REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL. WAR DEPARTMENT, INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, D. C., October 11, 1875. SIR: I have the honor to report that the services performed by the officers of the Inspector-General's Department during the past year have been as follows: Under the act of Congress approved April 20, 1874, frequent and scrutinizing inspections of the accounts of disbursing-officers of the Army have been made, and the necessity and economy of the expenditures, as well as their conformity with the laws appropriating the money, have been made subjects of critical investigation. Inclosed herewith are the reports of the inspections made under the law above cited. My own duties at the War Department have chiefly been confined to the supervision and direction of the affairs of the inspection branch of the service. Inspectors-General Sacket, Schriver, Davis, and Hardie have been busily occupied during the year in making inspections and special investigations under the orders of the Secretary of War. They have inspected the Division of the Atlantic and the Departments of the Missouri, Texas, and Arizona, and their reports show that they have carefully and searchingly examined the personnel and matériel of the Army at all the remote and widely dispersed posts, stations, and depots within the limits of their inspections. Besides these, other minor inspections and investigations have, from time to time, been made by these officers, thus occupying all their time and involving voluminous reports, which have been made without the expenditure of a dollar for clerical assistance. The inspectors-general report, as they have done in previous inspections, that the commanders of the departments rendered great assistance to them in the execution of their duties by directing that the most ample facilities should be afforded them to investigate every branch of the service at all the posts and stations within their respective commands. The inspectors' reports also show that the officers generally gladly availed themselves of the opportunity afforded by the inspectors' visits to ask instruction relative to the correct interpretation of doubtful points of law, regulations, and orders, and upon other mooted questions regarding the proper performance of military duties; and it seems to me reasonable to presume that the extended and diversified experience of these officers, both in the staff and line of the Army, eminently qualify them to give suitable answers to questions of this character, as well as sound advice and instruction to young and inexperienced officers. This, besides promoting social harmony, has doubtless tended to produce uniformity in the manner of performing military duty in different depart ments and localities, and will unquestionably fortify and encourage zeal ous and competent officers in their action, and thus greatly conduce to the discipline and efficiency of the Army. The three assistant inspectors-general, Lieut. Cols. R. Jones and A. Baird and Maj. E. H. Ludington, have been attached to the headquarters of the Military Divisions of the Pacific, Missouri, and Atlantic, respectively, and have been engaged in the performance of the duties connected with their offices under the orders of the generals commanding the divisions. They have also, under the orders of the Secretary of War, inspected the accounts of some of the officers disbursing money within the divisions and not subject to the orders of the divisioncommanders. The following-named officers are now serving as acting assistant inspectors-general: Lieut. Col. E. S. Otis, Twenty-second Infantry; Lieut. Col. C. Grover, Third Cavalry; Maj. A. W. Evans, Third Cavalry, and Capt. G. B. Russell, Ninth Infantry, and attached, respectively, to the headquarters of the Departments of Dakota, the Platte, Arizona, and the Gulf. EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS AS SERVANTS. The inspections made during the past year have shown the necessity for some legislation upon a matter alluded to in my last annual report, and which seems to me of such manifest importance to the best interests of the service, that I venture again to invite your attention to the subject by quoting from that report: The employment of servants for officers stationed at remote military posts in the Indian and mining districts of our country is worthy of attention, and seems to demand early legislation. Section 14 of the act of July 15, 1870, makes it "unlawful for any officer to use any enlisted man as a servant in any case whatever." Before this enactment the Army Regulations permitted an officer, when serving with his company, to take a soldier as waiter, (with his consent,) and the soldier thus employed was so reported and mustered, with a view to having his pay and allowances charged to the officer employing him. Soldiers thus serving were required to be equipped in every respect according to the rules of the service, and to attend reviews, inspections, drills, &c., and many soldiers preferred this service to doing guard and other military duty. Since the prohibitory enactment, frequent emergencies have occurred where it has been absolutely impossible for officers to hire civilian servants at any price, and they have been driven to the alternative of performing servant's work themselves and neglecting their appropriate duties, or violating the law by using the voluntary labor of soldiers. Even when officers, in their efforts to avoid this, have engaged servants in the Eastern States and transferred them, at an expense they could illy afford, to their remote stations, in most cases they soon found themselves destitute, as the servants would leave for positions more remunerative than the officers could offer. Moreover, it often occurs that fear prevents civilian servants from accompanying officers ordered to posts or going upon expeditions in the vicinity of hostile Indians. . Besides, many have declined going to places where they were debarred the usual pleasures of civilized life, so that it is seldom that a civilian servant can be induced to remain any great length of time at any of our frontier stations. It would be a violation of the law if a commissioned officer employed and paid an enlisted man who, with his own consent in the intervals of military duty, performed servant's work for him. The officer must therefore, when he cannot procure the services of a civilian, either feed, groom, and attend to his own horse, cook his own meals, wash his own linen, black his own boots, and perform all other necessary servant's work, which would leave him but little time to attend to the care of his men and other military duties, or he must take upon himself the consequences of violating the law. If deemed necessary, further arguments might be adduced to prove the expediency and, indeed, necessity, for legislation which will, under certain circumstances and proper regulations, authorize the employment of soldiers as servants by officers, as is now allowed in almost every other army where the necessity is not so urgent as in ours. |