THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.

So far as I have the means of judging, the Ordnance Department, like the Engineer Corps, is not too large, but I see no sufficient reason for the great proportion of high grades authorized in it. In my judgment, however, the most important point concerning this corps is its management, not its organization. I have already alluded to the immediate and vital interest which other branches of the service have in the success of its operations. There is nothing so important to the combatant arms of service, and to the general officers who command them, as the arms and ammunition with which the troops are supplied. All of the branches of the service should, as far as possible, add their information and experience in the use of arms to that of the Ordnance Department, for the production of the best arms, ammunition, and equipments; but, instead of this, our Ordnance Department is practically a close corporation, and all officers, from the general-in-chief down, are not only excluded from control in it, but from its councils. To the men who make the arms, etc., is intrusted the solution of all questions in relation to them, the men who use them being excluded from these deliberations. The oft-repeated efforts to consolidate the ordnance and artillery is attributable mainly to the practice just mentioned. . . .

No consolidation is required to effect the object here suggested. It is only necessary that the isolation and independence of this department, in whose labors all of the army is specially interested, shall cease, and that it be brought under the control of the general-in-chief.

The absurdity, if I may be permitted to use the word, of completely isolating interests in our service which are naturally dependent on each other, cannot be better shown than by considering three of the branches of the service already discussed in this letter, viz., the Engineers, Ordnance, and Artillery. The first constructs the national defenses, including the beds for the gun-carriages, the second manufactures all the guns and their carriages, and supplies the ammunition; and the third uses what the other two make. Yet the three act not only independently of each other, but without a common military superior. . . .

THE QUARTERMASTER'S, SUBSISTENCE, AND PAY DEPARTMENTS.

These are essentially the supply departments of the army. I do not see why any one of them should ever be larger than necessary to fill the demand made on it by the army actually in service. Regulated by this rule in time of peace, I have no doubt that each would, in the future as it has in the past, be found a complete and sufficiently large nucleus on which to build in case of war. In my judgment, the Subsistence and Pay Departments are now, in their strength and organization, well suited to the wants of the army. The bar to promotion in the Pay Department established by the act of March 3, 1869, still exists, although removed in all of the other corps to which it originally applied. I see no reason for this exception, and think that the good of the service, as well as justice to the few officers concerned, demands that it should be removed.

I do not under-estimate the importance, the difficulty, and the variety of the duties of the Quartermaster's Department. Yet I cannot but think that this branch of the service is larger than necessary, especially in the higher grades. The legal organization is, one brigadier-general, four colonels, eight lieutenant-colonels, fourteen majors, and thirty captains. There is nothing in the absolute or relative importance of these positions or duties requiring so large a proportion of offices in the higher grades. In fact, I think it possible that the efficiency of the department is impaired rather than promoted by it. . . .

After quoting a portion of his testimony before the military committee of the House, against the proposed consolidation of the Quartermaster's and Subsistence Departments, General Hancock says:

I adhere to that opinion. The subject is one that has been pretty fully discussed through inquiries made of the most prominent officers of the army by committees of Congress. In 1869, four officers, or ex-officers, expressed themselves in favor of it. In 1874, fifteen were in favor of it, and thirty-four against it. In 1876, twenty were in favor of it, and thirty-five against it. (In all cases, as the matter was presented to me, but especially in the last case, the form of inquiry was as to the practicability rather than advisability of the consolidation.) Of the number (twenty) mentioned as in favor, a part merely answered the question of practicability. Officers of rank, distinction, and acknowledged ability, are found on both sides in the opinions given in the years above named. A careful examination of all the views expressed will not only show that the weight of evidence has been against the consolidation of these corps, but that the opposition to it has decidedly increased; and that, while some, who at first favored it, now either oppose or do not support it, there are no changes of opinion in the other direction. . . .

I understand that the supply-branches of the British army have recently undergone consolidation of some kind, but the experiment has been but partially tested in peace, and has not yet been subjected to that trial in a great war which would enable us to judge of its success. . . .

THE BUREAU OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND THE CORPS OF JUDGE-ADVOCATES.

After expressing the opinion that the number of judge-advocates is too small, and that the grades of colonel and lieutenantcolonel should be introduced into the corps, General Hancock

says:

The duties of judge-advocates are inseparable from the military system. They can only be fully and properly performed by men who make a specialty of them. If the regular corps be abolished or crippled, the duty must be indifferently done, wholly or partly by officers taken for the time from their proper positions. It is a fact worthy of special consideration that this corps constitutes the only element in our whole system of military jurisprudence

which, not being created for temporary and special purposes, has the character of permanency. In the civil system, changeable juries simply find the facts; but judges, both eminent and permanent in the profession, determine questions of law, and award sentences. In the military system, courts are convened from time to time, composed of officers who act both as judges and jurors, but none of whom are, in general, selected with any reference to their knowledge of the judicial duties they are called upon to perform. In these courts the vote, for both findings and sentence, of the most ignorant in the law is as weighty as that of the most learned. In fact the junior, presumably the most uninformed, is required to vote first, in order that he may not be influenced by his seniors.

Is it wise to destroy or weaken, in these tribunals, their only element of stability?

