Ice through Ivey Ford, Arkansas

ICE. Ice two inches thick will bear infantry; four inches thick, cavalry or light guns; six inches heavy field-guns; inches 24-pdr. guns on sledges; weight not more than 1,000 lbs. to a square foot. Water that is slightly frozen is made to bear a heavy wagon by cutting reeds, strewing them thickly on the ice, and pouring water upon them. When the whole is frozen into a firm mass, the process must be repeated. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 345).


IMPRISONMENT. Officers may be sentenced to imprisonment by a general court-martial in any case where the court may have discretionary authority. General, garrison, and regimental courts-martial may sentence soldiers to imprisonment, solitary or otherwise, with or without hard labor for various offences enumerated in the Articles of War. A garrison or regimental court-martial, in awarding imprisonment, is limited to a period not exceeding thirty days. When a court awards solitary imprisonment as a punishment, it is necessary that the words “Solitary Confinement “should be expressed in the sentence. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 345).


INDEMNIFICATION. In the French and English armies, there is an indemnification established for losses in the military service, and other allowances are also made in the nature of indemnifications; as for furniture; fuel and light; forage; expenses of divine worship; command money to general and field officers; quarters; expenses upon routes; provisions; gratuity at the beginning of a campaign; field allowances; mess; carriage of baggage; blood money; permanent pensions; temporary pensions, or gratuities in lieu thereof; rewards for meritorious conduct; and pensions to widows and children of officers.

In the United States service, the law provides that if a horse be lost in battle, an officer may receive not exceeding two hundred dollars for his horse, and allowances are made for quarters, fuel, forage, provision, and transportation of baggage, and command money in certain cases. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 345-346).


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, June 17, 1861. Detachment of Missouri Volunteers. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, November 26, 1861. 7th Kansas Cavalry. Independence, Missouri, February 18, 1862. 2nd Ohio Cavalry. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, March 22, 1862. (See Blue Springs.)


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, August 11, 1862. Detachments of 7th Missouri Cavalry and 2nd Battalion Missouri Cavalry (Militia). At daybreak this post was attacked by the Confederates under Colonel J. T. Hughes, numbering from 700 to 800 men. The enemy entered the town by two roads, one party attacking the provost guard at the jail and the other the headquarters of Lieutenant-Colonel James T. Buel in the bank building. Captain Thomas' company of the Missouri militia was compelled to seek cover behind a stone wall running parallel with the south side of the camp, the enemy meanwhile occupying a building from which he could pour a galling fire into the bank building, and at 9 a. m. Buel surrendered, a good part of the town having been set on fire. A party of 65 men under Lieutenant Herington, which had been sent out to open a communication between headquarters and the different parts of the camp, managed to cut their way out and escaped to Kansas City. The Federal loss was 26 killed and 30 wounded. Of the garrison of 213 some 150 were taken prisoners, the others escaping toward Kansas City. The Confederate casualties were not reported, but included the leader, Colonel Hughes, killed.


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, February 8, 1863. Detachment of 5th Missouri State Militia Cavalry. Colonel W. R. Penick, commanding the post of Independence, Missouri, sent out Lieutenant D. A. Colvin with a detachment of 50 men from Companies C, D, and F, to break up a guerrilla camp not far from the town. About 2 p. m. Colvin surprised the enemy and for half an hour a running fight was kept up, the guerrillas losing 8 killed and 2 wounded. The Federals lost but 1 man. All the horses and arms of the bushwhackers were captured. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, August 25, 1863. Detachment of 11th Kansas Cavalry. Lieutenant John G. Lindsay of the 11th Kansas, reporting from Independence under date of August 26, says: "I had a fight yesterday at sunrise; killed 1, wounded 2; had 1 of my men wounded." The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, October 22, 1864. Pleasonton's Provisional Cavalry Division. During the pursuit of Price in his Missouri expedition the cavalry under Pleasonton reached the Little Blue river at 10 a. m. and after crossing on a hastily constructed bridge the head of the column was opened on by artillery. A steady advance was made, however, and the enemy was slowly driven toward Independence, into which town the 13th Missouri cavalry charged. Two guns and about 100 prisoners were captured and the enemy left 40 dead and wounded. The Union casualties were not reported. Independence Station, Louisiana, May 9-18, 1863. (See Amite River, same date.) The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDIANS. The red man of America is so called, and as the troops of the United States have always been the pioneers of civilization, their contact with the Indians is always more or less immediate. The problem of the disappearance of the race is fast being solved; and every humane mind must contemplate with sorrow the destitution to which the Indians have been driven. Something, it is believed, may be done for them by the system of policy proposed in the article on national defence, and that policy would be greatly promoted if the United States maintained on our frontier a few Indian regiments, officered by details from the army. The successful adoption of this policy in India by the English, and in Algiers by the French, proves its practicability, and no men would make better light cavalry and light infantry than the Indians on our western frontier.


The President is authorized to cause army rations to be issued to Indians; (Act June 30, 1834.)

All purchases on account of Indians, and all payments to them of money or goods, shall be made by such person as the President shall designate for that purpose. And the superintendent, agent, or subagent, together with such military officer as the President may direct, shall be present, and certify to the delivery of all goods and money required to be paid or delivered to said Indians. And the duties required by any section of this act of military officers, shall be performed without any other compensation than their actual travelling expenses; (Act June 30, 1834.)

Army surgeons may be employed by the Secretary of War to vaccinate Indians; (Act May 5, 1832.)

A foreigner going into Indian territory without a passport from the War Department, superintendent, agent, sub-agent, or from the officer commanding the nearest military post, or remaining intentionally therein after the expiration of his passport, is subject to forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars; (Act June 80, 1834.)

It shall be lawful for the military force of the United States to be employed, in such manner and under such regulations as the President may direct, in the apprehension of every person found in the Indian territory in violation of any of the provisions of this act, and cause him to be conveyed for trial to the nearest civil authority; and the military force may also be employed in the examination and seizure of stores, packages, and boats, with spirituous liquor or wine, and in preventing the introduction of persons and property into the Indian country contrary to law. Provided that no person apprehended by the military force as aforesaid shall be detained longer than five days after arrest, and before removal for surrender to the civil authority; (Act June 30, 1834.)

When goods or other property are seized under this act, the process of prosecutions shall be the same as in the case of goods, &c., brought into the United States in violation of the revenue laws; (Act June 30, 1834.) Persons attempting to settle in Indian territory may be removed by military force; (Act 1832. See TREATY.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 346-347).


INDIAN BAY, ARKANSAS, April 13, 1864. 56th U. S. Colored Troops (3d Arkansas). The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 509.


INDIAN BAYOU, MISSISSIPPI, June 8, 1864. Captain Perry Evans, of the Confederate scouts, in a report dated at Deer creek, June 13, states that "On the 8th instant a Federal cavalry force, from 300 to 40o strong, landed at Greenville, Mississippi, and marched hastily to Indian bayou, which they reached at night and there surprised and captured during the night several furloughed soldiers from the Texas cavalry  brigade." This is the only mention of the affair, so there is no way of ascertaining what Federal soldiers participated. Indian Hill, Tennessee, November 23, 1863. (See Chattanooga.) The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, pp. 509-510.


INDIANOLA, TEXAS, February 22, 1864. Twenty-five Mounted Infantry of U. S. forces in Texas. Brigadier-General Fitz Henry Warren, commanding at Indianola, reports that 25 mounted infantrymen of his command, who were driving stock 8 miles from camp, were attacked by a well armed and mounted band of 55 Confederates. The horses of the Federals were scrubs unaccustomed to fire and at the first volley fired by the Union troops 14 of them were thrown and subsequently captured. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INDIANOLA, U. S. S., Capture of, February 24, 1863. The Indianola was captured and sunk by the Confederate gunboats Webb and Queen of the West near New Carthage, Louisiana, about 11 p. m., after a pursuit from the mouth of the Red river. For a full account of the action see Naval Volume. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INDIAN RIDGE, LOUISIANA, April 12-14, 1863. This skirmish was a part of the operations about Bayou Teche, but no circumstantial report of it is found in the official records. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INDIANTOWN, NORTH CAROLINA, December 18, 1863. Detachment of 5th U. S. Colored Infantry. Four companies of colored infantry while out on a reconnaissance were fired upon from a dense thicket of pines about 400 yards from the road. Two companies were sent out to flank the attacking party, but before they reached the pines the Confederates had fled. Two of the reconnoitering party were killed and 2 wounded. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INDIAN VILLAGE, LOUISIANA, January 28, 1863. Detachment of 2nd Louisiana Cavalry. Lieutenant Perkins with a portion of a company of cavalry and a boat's crew from one of the gunboats with a howitzer, while reconnoitering near Indian Village on Grosse Tete bayou, was fired upon by a body of Confederates in rifle-pits on the opposite side of the bayou. Perkins was unable to dislodge the enemy at first, but after getting his force across the bayou in boats sent down from Plaquemine he drove the Confederates out. No casualties were reported. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INFANTRY. Its depth of formation has progressively diminished since the centre and wings have been armed alike, and the use of pikes discontinued. The formation in lines has fitted infantry for action on all kinds of ground, and the invention of massing, the condensation of ranks, and formations by size, have given it a perfect ensemble. Its march has gained in rapidity by the simplification of evolutions, the resort to guides, and turning upon PIVOTS; it acts more skilfully in affairs of plains and outposts, by the rapidity of its changes of direction, formations in order of battle, and alternate employments and deployments. The general adoption of tactical inversions, it is thought, would add still more to this skilfulness.

The improved rifle-musket, with thorough target practice, gives to infantry immense advantages over cavalry and artillery. The effective range of the new musket permitting skirmishers to open fire at 1,000 yards, fields of battle will cover more ground than formerly, and the use of smaller columns than battalions of eight and ten companies will probably be resorted to. An organization of battalions of six companies of 100 men each, in two ranks, in lieu of the former, would be an improvement; and in the United States service this might be accomplished by adding two companies with two battalion-adjutants and sergeant-majors to each regiment. The front of each battalion would not be too great. Columns would be formed by division in mass. There would be three such divisions, and the square formed would have its rifles in the first and fourth fronts, and 1/6 each in the other two fronts. Such well-instructed men, in firing, would be perhaps able to show, as in the experiment at Hythe, that a piece of artillery with its men and horses might, at 810 yards, be completely disabled by 30 riflemen in three minutes, and also be an overmatch for cavalry.

Infantry has always guarded the frontier in war; it supports cavalry in great reconnoissances; furnishes swimmers when the cork jacket is resorted to; is employed both in the attack and defence of fortresses; slings the musket and throws grenades; mounts heights by escalade; escorts and attacks convoys; supports foraging parties; defends abatis; is at home in all accidents of ground; finishes operations begun by artillery; crowns heights which horses and pieces of artillery cannot reach; decides the fate of battles, sometimes with the aid of cavalry, and sometimes alone. Costing little, active, occupying relatively little ground; readily lodged, maintained, and renewed, it is easily subsisted, and often finds in its knapsacks, haversacks, and utensils carried by the men, all its wants supplied, when separated from baggage trains.

It has been made a question whether excellent cavalry may not beat mediocre infantry, and whether excellent infantry would not be overthrown by mediocre cavalry?

here is this great difference between infantry and cavalry: infantry has always changed its tactics at the same time with its arms, whereas cavalry cannot change its manner of fighting, although it has more than once attempted the forms of infantry tactics.

