion of European military writer's which
has been characterized by nearly every
prominent general of our army in terms of
praise, and which General SHERMAN HIM
self has ut various times mentioned most
llatteringly.


In place of trained and experienced
staff officers, already selected from the
line on account of fitness and inn
proved by long years of study and
practice, most of them under heavy bonds
it is proposed to substitute officers of the
line by detail, who, after n brief experience
of two years may, as vacancies occur, be
placed in the permanent staff Thus we are
replacing experience by inexperience, and
trained and known ability by untried per-
sons Does this seem like a beneficial re-
organization? 1t all appears to us like
hue and cry in the interest of few inter-
ested and designing persons to benefit them
| selves even at the cost of disorganization
and to this end have assailed the staff with
n clamor about mtagOnism that exists no.
where but in their own imagination. The
fact is, there is no antagonism between the
line and staff, Some few men, ambitious
for preferment which they find themselves
unable to gain in their own department s,
want other branches thrown open to them,
and some few others who have been unsuc-
cesslul applicants for staff positions have
become embittered and assail the very de-
partments they sought service in.


To the uninformed it would seem from
the bill that the general officers do not no w
command the officers of the staff in their
various commands and that line officers are
never detailed to duty in the staff. Nothing
could be moro erroneous, for the legal con-
troll of a general over all the officers within
the limits of his command is clear and alb
solute, subject only to the approval of his
rightlul superiors; and it is well known
that the details of line officers TO staff duty
equal in number the total of the officers OF
the staff.