1844, when the general bill was resumed and passed. This was succeeded by special bills and land-grants to States conducting public works until 1868, except in 1852, when a bill was passed for Western rivers. In 1868 the government once more returned to the general appropriation bill, and has adhered to it ever since, although the bill failed in 1869, 1877, 1883, 1885, and 1887, in consequence of the veto or of "short" sessions. The present method of conducting these public civil works probably dates from the act of March 2, 1867, which provided that "the Chief of Engineers may, with the approval of the Secretary of War, employ such civil engineers, not exceeding five in number, for executing the surveys and improvements of Western and Northwestern rivers, as may be necessary to the proper and diligent execution of the same." To-day the total number of officers in the Corps of Engineers is one hundred and nine; while the number of civil assistants is believed to be much greater.
From this résumé of the history it appears that the ways of communication, whether by land or water, have been under the supervision of the States, of custom-house officers, private companies and contractors, port wardens, the President, the Secretaries of the Navy, War, and Treasury Departments, and even of the Quartermaster-General.
It appears, then, that since about 1868 the execution of river and harbor works which are purely of a civil character, and for which a special training is required, has been intrusted to the United States Corps of Engineers, a body educated for the performance of military service.
May we not, with propriety, inquire why the graduates of the Naval Academy are not assigned to similar civil duties, or why any other of the alumni of West Point or Annapolis are not placed in charge of works in other civil bureaus, as that of agriculture, for example, since they study chemistry, geology, and mineralogy, or in Patent-Office positions, since they have read mechanics and physics, or on the Geological or Coast Surveys, for similar reasons? Again, we might ask, with reason, why selection is made only from the highest corps in the service, when all the cadets are put through the same course of studies and are graduated as proficient, and particularly in view of the fact that the best executive officers are not, as a rule, those who take the academic honors. Why should not the Ordnance, Artillery, Cavalry, or Infantry officers who are alumni of the Military Academy be placed in charge of civil works?
The first defect of the present system we find, then, to be the assignment of a class of military specialists to civil duties for which their academic training does not primarily adapt them, as will be shown later on. Another defect arises from the absence of the usual incentives to labor, and of personal responsibility as to results. This is an inherent evil due to the regulations of the War Department relative to stations, duties, and promotions in the corps. It is seldom that an officer remains in one place longer than four years: instances are on record where there have been as many as four or more changes in that time. This frequently involves a shifting of all the civil assistants, and at least the chief clerk, leaving but a few subordinates who may be familiar