Cavalry cannot operate as a whole, except upon unbroken ground; it is unsuited to firing; the order of battle is its great means of action; the sabre or lance is its only reliance; the invention of powder has not improved the art it exercises. Squares of cavalry are useless; the circular formation which has been conceived is a chimera; defence is not its strength; movement is its life, an unbroken field its element, and the charge its principal means of offence. But within range of the rifle, at 1,000 yards, it must be destroyed before reaching its object.

The elementary tactics of infantry consists in securing its rear and its flanks; in never being entirely disfurnished of its fire; in attacking with the bayonet; in defending itself by firing within proper range, and progressively, rather than simultaneously; using the aid of the grenade and rocket, and in resorting to the bayonet, as prescribed in the bayonet exercise. In the offensive movements of a field of battle, infantry ought never to be disfurnished of its fire, except when the enemy falls back, and it is known that his retreat is not a stratagem to draw the fire of the assailants, in order to push down upon them masked cavalry.

Infantry being suited for close or distant combat, the aim of its tactics is to prescribe the best order for the shock, and the best orders for firing. The chef-d'oeuvre of art consists in the most rapid and successful transformations of these orders; in the mechanism of changes of front; and in the employments and deployments of columns of attack and the formation of squares against cavalry.

In campaign, infantry preferably occupies broken ground, woods, &c. A trench, abatis, or chevaux-de-frise is sufficient to secure its safety. In crossing plains, its head and flanks should be covered by cavalry; in retreat, the infantry forms the rear guard, to protect the column of cavalry. For this purpose it occupies hills or ravines, or, standing firm in heavy masses, the cavalry defiles until it has gained ground suited to cavalry operations. When the cavalry has reached such a position, it deploys, faces to the rear to cover in its turn the retreat of the infantry.

Didactic authors, as well as historians, recognize the superiority of infantry. VOLTAIRE calls it the soul of armies; MACHIAVEL, the sinew; it is the principal force and lever of power in time of war; it can act alone; other arms move to second it: thus good infantry is the true strength of nations; every one in an. army feels its importance; its posts guard the army; its duties are, of all others, the most constant, the most simple, the most easily regulated, and the most certain and most important.

The duties of engineers and artillery require more learning; those of cavalry, in war, are sometimes more dashing and brilliant; but the services of infantry are always in demand. In attack and defence of all kinds; the descent into the ditch; or the defence of the breach, the trench, and the rampart; the insult of palisades, or the fire from the parapet; in ambuscades; or on any field of battle whatever, infantry must exercise its skilfulness and attest its valor. Valleys, fords, defiles, water-courses, ravines, abatis, forests, heights, plains, parallels, camps, outworks, covered ways, advance guards, and rear guards, are all in turn its theatre of action. All kinds of troops mutually aid each other, and it is the skilful combination of their efforts which constitutes, in part, the science of the general-in-chief. To make good infantry, it is essential that it should pass some months in a camp of instruction. The soldier must be taught to take care of his arms and accoutrements, to march, to fire well, to build huts, to handle the axe, spade, and shovel, to make cartridges, fascines, hurdles, and gabions, suited to field-works, to cook, and to consider his knapsack, haversack, &c., as part of himself. (See DISCIPLINE; ARTICLES OF WAR; TACTICS; MANOEUVRES IN COMBAT. Consult BARDIN.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 347-349).


INFORMANT. In case a civil person is the complainant, he becomes the principal witness before a court-martial, and after giving his evidence may remain in court, in order that the judge-advocate may refer to him; (HOUGH.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 349).


INGALLS, John James, 1833-1900, political leader, abolitionist.  Activist in the Kansas Free State anti-slavery forces.  Editor of Atchison newspaper, Freedom’s Champion.  U. S. Senator from Kansas, 1873-1891.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 346. Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, p. 463)


INGALLS, John James, statesman, born in Middleton, Massachusetts, 29 December, 1833. He was graduated at Williams in 1855, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1857. He moved to Atchison, Kansas, in 1858, and practised his profession, was a member of the Wyandotte Convention of 1859, secretary of the Territorial Council in 1860, and of the state senate in 1861, and a member of the latter body in 1862. In the same year he was an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant-governor. After his defeat he accepted the editorship of the Atchison "Champion." which he retained for three years. He was again defeated for the lieutenant-governorship in 1864, but was elected to the United States Senate for the term beginning in 1873, and was reelected in 1879 and 1885. He is among the ablest debaters in the senate. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 346.


INGALLS, Rufus, soldier, born in Denmark, Maine, 23 August, 1820. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1843, and joined the rifle corps, but was transferred to the 1st Dragoons in 1845. He was in the battles of Embudo and Taos, Mew Mexico, in 1847, became 1st lieutenant, 16 February. 1847. Ingalls was made assistant quartermaster, with the rank of captain, 12 January, 1848. He then served in California and in Oregon, was in Colonel Edward J. Steptoe's expedition across the continent, and from 1856 till 1860 was stationed at Fort Vancouver, being on the staff of General Harney at the time of the San Juan affair. In April, 1861, he was sent to re-enforce Fort Pickens, and in July was ordered to duty with the Army of the Potomac. He was appointed aide-de-camp to General McClellan, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, on 28 September, major in the Quartermaster's Department, 12 January, 1862, and was chief quartermaster in the Army of the Potomac from 1862 till 1865. He became brigadier-general of volunteers, 23 May, 1863, and colonel and assistant quartermaster-general, 29 July, 1866. He was present at the battles of South Mountain, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and the subsequent battles, till the surrender of Lee. He received the brevet of brigadier-general in the regular army in 1864, and that of major-general, for meritorious services during the war, on 13 March, 1865, was mustered out of volunteer service, 1 September, 1866, and was stationed as chief quartermaster at New York City from April, 1867, to 31 July, 1876. He was reassigned to New York City, 1 March, 1881, and relieved 14 March, 1882, to become quartermaster-general of the army. General Ingalls was retired from the service at his own request on 1 July, 1883.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 346.


INGERSOLL, Ebon C., Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery (Congressional Globe)


INGERSOLL, Robert Green, lawyer, born in Dresden, New York, 11 August, 1833. His father was a Congregational clergyman of such broad views as frequently to cause dissension between himself and his parish. The son's boyhood was spent in Wisconsin and Illinois, where the family moved in 1843. After studying law he opened an office in Shawneetown, Illinois, with his brother Eben, who was subsequently a member of Congress. Both engaged in politics, but the surroundings were uncongenial, and in 1857 they moved to Peoria. In 1860 Robert was a Democratic candidate for Congress, but was defeated. In 1862 he became colonel of the 11th Illinois Cavalry, and a year and a half later united with the Republican Party. In 1866 he was appointed Attorney-General for Illinois. At the National Republican Convention of 1876 he proposed the name of James G. Blaine for the presidential nomination in a speech that attracted much attention. From that time his services as a campaign orator have been in demand throughout the country. In 1877 he refused the post of minister to Germany. He has taken part in numerous noted lawsuits in all parts of the country, and was counsel for the so-called star-route conspirators, whose trial ended in acquittal in 1883. He is well known by his books, pamphlets, and speeches directed against the Christian religion. He has published "The Gods" (Washington, 1878); "Ghosts" (1879): "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879); "Lectures Complete" (1883); "Prose Poems and Selections" (1884); a large number of minor works, and introductory chapters for two books, entitled "Modern Thinkers," compiled by Van Buren Denslow (Chicago, 1881); and "The Brain and the Bible," by Edgar C. Beall (Cincinnati, 1882).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 348.


INGRAHAM, Duncan Nathaniel, naval officer, born in Charleston, South Carolina, 6 December, 1802. His father, Nathaniel, was a friend of John Paul Jones, and was in the action with the British brig " Serapis," and his uncle, Captain Joseph Ingraham, was lost at sea in the U. S. ship "Pickering." Duncan Nathaniel entered the U. S. Navy as a midshipman in June, 1812, and became lieutenant, 1 April, 1818; commander, 24 May, 1838; and captain, 14 September, 1855. While commanding the sloop-of-war "St. Louis," in the Mediterranean, he interfered at Smyrna, in July, 1853, with the Austrian consul's detention of Martin Koszta, who had resided nearly two years in the United States and declared his intention of becoming an American citizen. He had come to Smyrna from New York on business intending soon to return, but on 21 June, 1853, he was seized by a party of armed Greeks that were employed by the Austrian consul-general and confined on board the "Hussar." After learning the facts from the prisoner Captain Ingraham addressed a letter on this subject to John P. Brown, the charge d'affaires of the United States in Constantinople, who gave the official opinion that the surrender of Koszta should be demanded. On 2 July, at 8 A. M., Captain Ingraham claimed of the Austrian commander the release of Koszta by 4 p. M., declaring that he would otherwise take him by force. At the same time the decks of the " St. Louis" were cleared for action, and all was made ready for an attack on the " Hussar," which was much her superior in size and armament. At 11 a. m. the Austrian consul-general proposed to deliver Koszta to the French consul, to be held by him subject to the disposition of the U. S. and Austrian consuls. This was accepted by Captain Ingraham as giving sufficient assurance of the personal safety of the Hungarian, and Koszta was soon released and returned to the United States. This affair gave rise to an elaborate discussion in Washington between Secretary William L. Marcy and M. Hulsemann, the charg6 d'affaires of Austria. The conduct of Captain Ingraham was fully approved by the U. S. government, and on 4 August, 1854, Congress, by joint resolution, requested the president to present him with a medal. In March, 1850, he was appointed chief of the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography of the Navy Department. When the Civil War began, in 1861, he was in command of the flag-ship "Richmond" in the Mediterranean. He resigned his commission, and entered the Confederate Naval service, being chief of ordnance, construction and repair, and in which he rose to the rank of commodore. He has served in every war since the Revolution, and is said to be the only survivor of those that entered the U.S. Navy in 1812. He married Harriet, granddaughter of Henry Laurens.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 350.


INGRAHAM'S PLANTATION, Mississippi, October 10, 1863. 2nd Wisconsin and 4th Illinois Cavalry. A cavalry expedition across the Big Black river under Major Harry E. Eastman of the 2nd Wisconsin came up with about 200 of Wirt Adams' Confederate cavalry at the plantation of Alfred Ingraham, not far from Port Gibson. The enemy's position was in a big yard enclosed by a box hedge, and the Federals entered this yard before the enemy was discovered. Eastman dismounted his men and deployed them so as to outflank the Confederates on the left, but before the disposition was completed the enemy was withdrawing on the Port Gibson road. Pursuit was immediately given and a running fight kept up to within 3 miles of Port Gibson. Eastman lost 1 killed and 2 wounded and though the Confederate loss was not reported, they abandoned 9 of their dead and 2 mortally wounded. Four prisoners were taken by Eastman's men. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510.


INGRAM'S MILL, MISSISSIPPI, October 12, 1863. Detachment of Cavalry Division, 16th Army Corps. During Chalmers' raid the cavalry division of the 16th corps came upon the Confederates 3 miles south of Byhalia near Ingram's mill. The enemy was strongly posted on hills with a swamp in their front and two 6-pounder guns commanding the road. The Confederate skirmishers were driven out of the swamp and about 3 p. m., after the Federal troops had opened on the log houses, the enemy charged. The attack was repulsed by the 7th Illinois. cavalry and the 9th Illinois infantry, and the 7th Illinois and 7th Kansas cavalry made a countercharge under Lieutenant-Colonel Phillips. The enemy broke and fled and were not rallied until 2 miles from the scene. Phillips followed until 9 p. m., fighting an obstinate rear-guard. The losses were not reported. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 510-11.


