' 
 
 U B 
 
 413 
 As 
 
 90?, 
 
> v * 
 

 LETTER OF THE HONORABLE THE SECRETARY OF WAR, 
 RETURNING TO THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON MILI- 
 TARY AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, H. R. 
 16502, ENTITLED "A BILL TO BRING ABOUT THE 
 GRADUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RANK THROUGH- 
 OUT THE SEVERAL LINES OF THE ARTIL- 
 LERY, CAVALRY, AND INFANTRY OF 
 THE REGULAR ARMY." 
 
 48717—08 1 
 
 
 yt 
 

 
 
 &PK 27 iyuc5 
 
 u. or o. 
 

 War Department, 
 
 Washington, April 1, 1908. 
 
 Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Military 
 Affairs, House of Representatives. 
 
 I have carefully read this bill (H. R. 16502) and the accompany- 
 ing memorandum thereon by the Chief of Staff. 
 
 I fully and cordially concur in this effort to bring about a gradual 
 readjustment of rank for the sole purpose of promoting the greater 
 efficiency of the Army. At the same time I think the officers who 
 have lost rank through no lack of merit and no fault of their own 
 have a just claim in equity and are entirely deserving of the relief 
 contemplated by this bill. Though it will result in depriving some 
 other officers of enjoying still further advantages, gained through no 
 merit of their own over less fortunate comrades, it will not deprive 
 them of any rank already gained, neither will it prevent their ulti- 
 mate rank as high as they would attain were the present inequitable 
 condition continued. On the contrary, unless the present condition 
 be rectified, many officers now in the Army will be deprived of ever 
 rising even as high as colonel, and a number of others could not go 
 beyond the rank of major before being retired for age. 
 
 . Wm. H. Taft, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 
 
 War Department, 
 Office of the Chief of Staff, 
 
 Washington, March 7, 1908. 
 
 (Subject: Pending bills in Congress to bring about gradual readjustment of rank of 
 certain officers of the Army.) 
 
 During the Fifty-ninth Congress, second session, identical bills 
 iS. 8275, H. R. 25238) were introduced in both Houses of Congress, 
 and referred by the Committees on Military Affairs to the Secretary 
 of War for information relative to the measures proposed. During 
 the present session of the Sixtieth Congress the same bill was reintro- 
 duced in the Senate (S. 159) December 4, and a similar bill (H. R. 
 16502) was introduced in the House February 6, 1908, and likewise 
 referred for report to the Secretary of War. 
 
 These bills, in brief, provide that hereafter promotions by seniority 
 in any arm of the line of the Army shall be made, as now, from the 
 next lower grade within the arm, but through seniority as deter- 
 mined, not by date of present commission in the grade, but by date 
 of original commission in the arm. The remaining provisions merely 
 cover the preparation of the necessary lists showing the order of 
 future promotion, and the promotion of certain officers who occupy 
 anomalous positions through transfers from one arm to another or 
 through the action of courts-martial or examining boards. 
 
 (3) 
 
The rule of action — seniority by length of service in the arm — 
 which these measures seek to put in force is now, and has been since 
 the act of October 1, 1890, the fundamental principle of promotion 
 throughout the Army. This last act, however, provided only for 
 future promotions and accepted the lineal standing of officers as then 
 fixed by the operation of previous laws and customs as the basis for 
 promotion by seniority thereafter. Consequently, no officer who 
 has entered the service since October 1, 1890, is affected by the pro- 
 posed measures. Nor are officers affected by them who since that 
 date have reached the grade of colonel, or who have been retired, or 
 who, on that date, were second lieutenants, but who had not been 
 passed over through the operation of existing law by others of shorter 
 commissioned service. 
 
 On the other hand, the future promotion of every other officer then 
 in service and who is still on the active fist may be influenced by the 
 enactment of the law proposed. Measures, therefore, affecting such 
 a considerable part of the officers of the Army are deserving and 
 should receive the most careful scrutiny before final action is taken 
 thereon; and on this account they have been thrown open to a wide 
 consideration in order to ascertain in advance their probable effect 
 both on the officers interested and on the efficiency of the service, and 
 to determine whether the bills as drawn are sufficient to accomplish 
 their intended purpose without prejudice to interests not involved. 
 
 It was not to be expected that on a subject involving so many 
 adverse interests a unanimity of opinion could be secured. Where 
 every officer, if not directly interested, has at least close connection 
 with brother officers whose interests are directly involved, collective 
 judgment entirely uncolored by personal desires is beyond attain- 
 ment. Thus, when separately considered by the three divisions of 
 the War Department General Staff, only one division was found in 
 unanimous agreement. One division united in adverse judgment on 
 the bill as drawn, but in a minority report suggested similar action 
 somewhat narrower in scope. Another divided with the majority in 
 opposition to the proposed action and the minority in its favor. The 
 other division was unanimously in its favor. This difference of 
 opinion has its counterpart wherever else the measures have been 
 considered within the service, and is, I am satisfied, but indicative of 
 the same difference that exists throughout the Army. 
 ^- Nevertheless, this wide consideration has served, I believe, to 
 search out every argument that can be advanced either in opposition 
 to or in f aver of the proposed measure and to reveal its ultimate effects 
 on the Army. I deem it wise, therefore, before submitting my own 
 judgment, to give here briefly every important argument advanced 
 on either side of the question in order not only to show the basis of my 
 conclusions in the matter, but to afford opportunity for those upon 
 whom the final determination may fall to draw their own. 
 
 Again, this summary of the arguments, pro and con, seems impor- 
 tant for another reason. The present bills, though less far-reaching 
 in effect than others in the past, are not the firs teffort toward legis- 
 lation to correct what is believed by many officers to be a serious 
 injustice resulting from the operation of former law; and, unless 
 finally disposed of at this time, it is not likely that they will be the 
 last. Wherever a considerable number of associated persons believe 
 themselves continuously injured by present or past laws operating 
 
unequally among their kind, it is only natural to expect, so long as the}* 
 believe it possible for new laws to right the wrong done them, that 
 they will continue to struggle for such remedial legislation. It is 
 hoped, therefore, that this presentation of both sides of the case in 
 practical completeness may, for the good of all, help to attain a defi- 
 nite legislative decision. 
 
 To insure a proper interpretation of the arguments which follow, 
 it is necessary also to include here a brief review of the historical and 
 legal growth of the system of promotion in the Army and of the 
 unfortunate conditions which, so far as they are now removable, the 
 proposed measures are intended to remove. 
 
 PROMOTION IN THE ARMY. 
 
 Under the constitutional authority of the Executive promotion 
 in the Army was, in the absence of Congressional action, until 1812 
 governed wholly by regulations. Under the first known rules, pro- 
 mulgated May- 26, 1801, for the artillery and infantry, and extended 
 March 7, 1808, to the cavalry and riflemen organized by later author- 
 ity, promotions in these several arms were made "regimentally," 
 that is, by seniority in the regiment, to include the grade of captain; 
 and "in the lines," that is, by seniority in the arm, through the field 
 grades of major and lieutenant-colonel. 
 
 Statutory control of promotions in the Army was first assumed by 
 act of June 26, 1812, section 5 of which was as follows: 
 
 That the military establishment authorized by law previous to twelfth day of 
 April, eighteen hundred and eight, and the additional military force raised by virtue 
 of the act of the twelfth of April, eighteen hundred and eight, be, and the same are 
 hereby, incorporated; and, that from and after the passing of this act, the promotions 
 shall be made through the lines of artillerists, light artillery, dragoons, riflemen, and 
 infantry, respectively, according to established rule. 
 
 The regulations of 1813, promulgated after the passage of this act, 
 and publishing both the act itself and the regulations formulated, 
 presumably, in accordance therewith, prescribed as the rule of 
 promotion: 
 
 1. Original vacancies will be supplied by selection; accidental vacancies by seniority, 
 excepting in extraordinary cases. 
 
 2. Promotions to the rank of captain will be made regimentality; to that of field 
 appointments, by line; the light artillery, infantry, and riflemen being kept always 
 distinct. 
 
 This regulation therefore must have been the "established rule" 
 referred to in the act of 1812, as quoted above. Nevertheless, in that 
 it makes exceptions to the rule of seniority in filling original vacancies 
 and in extraordinary cases, it differs from the only known regulations 
 on the subject existing prior to the passage of this act, and leaves a 
 natural inference that the "established rule" was not at that period 
 very firmly fixed. 
 
 But whatever the rule may have been, the act indicated, passed 
 just after the declaration of war against Great Britain, gave it legis- 
 lative sanction and made it applicable thereafter until changed by 
 legislation to each of the several arms of the line of the entire military 
 establishment as then existing. During the progress of the war, 
 however, new forces were organized and the former establishment was. 
 increased and otherwise changed by sundry legislative acts, and it is 
 doubtful whether the provisions of the act of 1812, regulating pro- 
 
6 
 
 motion by applying specifically to a defined existing status, could 
 have been extended definitely to the new forces and the changed con- 
 ditions. In any event it was provided by section 12 of the act of 
 March 30, 1814: 
 
 That from and after the passing of this act promotions may be made through the 
 whole Army in the several lines of light artillery, light dragoons, artillery, infantry, 
 and riflemen, respectively; and that the relative rank of officers of the same grade, 
 belonging to regiments or corps already authorized, or which may be engaged to serve 
 for five years, or during the war, be equalized and settled by the War Department 
 agreeably to established rules; and that so-much of the act entitled * * * passed 
 the twenty-sixth of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, as comes within 
 the purview and meaning of this act, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. 
 
 The wording of this section — "promotions may be made," etc. — 
 did not make the rule therein included mandatory, but permissible; 
 while the modifying phrase, "agreeably to established rules," so far 
 as the verbal construction of the sentence is concerned, seems 
 restricted to the second member and to modify only the settlement 
 of questions of relative rank, and not the method of promotion pre- 
 scribed. Under this construction it would seem beyond question 
 that promotions might have been made within any of "its several 
 lines," or arms, in any manner at the pleasure of the Executive. 
 Nevertheless, no change in the methods of promotion followed this 
 act, and the regulations of 1814 following its passage contained a 
 practical repetition of the regulations of 1813. It may be concluded, 
 therefore, that either no change in the custom was desired by the 
 Executive, regardless of the intent of Congress, or that no intent of 
 changing existing customs lay in the legislative act considered. 
 
 Under this last and only reasonable conclusion this section of the 
 act of 1814 could have had no further purpose than to extend the 
 rule of promotion to which legislative sanction had been given by 
 the act of June 26, 1812, to other forces; and the expression " through 
 the whole Army" could have had no broader meaning than thus to 
 include for this purpose all of the forces organized under the several 
 acts passed during the war. 
 
