of the service. This applies to volunteer officers only. The above was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. This is a movement in the right direction, but is only, we hope, a first step.-ED.] WASHINGTON, D. C., January 19, 1865. To the Editor of the "United States Service Magazine." SIR:-In the January number of your Magazine there is an article headed "A Word for the Quartermaster's Department," wherein a statement is made which I wish to correct. The writer relates a story, which he says was rife at the time," in relation to a remark said to have been made by me to some quartermaster who presented a requisition to me for one hundred teams "to go to Warrenton or Culpepper, or somewhere about there," for the use of General Pope's army. This story, if "rife at the time," is, like many others told around the camp-fires, without any foundation in fact. The language attributed to me is not such as I am in the habit of using, and I have not the slightest recollection of having made any such remark. The writer was evidently misinformed, and unintentionally does me injustice when he attributes it to me. By publishing this correction in the next number of your Magazine, you will greatly oblige, Yours, truly, F. H. RUCKER, Brigadier-General and Chief Quartermaster, Dépôt of Washington. THE UNITED STATES SERVICE MAGAZINE. VOL. III.—MARCH, 1865.-NO. III. REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.* A PRESIDENTIAL election has just terminated, and the war, so our enemies say, is to continue four years longer. This being the idea, it becomes every one interested in the struggle to gird up his loins, buckle on his armor, and prepare for the strife in the coming spring, which, if it takes place at all, will throw into the shade any which has yet taken place. Our army needs reorganizing, and every one is, or should be, clamorous for it. Our system is defective, more so than that of the rebels, and we should take advantage of the coming winter to remedy its defects. We commenced this war on a small scale. It has been growing, growing, until now it is colossal, and far exceeds the proportions assigned it in anticipation by our greatest military minds. Perhaps in nothing have the civil powers of the Government made a greater mistake than in disregarding the councils of our military men. General Scott's assertion in regard to thirty thousand men and a Hoche to lead them, at the beginning was received with incredulity, and the now celebrated, and pre-eminently sane Sherman was declared insane for stating that two hundred thousand men were required to carry on operations in *This article, by a distinguished general now in the field, should command uniIt is well-reasoned and practical.-ED, versal attention. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1965, by C. B. RICHARDSON, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. VOL. III-14 209 the Mississippi Valley. That the advice of such men should have been disregarded at first was, perhaps, considering all things, but natural. But now that our eyes have been opened to the magnitude of the task before us, to discard such advice is not only unnatural; it is criminal. When we are suffering a slight indisposition we are willing to try the simple pill of some good-natured quack as a remedy, but when our complaint assumes the form of a dangerous illness, we eagerly seek the advice of the most experienced and talented medical man we can find. Our "sick man," as they called Turkey some years ago, is dangerously ill. We have called in for consultation a large number of Doctors, some of whom are capable, but many are mere quacks, whose advice, if we do not discharge them, may outweigh in the end the opinions of the capable ones and kill our sick man. It used to be a jest in the Mexican war that the Mexicans had almost as many generals as privates in their army, and we seem fast approaching that point in our organization. Take up an army register (if a recent one had been published the effect would be more startling), and look over our list of general officers. It is astonishing how many there are, and still more astonishing how many have been tried, found wanting, and laid away on the shelf to make political speeches or command posts which might be better commanded by captains, at a much less expense to the Government. One hundred and fifty brigadier and seventy major-generals is an ample allowance for half a million of men. We have something like three hundred of the former and one hundred of the latter, whilst many of the brigadier-generals have major-generals' commands in the field, and our brigades are commanded by colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and majors. Many of the general officers now in service are notoriously incompetent, others are unwilling to perform the duties assigned them in active service, and have influence enough to obtain comfortable easy places out of the field, which could be quite as well filled, perhaps in many cases better, by officers of inferior rank who have been disabled doing their duty in front of the enemy. These surplus generals should be mustered out of the service, not only to rid the service of unworthy members, but to enable the authorities to reward those who have shown themselves capable and willing to perform the duties of soldiers in the field. The number of general officers will thus be