INITIAL VELOCITY. The velocity with which a projectile leaves the piece, that is, the space in feet then passed in a second, is called its initial velocity; the space passed over in a second at any succeeding point of the trajectory its remaining velocity, and the terminal velocity is the velocity with which it strikes the object. The greatest initial velocities do not exceed four or five hundred yards, and are given by charges not exceeding one-third the weight of the ball; the feeblest are produced by charges of about one-twenty-fourth the weight of the ball. The musket pendulum used at Washington Arsenal has shown the initial velocity of the elongated ball for the rifle-musket to be 963 feet per second, and that of the pistol-carbine 603. For ordinary practice, where the weight of the powder and the projectile alone vary, initial velocities may be considered directly proportional to the square root of the weight of powder divided by the square root of the weight of the projectile.

In the experiments made at Washington by Major Mordecai with the gun and ballistic pendulums combined for the purpose of ascertaining the initial velocities produced by equal charges of powder in the same piece of ordnance on balls of different weights, it was found that, with a 24-pounder gun and a charge of 4 lbs. of powder, the windage being .175 inch, the initial velocity of a shell filled with lead and weighing 27.68 lbs., was 1,325 feet; of a marble ball weighing 9.29 lbs., was 2,154 feet; and of a lignum vitse ball weighing 4.48 lbs., was 2,759 feet. The two first of these velocities are nearly in the inverse ratio of the square roots of the weights of the shot; but the two last are nearly as the cube roots of the weights inversely. (Consult BENTON. See BALLISTICS.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 349-350).

TABLE OF INITIAL VELOCITIES WITH SERVICE CHARGES.

KIND OF PROJECTILE.

KIND OF CANNON.

Charge of Powder. Shot. Shells. Spherical EEMAKK8. 6-pdr. Field..., lbs. 1.25 feet 1489 feet 1 357 When the initial ve12-pdr. Field 12-pdr. Field Howitzer 24-pdr. Siege Gun -j 2.50 1.00 6.00 1,486 1,680 1,054 1,486 953 velocities of shot, shell, and spherical case are given, the weight 8-inch Siege Howitzer 8.00 400 1,870 1,670 907 of the charge refers to shot 32-pdr. Sea-coast Gun 8.00 1640 1 450 15-inch Columbiad 4000 1 88


INJURIES, LIABILITY FOR PRIVATE INJURIES. In the exercise of professional duty by military officers, injuries may frequently be occasioned to other officers, or to private individuals, whose legal remedies are here considered. As between officers themselves, the language of the Articles of War is sufficiently comprehensive to bring most of such cases within the cognizance of a court-martial; but a court-martial has no power to award pecuniary damages for injurious conduct. Its jurisdiction is criminal, and its judgments are penal. It may happen, too, that the common feeling of the service, to which the offending or the complaining party belongs, would in many cases render an application to such a tribunal utterly fruitless; as the general sentiment of the members of a particular profession or class of society, respecting a matter of professional or corporate right or conduct, is often found to be at variance with the public law of the land. Civil actions are therefore maintainable against commissioned officers, for exceeding their powers, or for exercising them in an oppressive, injurious, and improper manner, whether towards military persons or others. Extreme difficulties, however, lie in the way of plaintiffs in actions of this nature; for no such action is maintainable for an injury, unless it be accompanied by malice or injustice: and the knowledge of this, (says Mr. Baron Eyre,) while it can never check the conduct of good men, may form a check on the bad. Where an officer (says the same learned judge) makes a slip in form, great latitude ought to be allowed; but for a corrupt abuse of authority none can be made.

