--739--
No. 200. [2d Session.
16th Congress.]
MARINE CORPS.
COMMUNICATED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 28, 1821.
Mr. Stevenson Archer made the following report:
The Committee of Expenditures in the Navy Department beg leave to report, that the performance of their duty in conformity with, and to the extent required by, the rules of the House, has been found impracticable. To investigate the various subjects referred to them, to inquire minutely into the expenditure of all public moneys appropriated for the naval service, and to ascertain whether these expenditures have been made with economy, and in strict conformity with the objects of Congress in making them, would require greater time and research than could be bestowed by any committee, without a total abandonment of all legislative duties. Indeed, the investigation of any considerable item of expenditure, when pursued in all its details, would be a work of time and labor. It was hoped, when the Committee of Expenditures was subdivided, and one appointed to examine into the faithful application of the public moneys in each great department of the Government, that results the most beneficial would grow out of the measure; and that unauthorized expenditure and wasteful extravagance, whether existing with the Higher or subordinate agents of the Government, from the certainty of detection, would be impeded in their secret march. The experience, however, of six years, the length of time since which these committees have been organized, has given abundant proof that they are inefficient for the purposes of their creation. Your committee respectfully suggests, that a satisfactory examination whether the expenditures of the respective Departments, in every particular, are justified by law; whether the claims from time to time satisfied and charged by the respective Departments, are supported by sufficient vouchers, establishing their justice both as it regards their character and amount, could only be made by a committee of Congress, who should be authorized to sit during the recess. After the adjournment of Congress, they could uninterruptedly pursue their investigations under every head of appropriation, in all the various branches of expenditure. And it cannot be doubted, but that, if abuses do exist, they would be able to detect them, and, by information thus elicited, would have it in their power to propose such measures as might be necessary to add to the economy of the Departments and the accountability of their officers. It is confidently believed that much money might be saved annually to the public coffers by the labors of a faithful and zealous committee, who would examine minutely for themselves, and who, without favor, fear, or affection, would expose to public view and public indignation the peculators of the treasury, if any such there be.
--740--
Your committee have attempted nothing like an examination of all the expenditures in the Navy Department, but have only turned their attention to such as are passing under the immediate view of Congress, or to such as by accident they have been directed; and as it is within their duty to report whether any and what retrenchments in the expenditures of the Department may be made without detriment to the public service, they respectfully ask leave to call the attention of the House to the Marine Corps, as at present established by law. The investigations given to this subject have induced a belief that its expenses might be lessened and its organization improved. The communications which have been held with the Secretary of the Navy, upon this subject, are herewith submitted. They will very briefly explain the views entertained by the committee, and the reasons submitted by the Department against the plan of reduction and reorganization contemplated. The benefits resulting from it will chiefly be found in the saving of the expenditure of public money. The expenses of the Marine Corps for the present year, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury, will be as follows:
For pay of officers and men, |
$93,233 00 |
Subsistence, |
77,161 00 |
Clothing, |
30,686 31 |
Fuel, |
6,857 50 |
Contingent expenses, |
14,000 00 |
$320,936 81 |
When it is considered that the Marine Corps, in the number of its officers and men, only exceeds a regiment of infantry by one hundred and fifty-seven, and that the estimate for a regiment of infantry is only $73,594, it is apparent that the expenses of the establishment may and ought to be reduced.
To effectuate this object, your committee propose reducing the pay of the corps to that of the army. They also contemplate reducing the number of privates from seven hundred and fifty to six hundred and fifty. Connected with this object of economy, and to improve the organization of the corps, it is proposed to abolish the offices of lieutenant colonel commandant and quartermaster. The following would be the estimated expense of the corps, if reduced as proposed:
For pay of officers and men, including subsistence of officers, |
$82,011 00 |
Subsistence for 820 non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, |
53,470 00 |
Clothing |
29,858 00 |
Fuel, |
6,095 00 |
Contingencies, |
14,000 00 |
$185,434 00 |
Making a difference in favor of the measure proposed, of $35,502 81.
