largest con-
struction program in the nation's history, providing the home base for a
United States Army that grew to more than eight million men and women.
The Corps-related construction work included development of the facilities for
making atomic bombs. In telling the story of these herculean efforts the
authors
set
and scholarly history on
the subject of construction has ever before been undertaken in this country.
Other aspects of the domestic contributions of the Army Engineers in
the war have been covered in the first volume of this subseries to be pub-
lished, Troops and Equipment, and a second told the story of the Engineer
effort overseas in the war against Japan. A final volume still in preparation
will relate the activities of Engineers in the Mediterranean area and Europe
in the war
and
Germany.
While this volume presents the story of military construction during the
war primarily from the point of view of the Corps of Engineers as revealed
in its records and by its participants, it does justice also to the work of the
Quartermaster
Corps from which the Engineers inherited responsibility
for military construction in the United States in 1940 and 1941. This book
should be welcomed by both the thoughtful citizen and the military student
for its readability as
authority a variety of activities that collectively were a significant foundation
of victory in America's most gigantic conflict.
Washington, D.C. JAMES
L. COLLINS, JR.
Chief
of
Johns Hopkins University. She has done additional graduate
work in history
at the latter institution.
Jesse A. Remington, who holds a Ph.D. degree from the University
of Maryland, joined the
served
A vast homefront construction effort by the U.S. Army undergirded
mobilization and combat in World War II. Started by the Quartermaster
Corps and carried to
of Engineers,
this building
program embraced more than 27,000 projects, large and small, and cost
$15.3 billion, roughly $59 billion in 1970 prices.  (See Appendix.) Among
its major features
plants
to
tanks, and
planes; hospitals
providing nearly half a million beds; a huge network of ports and depots;
improvements
and flood protection for vital industries;
bomber bases which entailed a whole new technology; the mammoth Penta-
gon Building; and facilities for the epochal Manhattan Project. Our book is
history this undertaking.
of civilian
dealers; of dollar-a-year
men and expert consultants; of industrialists and union organizers; of states-
men and politicians; of patriots and profiteers; and of the faceless multitude—
workers, GI's, small
businessmen, dispossessed property owners, and citizens
of every stripe who participated in or felt the impact of the program.
Through-
Ostensibly a diffuse technical subject, an untempting prospect for his-
torians,
inquiry.
day-to-day operations
in the
field—all
indifference and military
unpreparedness, of cruel disappointments and serious mistakes, of
remedial
ing success. Because
their roots in
followed, the narrative
in 1917
and, more or less following a chronological scheme, proceeds through eighteen
chapters
to
achievements—airfields for heavy bombers and the atomic bomb.
We are deeply grateful to all those
persons
of
present colleagues
and assistance eased our
task. Dr. O. J.
ix
 
of inspiration and encouragement. Dr. Karl C. Dod offered many valuable
comments and suggestions. Miss Dorothe M. Grand gave us the
benefit
of
her
thoughtful critic. Miss Blanche
labor
relations;
Miss G. Louise Marr, on real estate. A study of the Man-
hattan Engineer
for Chapter XX. Many participants,
nearly
volume, gave
of their time and knowledge, helping to illuminate
the written record and correcting factual errors. We are particularly grateful
to the officers who read and
commented
Hardin;
Lt. Gen. Eugene Reybold;
Col. Lloyd C. Ritchie; Lt. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr.; and Lt. Gen. Walter
K. Wilson, Jr. To Generals Groves and
Sturgis,
exceptionally heavy.
Mr. Harry B.
Mrs.
Virginia
Mrs.
Mary K. Stuart, Mr. John E. Taylor, and Mrs. Mae E.
Walker, whose archival assistance was indispensable; to Miss Agnes M.
Dutkevich and Mrs. Ruth E. Steers, who typed the final draft of the manu-
script and verified quotations and names; and to Mr. Robert L.
Collins, Jr.,
and charts.
We are also obliged to members of the Office of the Chief of Military
History,
skill and admirable diplomacy in the final editing. Mrs.
Marion P. Grimes
was the copy editor. Mrs. Muriel Southwick prepared the index.
Finally, we
Blakeley,
Brig.
Logan O. Cowgill, Brig.
Gen. Ira A. Hunt, Jr., Mr. August J. Karasek,
Mrs. Bessie S. Rubin, and all the other members of the Engineer family who
effectively supported our effort.
conclusions
 
A Backward Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I I . LEAN YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2
T h e Construction Service, 1920-1938 . . . . . . . . . 4 3
Preparedness
a n d Public W o r k s . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
Mobilization Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
T h e Expansion Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
T h e Quest f o r
Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
Quartermaster Plans
W a y . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0
The Period of th e Phony W a r . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 8
IV. FIRST STEPS TOWARD MOBILIZATION . . . . . . I I I
T h e Defense Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I
Early Preparations
V. LAUNCHING DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION
Engineering.
xi
2 0 1
Lumber
Construction
Equipment.
T h e Engineers' Predicament . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4
Growth
o f t h e Engineer Mission . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 6
A
Reorganization a n d Restaffing . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 9
Transfer of Air Corps
C o n s t r u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 267
VIII. COMPLETING T H E CAMPS . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 3
T h e Deficit Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 7 3
Winter Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 7
3 0 2
INDUSTRY.
. . . . . . 309
Status
o f t h e Program—December 1940. . . . . . . . . 3 1 0
Dollars Versus Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3
Demands f o r Greater
Speed. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 1
Completing t h e First-Wave Plants . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 5
X . PLANNING AHEAD
Advance Planning—Camps a n d Cantonments . . . . . . . 3 4 2
A Ne w Approach—Munitions Projects . . . . . . . . 354
A Stronger Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3
T h e Building Trades Agreement . . . . . . . . . . 366
XI . THE PUBLIC IMAGE
Congressman Engel Investigates. . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 8
House
xii
Contracts . . . . . . . . .