 By the reorganization act of March 3, 1815. following peace 
 with Great Britain, the Army was again reduced and the various 
 forces raised for war, as thus reduced, were consolidated in "the 
 military peace establishment of the United States," to consist of— 
 
 such proportions of artillery, infantry, and riflemen, not exceeding, in the whole, ten 
 thousand men, as the President of the United States shall judge proper. * * * 
 
 By the act of April 24, 1816, it was provided: 
 
 That the regulations in force before the reduction of the Army be recognized, as far 
 as the same shall be found applicable to the service; subject, however, to such alter- 
 ations as the Secretary of War may adopt, with the approbation of the President. 
 
 The regulations referred to are those of May 1, 1813, a from which 
 the rules of promotion already given are taken, and which were pro- 
 mulgated after and were in accordance with section 5, act of June 
 26, 1812. 
 
 Nevertheless, examination of the successive compilations of mili- 
 tary laws following this period discloses that the repeal of this section 
 was clearly regarded as effected by section 12 of the act of March 30, 
 
 a Scott's Digest of the Military Laws of the United States, 1873, 182; Opinions of 
 the Attorneys-General, 1873, XIV, 168. 
 
1814; but inasmuch as this last act was regarded merely as a repe- 
 tition of the previous law, and was not in itself mandatory, and since 
 the V established rule" at that time still permitted exceptions at the 
 will of the President, no question concerning the interpretation of 
 the law, as disclosed in the regulations of the succeeding years, 
 appears to have then arisen. 
 
 Successive regulations thereafter to 1857 contained the same rule 
 of promotion as laid down in the regulations of 1813, with only such 
 change in wording from time to time as was demanded by changing 
 composition and organization of the Army. And, however flexible 
 the "established rule" may have been during the first years of the 
 Army under the Constitution, its continued application during this 
 period must have served to fix it definitely so that in the regulations 
 of 1857 no exceptions in filling "original vacancies" or in "extra- 
 ordinary cases" were thereafter authorized, and seniority in the 
 regiment or in the arm, except in cases of disability or other incom- 
 petency, became thus the only rule, and hence the "established 
 rule" regarding promotion. 
 
 The rules as laid down in the regulations of 1857 were: 
 
 19. All vacancies in established regiments and corps to the rank of colonel shall 
 be rilled by promotion according to seniority, except in case of disability or other 
 incompetency. 
 
 20. Promotions to the rank of captain shall be made regimentally; to major and 
 lieutenant-colonel and colonel according to the arm, as infantry, artillery, etc.; and 
 in the staff departments * * * according to corps. 
 
 By the act of August 3, 1861, Congress provided for the retire- 
 ment of incapacitated officers, and also for the promotion incident 
 to such retirements. Section 16 of that act provided: 
 
 If any commissioned officer of the Army or of the Marine Corps shall have become 
 or shall hereafter become incapable of performing the duties of his office, he shall 
 be placed upon the retired list and withdrawn from active service and command, 
 and from the line of promotion, with the following pay and emoluments * * *; 
 and the next officer in rank shall be promoted to the place of the retired officer, accord- 
 ing to the established rules of the service. And the same rule of promotion shall be 
 applied successively to the vacancies consequent upon the retirement of an officer. 
 
 The established rules as referred to in this act could have been no 
 other than the rules given above as laid down in the regulations of 
 1857. 
 
 The regulations of 1861 and 1863, so far as they relate to promo- 
 tions, repeat verbatim the regulations of 1857. 
 
 When therefore the consolidation of the laws of the United States 
 in the Revised Statutes was . undertaken the only laws bearing on 
 promotions in the line of the Army were either or both of the laws 
 of 1812 and 1814 and the law of 1861 as quoted above; and the 
 only rule of promotion in existence was that provided by the regu- 
 lations then in force which was the same as laid down in the regu- 
 lations of 1857. 
 
 The act of Congress providing for revision and consolidation of 
 the laws authorized the bringing together of all statutes on similar 
 subjects, the omission of redundant or obsolete enactments, and the 
 making of such alterations as might be necessary to reconcile con- 
 tradictions, supply omissions, and amend imperfections in the origi- 
 nal text. It did not authorize radical or important changes in the 
 laws themselves, and it can not be presumed that the commissioners 
 in the execution of their instructions attempted knowingly any changes 
 
8 
 
 that would alter the original effect of the law. In the Revised Stat- 
 utes as enacted June 22, 1874, the provisions regulating promotion 
 in the line of the Army were as follows: 
 
 Sec. 1204. Promotions in the line shall be made through the whole Army, in its 
 several lines of artillery, cavalry, and infantry, respectively. Promotions in the staff 
 of the Army shall be made in the several departments and corps, respectively. 
 
 Sec 1257. When any officer in the line of promotion is retired from active service, 
 the next officer in rank shall be promoted to his place, according to the established 
 rules of the service; and the same rule of promotion shall be applied, successively, 
 to the vacancies consequent upon such retirement. . 
 
 The references to the original texts from which these sections 
 were compiled, as shown in the Revised Statutes, are, so far as the 
 two sections relate to the line of the Army, the act of 30 March, 1814, 
 for section 1204; and the act of 3 August, 1861, for section 1257. 
 
 This latter section, providing for promotions resulting from retire- 
 ments, repeats practically the words of the original law and leaves no 
 doubt of its meaning when construed in connection with the estab- 
 lished rules to which it refers and as known then to exist. 
 
 Section 1204, providing a general rule of promotion, on the other 
 hand, not only differs more in phraseology from the original text, but 
 substitutes for the permissive may of the act of 1814 the mandatory 
 shall. It makes no reference to "established rules," and in this 
 follows the verbal construction of the original; but inasmuch as the 
 probable intent of the act of 1814 was only to extend the rule of pro- 
 motion provided in the act of 1812 through the whole Army, as then com- 
 posed of the different forces organized for the war with Great Britain, 
 this section of the Revised Statutes, to express the same intent, 
 should properly have gone back to the law or 1812 and included the 
 phrase "according to established rule," as it was included in section 
 1257. 
 
 Again, section 1204 follows the original text in the employment of 
 the phrase "through the whole Army;" but as used originally this 
 applied to an army made up of several forces organized under different 
 acts of Congress and for varying periods of service, and it could not 
 have been given then the same meaning as when used later in refer- 
 ence to a homogeneous body as the Army was in 1874. But if its 
 meaning were not the same as in its original use, it must be considered 
 redundant or be given a new interpretation as employed in section 
 1204. Considering this section by itself alone, the only possible 
 interpretation seems to define a system of promotion that shall be 
 through the whole Army in each of its several lines, or arms, without 
 regard to established rules. But considering the idea of seniority con- 
 sistently attached for many years to the expressions by line, in the 
 hnes, etc., this could only be a system by seniority throughout the 
 arm, instead of in part by seniority in the regiment and in part by 
 seniority in the arm, as required by the then established rule. 
 
 But it can not be assumed that on the part either of the commis- 
 sioners in revising the laws, or of Conrgess in enacting them anew 
 when thus revised, there existed any intent to change the rule of pro- 
 motion as previously in force under the law. Rather the contrary 
 must be assumed; and it seems plain that the phrase "through the 
 whole Army" was included in section 1204 in the belief that as used 
 in the original text it helped to provide the only existing rule of pro- 
 motion, and with the clear intent of continuing this rule under the 
 Revised Statutes. 
 
9 
 
 jf^fThis intent, moreover, is further manifested when considered in 
 connection with section 1257, concerning which no question of inter- 
 pretation seems possible, for it can not reasonably be concluded that 
 Congress intended to put into effect two different systems of promo- 
 tion, one of which should apply only in the case of vacancies caused 
 by retirements and the other to vacancies from all other causes. 
 
 The intent of Congress as here expressed was recognized in the con- 
 struction placed upon sections 1204 and 1257 by the War Depart- 
 ment; and succeeding regulations to 1890 repeated in effect the same 
 rules as contained in the regulations from 1857 to the adoption of the 
 Revised Statutes. 
 
 The act of October 1, 1890, provided: 
 
 Hereafter promotions to every grade in the Army below the rank of brigadier-general, 
 throughout each arm, corps, or department of the service, shall, subject to the exami- 
 nation hereinafter provided for, be made according to seniority in the next lower grade 
 of that arm, corps, or department: Provided, That in the line of the Army all officers 
 now above the grade of second lieutenant shall, subject to such examination, be entitled 
 to promotion in accordance with existing laws and regulations. 
 
 The object of this act was to substitute lineal promotion for regi- 
 mental promotion, and in the original form of the bill it would have 
 accomplished this purpose throughout all grades. But based on a 
 claim in behalf of the then first lieutenants that such a measure would 
 perpetuate the inequalities from which many of them suffered as a 
 result of the previous law, the proviso was added which excepted 
 them from the general provisions of the act and entitled them to regi- 
 mental promotion in accordance with existing rules. As a consequence 
 of this, lineal promotion throughout was not attained until the act 
 of April 26, 1898, which provided: 
 
 \\ Hereafter all vacancies occurring in the cavalry, artillery, and infantry above the 
 grade of second lieutenant shall, subject to the examination now required by law, be 
 filled by promotion according to seniority from the next lower grade in each arm. 
 
 By this act promotion by seniority in each grade of each arm was 
 finally established as the fundamental rule of promotion through the 
 company and field grades; and has since continued to be the sole 
 rule of promotion throughout the service. 
 
 THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED RELIEF. 
 
 Under the sj^stem of promotion which so long prevailed, whereby 
 officers were promoted by virtue of seniority in the regiment to 
 include the grade of captain and of seniority in the arm through the 
 field grades, many inequalities arose in the relative rank of officers 
 and in the conditions which surrounded officers in the military serv- 
 ice. This may be made clear by considering two officers, approxi- 
 mately of the same age, entering the service at the same date, but 
 assigned to different regiments. In one regiment where casualties 
 through deaths, retirements, resignations, or other causes were fre- 
 quent, the subaltern assigned thereto advanced with comparative 
 rapidity through the grades of second and first lieutenant to captain 
 and took his place on the lineal list for promotion through the field 
 grades perhaps years before the other, assigned to a regiment where 
 casualties were few, could reach it. If it be remembered that not 
 two officers but every officer entering the service during this period 
 entered under these conditions the growth of inequalities in rank and 
 
10 
 
 position may be appreciated. Not only officers of the same age and 
 date of commission were thus later widely separated, but not infre- 
 quently officers of long service were passed by their juniors in years 
 and service. A captain under these conditions was likely at any time 
 to see a man who had entered the service long after him become his 
 post, battalion, or squadron commander. 
 