It will be convenient to consider the law upon this subject: 1st, as it applies to wrongs committed by officers towards persons under military authority; and, secondly, as it applies to persons not subject to such authority. Some of the decisions that will be quoted were pronounced in cases where naval officers were concerned; but the principle of the decisions applies equally to both services. 1. Wrongs towards Persons under Military Authority. -- A notion appears to have at one time extensively prevailed that an officer could have no remedy against ill treatment received from his superiors in the course of professional duty, except by bringing the offending party to a court-martial, and subjecting him to the penalties of the Articles of War. This opinion, however, was quite unfounded in point of law; and such a state of things might often be productive of the worst consequences. The question was distinctly raised in Grant v. Shand, where an action was brought by an officer in the army against his superior officer for oppressive, insulting, and violent conduct. The plaintiff was directed to give a military order: and it appeared that he sent two persons, who failed. The defendant thereupon said to the plaintiff, “What a stupid person you are,” and twice struck him; and although the circumstances occurred at Gibraltar, and in the actual execution of military service, it was held by the learned judge at the trial that the action was maintainable; and a verdict was found for the plaintiff. An application was afterwards made to the Court of King's Bench to set aside the verdict; and Lord Mansfield, the chief-justice, was very desirous to grant a new trial; but the court, after argument, refused to disturb the verdict. So also an action will lie for unjust treatment under the form of discipline, as in Swinton v. Molloy, where the defendant, who was captain of the Trident man-of-war, put the purser into confinement, kept him imprisoned for three days without inquiring into the case, and then released him on hearing his defence. The purser brought his action against Captain Molloy, for this unlawful detention in custody; and, upon the evidence, Lord Mansfield said, that such conduct on the part of the captain did not appear to have been a proper discharge of his duty, and therefore that his justification under the discipline of the navy had failed him. The jury gave 1,000 damages. In the foregoing case no want of uprightness was attributed to Captain Molloy; and the decision rested wholly on the circumstance of his having committed an injustice, although without a corrupt intention. Cruelty or unnecessary severity, when wilfully committed in the exercise of superior authority, are also good causes of action. Thus in Wall v. McNamara, the action was brought by the plaintiff, as captain in the African corps, against the defendant, Lieutenant-governor and Military Commandant of Senegambia, for imprisoning the plaintiff for the space of nine months at Gambia, in Africa. The defence was a justification of the imprisonment under the Mutiny Act, for the disobedience of orders. At the trial it appeared that the imprisonment of Captain Wall, which was at first legal, namely, for leaving his post without leave from his superior officer, though in a bad state of health, was aggravated with many circumstances of cruelty, which were adverted to by Lord Mansfield, in the following extract from his charge to the jury: “It is admitted that the plaintiff was to blame in leaving his post. But there was no enemy, no mutiny, no danger. His health was declining, and he trusted to the benevolence of the defendant to consider the circumstances under which he acted. But supposing it to have been the defendant's duty to call the plaintiff to a military account for his misconduct, what apology is there for denying him the use of the common air in a sultry climate, and shutting him up in a gloomy prison, when there was no possibility of bringing him to a trial for several months, there not being a sufficient number of officers to form a court-martial? These circumstances, independent of the direct evidence of malice, as sworn to by one of the witnesses, are sufficient for you to presume a bad, malignant motive in the defendant, which would destroy his justification, had it even been within the powers delegated to the defendant by his commission.” The jury thereupon found a verdict, for Captain Wall, with 1,000 damages. An undue assumption of authority in matters not within the range of military discipline, is also a good ground of action against a superior officer. This appears from the case of Warden v. Bailey, where the plaintiff was a permanent sergeant in the Bedford regiment of local militia, of which the defendant was the adjutant. In November, 1809, the lieutenant-colonel issued a regimental order for establishing an evening school at Bedford. Pie appointed the sergeant-major the master, and ordered all sergeants and corporals, including the plaintiff to attend and pay eight-pence a week towards the expenses of the school. The plaintiff and some other of the scholars having afterwards omitted to attend, several were tried by court-martial and punished. The plaintiff, however, was only reprimanded, and he promised regular attendance in future. Shortly afterwards he was ordered to attend a drill on parade, when the defendant, who appears to have been a shopkeeper, shook his fist at the plaintiff, called him a rascal, and told him he deserved to be shot. The defendant then direct* ed a sergeant to draw his sword and hold it over the plaintiff's head, and if he should stir to run him through; and, by the defendant's direction, a corporal took off the plaintiff's sash and sword. The plaintiff was then conducted, by the defendant's order, to Bedford gaol, with directions that he should be locked up in solitary confinement, and kept on bread and water. He was thus imprisoned for three days. He was then brought up before the colonel and the defendant, and other officers of the regiment, and again remanded to the gaol. The plaintiff's health having been impaired by the continuance of this treatment for several weeks, he was afterwards conducted to his own house, and there kept a close prisoner until January, 1810, when he was escorted by a file of corporals from Bedford to Stilton, to be tried by court-martial for mutinous words spoken on parade at the time of his arrest, and for thereby exciting others to disobedience. He was tried accordingly, but liberated in March, 1810. Upon this he brought his action against the adjutant for the wrongful imprisonment, when an objection was taken that the question of the propriety of the arrest was not within the jurisdiction of the civil courts The Court of Common Pleas, however? overruled this objection. Sir James Mansfield, C. J.: “It might be very convenient that a military officer might be enabled to make the men under his command learn to read and write, it might be very useful, but is not a part of military discipline. Then, further, there is a tax of Sd. a week for learning to read and write. ...... The subject cannot be taxed, even in the most indirect way, unless it originates in the Lower House of Parliament.” Mr. Justice Lawrence:  “It is no part of military duty to attend a school, and learn to write and read. If writing is necessary to corporals and sergeants, the superior officers must select men who can write and read; and if they do not continue to do it well, they may be reduced to the ranks. Nor is it any part of military duty to pay for keeping a school light and warm: this very far exceeds the power of any colonel to order.” In a subsequent stage of the same case, when it was attempted to justify or defend the mutinous expressions used by Warden on parade as above stated, on the ground of the illegality of the order which gave rise to them, the court held, that although “Warden had been unlawfully arrested for disobedience to that order, such a circumstance afforded no warrant for insubordinate language on Warden's part, and therefore no exemption from military arrest and punishment for the same. “ Nor will he (said Lord Ellenborough, C. J.) be less an object of military punishment, because the order of the lieut.-colonel, to which this language referred, might not be a valid one, and such as he was strictly competent to make There may be disorderly conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, in the manner and terms used and adopted by one soldier in dissuading another soldier not to obey an order not strictly legal. If every erroneous order on the part of a commanding officer would not only justify the individual disobedience of it by the soldier, but would even justify him in making inflammatory and reproachful public comments upon it to his fellow-soldiers, equally the objects of such order with himself, is it possible that military order and discipline could be maintained 1 “The common defence of officers, against whom actions of this nature are brought, is a justification of their conduct as agreeable to the discipline of the service, and contributory to the maintenance of that discipline. And there can be no doubt, that where the conduct brought into question is not an oppressive, malicious, or unreasonable exercise of power, and does not amount to an excess or abuse of authority, an action is wholly unsustainable. The principles upon which the Courts of Law proceed in actions arising out of the abuse of military power, will receive further illustration from the language of Lord Mansfield, in summing up the evidence to the jury in Wall v. McNamara. His lordship thus expressed himself: “In trying the legality of acts done by military officers in the exercise of their duty, particularly beyond the seas, where cases may occur without the possibility of application for proper advice, great latitude ought to be allowed; and they ought not to suffer for a slip of form, if their intention appears by the evidence to have been upright. It is the same as when complaints are brought against inferior civil magistrates, such as justices of the peace, for acts done by them in the exercise of their civil duty. There the principal inquiry to be made by a court of justice is, how the heart stood? and if there appear to be nothing wrong there, great latitude will be allowed for misapprehension or mistake. But, on the other hand, if the heart is wrong, if cruelty, malice, and oppression appear to have occasioned or aggravated the imprisonment, or other injury complained of, they shall not cover themselves with the thin veil of legal forms, nor escape under the cover of a justification the most technically regular, from that punishment, which it is your province and your duty to inflict on so scandalous an abuse of public trust.” It is no legal objection to an action for the abuse of military authority, that the defendant has not been tried and convicted by a court-martial, for that argument holds in no case short of felony. The infliction of an unjust or illegal sentence, pronounced by a court-martial, is a good cause of action by the prisoner, against all or any of the members of the court, and all persons concerned in the execution of the sentence; such a sentence, if it exceeds the authorized measure of punishment, being not merely invalid for the excess, but absolutely void altogether. The most remarkable case on record of this kind is that of Lieutenant Frye, of the Marines, who, after an unnecessary previous imprisonment for fourteen months, was brought to trial before a naval court-martial at Port Royal in the West Indies, and sentenced to be imprisoned for fifteen years, for disobedience of orders, in refusing to assist in the imprisonment of another officer, without an order in writing from the captain of Her Majesty's ship Oxford, on board of which Lieutenant Frye was serving. At the trial the written depositions of several illiterate Blacks were improperly received in evidence against him, in lieu of their oral testimony, which might have been obtained and sifted by cross-examination; and the sentence pronounced was itself illegal for its excessiveness, the Act 22 George II., which contains the naval Articles of War, not allowing any imprisonment beyond the term of two years. On the return to England of Admiral Sir Chaloner Ogle, the president of the court-martial, Lieutenant Frye brought an action against him in the Court of Common Pleas for his illegal conduct at the trial, when the jury, under the direction of the Lord Chief-Justice Willes, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1,000 damages. The Chief-Justice at the same time informed Lieutenant Frye that he might have an action against all or any of the other members of his court-martial; and Lieutenant Frye accordingly issued writs against Rear Admiral Mayne and Captain Renton, upon whom the same were served as they were coming ashore at the conclusion of the proceedings of the day at another court-martial, of which they were acting members, for the trial of Vice-admiral Lestock, for his conduct in a naval engagement with the French fleet off Toulon, in the early part of the same year. This was deemed a great insult by the members of the sitting court martial, who accordingly passed some resolutions or remonstrances in strong language, highly derogatory to the chief-justice, which they forwarded to the Lords of the Admiralty, by whom the affair was reported to the king. His Majesty, through the Duke of Newcastle, signified to the Admiralty  his great displeasure at the insult offered to the court-martial, by which the military discipline of the navy is so much affected; and the king highly disapproved of the behavior of Lieutenant Frye on the occasion.” The Lord Chief-Justice, as soon as he heard of the resolutions of the court-martial, ordered every member of it to be taken into custody, and was proceeding to uphold the dignity of his court, in a very decided manner, when the whole affair was terminated in November 1746, by the members of the court-martial signing and sending to his lordship a very ample written apology for their conduct. On the reception of this paper in the Court of Common Pleas, it was read aloud, and ordered to be registered among the records as a “memorial,” said the Lord Chief-Justice, “to the present and future ages, that whoever set themselves up in opposition to the laws, or think themselves above the law, will in the end find themselves mistaken.” The proceedings and the apology were also published in the London Gazette of 15th November 1746. At a naval court-martial for the trial of Mr. Crawford, a midshipman of Her Majesty's ship Emerald, for contempt and disobedience to the orders of his superior officer, Captain Knell, the court inadvertently found Mr. Crawford guilty only of having been disorderly when a prisoner at large, which formed no part of the offence of which he was accused; and he was reprimanded accordingly. Mr. Crawford thereupon brought an action against the captain for damages; and the learned judge who presided at the trial, having made some severe animadversions on the illegality of the proceedings, the jury awarded heavy damages. A similar action was brought against Colonel Bailey, colonel of the Middlesex militia, for improperly flogging a private in the militia, and the jury gave 600 damages. In Moore v. Bastard also, an action was brought against the president of a court-martial for imprisoning the plaintiff upon an alleged charge of subornation of perjury. The jury gave 300 damages. An action was tried in 1793 before Mr. Barron Perrot, at the spring assizes for the county of Devon, against the officers of the Devon militia, for inflicting 1,000 lashes on the plaintiff, in pursuance of their sentence pronounced against him at a court-martial, held to try him upon a charge of mutiny; the only acts proved being that the plaintiff had written a letter to the colonel of the regiment, which was not communicated to any one else, telling him that the men of the regiment were discontented. The jury gave 500 damages; and the case is quoted with approbation by Mr. Justice Heath, who also intimated, that if the plaintiff had died under the punishment, all the members of the court-martial would have been liable to be hanged for murder. There was also another case of an action against Captain Touyn, a naval officer, in which the plaintiff recovered damages for the infliction of several dozen lashes without a court-martial, for a single offence, thereby exceeding the custom which had prevailed in the navy, that commanding officers might inflict one dozen lashes (called a starting) without a court-martial. No action, however, will lie for merely bringing a man to a court-martial, nor for the previous arrest or suspension; such acts being clearly within the limits of military authority, and exercisable, like all other such powers, in a discretionary manner, under the safeguards and at the risks provided by the Articles of War. A commanding officer has, of necessity, a discretionary power to arrest, suspend, and bring to trial by court-martial, any person under his orders. But though this power is indispensable, and its limits cannot, like those of the power of punishment, be exceeded in point of extent, it may, nevertheless, be oppressively, or improperly used; and therefore, by the Articles of War, such conduct is of itself a distinct military offence, triable by a military- jurisdiction. This was the opinion of the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber, in the case of Sutton v. Johnstone, and it seems also to be a just inference from the judgment in the same case, that when an officer is expressly charged and found guilty before a court-martial, of having improperly brought another to trial before a similar tribunal, an action is sustainable for the special damage resulting from the offence; but that, until the officer procuring the first trial has been found guilty of improper conduct by a court-martial, a court of law cannot interfere; no civil tribunal being capable of appreciating, with sufficient delicacy, the circumstances which attend the exercise of military power, or of accurately discriminating the grounds of its application. Want of probable cause for the accusation is the only basis on which an action for a malicious prosecution before a court-martial can rest; and when that is shown, malice will be inferred by the law. An acquittal, however, by the court-martial, of the party who brings the action, is not conclusive as to the want of probable cause. At the same time, such an acquittal is an essential preliminary to the action, for though the accuser may have been actuated by the most clear and undisguised malice, yet if he substantiates his original charge to the satisfaction of a court-martial, the accused has no locus standi in a civil court, even upon the fullest evidence of his prosecutor's malice, it being impossible to say that there was a want of probable cause, after a court-martial has adjudged that there was a positive cause. Innocence and uprightness of intention will therefore, on the one hand, be no defence to an action of this nature, when there appears to have been a want of probable cause for the prosecution before the court-martial; while, on the other hand, the most malicious, or even corrupt intention, will not subject the accuser to a civil action, where he succeeds in establishing the criminal charge before the military tribunal. A wrongful imprisonment being, in the language of the law, a tort, savoring of crime, it is held that if two commit a tort, and the plaintiff recovers against one, he cannot recover against the other for the same tort. This rule was applied in the above-mentioned case of Warden v. Daily, where another action was brought against the colonel of the Bedford militia for the same transaction, and the court held that the imprisonment inflicted by the defendant, the adjutant, terminated on the plaintiff being brought up before the colonel on the third day, and being then remanded by him, so that the adjutant was held not liable for more than the first three days' imprisonment, and the colonel not liable, except from the time of the commencement of the remand ordered by himself. It should be observed, however, that no civil action will lie, in the first instance, against a commissioned officer for a discretionary exercise of military authority while in the performance of actual duty in the field in time of war. Where a discretionary power is clearly vested by military usage in the officer whose conduct is impeached, questions as to the exercise of such authority are so essentially military, that the civil tribunals decline to consider them without the previous judgment of a court-martial. This was settled in the case of Barwis v. Koppel, in which the plaintiff was a sergeant in the second battalion of the first regiment of foot guards. The defendant, Colonel Keppel, was the second major of that battalion; and in the absence of his superior officers he had the command of it. In 1760, the battalion was ordered to Germany, under the command of the defendant, to form part of the king's forces serving under Prince Ferdinand. In September, 1761, the prince, being in hourly expectation of a battle, issued an order that all deserters from the enemy should be immediately sent to head-quarters without a moment's delay. The plaintiff had full notice of this order; and three French deserters having surrendered to him, he detained them six hours without bringing them to head-quarters or reporting their arrival. For this neglect of orders the plaintiff was tried by court-martial, and sentenced to be suspended from his rank of sergeant for a month, and to do the duty and receive the pay of a private soldier during the same time. On the sentence being reported to Colonel Keppel, he did not confirm it, but made an order at the foot of the sentence in the following terms: “But, as Sergeant Bar w is could not be ignorant of the duke's order concerning deserters, and Colonel Keppel thinking his neglect might have been attended with the utmost bad consequences, orders that he be broke, and that Corporal Billow be appointed sergeant in his room.” This order was carried into execution, and the plaintiff served accordingly as a private until his battalion returned to England. Colonel Keppel was appointed, in 1762, to command an expedition against the Havanah; and, on his return to England, Barwis brought an action against him for maliciously and improperly reducing him (Barwis) to the ranks. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, with 70 damages, subject to the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, upon the question, whether the action was maintainable. The court held, that as the whole matter took place abroad, and in the field, in open war, the conduct of the defendant, Colonel Keppel, could not be tried in a civil court. Per curiam: “By the Act of Parliament to punish mutiny and desertion, the king's power to make articles of war is confined to his own dominions. When his army is out of his dominions, he acts by virtue of his prerogative, and without the Statute or Articles of War, and, therefore, you cannot argue upon either of them, for they are both to be laid out of this case; and, flagrante bello, the common law has never interfered with the army; silent leges inter arma. We think (as at present advised) that we have no jurisdiction at all in this case; but if the plaintiff's counsel think proper to speak more fully to this matter, we are willing to hear him.” The report contains the following memorandum: “But plaintiff, seeing the opinion of the court against him, acquiesced, and the judgment was for the defendant, ut audivi.”

It was intimated, however, by the two Chief-Justices, Lord Mansfield and Lord Loughborough, on a subsequent occasion, that if the conduct of Colonel Keppel had been previously condemned by a court-martial, an action at law would have been maintainable against him, although the transaction in question took place in the field, and in open war.

Again, with respect to the exercise of military power by commanding officers in the execution of actual service, and the right of action against them on such grounds, the following observations fell from the court in Sutton v. Johnstone: “Commanders, in a day of battle, must act upon delicate suspicions; upon the evidence of their own eye; they must give desperate commands; they must require instantaneous obedience. In case of a general misbehavior, they may be forced to suspend several officers, and put others in their places. A 'military tribunal is capable of feeling all these circumstances, and understanding that the first, second, and third part of a soldier's duty is obedience. But what condition will a commander be in, if upon the exercising of his authority he is liable to be tried by a common-law judicature? 

. . . . Not knowing the law, or the rules of evidence, no commanding or superior officer will dare to act; their inferiors will insult and threaten them Upon an unsuccessful battle, there are mutual recriminations, mutual charges, and mutual trials Party prejudices mix. If every trial is to be followed by an action, it is easy to see how endless the confusion, how infinite the mischief must be. The person unjustly accused is not without his remedy. He has the properest among military men. Reparation is done to him by an acquittal; and he who accused him unjustly is blasted forever, and dismissed the service. These considerations induce us to turn against introducing this action.”

It may be gathered, also, from the case of Sutton v. Johnstone, which was an action between naval officers, that, unless a court-martial shall first expressly decide that it was physically impossible for an officer to execute the orders delivered to him in the field or on actual duty, he has no right of action against his commanding officer for bringing him to a court-martial on a charge of disobedience to those orders, even though the court-martial may have acquitted him of misconduct.