3 9 3
Changes i n Organization a n d Procedures . . . . . . . . 4 0 1
XIII. TOWARD A FOUR-MILLION-MAN ARMY. . . . . . 408
Budgetary Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 8
Contractual Refinements a n d Reforms . . . . . . . . . 4 1 9
T h e Pentagon
4 4 0
t h e Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 0
Reaching a
Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T h e War Construction Command . . . . . . . . . . 485
T h e B i g Push 4 9 9
Peak Construction
Lumber Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Competition a n d
Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 3
Renegotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7
Curtailment.
Late Programs
BOMBERS . . . . . 614
Breakthrough and Advance, 1942-1944 . . . . . . . . 623
Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiii
MED: Origins a n d Early Efforts . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 1
Clinton andHanford . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 8
Zia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 3
UNITED STATES,
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 54
4.
States, June 1 9 4 0 . . . . . 121
5. Schedule of
7 .
Schedule
for
Housing
National
Quota
of Selectees . . . . 200
9. Reserve Officers on Active Duty With Construction Division, 13 Decem-
b e r 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 4
10. Number of Persons
struction
1 1 .
12 . Summary of Quartermaster Projects Completed and Under Way, 5
December 1941
Services, 2 3
1942 . . . . 537
1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
United States, 1925-1939 ... 120
June-November 1940 . 124
September 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4
5. Organization of Fixed Fee Branch, Construction Division, OQMG,
November 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Organization of Office of
Assistant
8. Organization of Operations Branch, Construction Division, OQMG,
January to March 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 1
9. Rate
11.
12.
Construction
Program,
13. Comparison of Costs—Quartermaster Construction Program, 1 April to
1 5 December 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 8
14. Organization of Defense Projects Branch, Construction Section, OCE,
April 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 2
15.
Construction
of Engineers at Air Corps Stations—U.S. Army 458
16. Position of Corps of Engineers in War Department After 9 March 1942 . 492
1 7 .
19. Organization of
Placed During 1943
22. Organization of Military
Divisions, OCE, December
23. Value of Work Placed on War Construction Program, Continental
United States,
Airfield Pavements . . . . . 627
26.
Wheel
Loads as Columns of Concrete 3 Feet 8 Inches in Diameter . . . 646
27. Organization of Manhattan Engineer
District,
3. Boundaries o f
Engineer Divisions, December 1942
15
Barracks and Lavatories, Camp Dix, N e w Jersey . . . . . . . . 1 7
Brig. Gen. Richard C . Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
Old Hickory Powder Plant, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chanute
Officers'
. . . . . 57
U S S Houston Passing Through
Panama Canal . . . . . . . . . 7 8
After Japanese Attack . . . . . . 8 5
Maj.
Equipment Arriving at Borinquen Field, Puerto Rico
. . . . . . .
Harvey,
1930's
Harry W . Loving
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7
Michael J . Madigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 5 9
Mess Hall, Camp
Grant, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
. . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9
206
Leonard
232
Col.
Col.
Maj. Clinton F . Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 2
Col.
Camp
Pouring
Concrete
Men
Aerial
View
Construction at Indiana Ordnance Works, 1940. . . . . . . .. 315
General Grant (M3)
Night Shift at Work, St. Louis Ordnance Plant . . . . . . . . . 326
Constructing Standard Igloo Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4
Somervell Addressing Construction Force
Flag Raising at
Concrete
Drainage
. . . . . .
Bradley Field, Windsor Locks, Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 449
Fort Worth Aircraft Assembly
President . . . . . . . . . 466
1942 . . . . . . . . . . 483
Col. Samuel D . Sturgis,J r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 4
Pentagon Under Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Bachelor Officers'
Corbetta Beehive Magazine Under Construction . . . . . . . .
530
California . . 559
. . . . . . 595
Holston Ordnance Works, T e n n e s s e e . . . . . . . . . . . .
596
Bomber Modification
Center . . . . . . 597
Col. Kenneth
Project . . . . . . . . 661
First Pile
. . . . . . . . . . . 688
sources:
Co., Inc.:
page 26.
AGC,
Leeds, Hill and
Jewett, Inc.: pages
J. A.
page 597.
Atomic Energy
files
Leslie Groves
struction
generally
in Europe, the United States was ill
prepared to counter
line of
more than a
a
out in 1941:
part of defense, it is also the first
step in de-
alter non-defense plants to new produc-
tion . . . . Similarly, if we are to train
our Army well, our soldiers must be
provided
production in World War II. A 15.6-
billion-dollar Army
construction effort
the foundations for victory.
ferent
story.
mustering small units, which
sign, troops received such training as
time permitted. In the Spanish-American
War, regiments
east, whence
soon as ships were available. For weap-
ons and ammunition, the
products of small foundries, smithies,
and the like.
presented no serious wartime
1
hereinafter as Groves Comments.
Program, 77th Cong, 1st sess, Hearings, Part 8, p.
2493. Cited hereinafter as Truman Comm, Hearings.
 
struction was shared by various branches
of the Army. At the outbreak of the
Revolutionary War, Congress, following
and to The Quartermaster General the
task of quartering the Army. Thus it
was established early that
The Ordnance Department erected ar-
senals; the Signal Corps, after its found-
ing in
cilities; and most of the other
branches,
building work. Nevertheless, the two
agencies most closely associated with
military construction were the Quarter-
master Corps and the Corps of Engineers.
The Quartermaster Corps was a multi-
functioned organization
concerned with
charging
of small posts sufficed to house the Army
in the
early days
troops.
ment. At permanent
of
earlier
importance.
project cropped
up, for
quarters
and 1900 Congress seldom
3
master
or two and a few civilians took care of
budgetary
and
duty
from the line. Their work, in most in-
stances,
was
supervised
early days, construction
ficer
workmen, and oversaw the,
the picture. By the 1850's the Quarter-
master Corps had
which required
gency" demanded immediate per-
to the Secretary of War.
 
5
posts
lations, Fort Riley, Kansas,
Fort Ontario, New York, could house
40.
4
than toward construction, composed
had any technical background, and
forced to rely
builders,
struction capability
torically, June 16th, 1775, the date of
the Corps' founding, was barely more
significant than March 16th, 1802. On
that day President Jefferson signed a
bill providing for a Corps of Engineers—
seven officers and ten cadets—to be
stationed at West Point, New York, and
to "constitute a military academy."
