GENERALS IN PARTICULAR

A superfluous general on the hands of the War Department is causing Secretary Weeks an inestimable amount of trouble. The difficulty is one left by Mr. Newton D. Baker for his successor to adjust and so far no reasonable solution has been reached.

The present organization of the army calls for a Chief of Staff who has immediate charge of peace-time military affairs. He is the officer of the regular establishment upon whom the Secretary of War depends for advice and through whom the plans of the political end of the government are transmitted. This system of having a military official subordinate to the departmental head has worked very satisfactorily hitherto, and would at the present time, except for the case of General Perishing.

At the conclusion of hostilities, Congress, by special legislation, appointed Perishing, "General, Commanding the Armies of the United States." Obviously. the highest ranking officer of the army should not be in a position subordinate to another general; neither should he be given any position not in keeping with his proper place, and inasmuch as Secretary Weeks does not seem desirous of appointing Perishing Chief of Staff, his disposal becomes an acute problem.

The present plan is to appoint General Harbord, former Chief of Supply of the A.E.E. and a close friend of Pershing, Chief of Staff. His previous commander is to be put in charge of the organization of a war time army--on paper. The idea is satisfactory in so far as it gives General Pershing a position commensurate with his dignity; but from a strategical point of view, it is extremely unfortunate, for it creates two armies, one for war-the organized reserves--and one for peace--the regular establishment, under different heads, coordinated only in the Secretary of War, who is not a military man. Not even the fact that General Harbord is a member of the so called "Pershing clique" can prevent friction from arising between the two, which would be highly prejudicial to the best interests of the nation.