Delay in bringing an officer to a court-martial, after he has been put under arrest, is also no ground of action against the officer ordering the arrest; this being a point of purely military conduct and authority, of which a court-martial alone can properly judge. But if a court-martial should condemn the commanding officer's conduct on such an Occasion, an action against him would probably lie. Captain Sutton, of H. M. S. Isis brought an action against Commodore Johnstone, for maliciously bringing him to a court-martial on charges of disobedience to orders during an engagement with a French force in 1781. It appeared that Captain Sutton, after his arrest at the close of the engagement, was carried with the squadron to India, where he was detained in arrest for two years, during a lengthened cruise and various naval operations, before he was eventually sent to England by Admiral Sir Richard Hughes, to be tried. His trial was thus delayed for two years and a half; and great stress was laid on these circumstances, as an unnecessary aggravation of his arrest. But the court said: “The delay is charged to be contrary to the defendant's duty as commander- in-chief. There is no rule of the common or statute law applicable to this case. It is a mere military offence. It is the abuse of a military discretionary power; and the defendant has not been tried for it by court-martial. A court of common law cannot in such a case assume an original jurisdiction. It is like the case of Barwis v. Keppel; this objection we think fatal.”

But, although questions regarding the use or abuse of military discipline can thus in some instances be discussed in the civil courts, the learned judges of those tribunals have deprecated the resort to such proceedings in ordinary circumstances; and in Warden v. Bailey, where the court entertained the case, and ordered a new trial, the Chief-Justice, Sir James Mansfield, said, “ I must express the strongest wish that the cause will not be again tried, for all disputes respecting, the extent of military discipline are greatly to be deprecated, especially in time of war; they are of the worst consequence, and such as no good subject will wish to see discussed in a civil action; they ought only to be the subject of arrangement among military men.” In the case which gave rise to the foregoing observations, the learned judges allowed that a considerable amount of unnecessary violence and indignity had taken place.

A recent case of Walton v. Major Gavin of the 16th Lancers, for alleged false imprisonment, gave rise to a very important question with reference to the Article of War which directs that no officer commanding a guard, or provost-marshal, shall refuse to receive or keep any prisoner committed to his charge by any officer or non-commissioned officer belonging to the queen's forces, which officer or non-commissioned officer shall, at the same time, deliver an account in writing signed by himself, of the crime with which the prisoner is charged. And, after very elaborate argument, it was held by Lord Campbell, C. J., and Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Wightman, (Erie, J. dissenting,) that a commanding officer, receiving into his custody a person subject to military law and accused of desertion by a non-commissioned officer who signed the charge, was justified in detaining the prisoner, notwithstanding any irregularity in the proceedings antecedent to his own reception of the prisoner, and was not bound to inquire into the legality of such proceedings. Judgment was therefore given for the defendant. The principle appears to be the same which is applied to the governor or keeper of any ordinary prison, who on receiving a prisoner with a warrant, regular in point of form, for his detention, is justified in receiving him without inquiring whether the magistrate who signs the warrant is duly qualified to act as a justice, or whether in a poaching case the bird mentioned in the warrant, as the corpus delicti, was properly designated a partridge.

Negligence in the use of military arms or weapons is also a good cause of action. In Weaver v. Ward, the case w r as, that the plaintiff and defendant were both soldiers of the trained bands of London. While Ward's band was skirmishing, by way of military exercise, with their muskets charged with powder, against another train-band to which Weaver belonged, Ward's musket was discharged in such a manner as to wound the plaintiff, who thereupon brought an action of trespass against Ward. The defence made by Ward was, that ho was in training by order of the Lords of the Council, and skirmishing in. obedience to military command, and that the injury happened casually, by misfortune, and against his will. But this was decided not to be enough. Per curiam: “No man shall be excused of a trespass except it may be judged utterly without his fault. As if a man by force take my hand and strike you, or if here the defendant had said that the plaintiff ran across his piece when it was discharging, or had set forth the case with the circumstances, so as that it had appeared to the court that it had been inevitable, and that the defendant had committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt.”

As a general rule, all language traducing or defaming a man in the way of his profession or calling is actionable, as it tends to his pecuniary damage or loss.

The communication to the Judge-advocate General, by the president of a court-martial, of their opinion, in the form of a censure, respecting the prosecutor's charges, and his conduct in preferring them, is not a libel, and cannot be made the subject of an action at law. This point was decided in 1806, in the case of Jekyll v. Moore. Captain Jekyll, of the 43d regiment, had preferred certain charges against Colonel Stewart of the same regiment, who was accordingly tried by a general court-martial, of which Sir John Moore was president. The judgment of the court was, that “the court do most fully and most honorably acquit him: “ but to this sentence the following remarks were subjoined: “ The court cannot pass without observation the malicious and groundless accusations that have been produced by Captain Jekyll against an officer whose character has, during a long period of “ service, been so irreproachable as Colonel Stewart's; and the court do unanimously declare that the conduct of Captain Jekyll, in endeavoring falsely to calumniate the character of his commanding officer, is most highly injurious to the good of the service.” Captain Jekyll contended that the foregoing passage formed no part of the matter submitted to the judgment of the court, and was, therefore, a libel on him. He accordingly brought his action for it in the Court of Common Pleas, against Sir John Moore, but the whole court was of opinion that no such action could be maintained. Sir James Mansfield, chief-justice: “In order to enable the court-martial to decide upon the charges submitted by the king, they must hear all the evidence, as well on the part of the prosecution as of the defence; and after hearing both sides, are to declare their opinion whether there be any ground for the charges. If it appear that the charges are absolutely without foundation, is the president of the court-martial to remain perfectly silent on the conduct of the prosecutor, or can it be any offence for him to state that the charge is groundless and malicious 1 It seems to me that the words complained of in this case form part of the judgment of acquittal, and consequently no action can be maintained upon it.”

It may perhaps be fairly inferred from the foregoing decision, that if a court-martial pass a censure upon the prosecutor, with reference to a matter which is not expressly connected with the charge under trial before such court-martial, or with the proceedings of the court, the case would stand upon a different footing, and would probably be held actionable on the principle of Mr. Crawford's case already noticed.

Confidential communications from the members of a military court of inquiry to the superior military authorities are likewise privileged, and furnish no ground of action to the officer whose conduct is implicated in the documents.

Neither is the promulgation of a sentence in the gazette by a competent official person to be deemed a libel on the officer named in the paper. In 1807 Lord Win. Bentinck, governor of Madras, issued the following public order: “The Honorable the Court of Directors having resolved to dismiss Colonel Oliver of this establishment from the service of the Honorable Company, for gross violation of the trust reposed in him as Commanding Officer of the Molucca Islands, the Right Honorable the Governor in Council directs that the name of Colonel Oliver be erased from the Army List of this Presidency, from the 20th June last.” In 1811, Colonel Oliver brought an action at Westminster against Lord William Bentinck for the publication of this order, on the ground of its containing libellous matter injurious to the plaintiff. But the Court of Common Pleas decided it to be no libel. Sir James Mansfield, chief-justice.: “How should an officer in India know why he was dismissed, if the reason assigned is not to be made known? If the Court of Directors were peremptorily to dismiss him, without assigning a reason, that would be a greater hardship on the defendant.

. . . One should be very sorry to have any thing like a judgment in favor of a plaintiff in such an action as this, than which a more foolish or a more mischievous one cannot easily be imagined; it is much better for the Company, for the country, and for the plaintiff himself, that the cause of his dismissal should be stated, than that it should be supposed that the East India Company did it suo arbitrio”

“On the same principle, (says Mr. Justice Heath, in the same case,) when a delinquent, guilty of some enormity, has been brought to a court-martial, the commander-in-chief is not chargeable with libel for directing the sentence to be read at the head of every regiment.”


It is decided also, that any communications made by private individuals to superior officers, for the, bona fide purpose of obtaining redress of grievances, or otherwise invoking the exercise of authority over other officers, will be deemed privileged communications, and no libels.

The principle of the law on this subject, was declared by the court, in Cutler v. Dixon, to be this, that, “if actions should be permitted in such cases, those who have just cause of complaint, would not dare to complain for fear of infinite vexation.”

But where the author of a written communication traducing another person in his professional character has himself no interest in the matter, the bona fides of the proceeding will be no defence against an action. In Harwood v. Green, the plaintiff was master of the Jupiter transport; and the defendant, a lieutenant in the navy acting as government agent on board, wrote a letter to the secretary at Lloyd's, imputing to Harwood misconduct and incapacity in the management of the vessel. In consequence of this letter, Harwood brought an action against Lieutenant Green for a libel. Lieutenant Green defended himself on the ground that his letter was a privileged communication. But the Lord Chief-Justice Best declared his opinion to the jury, that an officer in the navy had not, as such, the right to make any communication to Lloyd's, but only to the government, by whom, if the matter were important, it might be again communicated to Lloyd's; and the jury gave Harwood a verdict with 50 damages.

It may be useful to mention here, as a legal point giving rights of redress between military men, that a superior officer cannot safely deal for his own advantage, in money matters, with a junior officer under his command. The influence which a senior officer can exercise over his junior is such as to destroy, or at least to control, in the purview of a Court of Equity, that entire freedom which is essential to the perfection of a bargain or contract; and if a regimental officer places him- self in a position where such influence may operate to the prejudice of the junior, the transactions between them are liable to be set aside for want of fairness or conscientiousness. This is the rule applied to dealings between a guardian and his ward, a physician and his patient, a landlord and his steward, a clergyman and a penitent, and all other cases w r here the existence of a just and unavoidable influence may lead to abuse.


II. Wrongs towards Persons not under Military Authority. Injuries may be occasioned to persons not subject to military authority, by officers mistaking or exceeding their powers, or exercising them with malice, negligence, or unskillfulness; but for acts of this kind a remedy lies only in the civil courts; the military tribunals, as already observed, having no power to grant pecuniary compensation by way of damages, and non-military persons having no locus standi as prosecutors before such courts, which are instituted solely for the maintenance of order and discipline among the armed forces.

In cases of the kind now under consideration, it is quite immaterial whether the cause of action has arisen within the realm, or beyond the seas; though this proposition was not finally established until the year 1774, when the great case of Fabrigas v. Mostyn was determined in the Court of King's Bench, and put an end to all further question or doubt upon the subject. The plaintiff was a native of Minorca, of which island the defendant, General Mostyn, was governor. The general had by his own absolute authority imprisoned the plaintiff and banished him from the island without a trial. The defence was, that in the peculiar district of Minorca, where the offence occurred, no ordinary court or magistrate had jurisdiction. But the proof of this defence failed, and the jury gave the plaintiff 3,000 damages. The objection, however, was taken that the action did not lie, by reason of the foreign locality of the cause of it, and the point was twice argued at great length; but judgment was eventually pronounced against General Mostyn, in accordance with the verdict of the jury. It should be noticed also that, as General Mostyn happened to be a governor, his appointment gave him the character of a viceroy, so that locally and during his government no civil or criminal action lay against him. On principles of public justice, therefore, it was necessary that a remedy should be had in England.

The undue assumption or mistaken exercise of authority by officers towards non-military persons, is a clear ground of action against them in the civil courts, even though there be no malice accompanying the transaction.