 It is to be borne in mind that no question of relative merit entered 
 into the question of promotion under these rules, just as no such 
 question enters into the problem that the proposed act is now 
 intended to solve. Officers attained the higher grades through what 
 may be termed the accident of law, or, as many believed, of incorrect 
 construction of the law. It does not matter so much that these last 
 may have been in error in this belief. The evil effect on the efficiency 
 of the service remains the same. Had the officers who thus acciden- 
 tally, or through the law of chance, reached high rank attained their 
 place under the operation of a law intended to promote only those 
 best fitted therefor, those passed could have no just cause for com- 
 plaint; but where this occurred through a rule that put promotion 
 outside of the influence of individual effort or ability, it seems impos- 
 sible to deny reasonable cause for those not favored by chance to 
 feel themselves unwarrantably injured. 
 
 But regimental promotion is as old or older than our Army. It 
 was inherited probably, with many other of our military customs, 
 from Great Britain. In theory it is not altogether unsound. That 
 the survivors of a regiment suffering the most casualties should 
 derive the most benefits seems proper when casualties mean death 
 in battle and survivors mean survivors of the battle itself, not 
 absentees from it. But under such a system absentees from regi- 
 ments must always profit undeservedly at the expense of officers of 
 other regiments exposed possibly to greater risks but suffering fewer 
 casualties. Moreover, with modern armies peace is their normal 
 state and the casualties of this state greater by far in total than the 
 casualties of war. Certainly, as applied in our Army, in the latter 
 days of the system, its advantages, however great, were outweighed 
 in effect by the evils resulting from it. 
 
 The act of October 1, 1890, was the outgrowth of the efforts to 
 put an end to the inequalities in rank that arose from regimental 
 promotion during the period following the promulgation of the 
 Revised Statutes. For, though similar inequalities must have fol- 
 lowed the application of the same rule before the Rivised Statutes 
 became effective, they do not appear to have become a disturbing 
 element at that time nor to have affected either the peace of mind 
 of the personnel or the efficiency of the service. This was doubtless 
 due to the fact that during most of that earlier period the Army 
 was considerably smaller, and relatively or actually more widely 
 scattered, with the intercommunication among its parts more diffi- 
 cult and less frequent, and the effect of these inequalities in conse- 
 quence less apparent. But it was also unquestionably largely due 
 to the fact that at no time during that period does there seem to 
 have arisen any question concerning the legality of the rule under 
 which promotions were made. Under the law as embodied in sec- 
 tion 1204, Revised Statutes, however, and as thereafter interpreted, 
 this question arose early and repeatedly until a considerable number 
 of officers were convinced that they suffered from inequalities arising 
 
11 
 
 not from the law as written, but from a wrong construction of the 
 law. While the correctness of this view was never admitted by the 
 War Department, nor confirmed by any authoritative decision or 
 opinion, there can be no doubt that the agitation of the question 
 incident to this feeling served to direct attention to the existing 
 unfortunate conditions and to the necessity for a more equitable 
 rule that resulted finally in the act of October 1, 1890. 
 
 But this act, in effect, accepted conditions as they then existed 
 with all the inequalities that had arisen under the previous laws, 
 and looked only to preventing similar inequalities arising thereafter. 
 So far as officers who entered the service after the date of its approval 
 are concerned, it has worked with absolute equality; but for officers 
 then in the service who had already gained or lost through the opera- 
 tion of the previous rule this act served only to perpetuate this gain 
 or loss or to intensify it. 
 
 Had the law then enacted provided that, for the purpose of pro- 
 motion, all lieutenants should be listed in each arm according to 
 length of commissioned service in the arm the inequalities that had 
 arisen, and the growth of which it was intended to prevent in the 
 future, would have disappeared in a much shorter period than is pos- 
 sible under the act as finally passed. This, moreover, would have 
 resulted in substantial justice to all concerned that it was possible 
 still to reach by legislation without infringing upon rights already 
 vested. But so far from following this course, the act in its final 
 form went to the other extreme of excepting from its general pro- 
 visions the then first lieutenants and leaving open to them the chances 
 for good or evil of regimental promotion. This action, not expressed 
 in the bill as introduced, was included later on the theory that many 
 first lieutenants who had already suffered loss of rank through regi- 
 mental promotion would have their position relative to those who 
 had passed them perpetuated by the change proposed, while if regi- 
 mental promotion were still left to them it was possible that the loss 
 of rank might in part be regained. While some few officers did 
 probably thus regain something of what they had previously lost, 
 others, through the same law of chance, lost still more, and others not 
 before affected must have either lost or gained precisely as they would 
 have lost or gained under the same rule applied in its original form. 
 The effect of the act of 1890 was, therefore, in the general case, to 
 perpetuate the inequalities existing, and in not a few cases to intensify 
 them, though intended for an exactly contrary purpose. Moreover, 
 the inequalities arising or increasing under this act arose or increased 
 through one grade in the face of a system operating through all the 
 other gradeswith absolute equality. The evil effect of the law on the 
 service was through this alone vastly increased. 
 
 Officers who through regimental promotion thus lost in relative 
 rank were passed by others not only at the time their juniors in rank, 
 but their juniors in years as well. In this last fact lies the most 
 serious consequence of the system when applied in connection with 
 a system of retirement for age. Promotion by seniority balances 
 certain defects with certain virtues. Under any such system applied 
 uniformly throughout an arm every officer entering that arm at a 
 given age passes gradually through every grade from the lowest to 
 the highest, and is certain, if he lives and is qualified, to reach that 
 highest grade before retirement. That is, promotion, however slow, 
 
12 
 
 is eventually assured. Under this system officers grow accustomed 
 to their position in rank relative to all others and look upon the 
 maintenance of this relative position throughout their service in the 
 nature of a vested right. Anything that operates to change this 
 position unfairly or to injure their chances of reaching higher grades 
 in the order fixed by their entry into the service injures their self- 
 respect, discourages their ambition, affects their loyalty to seniors 
 who were once their juniors, and consequently is opposed to the 
 efficiency of the service as a whole. When, further, anything oper- 
 ates not only to retard expected promotion, but to prevent it, the 
 injury is felt with vastly increased intensity, and the consequences 
 throughout are by so much the worse. The operation of a rule that 
 for many years promoted officers through the lower grades practically 
 by chance, but through the higher grades strictly by seniority, resulted 
 in many officers reaching the field grades by passing over others 
 their seniors in age, and thus not only retarded the promotion of the 
 latter, but in not a few cases prevented them from ever reaching 
 the higher grades before their statutory retirement. 
 
 This is the condition in the Army to-day, and it is this condition 
 that the proposed measures have been drawn to correct. Complete 
 rectification is of course impossible. In the time that has elapsed 
 not a few of those who suffered from the inequalities resulting from 
 regimental promotion have been retired or through other causes have 
 left the service. On the other hand, some who profited unduly have 
 now reached or passed the grade of colonel and do not come within 
 the provisions of the measure as drawn. But many of those who 
 suffered loss are still in active service, and though it is impossible in 
 some cases to restore to them all that they have lost, the legislation 
 asked for if enacted will hereafter gradually place them nearer to the 
 relative position belonging to them by seniority in service and enable 
 them to reach the higher field grades, from which a number of them 
 without such action are now forever barred. 
 
 As before stated, this is not the first attempt looking to legisla- 
 tion to accomplish this result. In 1892 a bill for a similar but more 
 far-reaching purpose passed the lower House of Congress, but did not 
 come to a vote in the Senate because of its possible injustice to 
 certain officers then on the active list who had received their com- 
 missions in the Regular Army as a reward for services in the civil 
 war. These officers have now all reached the grade of colonel or 
 passed to the retired list, and the same objection to remedial meas- 
 ures no longer holds. Furthermore, that bill, and others preceding 
 this, aimed not at the gradual restoration of original relative rank, 
 but at an immediate adjustment involving recommissioning many 
 officers concerned and reduction of those who had profited as well 
 as elevation of those who had lost. There is no proper compari- 
 son between the measures then and now proposed. Not only are 
 no officers now concerned who, like those of civil- war record, were 
 entitled to special consideration, but all involved stand upon practi- 
 cally equal footing as to relative length and similarity of service. 
 The only grades now affected are lieutenant-colonels and majors 
 and a few of the captains of the several arms. The number of 
 officers concerned is thus sharply limited. Again, not only is there 
 designed no sudden readjustment of rank, no reductions, no inter- 
 ference with rights of rank or privileges already vested, but the 
 
13 
 
 adjustment is to be gradual and to take place only through future 
 
 Eromotion as vacancies occur. Not one additional commission will 
 ave to be issued, and no additional expense is involved. The 
 officers who have gained in the past and have thus enjoyed higher 
 rank and greater pay than they had, through their date of entry, 
 a reasonable right to expect will be left in the enjoyment of this 
 rank and pay until those whom they passed and who are still on 
 the active list have through promotion taken their place in accord- 
 ance with the same rule of promotion that now fixes the place of 
 every other officer. 
 
 Opinions as to the propriety of such action as proposed must, of 
 course, vary with the point of view. To the officers who have suffered 
 loss of rank in the past and of hope for the future such a law appears 
 eminently just; while to those who have gained in rank through the 
 operation of law, and who under the proposed measure would lose, 
 not indeed what they have already gained, but a part of that which 
 they still hope to attain, it doubtless appears harsh. But there is a 
 difference to be remembered even here. Those who have gained have 
 enjoyed higher rank, dignity, and pay for many years. These can 
 not be taken away. Those who have lost, even if now given oppor- 
 tunity to regain their loss in part, can by reason of their age continue 
 to enjoy it only for a comparatively brief period. Those who have 
 gained, if now themselves passed by the others, will, in the general 
 case, still be able before retirement to attain the same rank as is 
 possible under present conditions. But those who have lost will, in 
 the absence of such action as proposed, be unable in many cases to 
 reach the higher ranks. 
 
 In the one case the action proposed means suspended promotion 
 only. In the other, failure of such action means absolute loss of rank 
 during active service and eventual retirement with less rank than they 
 otherwise would have attained. 
 
 THE ARGUMENTS. 
 
 In the preceding parts of this report attempt has been made to set 
 forth the law and regulations bearing upon the subject, the conditions 
 resulting from their operation, and the remedial measures now pro- 
 
 Eosed for the removal in part of the existing inequalities. This has 
 een deemed necessary to insure proper understanding of the argu- 
 ments which remain to be presented. For though in the preceding 
 parts it has been necessary to touch upon many of these arguments 
 effort has been made there simply to present an impartial view of 
 actual results with only such reference to the facts supporting one 
 side or the other as essential for a complete grasp of the subject. 
 There follow now, as briefly as their importance admits, the arguments 
 of both sides not touched upon above, or not covered there insufficient 
 detail. For convenience related arguments on both sides are brought 
 together, and for clearness and ease of reference arguments generally 
 against the proposed measure are in italics and those generally for it 
 are in roman. 
 
 l. 
 