Against this reduction no weighty objections seem to interpose.
It is urged, that by depriving the corps of a military head, its due discipline would not be so well preserved as by the present organization. In answer to this, the committee will observe that the duties of the colonel commandant are altogether of a civil character. His troops are never together, but are either at sea or are dispersed over the United States, at the various posts, for the preservation of the public property, while that portion of the corps stationed at the city of Washington, under the immediate eye of the colonel, scarcely ever exceeds a captain's command. An examination of the duties, in detail of the colonel commandant, as given by himself in a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dated 7th February, 1821, and communicated to the House, will satisfactorily demonstrate they are of such a character that they might and ought to be performed by an officer attached to the civil department of the Government; and that, in addition to these duties, he could perform all those which are at present assigned to the quartermaster. Every thing connected with the military character and the administration of the corps being placed immediately under the view of the Secretary of the Navy, information could at all times be had of its state and condition, and its government would in all probability be benefited by its being brought nearer to the source of power.
It has been doubted whether the number of privates could be reduced without injury to the service; but your committee beg leave to say that it is not contemplated, as they apprehend, to increase the number of vessels in service, and the number of marines now at sea in our various ships of war are only two hundred and sixty-four; the remainder are employed as guards to our public property, at the various naval stations, in different sections of the Union, except that portion of them which remains at head-quarters. A greater number for sea service will consequently not be wanted, unless in the event of war, and as guards merely for the naval stations; and for disciplining and preparing the men for sea a less number will be amply sufficient. In illustration of this idea, they beg leave to present to the House papers marked C and D, which will show that a sufficient number of men will be retained for all necessary purposes. The paper marked C will show the distribution and strength of the corps at present; that marked D will show the distribution which might be made under the organization proposed. In furtherance of these views, your Committee ask leave to report a bill "providing for the pay and re-organization of the Marine Corps."
The attention of your committee, in the course of their investigations, has been turned upon a subject which, although, as it regards the amount of the claims in controversy, is but very trivial, yet the principle involved is of considerable importance. They had been induced to call for information in relation to the accounts of judge advocates on the trials of sundry officers of the marine corps. These accounts, together with the reasons by which they are attempted to be vindicated, are presented in the papers which accompany this report. It appears, that in the case of Colonel Wharton, the judge advocate was allowed the sum of five hundred dollars. In the trial of Colonel Gale, the judge advocate, Lieutenant Gardner, charges in his account for twenty-two days, at the rate of ten dollars per day. Both these accounts are approved by a clerk in the Navy Department, in the name of the Secretary of the Navy. In the former case, the judge advocate was a citizen; in the latter, he was an officer of the army. The expenditures in these two cases, to the extent of the claims, appear not to be justified by any law of which your committee are aware; the only circumstance urged in vindication of the allowance of these claims, is that it was sanctioned by precedent; and this furnishes but a feeble justification where payments and allowances are made, not only without law, but against the acts of Congress, as far as any can be found which have any application to the subject. These accounts may not be unreasonable in their amounts; a fair equivalent may have been rendered for them in the labor and services of these gentlemen. Of this, however, the committee know nothing, except what appears from the accounts themselves; but although these claims may, by possibility, have been equitable, it does not follow, that unless their payment has been provided for by law, that they should be paid; still less does it follow, that a clerk can assume powers vested in the head of a Department, and can allow and disallow claims, at pleasure against the nation. For although he is said only to act upon claims, so as to allow them when they are sanctioned by precedent, yet is he made the judge fully of the analogy of such cases as may be presented to him. The toleration of such proceedings by an individual who, from his appointment and situation, has no just responsibility, might lead to consequences of a serious character in our expenditures. In the case of Lieutenant Gardner, he has been allowed ten dollars per day. The act of Congress, fixing the military peace establishment, provided that an allowance should be made to judge advocates of $1 25, in addition to their other pay; it is true, this act was solely applicable to the army, yet the laws in relation to the Marine Corps being silent on the subject, it would be doing no injustice to the officer to allow him the same compensation which he would have had for his services on the court martial of an officer of the army, where his duties could be in no way less irksome or laborious; and the Department would have been justified in applying the provisions of this law to his case, for although he did not come within the letter of the law, by a just analogy he came within its spirit.