Captain Gambler, of the navy, under the orders of Admiral Boscawen, pulled down the houses of some sutlers on the coast of Nova Scotia, who supplied the seamen of the fleet with spirituous liquors. The act was done with a good intention on the part of the admiral; for the health of the sailors had been affected by frequenting these houses. Captain Gambier, on his return to England, incautiously brought home in his ship one of the sutlers whose houses had been thus demolished. The man would never otherwise have got to England; but on his arrival he was advised to bring an action against Captain Gambier. He. did so, and recovered 1,000 damages. But as the captain had acted by the orders of Admiral Boscawen, the representatives of the admiral defended the action, and paid the damages and costs. This was a favorable case, unaccompanied by any malicious feeling; but the parties concerned did not attempt to disturb the verdict. Admiral Sir Hugh Palliser was defendant in a similar action for destroying fishing huts on the Labrador coast. After the treaty of Paris, the Canadians, early in the season, erected huts for fishing, and by such means obtained an advantage over the fishermen who came from England. It was a nice question upon the rights of the Canadians. But the admiral, on grounds of public policy, ordered the huts to be destroyed. An action was brought against him in England by one of the injured parties, and the case ended in arbitration. But on the part of the admiral it was never contended that the action did not lie by reason of the subject-matter of it having occurred beyond the seas.

“I remember,” said Lord Mansfield, “early in my time being counsel in an action brought by a carpenter in the train of artillery against Governor Sabine, who was governor of Gibraltar, and who had barely confirmed the sentence of a court-martial, by which the plaintiff had been tried and sentenced to be whipped. The governor was very ably defended, but nobody ever thought that the action would not lie; and it being proved that the tradesmen who followed the train were not liable to martial law, the court were of that opinion, and the jury found the defendant guilty of the trespass, as having had a share in the sentence, and gave 700 damages.”

The following case, involving the same principle, occurred in India, and was there tried before the Supreme Court of Madras. Mr. H. Smith was agent, at Secunderabad, of a mercantile house at Madras, from whom he received a very handsome salary. He became indebted to a soldier of H. M.'s 33d regiment for some work intrusted to him, and a dispute having arisen between them as to the amount, this led to a violent altercation between Mr. Smith and the superintendent of the bazaar acting under local military regulations. Lieutenant-colonel Gore thereupon sent a file of men to arrest the plaintiff, who was accordingly seized about six o'clock in the evening, and marched from- his house through the streets of the cantonment to the main guard at Secunderabad, where he was kept till twelve o'clock the next day. In consequence of these proceedings, he brought an action against Colonel Gore for false imprisonment. Secunderabad was an open cantonment for a part of the subsidiary force serving in the territories of the Nizam; the force consisting partly of British and partly of native troops. It had barracks, and the men were hutted. It was also upon a field establishment, constantly ready for immediate service. The Article of War then in force, being the 22d in the llth section of the Statute 27 Geo. II., was thus intituled, “ Of duties in quarters, in garrison, and in the field;” and it enacted, “that all sutlers and retainers to the camp, and all persons whatsoever serving with forces in the field, though not enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to orders, according to the rules and discipline of war.” Sir Thomas Strange, C. J.: “The question was, whether the troops, being cantoned, were in the state to which the cited Articles of War applied. The court thought they were not. It might have been a field force, being upon a field establishment, so as to be ready to move at the shortest notice. There might be great similarity in the arrangements adopted for an army, whether in the field or cantoned. A respectable witness, Brigade-major Lyne, intimated as much. Still, so far as the court could form a judgment upon a question of this nature, there seemed to be a difference between a camp and a cantonment, which appeared material. . . . . When in the field, not only the army, but its appendages, must be under the immediate control of the officer commanding it, according to the rules and discipline of war. So situated, the sutler, who chose to follow the camp, identified himself in a manner with the soldier for every purpose almost but that of fighting. . . . . The plaintiff called upon the court to say, whether the force in question, under the command of the defendant, was at the time in the field. It seemed impossible to say that it was, without confounding ideas apparently very distinct. The defendant appeared to have acted under a mistake of his authority, for which he was liable to answer, as it had been productive of serious injury to the plaintiff.” Judgment was therefore given against Colonel Gore, with fifty pagodas damages.

In the foregoing case reference, was made to an action brought by Mr. Robert Bailie, an up-country trader in the province of Bengal, against Major-general Robert Stewart, for an assault and false imprisonment. Mr. Bailie had resided within the cantonments of Cawnpore for many years, and dealt in European articles, which he principally disposed of to the military stationed there. In October, 1797, upon a complaint made to him by one of the people of his Zenanah, he tied up and very severely flogged one of his chowkydars. For this act Major- general Stewart ordered Mr. Bailie to be tried by court-martial; and as he acknowledged to have used no less than six switch whips in the flogging, alleging as his reason, that as they were new whips, he was afraid of breaking them and spoiling their sale, the court-martial sentenced him to five days' imprisonment, and to make an apology to the commanding officer. This sentence General Stewart, though he did not approve of it, confirmed; and issued orders for Mr. Bailie to depart the camp as soon after his enlargement as possible. The Supreme Court of Calcutta held Mr. Bailie to be a sutler within the meaning of the Articles of War, so as to render him amenable to military law. But in the above-mentioned action of Smith v. Lieut.-Col. Gore, the chief-justice, Sir T. Strange, declined to be governed by the decision in General Stewart's case, as the note furnished to the court did not clearly show whether or not the army was in the field when the transaction occurred.

An unreasonable or malicious exercise of power will, in like manner, render an officer liable to an action for damages. An instance of this occurred in the year 1783, when an action was brought against General Murray, governor of Minorca, for improperly suspending the judge of the Vice-admiralty Court of that island. The general had professed himself ready to restore the judge on his making a particular apology; and, on reference to the home authorities, the king approved of the suspension, unless the governor's terms were complied with. There was no doubt as to General Murray's power to suspend the judge for proper cause; yet, on the proof of his having unreasonably and improperly exercised the authority, and notwithstanding the king's approbation of his proceedings, damages to the amount of 5,000 were awarded against him by a jury; and, as Mr. Baron Eyre observed, it never occurred to any lawyer that there was any pretence for questioning the verdict.

Negligence or unskillfulness in the exercise of an officer's duty may also be a cause of action for damages in respect of private injuries thus occasioned; and in such cases the approval of an officer's conduct by the government, or by the superior military authorities, will neither relieve him from liability to an action, nor have any influence upon the decision of the courts of Westminster Hall. Those tribunals investigate such matters on independent evidence, according to their own rules, and pay no regard to the previous conclusions of official functionaries, however high their rank may be. 


It is a rule of English law, in unison with the law of nations, to which all civilized states are governed, that no officer engaged in military operations in his country's cause, by the order or with the sanction of the constituted authorities, shall incur any individual or private responsibility for acts done by virtue of his commission or official instructions. Such transactions being of a public nature, redress or satisfaction injuries to which they give birth, is to be sought by public means alone, from the sovereign power of the belligerent or offending state, according to the principles of international law, and the general usages of civilization, which never suffer such matters to be litigated before ordinary tribunals.

If, in time of peace, the citizens of a friendly foreign state sustain a private injury at the hands of a naval or military officer serving under the orders of the British government, but unauthorized by his commission or instructions to do the act complained of, the ordinary tribunals of England afford the same redress against him as in the case of a British subject similarly aggrieved; and this rule applies even in those cases where the violated rights of the foreigner are such as the law of England denies or prohibits to its own subjects.

But if the British government have expressly instructed the officer to commit the act which constitutes or gives occasion to the grievance, the matter becomes an affair of state which is not cognizable by the courts of law, and must be adjusted by diplomatic arrangement between the two governments concerned. In such cases also it is quite sufficient, if the officer's proceedings, though not originally directed or authorized by the terms of his instructions, are afterward sanctioned and adopted by the government; for this renders them public acts, over which courts of law have no jurisdiction. (Consult PREXDERGAST'S Law relating to Officers of the Army.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 350-369).


INJURING PRIVATE PROPERTY. (See WASTE or Spill)


INLYING PICKET. A body of infantry or cavalry in campaign, detailed to march, if called upon, and held ready for that purpose in camp or quarters. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 369).


INMAN, John Hamilton, financier, born in Jefferson County, Tennessee. 23 October, 1844. His father was a banker and farmer. John loft school at fifteen years of age. and became a clerk in a Georgia bank, of which his uncle was president. At the beginning of the Civil War he enlisted in the Confederate Army. His relatives were impoverished by the war, and in September, 1865 he went to New York City to seek his fortune. He obtained employment in a cotton house, was admitted to a full partnership in the firm in 1868, and in 1870 founded the house of Inman, Swann and County, in which he associated himself with his former partners. The business increased rapidly, and in a few years he amassed a fortune of several million dollars in the cotton trade, which was attracted to New York City largely through his activity. He turned his attention to the development of southern resources, and, in association with other capitalists who relied on his judgment, invested over $5,000,000 in the enterprises of the Tennessee Coal, Iron, and Railroad Company, including the bituminous coal-mines at Birmingham, Alabama, the blast furnaces in that city, and Bessemer Steel Works at Ensley City, near there. He induced the investment of over $100,000,000 in southern enterprises, and became a director in companies that possessed more than 10,000 miles of railroad.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 352.


INMAN, William, naval officer, born in Utica, New York, in 1797: died in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, 23 October, 1874. His parents were English. He entered the U.S. Navy as a midshipman on 1 January, 1812, served on the lakes during the war of 1812-15, was promoted lieutenant on 1 April, 1818, and was in charge of one of the two boats that captured a pirate vessel on the coast of Cuba in 1823. He became a commander on 24 May, 1838, and was assigned to the steamer "Michigan" on the lakes in. 1844-'6. After being promoted captain on 2 June, 1850, he commanded the steam frigate "Susquehanna," of the East India Squadron, in 1851. From 1859 till 1861 he was in command of the squadron on the coast of Africa, which recaptured and landed in Liberia 3,600 slaves. He was promoted commodore and placed on the retired list on 4 April, 1867, and at the time of his death was the senior officer of his rank. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 352.


INSPECTORS-GENERAL. There are two inspectors-general of the army with the rank of colonel. Assistant adjutants-general are ex-officio assistant inspectors-general. The duties of inspectors-general are prescribed by Army Regulations. In the French army, a certain number of general officers are annually designated to make inspections, and such inspections embrace every thing relative to organization, recruiting, discharges, administration, accountability for money and property instruction, police, and discipline of the several corps of the army. At  these inspections all wrongs are redressed, and each inspection is continued from eight to ten days. The inspector examines and studies the condition of the corps under arms, as well as off parade; he receives all applications for discharge, and for the retired list. He notes those who merit promotion, rewards, or reprimands. He assembles the council of administration, and verifies their accounts; visits the store-houses, quarters, hospitals, prisons; inspects the clothing, arms &c., &c., and, in fine, scrutinizes every thing which it is desirable should be known. He gives his orders to the regiment for the ensuing year, and makes a detailed report of what he has seen and done. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 369-370).


INSURRECTION. (See CALLING FORTH MILITIA.) It will be observed that whenever the President of the United States is authorized by law to use the military force in cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, he must first, by proclamation, have commanded the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time; (Act Feb. 28, 1795. See OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE LAWS.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INTERIOR FLANKING ANGLE is formed by the line of defence and the curtain. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INTERIOR SIDE is the line drawn from the centre of one bastion to that of the next, or the line of the curtain produced, to the two oblique radii of the front. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INTRENCHED CAMP. A position is so called when occupied by troops, and fortified for their protection during the operations of a campaign. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INTRENCHMENT. A ditch or trench with a parapet; field- works. In permanent fortification, intrenchments are made in various parts of the works to prolong the defence, as a breast-work and ditch at the gorge of the bastion, &c. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INUNDATION. An inundation or collection of water is produced by forming across a stream one or more dams. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 370).


INVASION. (See CONSTITUTION; CALLING FORTH MILITIA; NATIONAL DEFENCE.)