 It is urged in opposition to the proposed measure — 
 That regimental promotion was the established rule for nearly one 
 hundred years, fixed by regulations in 1801, sanctioned by the acts of 
 June 26, 1812, and March 30, 1814, and embodied without change as 
 
14 
 
 section 120/,. of the Revised Statutes in 1874, an d thereafter continued in 
 force until changed by the acts of October 1 , 1890, and April 26, 1898. 
 
 That no question concerning the legality of the rule, as enforced under 
 the taws of 1812 and 1811,, arose until after its incorporation in the Re- 
 vised Statutes: and that no sufficient reason existed for such question 
 arising then unless the intent existed with Congress to change the pre- 
 vious rule in enacting section 120 J,, or unless the phraseology of that 
 section manifestly made such change. But from the instructions of Con- 
 gress to the commissioners charged with the work of compilation and 
 revision of the statutes, it is dear that no intent of substituting a new rule 
 could properly have existed in them; and since these instructions, em- 
 bodied in the form of an act of Congress^ expressed also the full intent of 
 Congress, it is equally clear that no such intent existed in that body. 
 Again, not only was there no intent of changing the rule, but section 120 J,, 
 by repeating almost verbatim the wording of the promotion clause of the 
 act of 181 4, could not manifestly have made any change. And, finally , 
 even in the event of doubtful meaning, in the absence of intent to change 
 the previous law, any section of the Revised Statutes should be construed 
 in accordance with the original act or acts from which it was compiled. 
 
 The view that section 1204 made no change in the previous law has 
 been uniformly supported by every authoritative opinion rendered. 
 Thus Judge- Advocate-General Dunn said, March 24, 1876: 
 
 The first clause of section 1204 of the Revised Statutes not only does not modify the rule 
 of regimental promotion in question, but does not in the least affect it, relating as it does, 
 to an altogether different subject. * * * It is, in my judgment, as above indicated, 
 a mere declaratory statement, of the law in regard to a matter which has never been the occasion 
 of dispute * * * leaves paragraph 20 of the present regulations intact and in full 
 force, as the existing law in regard to promotions in the Army. 
 
 In reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives, Alphonso 
 Taft, Secretary of War, expressed the opinion, May 29, 1876 — 
 
 That officers of the Army have been promoted since the 22d day of June, 1874. as pro- 
 vided in section 1204 of the Revised Statutes. 
 
 In a report on Senate bill 161 4, Forty -sixth Congress, providing for 
 revision of rank of certain officers promoted under section 1204, Revised 
 Statutes, and declaring in effect that such promotions had not been 
 made in accordance with that section, General Sherman, then com- 
 manding the Army, said: 
 
 My judgment is adverse to the whole bill (S. 1614). The present rule of promotion has 
 existed since the formation of our Government, and was inherited from England. 
 
 Mr. Cockrell, chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 
 Forty-sixth Congress, 1880, in reporting on the same bill (S. 161 4), 
 said: 
 
 Your committee sees no sufficient reason for changing the long-established rule and law. 
 
 Attorney-General Wayne MacVeagh expressed the opinion, April 
 14, 1882: 
 
 Since the enactment, of this last provision (sec. 12, act Mar. SO, 1814), which con- 
 tinued in force down to the revision of the statutes, promotions to the rank of captain have 
 been made regimentally, so that the construction given thereto, in practice, has been that it 
 made no change or modification of the previously existing rule. According to this con- 
 struction (which was acted upon for about sixty years), the act of 1814, while it contem- 
 plated that promotions should be made in the several lines or arms through the whole Army, 
 and that officers should be promoted in their several lines or arms, did not prescribe how 
 promotions within flic line or arm should be made, whether regimentally or lineally. 
 
 As thus understood, and the language of the act is susceptible of that interpretation, 
 there ivas no conflict between it and the rule referred to. 
 
15 
 
 Section 1204, Revised Statutes, contains substantially a reenactment of the provision 
 above quoted from the act of 1814- When embodying that provision in the Revised Statutes 
 it is reasonable to presume that Congress was familiar with the construction which had 
 been placed thereon, and so long acted upon by the executive department, and that, if it had 
 been the intention of that body to introduce a different rule on the subject of promotion, 
 different phraseology would have been chosen to signify such design. 
 
 By adopting the language of the previous statute the fair inference is that its construction 
 ivas acquiesced in, and that no change in the law of promotion was intended. 
 
 I am accordingly of the opinion that the rule laid down in paragraph 20, Army Regu- 
 lations, by which promotions to the rank of captain shall be made regt 'mentally is not in- 
 consistent with the provisions of section 1204. Revised Statutes, but that it (the rule) re- 
 mains in full force. 
 
 In response to a resolution of the House of Representatives, Secretary 
 of War Robert T. Lincoln, reported, March 8, 1882 — 
 
 That the action oj the department under the section referred to (1204) is in accordance 
 with the construction given to that section by the Attorney-General. 
 
 Finally, Congress itself, in excepting the then first lieutenants from 
 the general provisions of the act, confirmed the view that no change in 
 the rule had been made previously b>/ the proviso included in the act of 
 October 1, 1890— 
 
 That in the line of the Army all officers now above the grade of second lieutenant shall 
 * * * be entitled to promotionin accordance with existing laws and, regulations* 
 
 Opposed to this it has been submitted by those who favor the 
 proposed measures : 
 
 That while it is true that no question of the legality of the rule of 
 promotion arose until after the enactment of the Revised Statutes 
 into law, this was due to the fact that if promotions previous to that 
 time were made under the act of 1812, they were clearly required to 
 be made according to the "established rule;" while if that act were 
 regarded as repealed by the act of 1814, and this last was the sole 
 law governing promotions, then the fact that it was not mandatory 
 but permissive in character left promotions to be regulated entirely 
 by the executive, and, whatever the system, gave no reason for any 
 question concerning its legality. 
 
 But in the Revised Statutes the rule of promotion as included in 
 section 1204, if taken, as therein shown by the marginal references, 
 wholly from the act of 1814, so far as the line of the Army was con- 
 cerned, then the substitution of "shall" in section 1204 for "may" 
 in the original act made whatever course was authorized under that 
 act mandatory under the Revised Statutes. The course author- 
 ized by the act of 1814 must be determined from itself alone or in 
 connection with the act of 1812, to which it referred. If considered 
 in connection with this act, as, it is admitted, it should undoubtedly 
 properly have been considered, then it was evidently a mere exten- 
 sion, "through the whole Army" as recently enlarged, of the law of 
 promotion established definitely by the act of 1812 for the limited 
 forces then composing the Army. But if considered by itself alone, 
 and regarded as having repealed the law of promotion included in the 
 act of 1812 — and it is evident that this view was taken by the com- 
 missioners in revising the statutes — then the act of 1814 must contain 
 all of the rule which it authorized and all of the law that was intended 
 to be included in section 1204 of the Revised Statutes. 
 
 Section 12 of the act of 1814, so far as it refers to promotion, reads: 
 
 That from and after passing of this act, promotions may be made through the whole 
 Army in its several lines of light artillery, light dragoons, infantry, and riflemen, 
 respectively. 
 
16 
 
 Section 1204, Revised Statutes, reads: 
 
 Promotions in the line of the Army sliall be made through the whole Army in its 
 several lines of artillery, cavalry, and infantry, respectively. 
 
 If the act of 1814 authorized' by itself any system of promotion 
 whatever, it could be only a system that should promote through the 
 whole Army in each of its several lines. This system was made man- 
 datory in the Revised Statutes. There was no reference to "estab- 
 lished rules." Without considering such rules or customs it would 
 be impossible to read into the lines of either of these laws a system 
 of promotion that should be partly regimental and partly lineal. 
 Whatever the system, it must promote through the whole Army in 
 each line. A system partly regimental, partly lineal, does not fulfill 
 this requirement, and was thus illegal as applied in promotions made 
 under section 1204. 
 
 It is admitted that Congress in enacting the Revised Statutes had 
 no real intent of changing the existing rule of promotion, providing 
 that rule was in accordance with the preexisting law. But whatever 
 the intent it can not rightfully stand against the letter of the law as 
 embodied in the Revised Statutes. Congress itself, in section 5596, 
 provided that — 
 
 The preexisting laws thus revised are repealed and no longer in force. 
 
 And it has been decided by the courts that — 
 
 Whether the revision correctly reproduced the preexisting statutes in any particu- 
 lar case, the Revised Statutes became the law of the land June 22, 1874. (15 C. Cls., 
 p. 87.) 
 
 So far as the view that section 1204, Revised Statutes, made no 
 change in the rule of promotion is confirmed by the opinions rendered 
 in the numerous claims that have arisen for readjustment of rank 
 since its enactment, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion in a care- 
 ful study of all the later opinions (Secretary of War, May 29, 1876; 
 May 15, 1880; March 8, 1882; General of the Army, May 12, 1880; 
 Senate Military Committee, May 2, 1880; Adjutant-General, April 
 7, 1881, and March 3, 1882), that they were all based upon the earlier 
 opinions of the Judge- Advocate-General (1876) and the Attorney- 
 General (1874). If defects exist in these two opinions, therefore, 
 they must also exist in the later opinions founded upon them. 
 
 The opinion rendered by the Judge-Advocate-General in March, 
 1876, was the result of the first attempt to obtain a decision concern- 
 ing the meaning of section 1204. In formulating the opinion then 
 rendered it would appear that the Judge-Advocate-General failed to 
 discover the true intent and meaning of the act of March 30, 1814, 
 and thus failed to discover the true meaning of the expression 
 "through the whole Army" as used in that act, and the different 
 meaning it must have had as included in section 1204, when applied 
 to totally different conditions. The Judge- Advocate-General seems 
 to have been satisfied with a consideration of the opinions of others, 
 inasmuch as the date of reference to him of the question was March 
 21, 1876, and his opinion thereon was rendered three days later — too 
 short a time to discover all the data bearing upon the subject. More- 
 over, the opinion of the Attorney-General of January 9, 1873, to which 
 considerable weight is apparently attached by the Judge-Advocate- 
 General, was not applicable, in the sense used, to the case, since it was 
 rendered prior to the enactment of the Revised Statutes and referred 
 to the earlier law. 
 
17 
 
 In the opinion of the Attorney-General, November, 1874, similar 
 reference is also made to the same opinion of 1873, and it is further 
 plain from the context of the opinion of 1874 that no consideration 
 was then given by the Attorney-General to the effect of the recent 
 enactment of section 1204 upon the provisions concerning promo- 
 tion found in the Army Regulations of 1863; nor does it appear that 
 consideration of that section was required by the question before him, 
 and upon which the opinion indicated was rendered. 
 