--741--
The court for the trial of Colonel Gale convened on the 18th, and adjourned sine die on the 27th of September last, having been in session eleven days; yet is Lieutenant Gardner allowed for twenty-two days. If the customary mode had been pursued, the certificate of the president of the court would have been required as to the time the Judge Advocate had been employed; yet it does not appear that this had been obtained before the approval of the account, and he was accordingly allowed ten dollars a day from the date of the order, Sunday excepted. As far as appears, no evidence was required of the number of days he was necessarily employed in the duties of the court, although the law expressly declares (if it can be considered as having applicability to this subject) that he shall have an allowance only for such days. The laws appear to make no provision for copies of records and proceedings, nor does it seem necessary that they should. It is certainly a part of the duty of a Judge Advocate to keep a record of the proceedings of the court, and to file these proceedings in the proper Department: for this, with his other duties, a per diem allowance is made. Your committee conceive the extra allowance not to be justified. Upon this subject it seems the practice had been somewhat variant. The decision, then, of the clerk was not mere matter of form, but of substance; and it may be fairly inferred that it was not according to the usual allowance, because it is said, in the communication of the Secretary of the Navy, that, since his appointment to preside over the Department, no instance of the kind had occurred which had come within his knowledge. In the case of Colonel Wharton, the Judge Advocate appears to have had no such allowance, Mr. Wilcock's account against the Government for five hundred dollars was passed and approved by the same clerk. He, as far as appears from his account, claimed no daily allowance, but demanded a sum in gross for his services. If he obtained any certificate from the president of the court martial of the number of days he was necessarily employed, it is unknown to your committee. They presume none such was obtained, as, in that event, it would probably have appeared on the face of the account. Your committee conclude with observing that these allowances, whether we regard the manner of their approval, or the character of the claims themselves, are not justified by law.
C.
Table showing the present distribution and strength of the marine corps.
Where stationed. |
Lieut. Colonels. |
Captains. |
First Lieutenants. |
Second Lieutenants. |
Sergeants. |
Corporals. |
Musicians. |
Privates |
At Head-quarters, |
1 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
15 |
9 |
16 |
90 |
Navy yard, |
1 |
3 |
27 |
|||||
Magazine, |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
New Orleans, |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
44 |
||
New York, |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
55 |
|
Philadelphia, |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
46 |
||
Norfolk, |
1 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
43 |
||
Boston, |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
59 |
|
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
31 |
||
Sackett's Harbor, |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
25 |
|||
Erie, Pennsylvania, |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
17 |
|||
Sea service, |
6 |
3 |
19 |
24 |
11 |
264 |
||
Actual strength in December last, |
1 |
7 |
24 |
15 |
66 |
63 |
38 |
708 |
D.
Distribution which might be made under the organization proposed.
Where to be stationed. |
Captains. |
First Lieutenants. |
Second Lieutenants. |
Sergeants. |
Corporals. |
Musicians. |
Privates |
At Navy yard, Washington, |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
44 |
Magazine, |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
||
New Orleans, |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
45 |
New York, |
1 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
58 |
Philadelphia, |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
48 |
Norfolk, |
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
45 |
Boston, |
1 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
60 |
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
32 |
Sackett's Harbor, |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
26 |
|
Erie, Pennsylvania, |
1 |
1 |
2 |
18 |
|||
Sea service, |
2 |
6 |
2 |
20 |
24 |
12 |
264 |
Leaving, |
1 |
9 |
13 |
4 |
|||
Total |
9 |
24 |
16 |
60 |
70 |
40 |
650 |
Committee Room, February 16, 1821.
Sir:
The Committee on Naval Expenditures have it in contemplation to report a bill, (a copy of which is herewith enclosed, marked A,) entitled "A bill providing for the pay and organization of the marine corps."
