_To the Senate of the United States_:
Having cause to infer that the reasons which led to the construction
which I gave to the act of the last session entitled "An act to reduce
and fix the peace establishment of the United States" have not been well
understood, I consider it my duty to explain more fully the view which
I took of that act and of the principles on which I executed the very
difficult and important duty enjoined on me by it.
To do justice to the subject it is thought proper to show the actual
state of the Army before the passage of the late act, the force in
service, the several corps of which it was composed, and the grades
and number of officers commanding it. By seeing distinctly the body
in all its parts on which the law operated, viewing also with a just
discrimination the spirit, policy, and positive injunctions of that law
with reference to precedents established in a former analogous case,
we shall be enabled to ascertain with great precision whether these
injunctions have or have not been strictly complied with.
By the act of the 3d of March, 1815, entitled "An act fixing the
military peace establishment of the United States," the whole force
in service was reduced to 10,000 men--infantry, artillery, and
riflemen--exclusive of the Corps of Engineers, which was retained in its
then state. The regiment of light artillery was retained as it had been
organized by the act of 3d March, 1814. The infantry was formed into
9 regiments, 1 of which consisted of riflemen. The regiments of light
artillery, infantry, riflemen, and Corps of Engineers were commanded
each by a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and the usual battalion and
company officers; and the battalions of the corps of artillery, of which
there were 8--4 for the Northern and 4 for the Southern division--were
commanded by lieutenant-colonels or majors, there being 4 of each grade.
There were, therefore, in the Army at the time the late law was passed
12 colonels belonging to those branches of the military establishment.
Two major-generals and 4 brigadiers were likewise retained in service by
this act; but the staff in several of its branches not being provided
for, and being indispensable and the omission inadvertent, proceeding
from the circumstances under which the act was passed, being at the
close of the session, at which time intelligence of the peace was
received, it was provisionally retained by the President, and provided
for afterwards by the act of the 24th April, 1816. By this act the
Ordnance Department was preserved as it had been organized by the act
of February 8, 1815, with 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 2 majors,
10 captains, and 10 first, second, and third lieutenants. One Adjutant
and Inspector General of the Army and 2 adjutants-general--1 for the
Northern and 1 for the Southern division--were retained. This act
provides also for a Paymaster-General, with a suitable number of
regimental and battalion paymasters, as a part of the general staff,
constituting the military peace establishment; and the Pay Department
and every other branch of the staff were subjected to the Rules and
Articles of War.
By the act of March 2, 1821, it was ordained that the military peace
establishment should consist of 4 regiments of artillery and 7 of
infantry, with such officers of engineers, ordnance, and staff as were
therein specified. It is provided that each regiment of artillery should
consist of 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 1 major, and 9 companies,
with the usual company officers, 1 of which to be equipped as light
artillery, and that there should be attached to each regiment of
artillery 1 supernumerary captain to perform ordnance duty, thereby
merging the regiment of artillery and Ordnance Department into these
4 regiments. It was provided also that each regiment of infantry should
consist of 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant colonel, 1 major, and 10 companies,
with the usual company officers. The Corps of Engineers, bombardiers
excepted, with the topographical engineers and their assistants, were
to be retained under the existing organization. The former establishment
as to the number of major generals and brigadiers was curtailed one-half,
and the office of Inspector and Adjutant General to the Army and of
adjutant-general to each division annulled, and that of Adjutant General
to the Army instituted. The Quartermaster, Paymaster, and Commissary
Departments were also specially provided for, as was every other branch
of the staff, all of which received a new modification, and were
subjected to the Rules and Articles of War.