 Finally, it is to be noted that the failure of Congress heretofore 
 to enact remedial legislation along the lines now proposed has fol- 
 lowed, in every instance, adverse reports thereon from the War De- 
 partment, which reports were, it is believed, founded in every case 
 upon the opinions and decisions here referred to, and which opinions 
 and decisions a limited study of the legal growth of our system of 
 
 {)romotion will show to have been not well founded. Furthermore, 
 ineal promotion, which since 1890 has been the general rule, operat- 
 ing, except in the cases now under consideration, with absolute 
 equality, was for a time opposed by the War Department as imprac- 
 ticable, expensive, and inadvisable. 
 
 It is urged by those in opposition to the proposed measure: 
 
 That the advantages in rank and pay that have been gained by those 
 who profited from the system of regimental promotion were not only 
 reached through the application of the law of the land, but were secured 
 to them as a right recognized both by the Executive in appointing them 
 and by the Senate in confirming their appointments. Further, that their 
 rights not only to their present position, but to such future promotion as 
 may result from this position, have been thus completely vested in them; 
 and that any law th'at would either reduce them from their present rank 
 or destroy or delay their chances for future promotion would infringe 
 upon these perfect rights and be in its nature ex post facto or retroactive, 
 and therefore illegal or unjust. 
 
 In opposition to which view it is submitted: 
 
 That even if it be admitted that the right to the present rank and 
 rewards of those who have gained has been completely vested, and 
 thus made absolute — and, so far as the remedial measure now pro- 
 posed is concerned, no claim to the contrary is made — the same con- 
 clusion can not properly be reached in respect to rights of future 
 promotion. These last are not vested rights: they are not absolute, 
 but relative. Congress, which has the authorit}^ to raise and support 
 armies, has equally the authority to abolish armies and to abolish or 
 change all ranks and grades, and all promotion included or allowed 
 therein. Its authority to change the rule of promotion has never 
 been questioned and has in several instances been exercised. The 
 same authority will doubtless be exercised in the future and must 
 remain unquestioned. Where the exercise of such authority results 
 in temporary inequity to certain officers, Congress may hereafter listen 
 and refuse or grant remedial legislation, as it has heretofore refused 
 or granted such relief as warranted in its judgment by the facts. The 
 enactment of the proposed law would be no more an infringement on 
 the rights to promotion of any officers affected by it than was the law 
 of October 1 , 1890. The proposed law would not be ex post facto tech- 
 38717—08 2 
 
18 
 
 nically, since this term as used in the Constitution applies only to 
 criminal or penal statutes, nor ex post facto in effect. The claim 
 to the contrary is founded clearly upon a misconception of the mean- 
 ing of the term. ' The proposed law is not even retroactive or retro- 
 spective in its nature. It does not affect past or present rank or con- 
 ditions. It looks only to future readjustment. In this the proposed 
 law differs from most or all of the preceding efforts looking to the 
 relief of those who suffered unduly under the operation of previous 
 laws, and differs thus purposely, since it is appreciated that whatever 
 measure of justice may be granted them only such should be desired 
 as is possible without threatening injustice to others. 
 
 3. 
 
 Further, in opposition to the proposed measure: 
 
 That admitting those officers who lost in rank through regimental 
 'promotion were injuriously affected in rank and pay, that their ambition 
 was destroyed, their loyalty affected, and their efficiency decreased, 
 admitting even that the efficiency of the Army itself was thereby injured — 
 these now are all accomplished facts. The enactment of a law that will 
 serve hereafter to pass them in turn over part of those by whom they were 
 once passed will operate in an exactly similar manner upon those thus 
 passed, and the discouragement, loss of ambition, and injury to efficiency, 
 instead of being removed, will only be doubled. 
 
 That the officers who lost in the past entered the service under the same 
 conditions as those who gained, with the same understanding and the 
 same acceptance on the part of both of the probable chances of promotion 
 and with the same opportunities for choice of regiments. That those 
 who gained did so not infrequently through acceptance of a commission 
 in regiments which others virtually refused, to enter, and thereby through 
 harder or less desirable service earned the promotion which resulted from 
 this selection, and that the proposed law, by disregarding these facts, 
 would in effect rob them of the proper rewards for such service. In this 
 connection the following extract is quoted from a paper submitted in 
 opposition to the measure under consideration: 
 
 It was well known to officers in accepting their first commissions years ago that regimental 
 promotion to the grade of captain was the established rule, and we made our selections of 
 regiment and branch of service accordingly, in many instances deliberately declining 
 almost absolute certainty of early promotion for some other consideration. Thus for 
 years and years graduates from the Military Academy ignored the flattering prospects for 
 promotion offered by the four regiments of colored troops, until in 1877 vacancies in these 
 regiments had so accumulated from year to year that they numbered sixteen. We who 
 were assigned to those regiments in those days and grimly stuck to them and to the service 
 as we found it should not now be deprived of any supposed advantage gained thereby by any 
 uncertain meaning of section 1204. 
 
 In response to which it is submitted : 
 
 That the effect of the operation of the past laws on officers who 
 lost rank thereunder is not similar to the probable effect of the pro- 
 posed measure on those who gained and consequently that the effect 
 on the service of the two can not be the same. In the one, those who 
 lost were almost invariably passed by others who were their juniors 
 in years, and lost therefore not only present but future rank through 
 the consequent impossibility of reaching the higher grades before 
 retirement. To this fact is due whatever injurious effect on officers 
 and service alike that followed or may be expected to follow if relief 
 be not granted. The lesser loyalty felt toward a superior officer by 
 
19 
 
 others who hare suffered loss of rank is not so much due to the fact 
 that an officer once their junior is now ahead of them as to the still 
 more discouraging fact that not only is this younger officer their 
 superior now, but if this condition continues they must forever be 
 barred thereby from reaching the same or higher grade In the other 
 case these conditions do not obtain. Those who have gained unusual 
 promotion must, by reason of their fewer years, still reach the highest 
 grades even if now passed by the officers who were once their seniors 
 in rank as w T ell as years. For those who have gained there is thus 
 no real loss; there is only retardation in future promotion. They 
 will still be assured of this promotion while those who have suffered 
 are, under existing conditions, equally assured that the same promo- 
 tion is not open to them. Furthermore, neither the proposed law 
 nor any other can restore all that the losers have lost or take away 
 anything the gainers have gained. The latter have held for many 
 years rank and position and received increased pay that under an 
 equitable system of promotion would have been secured to those who 
 now seek future restoration only to their proper places. What has 
 been lost in the past can not be restored, nor is it sought by this meas- 
 ure to attempt its restoration. 
 
 Again, admitting that existing conditions were understood by all 
 upon entry into the service, and such entry in effect accepted what- 
 ever chances of promotion resulted from the regiments in which 
 commissioned, it is still to be remembered that almost every officer 
 now concerned in the proposed measure entered after the period of 
 the enactment of the Revised Statutes, when the correctness of the 
 application of the law of promotion therein contained had been 
 brought into question, and when every proper effort was being made 
 to secure another interpretation or a new and more equitable law. 
 The result of these efforts was apparent in the law of October, 1, 1890, 
 but this law not only failed to correct the inequalities then existing, 
 but in some cases intensified them, and by itself gave reasonable 
 cause for seeking legislation to restore as far as possible the oppor- 
 tunities which had thus been taken away. 
 
 And, further, in opposition: 
 
 That there may he question whether injustice was not done some 
 officers when the system of promotion in force under the Revised Statutes 
 at the time of their appointment, which had been the established practice 
 since the organization of the Government, was changed by the act of 1 890. 
 It is recognized that those who had been passed by their juniors might 
 in some cases have regained the rank thus lost, had regimental promo- 
 tion continued until they reached the grade of captain, and that such 
 officers were by that act deprived of this chance. But whatever question 
 there may be in connection with those officers there can be no such ques- 
 tion so far as officers who had reached the grade of captain before the 
 act of 1890 are concerned. 
 
 Further, that such a measure as proposed can affect only part of 
 those officers who lost rank through regimental promotion arid that to 
 give relief to some and not to others who suffered equally or more would 
 be manifestly unfair to those others and encourage efforts on their part 
 for similar purposes. 
 
20 
 
 To which it is submitted in reply: 
 
 That the injustice resulting to certain officers from the act of 1890 
 was not different in its nature from the injustice to the same or other 
 officers under the operation of the Revised Statutes. In one case 
 the injustice resulted from a law concerning which no question of its 
 legality can arise but in the other from a law under which this ques- 
 tion arose repeatedly during the period of its application. A measure 
 that would attempt to remedy the injustice done in the first case 
 without touching upon the second would manifestly either fail of 
 passage or give rise to efforts to extend similar legislation to officers 
 of the other class. If a remedy is to be given to one it should be 
 given to all that it is practicable now to reach. Moreover, of the 
 officers affected by the proposed measure less than half a dozen had 
 reached the grade of captain when the act of October 1, 1890, became 
 effective. 
 
 That it is not practicable to reach now all who have suffered in 
 the past is clear. But that this can properly he held sufficient cause 
 to refuse relief to those whom it is possible still to reach is not admitted. 
 The proposed measure does not provide any relief for officers on the 
 retired list who may have suffered equally in the past with others 
 still in the active service. Manifestly the bill as drawn could not 
 apply to such cases; retired officers are no longer in the several lines 
 of the Army and no gradual readjustment of their rank can be made. 
 Such readjustment would have to be completed and effective upon 
 some fixed date and would involve the application of retroactive 
 provisions in the law. Such provisions could not be justly restricted 
 to retired officers and their application to officers on the active list 
 would result in the same confusion that resulted in the failure of 
 former measures seeking similar or more far-reaching relief. More- 
 over, retired officers in matters concerning precedence and command 
 have been removed from the influences of promotion and from a 
 position where their condition of mind affects the efficiency of the 
 Army. But the longer remedial action in favor of active officers is 
 delayed the more difficult it must become to make them amends for 
 the misfortunes encountered or to remove the consequent blight upon 
 the efficiency of the service. 
 
 Again the proposed bill can not affect colonels, since they have 
 already reached the highest possible lineal grade, and any further 
 promotion for them must be by selection. But as drawn, the bill 
 would operate to place eventually every lieutenant-colonel and 
 major and every captain affected exactly where his length of service 
 entitles him to be, and these grades are all that it is now possible to 
 reach by such legislation as proposed. 
 
 Efforts have been made before toward remedial legislation and at 
 times when many more officers would have derived benefit therefrom 
 than is now possible. But these measures could not then be enacted 
 without doing apparent injury to officers entitled to special consid- 
 eration on account of their services in the civil war. This condition 
 no longer obtains and partial justice to those whom it is still practi- 
 cable to reach is therefore now possible without injustice resulting 
 to any known case. 
 
 5. 
 