They transmit you herewith a statement, (marked B,) to show that, although reduced as proposed, the corps will retain its efficiency; that the same number of men may still be stationed at every post, except at head-quarters; and that there will still be the same number for sea service. From this statement it will be perceived that it is not con-
--742--
templated to have any of the corps stationed at head-quarters. We are not aware fully of what has heretofore been the practice, but presume that privates have generally been enlisted, drilled, and prepared for sea service, at headquarters; but as it is always known to the Department of the Navy at what time any vessel will sail from a particular port for a considerable time before she actually sails, we conceive that the enlistment of men at the port from whence the vessel is to sail, or at the nearest naval station, would be a saving of the expenses resulting from the transportation of the privates from head-quarters to New York, Boston, Portsmouth, or New Orleans.
The offices of colonel and quartermaster are proposed to be abolished, and their duties transferred to an office proposed to be created in the civil department of the Government. The necessity for the former cannot be perceived, as there is not a colonel's command, even if the whole corps were collected at one station, and as his services are never required at sea. The duties of quartermaster may with facility be performed by the officer proposed to be appointed by the bill. In the corps as at present organized, the duties of quartermaster, as the committee believe, at every post, except at head-quarters, are performed by quartermaster-sergeants, under the control of the commanding officer, who is responsible to the quartermaster here. These duties can all be performed as heretofore, and the accountability of officers commanding at each station may be to the adjutant and inspector under this bill, as it has heretofore been to the quartermaster. Such an officer will be the less necessary, as, in the proposed arrangement, few, if any, of the corps would be stationed at this city.
The above are the views of the committee; but they are unwilling to report the hill to the House without presenting it to the head of the Department, who is presumed to be particularly conversant with the subject. They respectfully request that you will suggest any modification of its details which may be better calculated to carry into effect their intentions: and I am directed to say that it would be gratifying to the committee to receive your views of the expediency of the proposed reorganization of the marine corps. Their impressions are strong that it would operate as a saving to the Government of thirty or forty thousand dollars annually, without diminishing the efficiency of the corps.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
STEVENSON ARCHER.
Hon. Smith Thompson.
Navy Department, February 23, 1821.
Sir:
I have received your letter of the 16th instant, accompanied with a draught of a bill providing for the pay and organization of the marine corps, which the committee, of which you are chairman, purpose reporting to the House. From the little time I have had to spare from other avocations, and to bestow on this subject, I am not able to discover the real benefit which the proposed alteration, as to the organization of the corps, is calculated to effect. The only material amendment appears to be abolishing the offices of lieutenant colonel and quartermaster, and substituting an adjutant and inspector, whose office is to be attached to the Department of the Navy, and who is to perform the duties at present performed by the adjutant and inspector, and the quartermaster, thus leaving the corps without any military head, which, I should think, was not so well calculated to promote due discipline as the present organization.
It appears to me there must be some mistake as to the saving you mention this measure would produce. The number and pay of the commissioned officers, except the quartermaster, are the same as in the present organization; all the saving, therefore, must be in the reduction of the non-commissioned officers and privates.
If the only object is saving expense to the Government, and it should be thought by the committee that the present number of privates is greater than the service requires, the best mode, it appears to me, to effect the object, would be simply to reduce the number of privates; though I should much doubt whether this could be done with propriety, to any considerable extent, if the same number of vessels as at present are kept in service, and guards for the protection of our navy yards are to be furnished from this corps.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SMITH THOMPSON.
Hon. Stevenson Archer, Chairman Committee on Naval Expenditures, House of Representatives.
Navy Department, February 13, 1831.
Sir:
In answer to the inquiries made by your letter of the 8th instant, I would beg leave to state, that there is no express provision by law for the allowance to be made to a judge advocate attending a court martial.
The regular and established compensation, according to the practice of this Department for some years past, has been ten dollars per day; never, I believe, under that sum, and many times, in important cases, much higher.