Inasmuch as the military is a more arbitrary and despotic system than the civil, so is uniform and even-handed justice the more necessary in it. But we are far from securing this under our code, even with our judgeadvocates. Without an efficient corps of them, we shall be still further from it. It is no uncommon thing to see soldiers, as prisoners in charge of the same guard, for identically the same offense, one under sentence of twice, or even thrice, the severity of another. They have been tried by different courts-martial, each using its discretion as to the amount of punishment for the common offense. Judge-advocates have not the power to prevent this evil by awarding sentences or otherwise, but, so far as their limited number permits, they mitigate it. I am not well informed as to the duties of the head of the bureau in Washington, but my own extended observation and experience justify me in speaking quite positively of the importance of judgeadvocates at department headquarters. Without going into the details of the various duties required of them, I will say that I consider them absolutely necessary. But the necessity for maintaining these officers does not rest alone on the importance of their current duties. A thorough knowledge of military law in its higher principles, as well as the intricacies of its details, is particularly necessary in new armies. Its prompt and correct application is one of the principal proceedings in the establishment of discipline and order in the armies which we rely upon creating in time of need. This can only be accomplished through a corps prepared beforehand. Ours is peculiarly a government of law in the army as well as out of it. . . .

In these remarks I have given prominence to the duties of judge-advocates in connection with courts-martial. But there are various other matters upon which I need not dwell, such as the questions arising out of the relations of military affairs to the civil service, in which their knowledge and experience are of great value to the public service, to commanding generals, and to subordinate officers.

These are some of the general considerations which lead me to the conviction that a "judge-advocate's department" is an important and necessary feature of our military establishment, whether the regular army be large or small. . . .

INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.

This corps should be kept large enough to answer the demands of our peace establishment, covering, as it does, a vast territory, and should be ever in readiness for its most essential duty of mustering, organizing, and otherwise preparing new levies for service in time of war. It should, I think, consist of eight or ten members. . . .

RECRUITMENT.

.. Patriotism produces no recruits for the regular army. On the contrary, it holds the citizen to his civil pursuits in time of peace, and hurries him into a volunteer organization in time of war. There is no public sentiment to be relied upon for filling the ranks of the permanent force, and hence the recruiting bureau can appeal only to the wishes, tastes, and necessities, of individuals. Thus the ranks of the army are made to contain men of many nationalities, and no regard is paid to citizenship. Under these circumstances all that can reasonably be expected of the recruiting bureau is to obtain men whose mental, moral, and physical qualities are such that they may become soldiers by a proper course of discipline and instruction. . . .

The principal objection I see to the recruiting system is, that the bureau is not confined to its legitimate functions. Its duty should, in my judgment, end as soon as it has put the recruit into the military service, and delivered him at a post or depot designated to receive him. But, instead of this, the bureau retains control of the recruit while he is at the depot. To effect this, the officer in charge of the bureau (the adjutant-general) is permitted to depart from his proper sphere of staff duty, and exercise an actual command, which, in my opinion, is not justified, either by his office, the wants of the recruiting bureau, or the good of the service at large. There are three or four depots of the same general character. The one nearest me -Fort Columbus-is one of the most conspicuous military stations in New York Harbor-a permanent work armed with heavy guns, at present garrisoned by a larger number of men than any other post in the bay, and sheltering an immense amount of military material. It is withdrawn from the general rules governing command in the service, and with all the other socalled depots is placed under the command of the officer in charge of the recruitment of the army, who, by General Orders No. 87, Adjutant-General's Office, series of 1873, is said to stand toward them in the light of a department commander. . . .

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WINFIELD S. HANCOCK,

(Signed)

Major-General U. S. Army, commanding Division of the Atlantic. Other weighty testimony remains to be heard, which must be deferred till the next number. In the mean time, those who are seeking fame by destroying or crippling our army will do well to withhold the fatal blow until they have disposed of the facts and reasonings of the letters already quoted.

JAMES A. GARFIELD.

II.

ENGLISH AND AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES COMPARED.

By the term "English universities," everybody understands Oxford and Cambridge; but the term "American universities" has no such definite meaning. We touch at once the most striking difference between the organization of superior education in England and in the United States. There, two universities, rich in numbers, possessions, privileges, and memories, have a predominating influence which is without parallel here. The élite of the English nation, with exceptions which only prove the rule, have, for centuries, reosrted either to Oxford or Cambridge for their education. There are no universities in America which occupy an analogous position. In the absence of an established church, or of a dominant sect in the United States, denominational zeal has inevitably tended to scatter even those scanty resources which in two centuries have become available for the higher education; and this lamentable dissipation has been increased by the local pride of States, cities, and neighborhoods, and the desire of many persons, who had money to apply to public uses, to found new institutions rather than to contribute to those already established-a desire not unnatural in a new country, where love of the old and venerable in institutions has but just sprung up. In short, the different social, political, and religious conditions of this country have, thus far, quite prevented the development of commanding universities like those of the mother-country.

No single university of the United States can for a moment be compared with either Oxford or Cambridge in respect to invested property, number of teachers and students, libraries, buildings, and grounds, or in past and present influence. Among American universities, moreover, there are great diversities of