rnicious, from the War
Department or any other source. By such means the President could
have actually exercised the chief command imposed upon him by the
Constitution, sharing in due measure with his chief military officer
the responsibilities imposed by their high offices. In no other
way, it is believed, can the duties imposed upon a constitutional
commander-in-chief who is not possessed of military education and
experience be fully and conscientiously performed. Indeed, such
is the method pursued by great military sovereigns all over the
world, except in a few instances where the monarch believes himself,
either truly or falsely, superior in military ability to his chief
of staff. It is only in this country, where the chief of state
has generally no military training, and his war minister the same,
that a chief of staff of the army is supposed to be unnecessary.
While it is easy to understand the reasons which led to the action
of the government in the spring of 1864, it is much less easy to
understand why some reasonable approximation to that course, as
above suggested, and in accord with the practice of all military
nations, has never been adopted as a permanent system in this
country. Perhaps it may be like the case of that citizen of Arkansas
who did not mend the roof of his house when it was not raining
because it did not then need mending. But it would seem the part
of wisdom to perfect the military system so far as practicable in
time of peace rather then continue a fruitless controversy over
the exact location of an undefined and undefinable line supposed
to separate the military administration from the command in the
army, or the functions of the Secretary of War from those of the
commanding general. The experience of many years has shown that
the Secretary was sure to get on both sides of that line, no matter
where it was drawn. But it is encouraging to note that some
experiments made in more recent years, in the direction of the
generally recognized sound military system, have not proved by any
means unsatisfactory.

GENERAL GRANT'S SPECIAL POWERS

This chronic controversy between the military administration and
the command once gave rise to one of the most dangerous crises in
American history. The facts in respect to the origin of that crisis
soon became obscured by other events, and have never been correctly
published.

The assassination of Pres