5 [ I ] 



law is passed by Congress, the Prcslcleiit is required to sign it to make it 

 valid ; this can be done by no otlier anti make the Ltw valid. He has the 

 power to veto a law — no other functionary can do tliis and invalidate a 

 law. The power of appointment of ollicers to the army is given to the 

 President; no other a})pointment would be etfectual. The President can 

 strike an officer from the rolls of the army ; it cannot be supposed that any 

 one could be substituted for him in the exercise of this hi<2hly delicate au- 

 thority. It is not unworthy of remark, precisely at this point, that no 

 where is brevet i-ank made subservient to any ofticer connected with the 

 army or under the government, save the President of tlie United States 

 over and above them, the necessity tor the President to exercise this power 

 himself and none other, arising from the j'act that the law says so, (see 62d 

 Article of War, par. 13 and lo, General Reg. of the Army 1S47,) an argu- 

 ment by no means insignificant may also be derived from the words used in 

 the Article of War itself, "according to the nature of the case." An allu- 

 sion is here evidently made to the existence of circumstances which may vary 

 in their character, and call for the special judgment and discretion of the Pre- 

 sident ; and it may well be supposed that an ofticer whose rights were thus 

 to be disposed of, would feel himself entitled to this special judgment and 

 <Iiscretion. It is no disparagement to any one to say that an ofhcer would 

 feel his rights and interests more secure, under the decision of the President 

 than under any other officer of inferior grade. It is an irresistible inference 

 that the law so intended and so construed it, when this power was thus 

 personally and specifically deleg;ated. It is not improbable too, that pre- 

 judices take root in the army and grow rank ; and it is by no means* won- 

 derful that an officer who has secured to him i)y existing laws, the free and 

 impartial judejment of the Chief Magistr.ile of the nation, upon points touch- 

 ing his character, rank and honor, should be unwilling to trust his fortunes 

 to the decision of a fatal bias, that perchance may have had its origin in 

 the hot bed of controversial excitement, and be at least unf\ivora1)le to dis- 

 ])assionate decision. It may v\'ell be imagined that the law was made to 

 guard against evils of this kind, and surely if thei-e were none other to fear, 

 this alone would be sufficient to vindicate its wisdom and foresight. 



As the dictum has been put out by an officer high in rank, that brevets 

 are equal to commissions in the line, from which if true, it miglit be argued 

 that assignment would be unnecessary by any one ; I would beg leave to 

 i-emark that if this }iropositioii be incontrovertible, there would be an end 

 to all law on the sul)ject and the 62(1 Article of War be waste paper. If 

 l)revets convey full, positive, potential rank, how is it that officers daily sit 

 on courts martial in their own corps, and brevets are wholly impotent, not 

 contended for, not even discussed, as if by possibility they could take effect 

 there ? This could by no means be the case if brevet commissions were 

 full and complete commissions, competent to all ])urposes of militarv com- 

 mand, and in this respect standing on precisely the same fooling as in the 

 British service. It has been also said and written by an oflicer high in 

 rank, " wuth respect to staff officers in the presence of seniors assignment by 

 the common senior was necessary, (see Major General Scott's letter to Ge- 

 neral Taylor, November 17, 1H4-').) This same officer has written, it is 

 perfectly obvious from the whole structure of the aiiicle, (()lst article,) 

 tliat regimental officers' brevets only are restricted, and that too only within 

 the regiment or other established corps ; (see letter to Secretary at W^ar, 

 February, 1827.) in the same letter, page 41, the following case is put : 