Jefferson's
the new academy not to train officers
of the line but to educate engineers for
public service.
was the
The Army Corps of Engineers, com-
posed almost exclusively
demand for internal improvements rose
and
Rivers and harbors improvements,
all of these. By the time the civil en-
gineering profession came of age in
America,
construction was
firmly established.
logistical, and command assignments.
West Point Engineers, who
fenses, made
a brilliant
signed by them fell to the
enemy. His-
performance: "Perhaps without
be
Navy, the
tance
5
sizable labor forces and in directing
large construction enterprises was of
great importance in later wars. Not only
did Engineer officers perform the tra-
ditional duties of military
(1) Ibid. (2)
Gregory, TQMG, 30 Sep 41. In H Comm on Mil
Affs, 77th
p. 82. (3) 12
OQMG
America,
Army's
Montgomery C. Meigs; Robert E. Lee
epitomized the Engineer commander.
crossings of the
emplified
Union Army.
tinued to
movement accelerated and the
and
ates consistently chose
careers in the
branch that offered
officers, the Engineer
School was founded
following Appomattox, Congress focused
greater attention on internal
control totaled $333 million.
organization came into
the
Chief
gineer Department by creating five
divisions—one west and four east of the
Rocky Mountains. Later more divisions
were added and districts, or subdivisions,
were established.
century, the Army Engineers had a con-
struction organization that was by far
the largest, best trained, and most ex-
perienced in the country.
By the early 1900's,
plained his position:
of challenge that construction work
in the
to
be
desired.
small
Engineers every officer receives
stand. During his term the issue was
hotly debated but no decision was
reached.
9
Chief of
Organization (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press,
sess,
Historical
A Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of the
United
1789—1945,
Thompson, What
Company,
8
Ending 30 Jun 10. OCE Doc
81599.
9
7
as
transfer. Maj. Gen. James B. Aleshire,
the prestigious officer who was The
Quartermaster General
elite
and
Con-
a movement had
Works and to assign to it the
Engineers'
tion was left unchanged.
belief was outmoded. The days of taking
the flintlock off the wall and going off
to fight were beyond recall. A new day
had dawned, a day of large-scale mobili-
zation, systematic training, and tech-
nological warfare. Camps
pots, and terminals to handle huge
quantities of matériel; and myriad other
facilities had become sinews of war. In
a country which had no sizable standing
army, no munitions
military
the Construction and Repair Division,
Office of The Quartermaster
by the declaration of war against Ger-
many
Wilson,
who
continued
matic break
construction headquarters shortly after
near bedlam: "There were a couple of
Army officers andstenographers. . . .
here.
stand
in
hands all
on the desk and there was confusion
galore."
12
The
and his two assistants, Capt.
William H. Oury and
Point graduate, was an officer of the old
school who preferred to do things by the
book. Oury, his executive, was a Signal
officer, nearing the end of a four-year
detail with the Quartermaster
"Puck" Marshall, a Coast Artillery of-
10
1800-1914, Doc 494615.
Hearings on S 1448, Apr 1888, pp. 3-74. (2) S
Report 1848, 50th
64-69.
12
G. B.
Clarkson, 9 Aug 17. In H Subcomm of the Select
Comm on Expenditures, 66th
Clarkson.
detail. Scion of a prominent Old Do-
minion family, an honor
former
gressive
that a
arms. A big construction effort seemed
imminent, but Littell and his officers
did not
weak.
officers and fifty-three civilians in Wash-
ington and a handful of constructing
quartermasters in the field.
by the
Punitive Expedition
of 1916,
tures. Nor did he have any
plans
for
speed construction
United States entered the war against
Germany, many assumed
that the com-
the work be done by the Corps of En-
gineers. But despite Littel's
the Engineer Department,
master General to complete thirty-two
divisional cantonments
were
William
York City;
in April Secretary of War Newton D.
Baker asked these men to form the Com-
mittee
Olmsted, the famous
of water and sewerage systems, and two
leading consulting
engineers, George
W. Fuller
16
committee charted
Corps
was
the Construction and Repair Division
convinced the committee that "the
ma-
chine
accomplish Urging swift
Report of the Board of Review of Construction To The
Assistant Secretary
1920), p. 99. Cited hereinafter
as Blossom Report.
(I) Ltr, TAG to TQMG, 21 Mar 17, and 1st
Ind, same date.
TAG, 9 Apr 17. AG 2570158.
15
 1st Ind, TAG to TQMG, 7 May 17, on Memo,
Chief, WCD GS for CofS, 4 May 17. AG
2593945.
16
 Min of the Gen Mun Bd, 27 Apr 17, p. 61;
10 May 17, p. 81; 22 May 17, p. 99. In Sp
Comm
74th Cong, 2d sess.
out of the War Department, "as it is no
fit place
business,"
around him."Scott agreed: "All right,
we will
office
right
away
the
Cantonment
Division
for
would report directly to the Secretary
of War. He
Quartermaster General.
cantonments estimated to
him in May Starrett emphasized the
"magnitude of the undertaking":
suitable quarters
1,100,000 men.
You must
Most of the sites for the cantonments have
not yet been chosen.
first importance must be
studied.
water may jeopardize the whole
undertaking.
ing, lighting,
refrigerating, and
these engineering problems
will be different
normally
take
comple-
the largest amount expended in any
single
year
Repair Division moved to the Munsey
Building; part remained behind
ments.
ment Division. Calls
your best men.
Dabney
Milton J. Whitson, general superin-
tendent
of
struction operations. Peter Junkersfield,
Companies, joined Whitson's staff.
Engineer-
buying materials. Wall Street lawyer
17
(1) Min, Gen Mun Bd, 15 May 17, pp. 88-89.
(2) Conv, Starrett with Clarkson, p. 2525. (3)
Interv
18
(Constr) 1917.