considerably reduced; the expenses of the war lessened, and the Government be enabled to reward many meritorious officers who are now necessarily neglected and are performing the duty without either the pay or the rank. To determine those who should be mustered out, a board of competent general officers should be convened in each army, whose duty it should be to examine and report upon the services, claims, and capabilities of all generals serving with or formerly on duty in such army, with the recommendation in each case. These reports should be submitted to a general board with orders to continue the investigation, and report to the Secretary of War such as should be mustered out. A law of Congress authorizes the President to confer upon volunteer officers rank by Brevet. But by a singular provision the brevet officer cannot draw the pay of his brevet grade. This is a most unjust and impolitic law, and is as much as saying that whilst the Government wants and will accept the services of officers of a certain grade, it is unwilling to remunerate them with a corresponding pay. Surely this is not offering much inducement to officers to strive for promotion, and no capable military force can be created unless such inducement is shown, more especially now that the reduced value of our currency is such that very many officers of inferior rank could more easily earn a comfortable subsistence for themselves and families by returning to those pursuits in civil life which they left to fight the battles of their country. By the regulations a brevet officer cannot exercise his brevet rank in command unless specially assigned by the President. If an officer is worthy of brevet, he is fitted to exercise a corresponding command without its being made necessary for him to use political or other influences to get himself assigned by the President. Congress therefore, instead of making the brevet an empty title, should confer upon brevet officers not only the absolute right to command according to rank, but the right to draw the corresponding pay. But there is another law of Congress which acts with still greater injustice upon officers, more especially those of the lower grades. It is that in reference to servants. Each officer of the army is by law entitled to commutation for a certain number of servants varying from one to four. This commutation is made up as follows: The pay of a private soldier. The clothing allowance of a private soldier. Total monthly allowance for servant... $11 00 2.50 9.00 $22.50 An officer is frequently so situated that it is impossible for him to obtain a servant from civil life, and by the old laws and regulations he was allowed to use a private soldier as such by having him so mustered, deducting from his pay account the pay and clothing to which the soldier was entitled (thirteen dollars and fifty cents), and dropping the soldier's ration from the company return. Thus the officer, instead of the Govern ment, bore the expenses of a private soldier, whose services the Government could claim at any time it wanted them. The first amendment made to this law by Congress was to declare that the increased pay (two dollars) allowed private soldiers should not apply to officers' servants, so that the commutation value on the officer's pay account remained eleven dollars instead of being increased to thirteen dollars, and by a subsequent Act to sixteen dollars per month. (Section 4, Act approved 17th July, 1862.) The next act affecting this subject is that passed by Congress and approved June 15th, 1864. In section 1 of this Act, it is Provided, That if any officer in the regular or volunteer forces shall employ a soldier as a servant, such officer shall not be entitled to any pay or allowances for a servant or servants, but shall be subject to the deduction from his pay required by the third section of the Act entitled "An Act to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes," approved July 17th, 1862. This latter law reads: "That whenever an officer of the Army shall employ a soldier as his servant, he shall, for each and every month during which said soldier shall be so employed, deduct from his own monthly pay the full amount paid to or expended by the Government per month on account of said soldier." It results from these laws that a lieutenant or captain who employs a soldier as a servant loses not only the commutation for his servant as stated above (twenty-two dollars and fifty cents), but also all the cost to the Government of such soldier, viz.: A colonel, lieutenant-colonel, or major, entitled to two servants, each loses seventy-two dollars and fifty cents; a brigadiergeneral, entitled to three servants, loses ninety-five dollars; and major-general, entitled to four servants, loses one hundred and seventeen dollars and fifty cents per month of his pay for employing one soldier as servant. This surely could not have been the intent of the law. If so, it is not only unjust but very unreasonable, for the Government is not only remunerated for the loss of the soldier's services, but is paid by the officer for the privilege of using him, whilst the officer has to pay, in addition to pay of the soldier, his wages as servant. Now it generally happens in the field that it is out of the question for officers to obtain private servants, more especially line officers, all the negroes who come into our lines being |