No. 124.

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, December 10, 1902.

The following has been received from the War Department and is published for the information and guidance of all concerned:

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 6, 1902.

The President of the United States, by order dated November 21, 1902, reserved and set apart for military purposes as additions to the military reservation made by Executive Order of December 31, 1898 (G. O., No. 6, A. G. O.. January 14, 1899), at Haines Mission, near Dyea, in the Territory of Alaska, the following-described tracts of public land, subject to any valid claims or titles heretofore acquired, viz:

1. All the lands included within the following limits: Beginning at the northwest corner of said military reservation (corner 4 of the existing reservation); thence south two thousand seven (2,007) feet to corner 2 on the east shore of the Chilkat Inlet; thence meandering along the said shore of the Chilkat Inlet, S. 41° 34' E. eighteen thousand nine hundred fortyfive (18,945) feet to corner 3; thence across the peninsula to the west shore of Lynn Canal, E. seven thousand three hundred (7,300) feet, more or less, to corner 4; thence meandering along the shore of Lynn Canal, N. 41° 06′ W. eleven thousand nine hundred forty-three (11,943) feet, more or less, to corner 5 (corner 2 of existing reservation); thence along the south boundary of said reservation., W. five thousand two hundred eighty (5,280) feet to corner 6 (corner 3 of existing reservation); thence along the west boundary of said reservation, N. 47° 08′ W. ten thousand five hundred sixty (10,560) feet to point of beginning.

2. All the land within the following limits to secure a clay deposit for making roads on the reservation: Beginning at a post situated about four thousand six hundred forty (4,640) feet west of the approach to the present wharf at Haines, Alaska; thence east five hundred (500) feet to corner 2; thence north five hundred (500) feet to corner 3; thence west five hundred (500) feet to corner 4; thence south five hundred (500) feet to corner 1, the point of beginning. Area 5.74 acres.

The bearings are true. The variation of the needle at corner 1 is 31° 30' E., and the other courses were determined by relative angles, as the magnetic iron ore in this section causes a different variation for every point.

ELIHU ROOT,

Secretary of War.

BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL MILES:

H. C. CORBIN,

Adjutant General,

Major General, U. S. Army.

No. 125.

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, December 11, 1902.

By direction of the Acting Secretary of War, the following remarks of the board of officers of November 20, 1902, on medals of honor and certificates of merit, upon the subject of the award of medals of honor, are published to the Army for the information of all concerned:

*

*

*

*

*

An examination of the published list of "Medals of honor, issued by the War Department, up to and including October 31, 1897," shows that some medals have been awarded for "soldier-like qualities" under the provisions of the resolution of Congress approved July 12, 1862. Under the regulations of the President dated June 26, 1897, published as paragraph 195 of the Army Regulations of 1901 (copy inclosed), medals of honor can not now be awarded solely for "soldier-like qualities," neither can they be awarded for some of the deeds mentioned in the published list referred to, for which medals were conferred prior to 1897. The regulations of the President are based upon the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, which authorized the President to present medals of honor to "such officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates as have most distinguished, or who may hereafter most distinguish themselves in action," and applications are classified as follows:

1. Those for services rendered prior to January 1, 1890.

2. Those for services rendered subsequent to January 1, 1890.

3. Those for services rendered after June 30, 1897.

Those of the first class embrace the civil war period and in most of these cases there is an entire lack of record evidence of individual acts of heroism; that is, of any kind of a record of such acts made at the time. There was no regulation on the subject until 1897 and the great majority of cases rest upon the affidavits of witnesses, embodying statements of their recollection of events that occurred more than thirty-six years ago. With reference to cases subsequent to January 1, 1890, the regulations require recommendations to be made at the time of the action, while cases arising after June 30, 1897, are required to be forwarded within one year after the performance of the act for which the award is claimed, through regular channels, with the opinion of the commanding officers indorsed thereon, after thorough investigation.

If a regulation had been in force during the civil war with requirements similar to those applying to cases since June 30, 1897, no doubt many would have received medals who are now unable to furnish satisfactory evidence, and many now dead would have been thus honored. As a consequence, numerous unrecorded heroes are discriminated against when medals are awarded for service during the civil war upon applications filed long after the event.