 And, further, in opposition: 
 
 That the accurate determination of the position upon the lists for 
 promotion to be prepared under the provisions of the proposed taw 
 
21 
 
 would be impracticable if not impossible at this date. In a report, 
 dated February 6, 1907, upon the bills as introduced in the Fifty-ninth 
 Congress, the Military Secretary said: 
 
 The Revised Statutes went into effect nearly thirty-three years ago. Within a few years 
 thereafter Congress on several occasions considered, upon the appeals of officers concerned, 
 the question of enacting 'legislation declaring that lieutenants of artillery, cavalry, and 
 infantry were entitled under section 1204 to promotion by seniority in the respective arms 
 of sere ice, instead of in their regiments, and declined to enact such legislation. Congress 
 subsequently enactedthe law of October i. 1890, which operated at a final settlement of the 
 question. At this late day it would be difficult, if not impossible, accurately to determine 
 just what the positions of officers to whom the provisions of this bill would apply had they 
 been promoted sinci 1874 under a system different from that under which they have been 
 promoted. Officers who have bun promoted under the provisions of the act of October 1, 
 1890. have acquired legal rights in respect to their rank and standing in the Army, both as 
 regards preceaena and command, and future promotion. The advancing in rank of cer- 
 tain officers in the manner contemplated by this bill mould deprive some other officers of 
 rights and privileges already acquired in accordance with existing law. 
 
 The report of Mr. Cockrell for the Senate Military Committeein tin Forty-sixth Congress, 
 1880, hereinbefon mentioned, stated that the bill then pending to /(adjust the rank of first 
 lieutenants •promoted after the Revised Statutes went into effect so as to give them the rank 
 and positions they wouldhavehad received had they been promoted by seniority in the arm of 
 service instead of in tin regiment " mould work inextricable confusion, as will be soon seen 
 from the list of promotions from first lieutenants to captain in the Army from 1870 to 1879, 
 inclusive. " 
 
 Nearly twenty-seven years fan passed since the committee expressed that Opinion, and 
 the difficulties of attempting to readjust the rank of officers in the manner proposed in the 
 accompanying bill mould be infinitely greater at this time than they would have been in 1880. 
 
 Opposed to which it is submitted — ■ 
 
 That in the form which proposed measures for the purpose intended 
 have heretofore taken, and which form was referred to by Senator 
 Cockrell in his report of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs 
 m 1880, this objection was a valid one. There is, however, no com- 
 parison between those measures and the one now proposed and this 
 objection does not hold. The bill referred to by Senator Cockrell 
 was intended to accomplish immediate readjustment of rank, effective 
 upon its passage, and involving recommissioning the officers elevated 
 or reduced in accordance with its terms. Under such a law certainly a 
 vast deal of confusion — and worse — was to be expected. The measure 
 now proposed is of an entirely different nature. It involves no rad- 
 ical or sudden change, nor the reduction of any officer from the 
 position he now holds. 
 
 The preparation of the lists required by the first section of the bill 
 can be neither a serious nor a confusing task. The date of every 
 officer's entry into the service and every fact connected with his 
 service necessary for the purpose are known and are matters of official 
 record. In the ordinary case nothing more than a series of annual 
 Army Registers covering the period since 1874 is necessary. The 
 few exceptional cases result from the anomalous positions held by 
 certain officers through transfer, from one arm to another, or through 
 sentence of court-martial or action of examining board. There are 
 but few of these and the provisions of the bill have been drawn to 
 cover them and to fix definitely their places on the promotion lists 
 in such manner as to insure to them the same justice — and no more — 
 attempted for all. 
 
 In substantiation of this claim that the task of preparing these 
 lists will be neither seriously difficult nor confusing, such lists have 
 been prepared for each of the three arms concerned and covering 
 every officer affected by the terms of the bill. These lists are, of 
 course, unofficial, but they have been prepared from the official 
 
22 
 
 registers, carefully checked, and are believed to be correct to date 
 of preparation. Only a few hours were employed in their actual 
 preparation. 
 
 The necessity for such lists and their use may be understood from 
 a consideration of the operation of the proposed measures if enacted 
 into law. For illustration we may consider a major of infantry 
 standing, say, 25 on the present lineal list, but who through loss of 
 five files incident to regimental promotion, would stand number 20' 
 on these promotion lists, arranged according to seniority of service. 
 When a vacancy in the grade of lieutenant-colonel occurred the senior 
 major appearing on the official promotion list would be promoted. 
 Thus, when 19 majors had been promoted the major considered would 
 stand 1 on the promotion list though standing 6 on the present 
 lineal list. He would then be promoted at the first vacancy there- 
 after and thus pass ahead of the 5 majors who at some period of their 
 service had passed him. Upon promotion he would take his proper 
 place on the promotion list of lieutenant-colonels though remaining 
 at the bottom of the present lineal list and with his precedence as a 
 lieutenant-colonel fixed absolutely by the date of his commission. 
 In a few cases, so serious has been the loss of the officers concerned, pro- 
 motions through two grades would be necessary to restore them to 
 their former relative places, though in most cases one promotion will 
 complete the effect of the proposed law. But it is important to 
 remember that in no case is the relative rank disturbed until a 
 vacancy occurs and disturbed then only by the one resulting promo- 
 tion. The purpose as indicated by the phraseology of the bill is not 
 sudden but gradual adjustment, to be secured with the least dis- 
 turbance of the existing order possible with the accomplishment of 
 the object desired. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 I have endeavored in the preceding pages to set forth in some 
 detail the evolution of our system of promotion in the line of the 
 Army; the existing inequalities in relative rank of officers resulting 
 from their application; the remedial action now proposed for the 
 gradual correction of these inequalities; and, finally, every argu- 
 ment not obviously trivial or unsound that has come to my atten- 
 tion either in favor of, or in opposition to, such action. I have 
 been led to this course not only because of the unfortunate condi- 
 tions obtaining in the higher grades, but because of the admittedly 
 serious nature of the proposed remedy; and not only because I 
 desired a complete investigation in order to be assured in my own 
 conclusions, but to make it possible for you to arrive at such inde- 
 pendent conclusions as in your judgment may appear warranted 
 by all of the facts; and, further, not only because my own investiga- 
 tion leads me to favor the proposed legislation, but because this 
 favor if confirmed by you, will constitute a reversal of the judgment 
 of the War Department as expressed in the past upon measures pro- 
 posed for a similar purpose. 
 
 It is true that the present measure compared with those of the 
 past is of far less serious intent, and that in the period since any 
 former measure has been considered all officers of a class deserving 
 
 a The lists indicated accompany this report. 
 
23 
 
 of special consideration by reason of service in the civil war have been 
 promoted or retired and are no longer in a position to be either 
 injured or benefited by the measure. It is also true that the altered 
 conditions of to-day make the field of the proposed bill less exten- 
 sive than before and its probable effect clearly observable in advance, 
 which last consideration makes it possible, moreover, to safeguard 
 every interest not directly involved. Nevertheless I have not felt 
 that previous judgments supported uniformly by authoritative 
 opinions of existing law should be reversed even under these condi- 
 tions without a new and independent investigation of all the law 
 and all the facts, and unless the conditions are serious enough to 
 demand both in justice to individuals and for the greater efficiency 
 of the service the application of some remedial measure. My con- 
 clusions, therefore, are based upon this independent investigation of 
 the matter, in which every previous authoritative opinion known 
 has been given full consideration, and in my judgment these con- 
 clusions follow logically and inevitably, and will, I believe, be con- 
 firmed by any unprejudiced mind that satisfies itself by any full 
 investigation of both law and fact. 
 
 So far as the law is concerned, I am of the opinion that — 
 
 1. In the enactment of section 1204, Revised Statutes, the intent 
 of Congress was to continue in force the system of promotion pre- 
 vailing at that time and presumably in accordance with existing law. 
 
 2. In the letter of the law, as embodied in that section alone, this 
 intent was not made manifest through the failure of the Commis- 
 sioners to arrive at the real intent of section 12 of the act of March 30, 
 1814; and that, as enacted, section 1204 made mandatory a system 
 of promotion either undefined, or if defined, then lineal throughout 
 the whole of each arm of the service. But further — 
 
 3. In section 1257, Revised Statutes, the system of promotion pre- 
 scribed in filling vacancies consequent upon retirement is so clearly 
 defined that it would have been impossible to give to section 1204 
 an interpretation different than was given in practice, without put- 
 ting into force at the same time two different systems of promotion, 
 which manifestly was neither intended nor desired. 
 
 But I am further of the opinion that whatever the law, promotions 
 thereunder having been confirmed by the Senate and the officers 
 duly commissioned, any resulting injustice was thereby condoned 
 and perpetuated, and that therefore any discussion of the applica- 
 tion of past laws is from a legal viewpoint purely academic. 
 
 Nevertheless, the persistence with which the claims of the officers 
 who felt themselves injured by the interpretation given to section 
 1204, Revised Statutes, were urged between the date of its enact- 
 ment and 1890 was sufficient to indicate that the law was far from 
 a satisfactory solution of the question of promotion. Whether this 
 was due entirely to the interpretation of the statute or in part to 
 the fact that the conditions upon which regimental promotion may 
 have been originally founded no longer obtained or to other causes 
 is not important here. Whatever the cause it seems plain that the 
 rapid advancement of certain officers through no superior merit or 
 exceptional service of their own and the overslaughing of others 
 through no inferior merit or fault and the serious inequalities that 
 may now be seen to have resulted therefrom, are sufficient to explain 
 the growing necessity for relief, that found expression eventually 
 
24 
 
 in the act of October 1, 1890. But this act, as has been shown, 
 served in many cases to intensify and perpetuate the inequalities 
 ahead}' in existence. Yet there can be no question concerning the 
 legality of promotions made under the latter act, just as there is no 
 doubt that the act itself was founded on the desire not only to pre- 
 vent in the future a growth of inequalities found inseparable from 
 the regimental system of promotion, but to remove, as far as possible, 
 the inequalities resulting from the operations of such a system in the 
 past. 
 
 In my judgment, therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that we 
 are concerned here not so much with the law as with the equity of 
 the case. If injustice has been done through the operation of law, 
 and it matters not whether the law as applied was correctly interpreted 
 or not, such injustice should he corrected if correction be possible, 
 and provided of course that the methods employed do not result in 
 a greater evil than the evil they are designed to remove. 
 
 From the point of view of equity there is to my mind no doubt 
 that serious injustice was done to certain officers b}" the operation 
 of the laws under consideration. In my judgment, moreover, this 
 injustice can now be corrected, though in part only, without doing 
 similar injustice to others. I believe the proposed bill as last drawn 
 provides a means for the accomplishment of these two objects. The 
 single fact that the officers whose promotion under such a bill will 
 be retarded are in nearly all cases younger than the officers whose 
 promotion will be accelerated, and that thus the eventual attainment 
 of the rank which is their due will be secured for both is sufficient to 
 establish beyond question the justice of this measure for all officers 
 concerned . 
 