2612346.
forms, the Civil
be hired from its
nights
new officers of the Cantonment Division
reached agreement as to how the
building
Major Gunby would prepare typical
plans and layouts. Major Whitson, as
construction manager,
sites;
of trouble and giving
with
field,
would
each of the
thirty-two cantonments would
a Quartermaster (CQM),
draftsmen,
plan went to Littell. Two days later
he approved it.
were seeking the answer to a crucial
question—what method of contracting
was best suited for emergency work. In
peacetime the government used com-
petitive agreements exclusively, for the
old law of
performance is required by the public
exigency."
22
The
successful
and complete
lump-sum payment. Where the contract
called for an indefinite quantity of cer-
tain specified items of work, such as
square yards of paving, he received a
unit price for unit In
normal
circumstances,
tive conditions tended to hold down bid
prices.
tunity to
plans
20
(1)
Gen Richard C.
Div of the Army, 1919, Book II. Cited
hereinafter
as Hist of Constr Div. (2) Interv with Brig Gen
Richard
C.
Marshall,
with Clarkson,
p. 2526.
Littell,
Div, Book II. (3) Canton
Div
22
11
used effectively unless materials and
labor markets were relatively stable.
Furthermore, advertisement was time
bersome for a situation
1861 law.Advertisement generally
contractors a percentage of the
cost
of
adopted a modified form of this agree-
ment, the "cost-plus with sliding scale
and fixed maximum fee."
from 10 to 6 percent, as the cost ad-
vanced and the
out
time.
24
were
the big cantonment jobs, planning
and
carried
"the best engineering organization in
the
world,"
ders."
25
placed
com-
mittee
were. As a check on their own judgment,
they sent
ganization,
organizations, personnel, and financial
committee
size and experience. By
a top-flight company for each
canton-
several
developing
cold
feet.
Mar-
Brig. Gen.
Joseph E.
lege Division
Brig. Gen. Enoch
H. Crowder, who
September. According to
Constr for
Gen Mun Bd, 9 May 17. Hist of Constr Div, Book III.
(2) Min, Gen Mun Bd, 12 May 17, p. 86.
24
pp. 41-43.
2612346.
26
27
Gen Mun Bd, 12 Jun 17. Hist of Constr
Div,
Book
126.
rea-
son."
Marshall
Should the draft be postponed and con-
struction
28
Marshall's
Kuhn's
the cantonments could be completed
by September, he said it would be
"physically impossible." On 29 May
Secretary Baker approved an order de-
ferring
construction
engineering
newly
vision were heads of an enterprise
that
urgency.
The
home office. CQM's, handpicked
impatient with military
and the caution displayed by old-line
officers. Soon after Shelby took charge
of the Contracts Branch, someone handed
him a
basket. He and his associates adopted
four rules: build a team; throw
away
for the dollar; and get the job
done.
30
On the 8th Chairman Scott of the Muni-
tions
proved the final draft of the new emer-
gency contract. A few days later, Secre-
tary Baker
sixteen cantonments.
the cantonments. The subcommittee
as Black & Veatch, Frank A. Barbour,
Samuel A.
Littell and Baker the
June
Shelby
Littell's signature: the total estimated
cost was nearly $13 million. Returning
a short time later to find the colonel
poring over the fine print, the attorney
28
article
printed in 55 Cong. Rec. 5187.
29
17. QM 020 (Constr) 1917.
30
Frank
M.
31
(1) Min, Gen Mun Bd, 8 Jun 17, p. 29. (2)
Hist of Constr Div, Exhibits, Part 3.
32
(Gen).
33
(1) Memo, Starrett for Gen Mun Bd, 12 Jun 17.
Hist of Constr
Clarkson, pp.
1918
13
taught
he
told
for which
efforts
ordered
to
fused.
Signing Shelby's contracts,
he shook his
things differently.
sometimes even before,
advance party from Fred T. Ley & Com-
pany at Ayer, Massachusetts,
to start building Camp
Texas, and Irwin & Leighton
tion was in full swing at all sixteen can-
tonments. Land
up fast. At Camp Upton, near Yaphank,
New York, Thompson-Starrett erected
34
17 Aug 56.
tractors adopted the same method. Even
the installation of utilities,
Speed
was
virtually
money, contractors spent.
occasionally but not for long. The
first
struction
As
of
naces, and nails. He purchased lumber
through lumber manufacturers' as-
ington. The plumbing industry
to assist Hamilton in his work. The de-
mand for nails, pipe, and lumber soon
outran supplies. By bringing pressure
to bear on producers, substituting wood
stave pipe for
supplies moved to the sixteen job sites.
When a shortage of freight
cars de-
lars for days, sent toilet fixtures south
from New
160,000
workers
tonments.
Although
trained
men sufficed. Pay was good. Under an
agreement between Secretary Baker
on
cantonment
percent by doubling his work
force, his
37
Guard.
The
directive
would arrive
conference, Gunby, Whitson, and several
others took stock of the
situation.
The
with which to dig latrines. Water would
have
knew just
Youngstown, Ohio, was in town that
day.
Gunby
course, called him into the office, and
persuaded him to telephone
published
Department, Annual Reports, Report of the
Chief
116, 152.
Crowell,
pp.
536-37.
(3)
37
(1)
Constr
Div,
(Constr)
1917.
(3)
Blossom
TENTS AT
south. By
day Littell signed fifteen contracts. Be-
fore the week was out
work
camps;
mid-August
the
"Guard business,"
said Gunby,
39
Meanwhile,
cantonment
deadlines
ready
remained when the troops moved in,
but no soldier
of
were
CofS,
AG 2619836. (2) Memo, Actg CofS for TAG, 13 Jul
17.
15
Aug 56. (4) Min, Gen Mun Bd, 13, 16, 17, 24 Jul
17- (5) Blossom Report, pp. III, 143.
39
(1) Memo, Littell for TQMG, 26 Aug 17. Hist
of Constr Div, Book III. (2) Blossom Report, p. 143. (3)
Gunby
Interv,
23 Aug 17. (2) Rpt, Canton Div, n.d., sub: Tps
Housed
 
T A B L E 1—NATIONAL ARMY CANTONMENTS, 1917
Source: Canton Div, Total Estimated Cost for
Constr
Cantons, 1917.EHD Files.