INVERSION. In case a column, marching right in front, shall be under the necessity of forming into line faced to the reverse flank by the promptest means, the command is given: Halt! By inversion right into line wheel, battalion guide right. This movement will give an order of battle with the left company occupying the right of the battalion, and the right the left.

Inversions are very important in the field, and they offer such great advantages, that Bonaparte strongly advised their employment in many circumstances. Our tactics admit the employment of inversions in the formations to the right and left in line of battle, and also in the successive formations, except in that of faced to the rear into line of battle. When used, the first command always begins, By inversion. (See INFANTRY.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 370-371).


INVEST. To take the initiatory measures to besiege a town, by securing every road and avenue leading to it, to prevent ingress or egress. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 371).


IRELAND, John, governor of Texas, born in Hart County, Kentucky, 1 January, 1827. He studied law, moved to Texas in 1852, and practised at Seguin, of which town he was elected mayor in 1856. He was a member of the convention that passed the Ordinance of Secession in 1861, and served through the war in the Confederate Army, becoming lieutenant-colonel of a Texas infantry regiment in 1862. In 1866 he was elected a delegate to the State Constitutional Convention, and the same year a district judge. He was sent to the legislature in 1872, chosen a member of the state senate in 1873, and in 1875 appointed an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of Texas. In 1882 he was elected governor, and in 1884 was re-elected.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 355.


IRISH BEND, LOUISIANA, April 14, 1863. 4th Division, 19th Army Corps. At daylight the division, Brigadier-General Cuvier Grover commanding, moved from Mrs. Porter's plantation, near Centerville, toward Irish bend. The 3d brigade under Colonel H. W. Birge, with Rodgers' battery, had the advance, followed by the 1st brigade, under Brigadier-General William Dwight, with Closson's battery, while the 2nd brigade, under Colonel W. K. Kimball, brought up the rear. When within 40 rods of where the road turned to form a right angle with the bend, Birge's skirmishers became engaged, and soon afterward the enemy opened with a battery posted in the woods at the angle of the road. In ordering up his reserves Birge exposed for a time his right flank, of which situation the Confederates were quick to take advantage, a force which had been concealed in the thick undergrowth making a dashing charge upon the flank and rear of the reserve regiments. This unexpected assault was bravely met, but the brigade was finally compelled to fall back. In the meantime Dwight had come up and he now, with the aid of Rodgers' battery, drove the enemy from Birge's flank, after which he attacked and pressed back the force in front. Reconnaissances disclosed the fact that the Confederates had taken up a still stronger position, where their right was protected by the gunboat Diana, thus giving an opportunity for the concentration of a greater portion of their strength on the left. For awhile the Diana kept up a cross-fire on the front, but the enemy did not attack. Grover then ordered a general advance, when the infantry and cavalry retired and the Diana dropped down stream, where she was blown up and burned. The Union loss was 49 killed, 264 wounded and 30 missing. The exact losses of the enemy were not learned, but Grover's men buried 21 Confederate dead and carried off 35 of their wounded. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 511.


IRON PLATES. In the experiments made against the “Undaunted,” at Portsmouth, the following results were obtained: Six wrought-iron 68-lb. shot were fired with a charge of 16 lbs. at 200 yards, the iron plates being 4|- in. thick; four of these shot broke the plates, but did not penetrate the timber; two passed entirely through both plates and timber. Forty-three cast-iron 68-lb. shot were fired against other plates of similar thickness. Of these, four passed through the plates but not the timber. Nine passed through both; but there was only one case of a shot taking good effect after striking an uninjured plate. Thus of the four shots that passed through the plates without penetrating the timber, only one went through a plate that had not been previously weakened.

The shot that penetrated entirely through the plates and the timber had all passed through plates previously weakened. No penetration was effected by red-hot 68-lb. shot, with a charge of 10 lbs. The 3 and 2-in. plates were all penetrated by 68-lb. shot and shells.

The following conclusions have been drawn from experiments:

1st. That thin plates of wrought iron are proof against any shells; for, though the shells may pass through the plates, they will be in a broken state.

2d. That being proof against shells will avail little, unless vessels are likewise proof against solid shot; for shells would, of course, not be fired against ships proof against them, whereas the destructive effects produced by fragments of shot and of plates, and the great damage done to the scantling of the ship by solid shot, appear more like the result of a shell than of a shot.

3d. That rifled projectiles produce greater effect than spherical projectiles of the same weight at long than at short ranges, on account of the rifled elongated projectiles the resistance to which is a minimum retaining more of their initial velocity than spherical projectiles at the same distance.

4th. That the thickness of plates required to resist shot fired from the heaviest nature of guns, must not be less than 4 in.

5th. That, to secure the resistance of the plates and the impenetrability of the sides of a ship, it is indispensable that the plates be strongly backed by masses of the strongest and most resisting timber, as, in all the cases to which reference has just been made, it appears that the plates are easily broken when the support is removed from behind them, by the crushing, fracturing, and damaging effects of the impacts of the shot; # (Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS.)

With the knowledge of these data, an iron-clad ship, “Le Gloire,” has been built in France, carrying 38 rifled 50-pounders, and Trance, it is said, will soon have 300 rifled guns in such vessels.

In England, the iron-clad “Warrior,” 420 feet long and over 6,000 tons' burden, has been built. The new principle introduced in England, of inclining the iron-clad sides inwardly, so as to make an angle with the horizontal of from 35 to 40, will cause the shot to glance off, with little injury to the sides. In addition to this, it is proposed to suppress the port-holes, and place the guns in rotating iron cupolas, from which, by a rotatory of 180, they fire over the bulwarks on either broadside the gunners being perfectly sheltered under these shot-proof covers; (BARNARD'S Sea-coast Defence.) The great objection to such an arrangement is its unwieldiness, and the opinion of distinguished officers that iron plates are only practicable for floating batteries, gunboats, and other vessels of small draft of water, for special purposes, may prove the better opinion, notwithstanding the great outlay made by the French and English governments. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 371-372).


IRONTON, MISSOURI, September 26-27, 1864(See Fort Davidson.)


IRVINE, KENTUCKY, July 29, 1863. U. S. Troops under Colonel W. P. Sanders. On this date Colonel Sanders assumed command of all the mounted troops in the vicinity of Lexington, and at 3 p. m. with detachments of the 1st, 10th and 14th Kentucky, 2nd and 7th Ohio, 8th and 9th Michigan, and 5th East Tennessee cavalry; 1st and 2nd East Tennessee, 45th Ohio, and 112th Illinois mounted infantry, and Crawford's Tennessee battery, started from Lexington. After driving the enemy through Winchester, Sanders next day followed him closely on the Irvine road, and upon arriving at Irvine the Confederates were found in force, drawn up in line of battle on the other side of the river. After an hour's fighting they were driven from their position and forced to abandon a number of horses and mules. During the running fight from Winchester to Irvine the Federal troops captured some 100 prisoners and killed and wounded a number of the enemy. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 511.


IRWIN, John, naval officer, born in Pennsylvania, 15 April, 1832. He was commissioned midshipman in 1847, passed midshipman in 1853, lieutenant in 1855, captain in 1875, and commodore in 1886. During the Civil War he served on the frigate " Wabash” at the battle of Port Royal, and with a detachment of officers and seamen of the ship participated in the bombardment and capture of Fort Pulaski. His conduct on this occasion was commended in the official report. He is now (1887) senior member of the board of inspection in San Francisco.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 364.


IRWINSVILLE, GEORGIA, May 10, 1865. Detachments of 1st Wisconsin and 4th Michigan Cavalry. These two regiments were sent out by Major-General James H. Wilson to follow and capture Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. It was ascertained that Davis, with a train, was encamped on the night of the 9th at Irwinsville. Colonel Harnden, commanding the Wisconsin detachment, started at 3 a. m. next day, and when near Irwinsville his detachment was fired upon by what he supposed was a Confederate picket. The Wisconsin men returned the fire and advancing captured a prisoner, who proved to be a member of the 4th Michigan, which regiment Harnden had left at Abbeville the day before. In the meantime part of the Michigan troops had surrounded and captured the camp, and with it Davis and his family. In the unfortunate skirmish between the two Union detachments 2 Michigan men were killed and an officer was wounded; 3 Wisconsin men were severely and several others slightly wounded. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, pp. 511-12.


ISLAND MOUND, MISSOURI, October 27-29, 1862. Detachment of the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry. The detachment, numbering about 240 men and commanded by Major Richard G. Ward, left camp on the 26th and the next day crossed the Osage river at Dickey's ford. Near this point the Confederates had a force of about 800 men concentrated on Osage island, and the next two days were spent in desultory skirmishing, Ward trying to draw the enemy from the island and the Confederates trying to draw the Union men from the cover of the timber. While Ward's men were at dinner on the 29th his pickets were driven in, and suspecting that the enemy was taking position behind the eminence known as Island mound, Lieutenant Gardner was sent with 25 men to dislodge him. Gardner succeeded in doing this, but on attempting to return to camp was charged by about 400 of the enemy and his little band would have been annihilated but for the timely arrival of Captain Armstrong with reinforcements. Even then it was an unequal contest and the remainder of the Union troops were speedily brought into action, with the result that the Confederates were repulsed. The Federal loss was 8 killed and 11 wounded. The enemy's loss was not ascertained, but it must have been considerably more. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 512.


ISLAND NO. 10, SIEGE OF, March 15 to April 8, 1862. (See New Madrid.)


ISLAND NO. 65, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, May —, 1863. Detachments of 1st Indiana Cavalry, 36th Iowa Infantry and 2nd Arkansas Colored Infantry. The steamboat Pike, with a force of troops under Lieutenant-Colonel George W. De Costa, while proceeding down the Mississippi for the purpose of recruiting for the 2nd Arkansas, was fired into near Island No. 65. Brisk fighting ensued for a time, one of the 2 Confederate pieces of artillery being silenced by a howitzer on board the vessel. Captain Waters of the Union command was slightly wounded, and 2 contrabands received death wounds. The Confederates are thought to have lost 10 or 15 in killed or wounded. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 512.


ISLAND NO. 76, MISSISSIPPI, January 20, 1864. Battery E, 2nd Colored Light Artillery. Island No. 82, Mississippi, May 18, 1863. Detachment of 4th Division, 16th Army Corps. While proceeding on transports, 15 miles from Greenville and near Island No. 82, the advance boat of the transport fleet was fired into from the Mississippi side of the river, wounding 14 men of the 3d la. A force was immediately landed and started in pursuit, but the chase was futile. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 512.


ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, January 30-February 1, 1864. Naval Brigade Expedition. Brigadier-General Charles K. Graham, commanding the naval brigade, led an expedition to Isle of Wight county for the purpose of capturing a detachment of the enemy reported to be on the peninsula formed by Pagan and Chuckatuck creeks and the Nansemond river. A reconnaissance was made on the 29th by the gunboats Flora Temple and Smith Briggs, the former to Chuckatuck creek and the latter up the Nansemond. Owing to a heavy fog on the 30th but little was done, but at daylight on the 31st the Smith Briggs, two launches from the steamer Foster, and the gunboat Commodore Morris, all under command of Lieutenant-Com. J. H. Gillis, were ordered to move up the Nansemond to Holloway point, where the troops were to land and move on the village of Chuckatuck. Graham, with the gunboats Flora Temple and General Jesup, and the transport Long Branch, was to sail at 10:30 a. m. for Smithfield, on Pagan creek, where his men were to land and move to Chuckatuck, where the two detachments were to form a junction. Shortly after 1 p. m. a force of -90 men was landed at Smithfield, under command of Captain Lee of the 99th New York infantry, with instructions to push on to Chuckatuck, engaging any enemy that might be in the way. The gunboats were placed in position to command the town and cover the retreat of Lee, in case he was compelled to fall back. They remained there until about 3 p. m., when the Temple was sent to engage the attention of the enemy on Chuckatuck creek in the neighborhood of Cherry Grove. An hour later, having heard no firing, Graham moved with the Jesup and Long Branch for Holloway point. In the dense fog the Temple ran aground at the mouth of Pagan creek, and when Graham reached the mouth of the Nansemond the pilot of the Jesup stated that it would be impossible to go up the river until the fog lifted. The Long Branch, being of light draft, was sent up the river and about 8 p. m. arrived at Holloway point, where Graham was informed that Captain McLaughlin, with 40 men, had advanced to Chuckatuck and remained there until dark without meeting Lee, and had then returned to the point with the report that he had heard heavy firing in the direction of Smithfield. Reconnaissances were made during the night and at 7 a. m. on February 1 Graham landed with 80 men and proceeded to Chuckatuck. Finding no enemy there he went a mile farther toward Smithfield, but could get no tidings of the force under Lee and returned to the river. About 11:30 a. m. the gunboat Commodore Jones came up with a despatch, stating that Ensign Harris had escaped from Smithfield and brought the news that Lee had met the enemy at Benn's church and had been driven back to Smithfield, where he was then surrounded and short of ammunition. Without waiting to hear from Graham, Rear Adm. Lee had sent launches with howitzers and ammunition to the assistance of the detachment. Upon receiving this despatch Graham at once started with the gunboats for Smithfield, but when he reached the mouth of Pagan creek he learned that Lee's command and the Smith Briggs had been captured, that the gunboat had been blown up by the Confederates to prevent recapture, and that the launches sent by Rear Adm. Lee had met with such a galling fire that they were compelled to retire, the commanding officer and several of his men having been wounded. Thus the expedition ended disastrously. The exact losses were not reported, but practically all of the detachment that landed at Smithfield and the crew of the Briggs were either killed, wounded or captured. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, pp. 512-513.


ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, April 13-15, 1864. Expedition led by Brigadier-General C. K. Graham. Pursuant to orders from Major-General B. F. Butler, General Graham, commander of the naval brigade, conducted an expedition into Isle of Wight county to break up a Confederate force that was annoying the gunboats along the James and Nansemond rivers. At midnight of the 13th the 23d Massachusetts infantry, Colonel Andrew Elwell, was embarked on the transport Pentz at Newport News, and under convoy of the gunboat Brewster moved up the James river, arriving at 4 a. m. at Burwell's bay, 9 miles above Smithfield, which was the objective point. The 25th Massachusetts, Colonel Josiah Pickett, embarked at Portsmouth, at sunset on the 13th, on the steamers C. W. Thomas and John Tracy, and arrived at Smithfield about 2 p. m. the next day. The 118th New York, Colonel Oliver Keese, embarked on launches at Sleepy Hole landing, on the Nansemond, at 2 a. m. of the 14th and proceeded directly to Holloway's point. From there Keese sent a detachment of 100 men to Barrel point and with the remainder of the regiment marched to Cherry Grove, where he arrived at 7 a. m. Graham, with the 9th New Jersey, left Newport News on the flag-ship Chamberlain and the transports Tucker and Woodis at 4 a. m., and arrived at Cherry Grove about the same time as Keese. The two regiments immediately took up the march for Smithfield, but had not proceeded far when the enemy's skirmishers were encountered and the fighting was kept up for a distance of 3 or 4 miles, the dense thickets along both sides of the road making it impossible to capture the small force that annoyed the advance. At Benn's church the 118th New York was halted, with orders to remain there until 3 p. m. and then push on to Smithfield. Graham reached Smithfield about 5 p. m., but was disappointed at not finding the 23d Massachusetts there as he had expected, and made arrangements to hold the town until the next morning. Shortly afterward he was joined by Reese's regiment. Immediately after landing at Burwell's bay, Colonel Elwell started for Smithfield, but soon met the enemy's pickets and drove them back for about 2 miles, when he came upon a larger force protected by earthworks. After a sharp skirmish the Confederates were dislodged, but a little farther on they again made a stand at Wren's mills. Here they held Elwell in check for an hour, when one company charged across the creek and flanked the enemy from position. The enemy's cavalry now came up and Elwell decided to fall back to Fort Boykin, where his regiment could be protected by the fire of the gunboats in the James. At 8 p. m. he reembarked and moved down to Pagan creek, where he anchored until the following morning, when he received orders to return to Portsmouth. The loss of this regiment during the actions of the 14th was 4 wounded and 1 missing. At daylight on the 15th the 118th New York was sent up Pagan creek to destroy all the boats that could be found and feel the enemy. No enemy could be found and it soon became apparent that the Confederates had withdrawn during the night. The results of the expedition were the capture of a few prisoners; the driving away of the force in the vicinity of Smithfield and Cherry Grove; and the capture of considerable stores, which for want of transportation had to be destroyed. Among the property thus taken were 3 carriages, a lot of tobacco, several pairs of boots, some sugar, harness, tools, etc. Besides the loss of the 23d Massachusetts, already mentioned, the 9th New Jersey had 1 man wounded in the skirmish at Cherry Grove. The enemy's casualties were not ascertained. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 513-14.


ISLE OF WIGHT COURT HOUSE, VIRGINIA, December 22, 1862. Detachment 2nd New York Mounted Rifles. Iuka, Mississippi, September 13, 1862. 8th Wisconsin Infantry. Colonel Robert C. Murphy of the 8th Wisconsin, commanding the garrison at Iuka, reported to Major-General Rosecrans that a Confederate cavalry force attacked him and were repulsed on the morning of the 13th. Two of the attacking party were captured, but no other casualties were reported. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 514.


IUKA, MISSISSIPPI, September 19-20, 1862. Army of the Mississippi. On September 15 General J. A. Mower made a reconnaissance with his brigade to within 2 miles of Iuka and ascertained that Major-General Sterling Price of the Confederate army, with 28 regiments of infantry, 6 batteries and a considerable force of cavalry, occupied the town. General Grant determined upon an attack in two columns, the one commanded by Brigadier-General W. S. Rosecrans to move to the right of the railroad, and the other, under Major-General E. O. C. Ord, was to move to Burnsville, take the roads to the north of the railroad and move upon Iuka. On the night of the 18th the latter was in position to bring on an engagement in an hour, but Rosecrans, because of a greater distance to march and a worthless guide, was 20 miles back. At daylight of the 19th his command moved, Stanley's division in the lead, and* by noon had reached Barnett's, a distance of 12 miles, the enemy's pickets having been driven for 2 or 3 miles. At this point Sanborn's brigade of Hamilton's division took the lead, the rest of Hamilton's division following with Stanley's division in the rear. The Confederate skirmishers were steadily driven back until the head of Rosecrans' column was within 2 miles of Iuka, near the forks of the Jacinto road and the cross-roads leading from it to Fulton. Here at 4:30 p. m. the enemy unexpectedly took the initiative. Hamilton deployed his force to the best advantage, his artillery being posted on the only ground available for the purpose. Colonel Mizner with a battalion of the 3d Michigan cavalry was sent out on the right and Colonel Perczel with the 10th la. infantry and a section of artillery formed the left. The enemy's line moved forward on the battery, and although met by a volley from the entire Federal line at 100 yards, it succeeded in reaching the battery, but was repulsed. A second time the enemy gained the battery and a second time was repulsed, but on the third attempt the three regiments sent out for the purpose, with the aid of the regiment of Texans which had just been repulsed by the 5th la., drove off the gunners and compelled the 48th Indiana to fall back upon the 4th Minnesota At this time Stanley's division was brought into the action. The 11th Missouri was placed a trifle to the right and rear of the 5th la., where it repulsed with loss a last desperate attack of two Mississippi brigades. The battle raged furiously until darkness put a stop to the fighting, the 2nd brigade of Stanley's division having been brought into action. During the night Rosecrans deployed his forces to the best advantage, expecting a renewal of the engagement at daylight, but the Confederate forces had withdrawn. Stanley followed, and when within striking distance shelled the town, driving out a number of stragglers. He pushed on for several miles, but owing to the exhausted condition of his troops, his column was badly distanced and he gave up the pursuit. Among the ordnance stores abandoned by the enemy and taken possession of by Rosecrans were 1,629 stand of arms, a large stock of equipments, a quantity of quartermaster and commissary stores, and 13,000 rounds of ammunition. The casualties were 141 killed, 613 wounded and 36 captured or missing on the Federal side and the Confederates, according to their own report, lost 86 killed and 408 wounded. Rosecrans, however, in his report says they lost 265 killed; 120 died of wounds; nearly 700 wounded, and 361 taken prisoners. The Federal force in the engagement consisted of 9,000 men. A fresh wind, blowing from Ord's position in the direction of Iuka, prevented the sound of the guns from reaching him, and he knew nothing of the engagement until after it was over. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 514-15.


IUKA, MISSISSIPPI, July 7, 1863. U. S. Troops under Colonel Florence M. Cornyn. On the morning of this date Colonel Cornyn, with the 7th Kansas, eight companies of the 10th Missouri, and a detachment of the 15th Illinois cavalry, 750 men in all. left Corinth for a reconnaissance on the North Farmington road. On reaching the corral on this road he learned that 12 companies of mounted Confederates had a short time before overpowered the guard and taken all the stock. He pursued and when about a mile and a half from Iuka came upon about 1,500 of the enemy posted in an open field on both sides of the road. The Illinois troops were deployed as skirmishers while the rest of the command, except a portion of the 7th Kansas, was dismounted and formed in line of battle. The mounted howitzers were discharged into the enemy's line for some time, when Cornyn advanced. He was met by a heavy fire but succeeded in driving the Confederates in confusion. Three squadrons of the 7th Kansas under Major Jenkins was sent in pursuit and followed as far as Iuka, capturing a battery wagon and forge. The Federal loss was 4 killed and 8 wounded. The Confederate casualties were not reported but were undoubtedly heavy, as the Union men found several dead on the field. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, pp. 515-516.


IVES, Thomas Poynton, naval officer, born in Providence, Rhode Island, 17 January, 1834; died in Havre, France, 17 November, 1865. He was the son of a merchant in Providence, and when the Civil War began offered his services to the government, entering the U.S. Navy as a volunteer. At the same time he presented his yacht to the Navy Department, and refused to receive any compensation for his services as an officer of the navy. He became acting master, 3 September, 1862, acting volunteer lieutenant, for "efficient and gallant conduct," 26 May, 1863, and acting volunteer lieutenant-commander, 7 November, 1864. He bore an active part in the earlier operations against the Hatteras Forts and at Roanoke Island, was then transferred to the Potomac Flotilla, and subsequently assigned to ordnance duty at the Washington U.S. Navy-yard. Illness compelled him to tender his resignation, which the department refused to accept, but granted him leave of absence.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 370.


IVEY'S FARM, MISSISSIPPI, February 22, 1864. (See Okolona, same date.)


IVEY FORD, ARKANSAS, January 17, 1865. U. S. Transports Chippewa, Lotus and Annie Jacobs. While these vessels under Colonel Thomas M. Bowen were proceeding up the Arkansas river, they were attacked by a Confederate force on the south bank. The Chippewa, which was in the advance, received the worst of the fire and became so disabled that it was necessary to run her aground in order to save her. The crew and the soldiers on board were disembarked and a battery placed in position to fire upon the enemy, but during the night the Confederates withdrew. The casualties were not reported. The other transports received several shots, but were not so badly injured as the Chippewa. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 6, p. 516.