The usual course is to require the certificate of the president of the court as to the time the Judge Advocate has been employed. In some cases, I understand, the Advocate has had an allowance made for making out the record: I am not aware of any instance of the kind since I have been in the Department. But if he has a per diem allowance, and is necessarily engaged some time in making out a fair copy of the record to be filed, I see no reasonable objection to such an allowance; and the same rule would seem justly to apply to all time necessarily spent in and about the business of the court.
The chief clerk in the Department has no authority, by any express law, to approve accounts; this, according to the course of the Department, is done by the Secretary. In his absence, however, and when the account is according to the usual allowance made, so that the approval is mere matter of form, the chief clerk sometimes approves, purporting to be done by order of the Secretary.
Mr. Homans, in the case referred to in your letter, has allowed ten dollars per day to the Judge Advocate, according to the time presented by him in his account, and thirty dollars for the record. This he conceived himself justified in doing by the precedent in the case of the late Colonel Wharton, in which a much larger sum was allowed.
I transmit to you, herewith, a letter addressed to me by the Judge Advocate, explaining the grounds upon which he claimed the compensation allowed him.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant,
SMITH THOMPSON.
Hon. Stevenson Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Expenditures, House of Representatives.
Washington, February 1, 1821.
Sir:
Some inquiries having, I understand, been made by the Committee on Navy Expenditures, respecting the amount of my compensation as Judge Advocate in the trial of Lieutenant Colonel Gale, commandant of marines, I beg leave to submit to you the following remarks in explanation of the account which I rendered for that service:
The date of the order by which this duty devolved on me was the 7th of September last, and the close of the trial was on the 29th of the same month. The number of days for which I charged is twenty-two; one Sunday during the actual session of the court being deducted. The rate of compensation, the lowest I apprehend on record for the services of a Special Judge Advocate, was ten dollars per diem. The amount of this item was two hundred and twenty dollars, to which is added the customary charge of thirty dollars for the record and proceedings.
When it is considered that the Judge Advocate is the administrative officer of the court, its legal adviser, its sheriff; and its clerk, and that he acts also in the duplicate capacity of counsellor for the prosecution and the prisoner.
--743--
it will be perceived that much time and actual labor are indispensable in making the necessary preparations for the trial; in draughting the charges and specifications in the most legal form; in collecting the documents for the proceedings; in arranging evidence, summoning numerous witnesses, consulting with the prosecutor and the prisoner, &c. And further time and labor it will be perceived are requisite, after the court has terminated its session, in the task of making up the proceedings for the approving authority. As his labors, therefore, are not measurable by the commencement and termination of the trial, so it would obviously be unreasonable to limit his daily compensation to that term. And, accordingly, in the charges which I made for my services, I embraced the whole period during which my services in this capacity were actually bestowed on this duty.
The chief clerk of the Navy Department, who, from his situation, is well qualified to estimate the nature and extent of the duties, thought my claim a reasonable one, and, during your absence from the city, and in your behalf, approved the account.
In the trial of Lieutenant Colonel Wharton, an officer of the same grade and department of the service, and holding precisely the same post as the prisoner in this, the compensation of the Judge Advocate was five hundred dollars; and in the court of inquiry previously held in that officer's case, in reference to the very charges investigated on his trial, the legal adviser of the court received a larger amount in compensation for his services. But I conceive it unnecessary to adduce more precedents, or make further comment on the subject, and with full confidence remit it to your judgment.
I have the honor to be, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN L. GARDNER.
Hon. Smith Thompson, Secretary of the Navy.
Navy Department, February 1, 1821.
In compliance with your communication of 28th January, in behalf of the committee of which you are chairman, I have the honor to enclose to you the copies of the papers required, numbered 1, 2, and 3.
I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
SMITH THOMPSON.
Hon. Stevenson Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Navy Department.
No. 1.
Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, September 7, 1820.
GENERAL ORDER.