TABLE 2—NATIONAL G U A R D CAMPS, 1917
Source: Canton
 
17
$140,726,472
National
respectively.   (Tables
of the cantonments, the Army paid
$4,000,000 in
tractors received the maximum fee of
$250,000, a sum less than would have
been earned under straight cost-plus-
a-percentage agreements. Proportion-
were higher,
none of these contractors had attained
the maximum fee, their
prodigious efforts had gone into con-
struction. Close to 1 billion board feet
of lumber, 80 million square feet of
roofing paper, 34 million square feet of
wall board, 1 million feet of wood stave
pipe, 468,000 feet of cast
iron
pipe,
freight cars
41
of the cantonments and of
2,750
force of
United States.
Army and the National
The
largest
Hist of Constr Div, Book V.
 
a
warmed by stoves,
in snug, floored
tents, equipped with
stoves or heaters.
Their sanitary facilities,
well housed in wartime.
with
which
"constituted
have
the
gency
Quartermaster
Corps."
 43
Centralization
while Littell's
division was
construction programs were starting
of war, the
cilities for their own use. Competition
for labor and
agency
As the camps and
Littell's organization had been created
was
concluded,
formed so
the
com-
all
military
Division. On the l0th he transferred
The Quartermaster General's organiza-
gether
master Corps, became
ficer marked the beginning of an active
career that would
42
Henry, History of Mobilization in the United
States
(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1939), p.
107.
44
(1) Ltr, TAG to TQMG, 5 Oct 17. QM 020
(Constr) 1917.
vision. But other construction activities
remained where they were, in the Ord-
nance and Engineer Departments and
in the Signal Corps.
asked for a
blanket exemption. Writing
October,
he
struction program was
change. Swayed by these men, Baker
gave ground. On the 20th he agreed to
study
the
build.
45
Early
Ordnance Department, and the Starrett
committee
discussion.
Under
Starrett committee would co-ordinate
and the Ordnance Department held
out
vision
the
one of
War. Crowell
On 22
his order of 5 October would stand.
48
During
the
fall
necessary.
comple-
all of the
powers and authorities
ones.
a brigadier general, Littell asked Baker
for authority to communicate directly
with bureau
in his
45
(a) Ltr, Coffin to WDGS, 20 Oct 17.
Both
(1) Memo, Gunby for Starrett, 6 Dec 17. Hist of
Constr Div, Book III. (2) Memo, Starrett for Col P.
E. Pierce, WDGS, 8 Dec 17. CE Doc
115946.
(3)
Dec 17. QM 020 (Constr) 1917.
47
of Constr Div, Book I.
48
Memo,
OCofS
for
TAG,
Acting Chief of Staff.
the two men held conflicting views
about the Cantonment Division. Littell
regarded his organization as a special
outfit, responsible only to the Secretary.
Biddle, on the other hand, looked
upon
of
felt that
Quartermaster organization and poli-
Littell that he could not continue to
bypass his
Biddle turned the problem over to the
newly appointed Acting Quartermaster
Goethals,
builder
reason
51
How-
ever,
others
proposal undertaken at Baker's request,
Col.
Daniel
Department General
the
of the change had "never
been strong
presented that gains
in efficiency or
economy would offset
cham's opinion, the Cantonment Di-
vision
make "unnecessary
of war, he concluded, "would be a grave
mistake."
52
maneu-
ver
its absorption by the Corps of Engineers.
Recognizing that they
had an impossible
General
Staff
hospitals, sanitation, construction plans
of its content.
Affairs, he
for the Signal
49
(Constr) 1917.
10394-6.
52
 
21
(Photograph taken
in 1918.)
order issued?
recent
order
that
ing
Department?
as we hear it.
told that
back
on
reer ended abruptly.
naming Marshall his successor. The
reasons for Littell's relief were obscure.
Later, some pointed a finger at
Goethals;
sented
a
sharp
quaintance of Secretary Baker,
ment.
56
had to step aside for the politically astute
young officer.
leadership were
civilian
employees.
57
Crowell's backing, he
paring
plans,
specifications,
and
esti-
ects.
Hear-
2405.
55
Ritchie,
66th
Cong, 2d sess, I Apr 20. (4) Interv with Mrs.
Mary
56
Apr
57.
57
QM 020 (Constr) 1918.
23
of operations—three meat
contracting methods,
Marshall adopted
a new
ten months of the war had in
every case
still existed
point
profits. Since a
contract under which
when
government's
February 1918,
plus-a-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract of
all the
efficiency and extravagance.
of his energies to fending off attacks on
the division. About the first of May a
disturbing rumor reached him:
struction Division
to the
Committee on Military Affairs. Marshall
immediately
C. March.
any legislation in the appropriation bill
relating to
"we want it
no such provision.
Harry S. New of Indiana introduced
a bill to create a
permanent
construction
headed by a major general and staffed
by 570 officers, two-thirds of whom would
be
present
take rivers and harbors work away from
the Engineers and
War Department.
fell to Brig. Gen. Lytle
Brown, director
May, Brown wrote General March:
"Consideration of
lead to the belief that it is a scheme for
making permanent provision for certain
officers who have received temporary
commissions
(1) Ltr, TAG to OIC Constr Div, 10 Apr 18.
Hist of Constr Div, Book I. (2) Blossom Report, p. 302.
59
Blossom
Report,
Hearings on Army Appropriation
4
the
Engineers'
vision," Brown protested,
"is of the
a question which pertains to a basis of
peace." He
threat
cluding rivers and
harbors work, into
struction Division
of the
Army. Leagued
M. Black, the Chief of
Engineers,
the
fine-spun
time for a showdown had come. The
Engineers had
Division should be
war," he
plete system of embarkation points the
Army now possesses . . . and is
now in
gineer
Reservists
the
tion Department has resulted in embar-
rassment to this Department . . . . ,"
the control of the Chief of Engineers. There
would
partment. Since
the work now assigned to the Construction
Department as well as to the Engineer De-
partment, the best experts for any particular
class
department were the Construction Depart-
ment under the control of the Engineer
Department, and the number of experts
required reduced.
sult. The present
organization is anomalous,
War
Department.
ciency.
