From George Washington to James McHenry, 25 July 1796
To James McHenry
Mount Vernon 25th July 1796
Sir,
The enclosed letter from Mr Landais, transmitting one from you to him, was received by the last Post.1
Filling the vacancies in the Corps of Artillery, before the adjournment of the Senate, was suggested; but why, as it was not proposed by the military Act,2 that it should undergo any diminution, it was not done, my memory does not serve me.
If there are more Cadets in that Regiment than Mr Landais, and there are not some distinguishing circumstances between his case & theirs, no discrimination, even if the authority in the recess of the Senate was competent, can be made in his favor notwithstanding his desires and the peculiarities which are detailed in his letter. I send it however that you may consider the case & report thereon.3
Go: Washington
LS (retained copy), DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW.
1. French native Philip Landais was appointed a cadet in the corps of artillery and engineers in March 1795, became a lieutenant in December 1796, and served until 1802.
Neither the letter from Landais, presumably to GW, nor McHenry’s letter to Landais has been identified.
2. GW is referring to “An Act to ascertain and fix the Military Establishment of the United States,” approved on 30 May 1796 ( 483–86). Congress had adjourned on 1 June.
3. McHenry replied to GW on 29 July: “I have received your letter of the 25th with that of Mr Landais.
“There are three cadets only in the corps of artillerists and Engineers viz. Philip Landais and Philip Rodrigue, both appointed the 16 of March 1795, and James Triplet appointed the 14th of April following.
“In the entry of their names Landais stands first. He may therefore be considered as senior cadet, and so far (were there but one vacancy) as having a claim to be first noticed.
“I do not recollect any other circumstance intitling Landais to preference over Rodrigue and Triplet; and you know how incessantly importunate foreigners usually have been, when promotion was the object.
“Why were not the vacancies in the corps of artillerists filled up during the late session of Congress, when the cadets might have been appointed?
“It was then thought that the bill for new arranging the legion, which did not become a law till a day before Congress adjourned, would throw out of the legion several Captns and Lieutts some of whom might, wouthout wounding the rights of others be appointed into the artillery corps.
“Had a nomination in favour of the cadets taken place before or immediately after the passage of the law, the other vacancies then existing must have been provided for at the same time; consequently as the supernumeraries could not have been ascertained, they would have lost the chance of being continued in the service. Besides, had the cadets been appointed they would rank before any deranged officer of the same grade who might be subsequently appointed; an advantage to which their services have not intitled them.
“As therefore no special reason occured during the session, for pressing the promotion of the cadets; and as it was more natural and proper, that attention should be paid to natives who had gone through some campaigns and seen service, than to a foreigner, however well recommended, it was not conceived, that the interests of the former ought to have been neglected to further the wishes of the latter.
“But independent of considerations of this kind, it was known, in case it should appear, after digesting the new plan, that the supernumeraries were unfit for or would not serve in the corps of artillerists, that it would be in the power of the President to fill up all the vacancies except one, which he did not intend for the cadets; as all but one had happened in the recess.
“upon the whole, and to apply the matter in question to Mr Landais it may be observed. That as there are more vacancies open than three; (as you will see by the inclosed paper) and as each of the cadets have nearly equal pretensions from standing and service in the corps, one could not be appointed (were it even constitutional) without at the same time promoting the others” (ALS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW). McHenry enclosed a list of “Vacancies in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers” that reported the names of ten officers—two deceased, seven resigned, and one who had not accepted his appointment (DLC:GW).
French native Philip Rodrigue (Rodrique; d. 1802) and James Triplett, a Virginian, were commissioned as lieutenants, like Landais, in the corps of artillery in December 1796. Rodrigue served until shortly before his death; Triplett until 1800.
GW responded to McHenry from Mount Vernon on 3 Aug.: “In reply to your statement of the case of the Cadets, in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers; I give it as my opinion that no promotion of them should take place at present, under the circumstances you have related.
“When I return to Philadelphia, it will be expected that you will bring forward the general plan for new modeling the Army agreeably to the late Act of Congress, at which time it may be exp⟨e⟩dient to take into consideration the case of Landais, & other Cadets in the above Corps” (LS [retained copy], DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW; see also n.2 above).