 So far as officers directly interested are concerned, both adherents 
 and opponents of the proposition to readjust rank are admittedly 
 inspired by self-interests; but there is a difference. The former are 
 inspired by a desire to regain certain advantages which were lost, 
 through no lack of merit and no fault of their own, to more fortunate 
 comrades; the latter by a desire to retain advantages gained by them, 
 through no merit of their own, over less fortunate comrades. In con- 
 sidering the equities of such a contest there seems room for little doubt 
 as to where the sympathies of the average disinterested person would 
 be found to lie. 
 
 But personal considerations, however important, are secondary to 
 the interests of the service at large. Under the present unfortunate 
 conditions it is not unusual to find in command of posts or organiza- 
 tions officers who have reached the rank entitling them to these posi- 
 tions through a mere application of law and with no claims to excep- 
 tional .records or unusual ability, while under them are officers of 
 longer service, greater age, and sometimes of greater ability, who 
 were formerly the superiors of the officers under whom they now 
 serve. Such conditions are far from promoting harmony and disci- 
 pline and are consequently injurious to the efficiency of the service. 
 Again, the absence of ambition in an officer must render him an incum- 
 brance rather than an aid to efficiency. Yet nothing is more likely to 
 destroy ambition than absolute loss of hope of promotion to even the 
 higher field grades — a condition that now exists and must continue to 
 exist for many years, unless some remedy as now proposed is applied. 
 The claim that the proposed measure, by destroying similar hopes of 
 
25 
 
 those officers who have gained in the past, would work a similar evil in 
 the future, can not be admitted, for the reason already set forth based 
 upon their ages as compared with the ages of the officers the proposed 
 bill is intended to benefit. Furthermore, those who have gained have 
 enjoyed the privileges and emoluments of higher rank for many years. 
 These can not be taken away. There would be no real loss. They 
 would retain their present rank, and their places in the future would 
 be fixed by equity and would be all that they could have ever reached 
 had equity always prevailed. In many cases it would be more, since all 
 that has been lost is not restored by the provisions of the proposed 
 act. Finally, I believe that the eminent fairness of the measure will 
 appeal to the line of the Army and have a salutary effect even upon 
 those not affected thereby in any way. 
 
 The proposed bill, as introduced in both houses of the Fifty-ninth 
 Congress, was not, in my opinion, drawn with sufficient accuracy to 
 avoid possible injury to interests not involved, but in the form as 
 last introduced in the House (H. R. 16502) it is, I believe, clear, com- 
 prehensive, and drawn with an accuracy that safeguards every 
 interest not involved and that insures a gradual adjustment of rank 
 in the future without possibility of such complications as would arise 
 from sudden or numerous changes at one time. The lists of officers 
 concerned, accompanying this report, have been prepared in accordance 
 with the provisions of the bill indicated. I not only give this measure 
 my full support, but I earnestly recommend a favorable report 
 thereon in returning the proposed bills to the Committees on Military 
 Affairs and an urgent appeal for its immediate passage. 
 
 Accompanying tins report are two petitions from officers, addressed 
 to the Congress praying for unfavorable action upon the proposed 
 measure, and" twenty-five petitions from officers praying for favorable 
 action thereon or for the enactment of similar remedial legislation. 
 
 J. F. Bell, 
 Major-General, U. S. Army, Chief of Staff . 
 
 LISTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF CAVALRY, ARTILLERY. AND INFANTRY ARRANGED IN 
 ORDER OF PROMOTION TO NEXT HIGHER GRADE I NDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
 BILL (H. It. 16502. FIRST SESSION. SIXTIETH CONGRESS) TO READJUST RANK. 
 
 These lists are unofficial but prepared from the official Army Registers, and are cor- 
 rect to dates of preparation, February-March, 1908. Subsequent promotions, deaths, 
 etc., before action on the bill is had will, of course, necessitate changes if bill is passed. 
 These, however, show the practicability of preparing the necessary lists under the lull 
 as drawn. 
 
 These lists show only the arrangement for promotion to next higher grade. Exactly 
 similar lists may be readily made to show order of promotion thereafter until the full 
 intent of the bill has been reached. 
 
 Officers of cavalry arranged in order of promotion t<> next higher grade under the provisions of 
 the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONELS. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 McClernand 3 
 
 Hunt 4 
 
 Hickey ! 2 
 
 Watts 12 
 
 Jones, T. W 6 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 15 June 1870 
 
 15 June 1870 
 
 12 June 1871 
 
 14 June 1872 
 
 14 June 1872 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Kemarks. 
 
26 
 
 Officers of cavalry arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the provisions of 
 the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army — Continued. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONELS— Continued. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Class 
 
 Dateof entry, i^gffi 
 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 O'Connor | 9 
 
 Edwards 13 
 
 Dodd 1 
 
 Gresham 16 
 
 Hardie 7 
 
 Murray I 5 
 
 Wilder 10 
 
 Guilfoyle ' 11 
 
 Hunter 8 
 
 Day 14 
 
 Gale 17 
 
 Finley 15 
 
 13 June 
 1 Oct. 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 28 July 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 
 1873 
 
 1873 I .. 
 
 1876 32 
 
 1876 \ 34 
 
 1876 : 
 
 1877 25 
 1877 32 
 1877 40 
 1877 67 
 1877 70 
 1879 : 10 
 1879 45 
 
 MAJORS. 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Sibley 
 
 Andrus 
 
 Wheeler, H. W 
 Scott, H. L.... 
 
 McCormick 
 
 Swift 
 
 Sickel 
 
 Iitcher, J 
 
 Slocum , 
 
 Nicholson 
 
 Cheever 
 
 Brewer 
 
 Foster 
 
 Blocksom 
 
 Galbraith 
 
 Goldman 
 
 Brown, W.C.. 
 Read, R. D.... 
 
 Landis 
 
 Macomb 
 
 Shunk 
 
 Foltz 
 
 Beach 
 
 Grierson 
 
 Brett 
 
 Lockett , 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Taylor 
 
 Ripley 
 
 Erwin 
 
 Morgan 
 
 Sands 
 
 Trippe 
 
 Mercer 
 
 Boughton 
 
 Gaston 
 
 Carleton 
 
 Johnson, F. O . 
 
 Dickman 
 
 West 
 
 Gardner 
 
 McDonald 
 
 Benson 
 
 Allen 
 
 5 , 13 June 1873 
 7 17 June 1874 
 
 6 16 June 1875 
 9 ' 15 Oct. 1875 
 
 15 15 June 1876 
 
 16 15 June 1876 
 11 28 July 1876 
 
 22 28 July 1876 
 
 1 28 July 1876 
 
 24 28 July 1876 
 
 25 15 
 8 15 
 
 28 31 
 
 26 15 
 
 10 ! 15 
 39 i 14 
 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 28 June 
 
 1876 
 1876 
 1876 
 1877 
 
 1877 
 1877 
 1877 
 1877 
 1877 
 1S7S 
 1879 
 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 23 Nov. 1880 
 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 11 June 
 2 Mar. 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 
 IS8 
 INN 
 INN 
 INN 
 INN 
 INN 
 
 188 
 1882 
 1882 
 INN 2 
 
 Second lieutenant 
 
 1876, transferred 
 
 1876. 
 Second lieutenant 
 
 1876, transferred 
 
 1876. 
 Second lieutenant 
 
 1876, transferred 
 
 1876. 
 Second lieutenant 
 
 1876, transferred 
 
 1876. 
 
 infantry 15 June 
 to cavalry 28 July 
 
 infantry 15 June 
 to cavalry 28 July 
 
 infantry 15 June 
 to cavalry 28 July 
 
 infantry 21 June 
 to cavalry 28 July 
 
 Second lieutenant infantry 23 Jan. 
 1878, transferred to cavalry 3 June 
 1879. 
 
 Second lieutenant infantry 28 June 
 1879, transferred to cavalry 23 Feb. 
 1887, with, and takes place of, 
 Ducat, S., Sept. 1879. 
 
 Second lieutenant infantry 23 Nov. 
 1880, transferred by mutual agree- 
 ment to cavalry 14 Oct. 1898. 
 
27 
 
 Officers of cavalry arranged in order of promotion to next h igher grade under the provisions of 
 the bill l //. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army — Continued. 
 
 MAJORS-Continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 P iffl* Dateof entry. 
 
 list. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Stevens.. 
 Dugan.. 
 Freeman 
 Rivers . . . 
 Heard. . . 
 
 43 13 June 1882 
 
 4:. 13 June 1882 
 
 49 13 June 1883 
 47 13 June 1883 
 
 50 13 June 1883 
 
 CAPTAINS. 
 
 Scott, W. S. 
 
 Tate 
 
 Goode 
 
 Waterman . 
 Forsythe... 
 
 Irwin 
 
 Slocum 
 
 8 I Flyrm 
 
 9 Dufl 
 
 10 j Macdonald. 
 
 11 Sargent 
 
 12 Steele 
 
 13 1 Cameron... 
 
 14 Walsh 
 
 15 Read 
 
 16 i Johnson... 
 
 12 June 
 
 1880 
 
 26 
 
 12 June 
 
 1880 
 
 30 
 
 12 June 
 
 1880 
 
 47 
 
 
 1881 
 1882 
 
 
 13 June 
 
 22 
 
 13 June 
 
 1882 
 
 27 
 
 
 18S3 
 1883 
 
 
 13 June 
 
 8 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 9 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 22 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 23 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 24 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 29 
 
 13 June. 
 
 1883 
 
 37 
 
 13 June 
 
 1883 
 
 40 
 
 19 Sept. 
 
 1883 
 
 
 
 Second' lieutenant infantry 1 Sept. 
 1879, transferred to cavalry 1 June 
 1883, to rank from 27 June 1882. 
 
 To rank in cavalry from June 141883. 
 
 Officers of coast artillery arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the pro- 
 visions of the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONELS. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 8 
 10 
 6 
 7 
 4 
 
 12 
 5 
 9 
 11 
 16 
 14 
 13 
 15 
 
 15 June 1870 
 13 June 1873 
 17 June 1874 
 17 June 1874 
 
 16 June 1875 
 15 June 1876 
 15 June 1876 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1877 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Coffin 
 
 8 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 5 
 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 
 4 
 11 
 
 8 
 15 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Todd 
 
 
 <j 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 White 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 Rafierty 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Allen 
 
 
 16 
 
 Blunt 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAJORS. 
 
 Bailey 
 
 Harmon.. 
 Hunter. .. 
 Bartlett . . 
 Bennett . . 
 Phillips... 
 Townsley. 
 Newcomb. 
 Barney... 
 Cronkhite 
 
 Davis 
 
 Ridgeway 
 
 12 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 13 
 5 L3 
 7 13 
 
 13 i 13 
 
 14 13 
 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 J une 
 
 1880 
 
 8 
 
 1880 
 
 14 
 
 1880 
 
 15 
 
 1881 
 
 10 
 
 1881 
 
 12 
 
 1881 
 
 13 
 
 1881 
 
 14 
 
 1882 
 
 6 
 
 1882 
 
 9 
 
 1882 
 
 10 
 
 1883 
 
 
 
 1K83 
 
 10 
 
28 
 
 Officers of coast artillery arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the pro- 
 visions of the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army — 
 Continued. 
 