64
tempted
Cantonment Division. Moreover, the
missed
He argued that a
in a war situation. Engineer
63
 (1) Memo, Brown for March, 29 May 18. (2)
Ltr, Baker to Chm S Comm on Mil Affs, 15 Jun 18.
Both in OCS 10394-14.
Constr Div, Book II.
flexible to cope with
what the Corps of Engineers lacked:
top-notch men, unhampered by tradi-
tion and unfettered by red tape and
military protocol. The division and the
using services were working as a team.
"To change or
department," Marshall warned, "would
ideas
and
long
throw the weight of his influence behind
the Construction. Division. Marshall
of Staff and the Secretary. March was
against it, and so was
Baker,
tant General issued a terse order: "The
Secretary of War disapproves the recom-
mendation for the transfer of the Con-
struction Division to the Engineer De-
partment."
67
Puck."
the Engineers was just beginning. In
August 1918, General Goethals, who
had been named director of the Purchase,
Storage and Traffic Division (PS&T)
of the General
the part dealing with construction. An
attempt by Crowell and Marshall to
make
failed when Baker withheld approval.
68
tivities. Indications were that the
supply
Marshall and his associates
could
on 2 November 1918, Marshall
stated:
of a
project materials
omit
any
would produce a decided destructive effect
upon a
time and be too great to per-
mit of
Under Marshall's
pressive record. At the
men had been provided at 32 camps
65
Constr Div, Book II.
67
 Ltr, TAG to OIC Constr Div, 14 Jun 18. QM
600.1 (1918-41).
Memo,
Both
in
600.1 (1918-41).
nearing completion,
22 special
77 airfields, schools, and other facilities
for the Division of Military
Aeronautics;
49
base
depots for the Quartermaster Corps;
and 95
munitions plants
included 581 projects with a total cost
of
approximately
$ 1billion.
70
To
many
performance, the Construction Division
it was an anomaly within the War De-
partment, a
Tennessee
called
built. Addressing the Senate on 17 July
1917, McKellar denounced extravagance
ment projects had
interest and that contractors were far
more concerned
Chief of the Construction Division, 7,9/9 (Washington,
1920), p. 64. (2) Blossom
Report,
27
of money were being
contractors. He identified Starrett with
the George A. Fuller Company, con-
tractors for Camp Funston,
associates of other
Emergency Construction and the Can-
tonment Division. Inveighing against
for the benefit of a few large corpora-
tions.
71
months
Senate Military Affairs Committee, of
which McKellar was a member, began
an investigation of the mobilization ef-
fort. Speaking at a rally of the National
Security
has almost stopped functioning . . .
and in
take
direction
and to vest it in a war
cabinet.
The
such a bill was
prominent place.
Appearing before
construction
principal interrogator. Hinting at
tioning. Were all
the cost-plus system?
had
selected
Was not his brother Paul head of
George
Thompson-Starrett?
ment in order to feather their nests and
those
Littell, Starrett, Marshall, Gunby,
as McKellar sought to
Starrett had severed connections with
the
Fuller
emergency contract. Contractors had
71
55
War, p. 216.
65th Gong,
2d sess,
passim.
the time allotted. All
the War Department and by the General
Munitions
interest.
holding
of accomplishment. McKellar's allega-
believe
smoke, there must
gency
construction
At Marshall's invitation, a distinguished
group of men formed a
committee
to
to
methods
dent of the New York Association of
Contractors; Charles T. Main, president
of
Engineers;
Chamber of Commerce; and Professor
Arthur N. Talbot, president of the
American Society of
1918, this panel
committee.
In
could meet
possessing
one
even
to push the job at any speed it may elect,
changing at will its plans and scope, but
paying
above the reach of
effect.
sentative who could not produce a
sheaf of letters from constituents, telling
about discrimination
outrageous wages, idling on the jobs,
and other
Charge" was front-page news. Magazine
articles appeared bearing such titles
as
the general outcry, bills were introduced
to
gations.
78
The
halls
of
Congress
rang
of Senator Porter J. McCumber on
"the
his colleagues "to give the small con-
tractors a
gency Contract, 14 Mar 18. Hist of the Constr Div,
Part
3.
77
(2) P. Morse in
7264, 7930,
country
from
"adoption of the cost-plus system" had
"led to a veritable
riot of waste and
of construction "grafters," drew applause
for the following remarks:
where looking for an opportunity to rob
their Government. O God, grant
that such
and may God pity each and every one of
them and damn each and
every
of Construction.
industrial and financial world: Chair-
man Francis Blossom was a partner
in Sanderson &
American Institute of Accountants;
Railway Engineering
Association. Be-
gun in
the Construction Division,
and many more. Records came in for
careful scrutiny. In the course of their
inquiry, Blossom and his colleagues
visited some fifty projects, where they
questioned constructing
August 1919,
produced
the
in making awards. There had been no
profiteering.
was due to abnormal conditions, not to
inefficiency
or
and to
construction. This
arrangement, they
practice"
and
"wrong
in
principle."
divided; at the beginning of the war, the
Ordnance Department alone had had
five groups
in Blossom
tion. The board strongly
new department of public works. Dis-
cussing
the War Department to do any national
construction and
war, its
to their
military work."
Asserting that
by civilian
went
ienced
constructors
Report of the
of Congress in 1918,
William
ready to begin a full-dress inquiry into
war
expenditures.
of Illinois
Ohio—and
investigate
construction.
Chosen
to
question
usual form of construction contract, who
was responsible for its preparation, and
whether
safeguarded
ment; and if not, why not?"
86
probed for answers to
evil and unnecessary. Giving his views
on cost-plus agreements, General
Goethals stated: "I have
of each cantonment." General Black
testified in
from France where he had served as
chief of
that the camps and cantonments could
have been built faster and cheaper by
purchase and hire. The thirty-five dis-
trict
offices
at a moment's notice. A telephone call
from
General
machinery
had any part in the program. The
cost-plus arrangement, Sherrill insisted,
Government
to
use,
and
opens
85
86
Expenditures
87
phatically disagreed. Referring to the
adoption of the
possibly feel then of the fact that it was,
on the whole, the wise thing to do in the
case of the cantonment work with its
extraordinary urgency."
mittee
and
from
use of
agreement
Army's
headed west to hold
ford, Illinois. More
than seventy wit-
Sherman and by Bates & Rogers at
Camp Grant, took the stand. Their
testimony told a sorry story of bartenders,
schoolboys, mail clerks,
wasted
nails.