The immediate and direct operation of this act on the military peace
establishment of 1815 was that of reduction, from which no officer
belonging to it was exempt, unless it might be the topographical
engineers; for in retaining the Corps of Engineers, as was manifest
as well by the clear import of the section relating to it as by the
provisions of every other clause of the act, reference was had to the
organization, and not to the officers of the Corps. The establishment
of 1815 was reduced from 10,000 to about 6,000 men. The 8 battalions of
artillery, constituting what was called the corps of artillery, and the
regiment of light artillery as established by the act of 1815, were to
be incorporated together and formed into 4 new regiments. The regiments
of infantry were to be reduced from 9 to 7, the rifle regiment being
broken. Three of the general officers were to be reduced, with very
many of the officers belonging to the several corps of the Army, and
particularly of the infantry. All the provisions of the act declare of
what number of officers and men the several corps provided for by it
should thenceforward consist, and not that any corps as then existing
or any officer of any corps, unless the topographical engineers were
excepted, should be retained. Had it been intended to reduce the
officers by corps, or to exempt the officers of any corps from the
operation of the law, or in the organization of the several new corps
to confine the selection of the officers to be placed in them to the
several corps of the like kind then existing, and not extend it to the
whole military establishment, including the staff, or to confine the
reduction to a proportional number of each corps and of each grade
in each corps, the object in either instance might have been easily
accomplished by a declaration to that effect. No such declaration was
made, nor can such intention be inferred. We see, on the contrary, that
every corps of the Army and staff was to be reorganized, and most of
them reduced in officers and men, and that in arranging the officers
from the old to the new corps full power was granted to the President
to take them from any and every corps of the former establishment and
place them in the latter. In this latter grant of power it is proper
to observe that the most comprehensive terms that could be adopted were
used, the authority being to cause the arrangement to be made from the
officers of the several _corps_ then in the service of the United
States, comprising, of course, every corps of the staff, as well as of
artillery and infantry, and not from the _corps of troops_, as in the
former act, and without any limitation as to grades.
It merits particular attention that although the object of this
latter act was reduction and such its effect on an extensive scale,
5 new offices were created by it--4 of the grade of colonel for the
4 regiments of artillery and that of Adjutant-General for the Army. Three
of the first mentioned were altogether new, the corps having been newly
created, and although 1 officer of that grade as applicable to the corps
of light artillery had existed, yet as that regiment was reduced and
all its parts reorganized in another form and with other duties, being
incorporated into the 4 new regiments, the commander was manifestly
displaced and incapable of taking the command of either of the new
regiments or any station in them until he should be authorized to do so
by a new appointment. The same remarks are applicable to the office of
Adjutant-General to the Army. It is an office of new creation, differing
from that of Adjutant and Inspector General, and likewise from that
of adjutant-general to a division, which were severally annulled. It
differs from the first in title, rank, and pay, and from the two latter
because they had been created by law each for a division, whereas the
new office, being instituted without such special designation, could
have relation only to the whole Army. It was manifest, therefore, that
neither of those officers had any right to this new station nor to
any other station unless he should be specially appointed to it, the
principle of reduction being applicable to every officer in every corps.
It is proper also to observe that the duties of Adjutant-General under
the existing arrangement correspond in almost every circumstance with
those of the late Adjutant and Inspector General, and not with those
of an adjutant-general of a division.
To give effect to this law the President was authorized by the twelfth
section to cause the officers, noncommissioned officers, artificers,
musicians, and privates of the several corps then in the service of the
United States to be arranged in such manner as to form and complete
out of the same the force thereby provided for, and to cause the
supernumerary officers, noncommissioned officers, artificers, musicians,
and privates to be discharged from the service.
In executing this very delicate and important trust I acted with the
utmost precaution. Sensible of what I owed to my country, I felt
strongly the obligation of observing the utmost impartiality in
selecting those officers who were to be retained. In executing this law
I had no personal object to accomplish or feeling to gratify--no one
to retain, no one to remove. Having on great consideration fixed the
principles on which the reduction should be made, I availed myself
of the example of my predecessor by appointing through the proper
department a board of general officers to make the selection, and
whose report I adopted.
In transferring the officers from the old to the new corps the utmost
care was taken to place them in the latter in the grades and corps to
which they had respectively belonged in the former, so far as it might
be practicable. This, though not enjoined by the law, appearing to be
just and proper, was never departed from except in peculiar cases and
under imperious circumstances.