The difficulties involved in the decision of cases of this class are great, but the board has been aided and guided in the consideration of cases referred to it by the paragraph (195) of the Regulations referred to and by the following decisions of Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of War: Assistant Secretary Doe, January 11, 1894. (R. & P., 379,769):

It does not seem to me that Congressional medals of honor were intended to be given to officers for leading their commands in action, whatever measure of gallantry may have been shown in such leadership. As I view

the law, these medals were intended as rewards for conspicuous acts of personal bravery or self-sacrifice rather beyond the mere call of duty, and not for acts wholly within the line of official duty, however nobly performed. The application in this case is therefore denied. While the records show most gallant and meritorious service, yet the case does not fall within either the letter or the spirit of the law in reference to medals of honor.

Assistant Secretary Doe, January 22, 1894. (R. & P., 379,769):

I do not concur in the argument or assertion that it would be dangerous to military discipline to encourage the belief that these medals are offered by the Government for service rather beyond the mere call of duty, or that such offer would induce officers or soldiers to do "not the duty which they had been ordered or required to do, but some other act calculated to attract attention." The argument does not commend itself to my judg ment, for I believe that the American officer, as well as enlisted man, as an almost universal rule is devoted and faithful to his duty in the highest sense of the word, and no merely possible reward for an exceptionally gallant or distinguished act of heroism or devotion will lead him aside from, or cause him to neglect, his plain duty.

I am perfectly aware that it is not generally the duty of officers of high rank to lead their troops in action: but when, in great emergencies, the presence at the head of his troops of the commanding officer is necessary to encourage his men, it becomes his duty to lead them in the assault:" and since it becomes his duty, and since nearly every officer in the American armies during the last war gallantly fulfilled that duty, I do not believe that such a case is what Congress contemplated in the act above referred to. If a medal of honor were awarded to every officer who bravely led his troops in action the number provided for by Congress would be far too small, as the officers who had the opportunity to so lead and failed to do so are indeed hard to find. If a commanding officer be entitled to this decoration simply because in an emergency, perhaps, he gallantly led his men forward to the attack. wherein has he "most distinguished" himself above the gallant men who followed him? They did their duty; did he do more?

Secretary Alger, February 9, 1897. (R. & P., 467,908):

It does not seem to me that Congressional medals of honor were intended to be given to officers for leading their commands in action, whatever measure of gallantry may have been shown in such leadership. As I view the law these medals were intended as rewards for conspicuous acts of personal bravery or self-sacrifice rather beyond the mere call of duty and not for acts wholly within the line of official duty, however nobly performed. Secretary Alger, July 21, 1897. (R. & P., 477,750):

*** the papers filed do not point out any particular deed of most distinguished gallantry in action" wherein the general distinguished himself above other leaders of regiments, brigades, and divisions in battle. Secretary Alger, July 28, 1897. (R. & P., 469,701):

That the captain gave an order to retreat at the right moment and so saved some 250 brave men from capture seems evident. This shows a clear head and prompt action, but wherein it shows more distinguished gallantry than should be awarded to other brave men at his side who had assaulted the enemy's works to reach the advanced position is not apparent. Secretary Alger, August 4, 1897. (R. & P., 484,167):

The law and present regulations clearly require that to earn the medal, service shall have been performed of such a conspicuous character as to clearly distinguish the man for gallantry aboce his comrades.

Secretary Alger, August 17, 1897. (R. & P., 472,608):

A very careful examination of the official and other evidence filed respecting the Port Hudson assault of May 27, 1863, convinces me that to grant medals to the volunteer participants in that assault would be an unjust dis crimination against the rest of the Army who also assaulted, incurring great danger and suffering the heavier loss.

Secretary Alger, August 28, 1897. (R. & P., 490,506):

** * it will be necessary that the claim for the medal shall be based upon some particular deed of most conspicuous gallantry wherein General * 's services were distinguished for gallantry and intrepidity above his comrades in battle.