Despite
denials
by
pardonable waste and
Graham on 1 April was a blistering in-
dictment
Conspiracy, usurpation, favoritism, profi-
unconscionable waste—virtually every
the
eighty-eight
empted the functions of responsible War
Department
"unwarranted
cost-plus contract was "without either
excuse or legal justification." Vast
amounts of public
have
administered. Partiality had been shown
in awarding contracts; Starrett
so far as to give a cantonment to his own
brother's firm. "Reckless and
"exorbitant and unreasonable" profits;
the higher were
contractors' fees. Secre-
counts: first,
Corps of Engineers that had a large and
varied experience, and was in touch with
the
the United
plus
agreements
required to advertise construction con-
tracts even in emergencies, and that all
military construction be transferred to
the
Corps
of
amended
be tried for treason. Finally, they recom-
mended that the subcommittee's records
and
reports
be
basis for civil and criminal actions.
91
Demo-
members
the
conduct
wisely
adherence
to
element of
danger that
incurring." Second,
the beginning of the war, the whole
building program would have been in
a
state
dis-
1917,
before our soldiers could have entered
the battle lines."
report.
subcommittee went to the Justice De-
partment. Wilson's attorney general, A.
Mitchell Palmer, was not about to leave
off combatting
The Compromise of 1920
Army? After the Armistice,
Corps
of
Engineers;
ter
General;
or
perpetuate the
Engineers had the support of Secretary
Baker and
the
John J. Pershing. Many of the country's
leading civilian engineers were vigorous
proponents of a public works depart-
ment.
Army, Congress came under extreme
pressure from these contending factions.
Prospects
works had never
93
33
to form the National Public Works
Department Association (NPWDA).
Francis Blossom headed the finance
committee. The goal of the association
was
to
cluding the
struction Division
of the
measure, the Jones-Reavis bill. Her-
bert C. Hoover and other noted en-
gineers
urged
its
cators and
line
up
sociated General Contractors (AGC),
joined the crusade. And although they
advocated a separate Army construc-
tion corps as the best arrangement within
the War Department framework,
dorsed the proposal for a national de-
partment of public works.
"to establish an Auxiliary Engineer
Corps" was placed in the hopper. Of-
fered by
Harbors Congress since 1905, this mea-
sure had originated with employees of
the New Orleans Engineer District. In
addition to
would
handle
demning the
Ransdell bill
the public works
of the Federal
Corps
tivities
Department of Public
95
the
department—a
construction issue.
gress took up the matter of the peace-
time military
Baker, identical bills were laid before
the House and Senate, calling for an
Army of 538,296, making permanent the
wartime
the
94
June
1919),
p.
pp. 149, 968.Cited hereinafter
as ENR. (2) The
February
1920, p. 40; October 1919, p. 44. (3) John J. Lenney,
Caste Army: Study Corps
Greenberg, 1949), pp. 63-66.
 
4
struction
Maintenance and
The
Quartermaster
the strength of the Army at 312,400 and
reconstituting
before the Military
into the winter.
ought to do construction. Should Con-
gress approve
and put to
building barracks. "That
nothing about that kind of work." It
was different with the Engineers. Con-
struction was their business. All military
construction, the Chief of Staff declared,
should be in
W. Burr, director of PS&T, propounded
the official view.
Quartermaster General, found himself
March. Yet it was difficult for him to
keep silent and acquiesce in a plan to
emasculate his department. Rogers was
particularly anxious to
of
those of my superior officers"; but when
Chairman
and the
taking,
should
To
place
the
latter work
would
untried
done
General:
it should not be called
upon
it is, its volume of work at least three times
what it was
Hearings on H R 8287, p. 95.
9 7
Affs, 66th
2715, Part
Hearings on S 2715,
 
placing
must
and cutting of red tape.
Third,
staff corps:
In the
of preserving to the Government the business
methods
forward
to
successful
experience
gained
of the War Department in
keeping
with
included a separate staff
unit known as a
before the House
and
made
one
partment, it would be
made a part of the Quartermaster
Corps."
100
struction to the Engineers. Testifying
before the Senate
the war, a
this
Army
milk" and put them in the Engineer Corps.
Then you send them to a school, after which
the
Engineers
exaggerated, but I say
buildings and river and
organization under a
was best left to military engineers,
Atterbury
construction.
101
to the
earliest days
of the
of
the Engineer Corps."
committee invited Generals Wood and
Pershing
wished to see construction in the Corps
of Engineers. "You can," he told the
Senate group, "I think,
Gong, 1st
sess, Hearings
16, 1389-1427, passim.
1st
sess,
101
sess, Hear-
102
Reorganization Bill, 5 Sep 19, p. 20.
 
charge that corps with
the Engineers . . . the
of the House
Mr. Kahn. General, as I understand you,
you recommend that the construction
corps
Department.
organization
and I have no
stands,
would
be
the
logical
struction
General Pershing. I
Crowell, who made a strong plea for an
independent construction corps. Ap-
stated:
The
of expense. I have never been able to see,
however,
done
any
of
struction officers only to be located in the
large posts . . . .T he small repairs
to the small
quartermasters as
they were
by consolidating functions, Crowell re-
plied :
heard
a ditch and
have a few men sawing wood. But by the
consolidation
wood
you
would
not
make
proposed in the War Department are on a
parallel with that.
with
construction.
hardly
tary to have charge of the business side
of Department,
construction and military real
on the
Chairman Wadsworth reported
transportation corps and a separate
finance corps. A minority report filed
by Senator McKellar, who objected to
the perpetuation of these separate
branches, revealed the committee's lack
of unanimity. After
favor
03
104
Hearings
105
 
37
out a bill
be a
separate department.
construction under the Engineers. As
the bills reached
Although the committees had turned
down his recommendation on
ary he asked his staff to prepare an order
transferring construction to the Corps of
Engineers.