In filling the original vacancies in the artillery and in the newly
created office of Adjutant-General I considered myself at liberty to
place in them any officer belonging to any part of the whole military
establishment, whether of the staff or line. In filling original
vacancies--that is, offices newly created--it is my opinion, as a
general principle, that Congress have no right under the Constitution
to impose any restraint by law on the power granted to the President
so as to prevent his making a free selection of proper persons for these
offices from the whole body of his fellow-citizens. Without, however,
entering here into that question, I have no hesitation in declaring it
as my opinion that the law fully authorized a selection from any branch
of the whole military establishment of 1815. Justified, therefore, as
I thought myself in taking that range by the very highest sanction, the
sole object to which I had to direct my attention was the merit of the
officers to be selected for these stations. Three generals of great
merit were either to be dismissed or otherwise provided for. The
very gallant and patriotic defender of New Orleans had intimated his
intention to retire, but at my suggestion expressed his willingness
to accept the office of commissioner to receive the cession of the
Floridas and of governor for a short time of that Territory. As to one,
therefore, there was no difficulty. For the other two provision could
only be made in the mode which was adopted. General Macomb, who had
signalized himself in the defense of Plattsburg, was placed at the head
of the Corps of Engineers, to which he had originally belonged, and in
which he had acquired great experience, Colonel Armistead, then at the
head of that corps, having voluntarily accepted one of the new regiments
of artillery, for which he possessed very suitable qualifications.
General Atkinson, likewise an officer of great merit, was appointed to
the newly created office of Adjutant-General. Brevet General Porter, an
officer of great experience in the artillery, and merit, was appointed
to the command of another of those regiments. Colonel Fenwick, then the
oldest lieutenant-colonel of artillery, and who had suffered much in the
late war by severe wounds, was appointed to a third, and Colonel Towson,
who had served with great distinction in the same corps and been twice
brevetted for his gallantry in the late war, was appointed to the last
remaining one. General Atkinson having declined the office of Adjutant
General, Colonel Gadsden, an officer of distinguished merit and believed
to possess qualifications suitably adapted to it, was appointed in
his stead. In making the arrangement the merits of Colonel Butler and
Colonel Jones were not overlooked. The former was assigned to the place
which he would have held in the line if he had retained his original
lineal commission, and the latter to his commission in the line, which
he had continued to hold with his staff appointment.
That the reduction of the Army and the arrangement of the officers
from the old to the new establishment and the appointments referred to
were in every instance strictly conformable to law will, I think, be
apparent. To the arrangement generally no objection has been heard; it
has been made, however, to the appointments to the original vacancies,
and particularly to those of Colonel Towson and Colonel Gadsden. To
those appointments, therefore, further attention is due. If they were
improper it must be either that they were illegal or that the officers
did not merit the offices conferred on them. The acknowledged merit of
the officers and the peculiar fitness for the offices to which they were
respectively appointed must preclude all objection on that head. Having
already suggested my impression that in filling offices newly created,
to which on no principle whatever anyone could have a claim of right,
Congress could not under the Constitution restrain the free selection of
the President from the whole body of his fellow-citizens, I shall only
further remark that if that impression is well founded all objection
to these appointments must cease. If the law imposed such restraint,
it would in that case be void. But, according to my judgment, the law
imposed none. An objection to the legality of those appointments must be
founded either on the principle that those officers were not comprised
within the corps then in the service of the United States--that is, did
not belong to the peace establishment--or that the power granted by
the word "arrange" imposed on the President the necessity of placing
in these new offices persons of the same grade only from the old. It is
believed that neither objection is well founded. Colonel Towson belonged
to one of the corps then in the service of the United States, or, in
other words, of the military peace establishment. By the act of 1815-16
the Pay Department, of which the Paymaster General was the chief, was
made one of the branches of the staff, and he and all those under him
were subjected to the Rules and Articles of War. The appointment,
therefore, of him, and especially to a new office, was strictly
conformable to law.
