In speaking of our present army organization, as compared with those of the different European powers which he was sent to examine and report upon, Captain McClelland says:—­

“Our force of artillery is large in proportion to the other arms of service, while the number of our engineer troops is ridiculously and shamefully small; it is, therefore, more than probable that in any future siege it will be easy for the artillery to construct their own batteries, while the engineers will be sufficiently burdened by the construction of the other works of attack; we have now, at last, the germ of an artillery school of practice; I would then suggest, for the consideration of the Secretary, the propriety of causing the artillery to construct their own batteries.  The position and armament of siege batteries should be determined by consultation between the engineers and the artillery, the former having the preponderating voice, in order to secure the necessary harmony and connection between all parts of the works of attack.  This change,” he says, “will require to be introduced into the artillery manual and course of instruction everything in relation to the preparation of the fascines, gabions, platforms, and magazines, the dimensions of batteries, manner of arranging, working parties, etc.”

With regard to the suggestion of Captain McClellan, it is sufficient to remark, that it seeks to remedy one evil by introducing another equally as great and equally as objectionable.  The defect in our present army organization is that one of its arms is too small for the duties which, from the very nature of military service, naturally and properly belong to it; and it surely is no remedy for this defect to permanently transfer a part of these duties to another arm.  As well might it be said, if our artillery force were “ridiculously and shamefully small” in proportion to the infantry and cavalry, that the field batteries should be permanently transferred to those arms, and that light artillery tactics should be comprised in our infantry and cavalry manuals.

There are certain duties which the military experience of ages has shown to properly and almost necessarily belong to each particular arm of an army organization, and every attempt to make one branch perform the appropriate duties of another has invariably destroyed its efficiency for either service.  Suppose our medical corps were “ridiculously and shamefully small” in proportion to our pay department, shall our paymasters perform the duties of surgery, and be instructed in the use of the scalpel and amputating instruments!  This is, perhaps, an extreme case, but it serves to illustrate the principle.