 MAJORS-Continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 13 
 
 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 9 
 20 
 19 
 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 10 
 24 
 25 
 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 
 13 June 1883 
 
 15 June 1884 
 30 Oct. 1884 
 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 
 11 
 13 
 15 
 16 
 10 
 11 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Walke 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 Lost 9 files through sentence court- 
 martial. 
 
 20' 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 4 
 7 
 9 
 13 
 
 
 23 
 
 Brooks 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 Hubbard 
 
 
 
 
 
 Officers of field artillery arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the provi- 
 sions of the bill (II. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONELS. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Hoyle 
 
 Gayle 
 
 Adams 
 
 Foster 
 
 Rumbough 
 Greble 
 
 16 June 1875 
 15 June 1876 
 15 June 1876 
 15 June 1876 
 
 12 June 1880 
 11 June 1881 
 
 Second lieutenant infantry, trans- 
 ferred to artillery 15 Aug. 1876. 
 
 MAJORS. 
 
 Van Deusen 
 
 Treat 
 
 Miller 
 
 Conklin 
 
 Sturgis 
 
 Lassister 
 
 12 June 
 (13 June 
 
 1880 
 1882) 
 
 16 
 
 (7) 
 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 12 June 
 
 1882 
 1882 
 
 1884 
 1SS4 
 1889 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 8 
 13 
 
 
 
 Second lieutenant cavalry, trans- 
 ferred to artillery 31 Jan. 1884, to 
 rank from 13 June 1882, vice Ben- 
 son, No. 7, class of 1882. 
 
 Officers of infantry arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the provisions 
 of the bill (II. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONEL. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 26 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 22 
 27 
 8 
 
 12 June 1871 
 17 June 1874 
 17 June 1874 
 31 Oct. 1874 
 20 Jan. 1875 
 20 Jan. 1875 
 20 Jan. 1875 
 16 June 1875 
 16 June 1875 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Cecil 
 
 is 
 34 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Chubb 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 25 
 49 
 
 
 9 
 
 Evans, R. K 
 
 
29 
 
 Officersof infantry arranged in ordi r of 'promotion to next high r grad( iindi r the provision* of 
 the bill (//. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers ofth Army- Continued. 
 
 LIEUTENANT-COLONELS— Continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 10 
 
 Cooke 
 
 9 
 2 
 
 7 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 IS 
 
 32 
 33 
 14 
 42 
 17 
 '.'.-, 
 12 
 28 
 30 
 19 
 16 
 6 
 23 
 
 18 
 31 
 29 
 21 
 24 
 
 15 Oct. is::, 
 15 Oct. L875 
 15 June L876 
 15 June 1876 
 28 July 1876 
 
 1 5 tug. 1876 
 9- Jan. 1877 
 1 Mar. 1877 
 
 15 June L87'i 
 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1877 
 15 June 1S77 
 14.1 unc 1878 
 14 June 1878 
 14 June 1878 
 14 June 1878 
 13 June 1879 
 13 June 1879 
 (13 June 1879) 
 
 13 June 1879 
 
 13 June 1ST!) 
 
 1 Sept. 1879 
 
 12 June 1880 
 
 12 June 1880 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 Bowen 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 10 
 26 
 
 
 13 
 
 Buttler 
 
 
 14 
 
 Sharpe 
 
 Second lieutenant cavalry 21 June 
 1876, transferred to infantry 28 
 July 1876. 
 
 15 
 
 Febiger 
 
 
 16 
 
 Byrne 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 Abercrombie 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 26 
 
 42 
 47 
 58 
 10 
 27 
 34 
 41 
 12 
 49 
 (50) 
 
 51 
 59 
 
 
 19 
 
 Wood, W. T 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 Glenn 
 
 
 22 
 
 Evans, W. P 
 
 
 23 
 
 Waltz 
 
 
 24 
 
 Getty 
 
 
 25 
 
 Wolf 
 
 
 26 
 
 French 
 
 
 27 
 
 Irons 
 
 
 28 
 
 Bullard. . . 
 
 Transferred from Subsistence De- 
 partment with, and takes place of 
 Eastman, No. 50, class of 13 June 
 1879. 
 
 29 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 36 
 37 
 
 
 33 
 
 Moon 
 
 
 
 
 
 \l UORS. 
 
 Lassitor 
 
 Bailey 
 
 Van Vliet 
 
 Paxton 
 
 Nichols 
 
 Plummer 
 
 Chynoweth. . 
 
 Kirhy 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Frederick. . 
 
 11 i Maney. 
 
 Howe. 
 
 Buck 
 
 Pickering 
 
 Tillson 
 
 Phister 
 
 Clark, W. O. 
 
 Pendleton. 
 
 Noyes 
 
 Truitt 
 
 Liggett 
 
 Parke 
 
 Howell 
 
 Browne . . . 
 Mallory . . . 
 
 May 
 
 Miller 
 
 Ducat 
 
 Partello... 
 Steedman . 
 
 1 Oct. 
 15 June 
 
 14 Dec. 
 3 Mar. 
 7 May 
 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 15 June 
 14 June 
 14 June 
 14 June 
 14 June 
 14 June 
 
 (14 June 
 
 43 13 June 
 37 13 June 
 32 I 13 June 
 13 13 June 
 35 13 June 
 41 i 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 13 June 
 11 (28 June 
 
 1873 
 1876 
 1876 
 
 1X77 
 1877 
 1877 
 1877 
 1877 
 L877 
 1877 
 1877 
 1 s7s 
 1878 
 1878 
 1878 
 1878 
 1878) 
 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879 
 1879) 
 
 1 Sept. 1879 
 1 Fell. 1876 
 
 33 
 
 20 
 28 
 38 
 65 
 68 
 73 
 11 
 17 
 19 
 20 
 35 
 (39) 
 
 Second lieutenant cavalry, trans- 
 ferred to infantry, 13 Feb. 1882, 
 with, and takes place of, Wiileox, 
 No. 39, class of 14 June 1878. 
 
 Transferred to cavalry 8 Sept. 1879; 
 transferred to infantry 23 Feb. 
 1887, with, and takes place of, Rip- 
 ley, 28 June 1879. 
 
 Lost 50 files through sentence court 
 martial 7 Dec. 1900; lost 11 files 
 through action of examining 
 board; suspended from 16 Dec. 
 1904 to 1 Feb. 1906. 
 
30 
 
 Officers of infantry arranged in order of promotion t o next higher gradeunder the provisions of 
 the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army — Continued. 
 
 MAJORS— Continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 present 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 31 
 
 
 22 
 2 
 
 1 Sept. 1879 
 
 I Sept. 1879 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 12 June 1880 
 
 12 June 1880 
 24 June 1880 
 4 Oct. 1880 
 24 Nov. 1880 
 
 26 Nov. 1880 
 
 II June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 11 June 1881 
 
 27 Mar. 1882 
 27 Mar. 1882 
 
 13 June 1882 
 13 June 1882 
 13 June 1882 
 13 June 1882 
 13 June 1882 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 13 June 1883 
 3 July 1883 
 
 3 July 1883 
 10 Oct. 1883 
 10 Oct. 1883 
 10 Oct. 1883 
 13 Oct. 1883 
 15 Oct. 1S83 
 21 Nov. 1883 
 21 Nov. 1883 
 
 4 Feb. 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 1 Sept. 1879 
 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 15 June 1884 
 1 Julv 1884 
 15 July 1884 
 4 Aug. 1884 
 4 Aug. 1884 
 30 Oct. 1884 
 1 July 1886 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 Terrett . 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 19 
 
 31 
 38 
 43 
 48 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 30 
 61 
 33 
 
 5 
 58 
 62 
 41 
 36 
 47 
 
 7 
 59 
 63 
 52 
 64 
 44 
 14 
 35 
 66 
 50 
 67 
 39 
 68 
 56 
 48 
 16 
 69 
 42 
 70 
 71 
 72 
 73 
 74 
 75 
 49 
 76 
 53 
 77 
 78 
 79 
 80 
 38 
 81 
 82 
 57 
 83 
 84 
 85 
 54 
 51 
 86 
 87 
 88 
 80 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 Chatfleld 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 23 
 26 
 32 
 42 
 46 
 50 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 Barth 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 Clarke 
 
 
 51 
 
 Cotter... 
 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 19 
 21 
 26 
 32 
 33 
 18 
 20 
 25 
 30 
 36 
 39 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 
 
 53 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 Wright 
 
 
 61 
 
 Hale 
 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 66 
 
 Cabell 
 
 
 67 
 
 Griffith 
 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 Johnston, W. H 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 Beall . 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 O'Neil 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 14 
 15 
 22 
 24 
 26 
 29 
 31 
 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 83 
 84 
 
 Dentler 
 
 
 85 
 
 Styer 
 
 
 86 
 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 Lost 60 files through sentence court- 
 
 88 
 
 Noble 
 
 91 
 55 
 92 
 93 
 94 
 95 
 96 
 45 
 60 
 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 
 martial 30 April, 1907. 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 
 92 
 
 Day 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 
 
 
 94 
 
 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 Hirst 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31 
 
 Officers of infantry arranged in order of promotion to next higher grade under the provisions 
 of the bill (H. R. 16502) to readjust the rank of certain officers of the Army — Continued. 
 
 CAPTAINS. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 No. on 
 
 pre§#nt 
 
 lineal 
 
 list. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 Class 
 standing 
 on grad- 
 uation. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Wren 
 
 Burlington 
 
 Beckurts 
 
 Moore 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Krug 
 
 Pardee 
 
 Wright 
 
 Brewster 
 
 Muir 
 
 Parmerter 
 
 Smiley 
 
 Devore 
 
 Buck 
 
 Martin 
 
 Lawton 
 
 Johnson, E. M 
 
 30 Oct. 
 30 Oct. 
 30 Oct. 
 30 Oct. 
 30 Oct. 
 30 Oct, 
 30 Oct. 
 19 Jan. 
 19 Jan. 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 14 June 1885 
 
 14 June 1885 
 
 15 Aug. 18S5 
 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1885 
 1885 
 
 No change in lineal arrangement of 
 captains of infantry, as all now on 
 list have been promoted under the 
 act of 1 Oct. 1890; but after pro- 
 motion to majorites all 17 cap- 
 tains included on this list would 
 pass ahead of Major Hirst on pro- 
 motion to lieutenant-colonelcies. 
 
 o