The only difference between the fifth section of the act of 1815 for
reducing the Army and the twelfth section of the act of 1821 for still
further reducing it, by which the power to carry those laws into effect
was granted to the President in each instance, consists in this, that by
the former he was to cause the arrangement to be made of the officers,
noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the several _corps
of troops_ then in the service of the United States, whereas in the
latter the term _troops_ was omitted. It can not be doubted that that
omission had an object, and that it was thereby intended to guard
against misconstruction in so very material and important a circumstance
by authorizing the application of the act unequivocally to every corps
of the staff as well as of the line. With that word a much wider range
was given to the act of 1815 on the reduction which then took place than
under the last act. The omission of it from the last act, together with
all the sanctions which were given by Congress to the construction of
the law in the reduction made under the former, could not fail to dispel
all doubt as to the extent of the power granted by the last law and of
the principles which ought to guide, and on which it was thereby made
the duty of the President to execute it. With respect to the other
objection--that is, that officers of the same grade only ought to have
been transferred to these new offices--it is equally unfounded. It is
admitted that officers may be taken from the old corps and reduced and
arranged in the new in inferior grades, as was done under the former
reduction. This admission puts an end to the objection in this case;
for if an officer may be reduced and arranged from one corps to another
by an entire change of grade, requiring a new commission and a new
nomination to the Senate, I see no reason why an officer may not be
advanced in like manner. In both instances the grade in the old corps
is alike disregarded. The transfer from it to the new turns on the merit
of the party, and it is believed that the claim in this instance is felt
by all with peculiar sensibility. The claim of Colonel Towson is the
stronger because the arrangement of him to the office to which he is now
nominated is not to one from which any officer has been removed, and to
which any other officer may in any view of the case be supposed to have
had a claim. As Colonel Gadsden held the office of Inspector-General,
and as such was acknowledged by all to belong to the staff of the Army,
it is not perceived on what ground his appointment can be objected to.
If such a construction is to be given to the act of 1821 as to confine
the transfer of officers from the old to the new establishment to the
_corps of troops_--that is, to the line of the Army--the whole staff of
the Army in every branch would not only be excluded from any appointment
in the new establishment, but altogether disbanded from the service.
It would follow also that all the offices of the staff under the
new arrangement must be filled by officers belonging to the new
establishment after its organization and their arrangement in it.
Other consequences not less serious would follow. If the right of the
President to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officers
from any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he would
be compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps had
been reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law as
to those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had been
already legislated out of office, taking from the President all agency
in their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversive
of the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistent
with the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices for
a particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices,
at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generals
and other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat every
object of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at the
head of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have had
no experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.
Having omitted in the message to Congress at the commencement of the
session to state the principles on which this law had been executed, and
having imperfectly explained them in the message to the Senate of the
17th of January last, I deem it particularly incumbent on me, as well
from a motive of respect to the Senate as to place my conduct in the
duty imposed on me by that act in a clear point of view, to make this
communication at this time. The examples under the law of 1815, whereby
officers were reduced and arranged from the old corps to the new in
inferior grades, fully justify all that has been done under the law
of 1821. If the power to arrange under the former law authorized the
removal of one officer from a particular station and the location of
another in it, reducing the latter from a higher to an inferior grade,
with the advice and consent of the Senate, it surely justifies under
the latter law the arrangement of these officers, with a like sanction,
to offices of new creation, from which no one had been removed and to
which no one had a just claim. It is on the authority of these examples,
supported by the construction which I gave to the law, that I have acted
in the discharge of this high trust. I am aware that many officers of
great merit, having the strongest claims on their country, have been
reduced and others dismissed, but under the law that result was
inevitable. It is believed that none have been retained who had not,
likewise, the strongest claims to the appointments which have been
conferred on them. To discriminate between men of acknowledged merit,
especially in a way to affect so sensibly and materially their feelings
and interests, for many of whom I have personal consideration and
regard, has been a most painful duty; yet I am conscious that I have
discharged it with the utmost impartiality. Had I opened the door to
change in any case, even where error might have been committed, against
whom could I afterwards have closed it, and into what consequences might
not such a proceeding have led? The same remarks are applicable to the
subject in its relation to the Senate, to whose calm and enlightened
judgment, with these explanations, I again submit the nominations which
have been rejected.