A general court martial will convene at the marine barracks in Washington, on Monday the 18th day of September, 1820, for the trial of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Gale, of the marine corps, and such other prisoners as may be brought before it: of which court,
Brigadier General T. S. Jesup is President; and
Lieutenant J. L. Gardner, corps of artillery, Special Judge Advocate.
Members.
Colonel George Gibson, commissary general of subsistence.
Lieutenant Colonel George Bomford, ordnance.
Captain J. S. Nelson, ordnance.
Captain J. H. Hook, 4th infantry.
Captain W. Anderson, marine corps.
Captain S. E. Watson, marine corps.
Supernumeraries.
First Lieutenant B. Richardson, marine corps.
First Lieutenant R. M. Desha, marine corps.
Second Lieutenant S. Cooper, light artillery.
More officers cannot be detailed, nor more rank designated, without manifest injury to the service. Brevet Major S. Miller, of the marine corps, has been detailed as prosecutor, and will report to the Judge Advocate charges and materials for specifications, and designate evidence in support of the same, preparatory to the trial of Lieutenant Colonel Gale.
By order: D. PARKER,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
No. 2.
The United States, To John L. Gardner, Dr.
For my services as Judge Advocate on the general court martial convened under general orders of the 7th instant, at this city, for the trial, of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Gale, commandant of marines, from the date of the order to the close of the proceedings in the case on the 29th instant, except one Sunday, being twenty-two days at $10 per day, |
$220 |
Record and copy of proceedings, |
30 |
$250 |
Approved: For the Secretary of the Navy,
BENJAMIN HOMANS.
Washington City, September 30, 1820.
Received, September 30th, 1820, of Lieutenant R. M. Desha, paymaster of the marine corps, two hundred and fifty dollars in full of the above account
JOHN L. GARDNER.
A true copy. R. M. DESHA, P. M. M. C.
No. 3.
The court martial convened for the trial of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Gale, assembled at the marine barracks in the city of Washington on the 18th day of September, 1820, and adjourned sine die on the 29th day of the same month.
--744--
Navy Department, February 14, 1821.
Sir:
In reply to your letter, dated the 13th instant, I have the honor to inform you that Samuel Wilcocks, Esq. of Philadelphia, was appointed by the War Department to officiate at the trial of the late Colonel Wharton, as Special Judge Advocate, and that he did not, at that period, belong either to the army or navy.
Enclosed is a copy of the account presented by the Judge Advocate, which shows the amount allowed to him for Ms services.
I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
SMITH THOMPSON.
Hon. Stevenson Archer, Chairman Committee Naval Expenditures,
House of Representatives.
Washington, September 23, 1817.
The United States,
To Samuel Wilcocks, Dr.
To services as Special Judge Advocate on the trial of Lieutenant Colonel F. Wharton, of the marine corps, $500.
Navy Department, September 23, 1817.
Approved: By order of the Secretary of the Navy,
BENJAMIN HOMANS.
Received, September 23, 1817, a warrant, No. 461, drawn by the Secretary of the Navy, in my favor, for five hundred dollars, in full of this account.
SAMUEL WILCOCKS.
Treasury Department, Fourth Auditor's Office, February 14, 1821.
A true copy of the account on file in this office.
CONSTANT FREEMAN.
Navy Department, February 16, 1821.
Sir:
In reply to your letter, dated the 15th instant, inquiring "how many days the court martial for the trial of Colonel Wharton held its sessions," I have the honor to state, for the information of the committee of which you are chairman, that the court martial for the trial of Colonel Wharton, of which, Samuel Wilcocks, Esq. was Judge Advocate, assembled on the 10th September, 1817, and adjourned, sine die, on the 13th of said month, having previously determined that they had no jurisdiction of the case. On the 30th of September, 1817, the court reassembled under a new order, being augmented by the addition of four other members, Mr. Wilcocks still continuing the Judge Advocate, and adjourned, sine die, on the 22d of September, 1817.
With great respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
SMITH THOMPSON.
Hon. Stevenson Archer, Chairman Committee Naval Expenditures,House of Representatives.