ted, but at the moment and in the situation of the country it
was natural. It strongly affected the conduct of the federal
legislators, and must be taken into the account when we try to
understand their attitude toward the army and the administration of
military affairs.

In the Senate, at a very early day after the opening of the session,
Mr. Wilson, chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, offered a
resolution (which passed without opposition) calling upon the
Secretary of War for "the number and names of the major-generals and
brigadier-generals in the service of the United States, and where
and how they are employed." [Footnote: Senate Journal, 3d Session,
37th Congress, Dec. 8, 1862.] This was, no doubt, the offspring of
an opinion in vogue in Congress, that the President had gone beyond
the authority of law in the number of these officers he had
appointed. If this were true, the course taken was not a friendly
one toward the administration. The whole list of appointments and
promotions would be submitted to the Senate for confirmation, and if
the statutory number had been exceeded, that body could stop
confirming when it reached the legal limit. There were, of course,
frequent consultations between the Congressional committees or the
individual members and the Secretary of War; but whatever efforts
there may have been to reach a quiet understanding failed. On the
21st of January, the Secretary not having responded to Mr. Wilson's
resolution, Mr. Rice of Minnesota offered another (which also passed
by unanimous consent), directing the Secretary of War "to inform the
Senate whether any more major and brigadier generals have been
appointed and paid than authorized by law; and if so, how many; give
names, dates of appointment and amounts paid." [Footnote: _Id_.,
Jan. 21, 1863.]

Two days later the Secretary sent in his reports in response to both
resolutions. To the first he replied that the interests of the
public service would not permit him to state "where and how" the
general officers were employed, but he gave the list of names. He
gave also a separate list of six major-generals who were not
assigned to any duty. [Footnote: These were McClellan, Fremont,
Cassius M. Clay, Buell (ordered before a military commission),
McDowell, and F. J. Porter (both before military courts in
connection with the second battle of Bull Run).] To the second
resolution he replied that "It is believed by this Department that
t