25 [ 1 ] 



On the arrival of the regiment, the [gallant lirevi^t Colonel Plvinpton 

 wotild, no (louht, have at once, and of ri;j;ht assumed the command" of tlu^ 

 post, under the (3ist and 62(1 Articles of War, but for the repeate<[ attempts 

 made at Washington, l)y orders and by regulations to repeal without the 

 concurrence of Congress that article — a part of the statute law of the land, 

 (see President Jackson's order August 13, 1829,) signed by Mr. Secretary 

 Eaton, but which, in fact, as is well known in this building was wiitteii 

 hy (jeneral M'Comb against me, and got published without the knowledge 

 of the President, (see also paragraphs 1() and 17, page 4, General Regu- 

 lations of the Army,) wliere the principles and nearly the words of that 

 order are embodied — against the plainest meaning and intent of the Gist 

 article. In the present case (Jeiferson Earracks) tliere were three detach- 

 ments of different corps temporarily on duty together — 1st, Col. Fauntle- 

 roy, his regimental staff and band. 2d, brevet Colonel Plyrapton with six 

 companies of the 7th infantry, and 3d, a company of artillery. 



But according to the order of 1S29, copied into the General Regulations 

 brevet rank is of no effect without assignment — a term and a restriction 

 (by the way) wholly unknown to the law of the land, and Plympton asked 

 1o be assigned. The assignment was giv^n by the War Department, and 

 why not? Plympton is the older soldier- He served gallantly throughout 

 the war of 1812, and he won the brevet of full Colonel in Mexico by dis- 

 tinguished conduct again and again, in front of the enemy — where is the 

 brevet of Col. Fuuntleroy ? It may be replied that he never had the good 

 fortune to be in a position to win a brevet'; true, but is his misfortune ito 

 over-ride the good fortune and high merit -combined, of Plympton ? Is not 

 brevet rank as much the creation of law and granted under as high solem- 

 nities as ordinary rank? If there be any important difference between the 

 two, it is in favor of brevets. 



Respectfully submitted 



To the Secretary of War. 



VVlNFIELD SCOTT. 



Head Quarters of the Army, 



Washington, February 11, 1851, 



The letter of Colonel Fauntleroy to the Presid^t'nt, has be#n carefully 

 considered, both by him and the Secretary of War, and they corrcur in tlie 

 opinion that he has no ground of complaint whatever. 



The right of the President to assign an officer to command according to 

 his brevet rank is not disputed. Of the circumstances that may require 

 ihe exercise of this power in a particular case, the law constitutes him the 

 sole judge, and when an order of that nature has been issued, an officer havS 

 no more right to demand the reason that ])rompted him 1o issue it, than he 

 lias to demand the reasons for any other order issued by his su[)erior. 

 Even were it otherwise, Colonel Fauntleroy might have found in the fact 

 stated by the General-in-chief, that no ])ortion of his command was, or 

 was likely to be stationed at Jefferson barracks, while nearly the whole of 

 Lieutenant Colonel Plympton's regiment was there ; a sufficient reason fur 

 assigning the command of that post to the latter. 



It is an error too, to suppose that the effect of that order was to place 

 Colonel Fauntleroy under the counnand of his inferior. Such would have 

 Ex.— 3 