He
of the order went to Acting Secretary
Crowell, who
that many of
General Marshall's of-
fect. Since the Construction
under way,
Baker
decision to Congress.
struction Division
defen-
for a public works department had
gained
of
the
and harbors under the Engineers.
Speeches,
pumped
Division to the Engineers would be
absurd;
million dollars a year [would fall]
into
works was unsound.
their procedure inefficient, and their
training too narrow and inbred." The
logic that they must have civil work in
time of peace as training for their
time mission was no
ficers had laid out the trenches, the
principal field works of the war. A ci-
vilian-manned construction corps had
carried out a vast
had been superfluous. Militarily, the
Corps was defunct
five delegates, representing societies with
a membership of 90,000, met in Washing-
ton for a
second NPWDA conference.
sentatives
106
2d sess. (2) 59
Cong. Rec. 4205. (3) H Rpt 680, 66th Gong, 2d sess.
107
in 59 Cong.
Quoted
in Lenney, Caste System in the American Army, p. 48.
109
Harvard
University, 11 Feb 20. In S Comm on Public Lands,
66th Cong, 2d sess, Hearings on S 2236, p. 14.
110
National
1919), pp.
who
referred
our legislative bill"
all departments of Government"; and
by General
ment work." The gathering broke up
on an
optimistic note.
bill.
112
the
days later,
favor
114
took up the Army reorganization bill,
General Marshall's officers packed the
galleries. Noting their presence, one
representative observed: "I have
been
115
Harrison of Virginia read into the record
a
an independent construction corps. The
climax came on 11 March, when Repre-
sentative
the Army. Speaking in support of this
rider,
great monuments
of the
Army engineers
of the Germans in the first Battle of the
Marne," he said. "The
that we had in the Army when that sort of
situation came up was General Harts, a
very
world will always
in the Panama Canal construction, was put
in charge of chemical warfare in Washing-
ton. General Biddle
was put in
put on the work at the front and behind the
front civilian engineers,
who knew road
building of bridges, who knew water supply,
and sanitation; we put
among
the
marvelous
country during
this war.
mention
of
General
ment
Marshall's battle was won.
had
succeeded
fight to the finish. Upon learning of the
111
(1) The Bulletin of the AGC, January 1920, p. 18;
February 1920, p. 40. (2) ENR, vol. 84 (January-
June
1920),
112
Hearings on S
115
59
Cong.
Rec.
4205.
116
W. Harts; Brig.
 
39
House
same
day
repudiated the letter read by Mr.
Harrison.
Baker stated: "Through inadvertence
once
to
correct
any
of
Engineers.
117
Reavis'
struction Corps in the AEF. Virtually
all construction in France was done by
the Engineers. Generals Harts, Sibert,
and Biddle
Corps for "meritorious service."
with General Rogers: the Engineers
would
back
maintenance
Holding that the Engineers
justly
due
might
with
economically,
Army and the country. The
long
self, may well be
no mistake will be made if all military con-
struction is, in the United States as it was in
France, given to that Corps.
120
reversing
its
amendment
the Senate
the support of Senator
to ask that Wadsworth sponsor
an
amend-
inclosed a draft of the proposed rider
and copies of his correspondence with
General Rogers. Secretary Baker also
urged the Senator to
vision
for a separate corps and announced that
if
that construction be placed
117
Martin
Papers
in
EHD.
118
119
(1) Ltr, Beach to Rogers, 17 Mar 20. (2) Ltr,
Rogers
to
120
0
they
Lenroot
amendment.
122
The
struction corps.
With the
Quartermaster Corps. There
May,
Along with transportation, construction
Rogers' department.
signed it
con-
and operated as a separate service
of the
Quartermaster Corps."
struction
another emergency. The new arrange-
ment was a compromise; how long it
would endure only time could tell. To
the
Engineer
termaster Corps
whose
Engineers. From this
premise, no Chief
the
civilians who had up in 1917 re-
turned to their firms, pressure on
Con-
fellows,
tinued
on whose
Congress adjourned
national
con-
vention,
the
124
Pro-
would be heard
were
saying
General
Contractors.
Colonel
Hartman,
for permanent
be sung to the tune of "Hinkey Dinkey
Parlez-Vous." Evoking memories of their
warm comradery:
learned was 'Entre Nous'"
and glorying in their
123
124
Interv
on
time,
General Puck's
of the
construction
of a
Unfortunately, lessons
these truths were grasped
p. 4.
to
force. The war to end war had been
fought and won. Disarmament, neu-
trality,
brought
problems
of
dwindled to virtual insignificance, the
military plant decayed and military
vision clouded. Efficiency was sacrificed
to economy. Planning tended to
become
like most of the Army, suffered from the
effects of governmental parsimony and
public indifference.
The Construction
division
ganization,
disad-
generals in the Quartermaster Corps,
was selected on the basis of seniority;
no engineering background
one
technical
matters
across
competent officers was
in a corps which might assign them to
wagon companies, remount depots, or
graves registration
to
vacancies. Moreover, the
war-
filled
works
controversy
rumors
been
avoided
flood control
advantageous position
MS, Constr in the United States,
1959,
 
struction
the
Army's history,
fications work, was centralized in one
permanent organization.
centrally
permanent commissions, and their ranks
were swelled by the transfer of tech-
nically trained officers from other
branches and the
competent civilians was an important
legacy
from
prising
139
projects,
continuing program seemed good.
1920 was a force of 280,000 men, over
two and
war
Army.
Quartermaster Corps, the Construction
cently established district headquarters
Fran-
cisco,
orfices.
4
in itself." A companionable, close-knit
group, the members of the service formed
"a sort of club." The separation of con-
struction from other Quartermaster ac-
tivities was reinforced by a corps-wide
policy announced in 1921.Recognizing
attained by the
Quartermaster General wrote: "Every
utilize to
an early decline. The
strictest
economy
Army fell to 132,106 by
July 1922 and
mid-1930's would the
Construction
Office Memo 119, 30 Aug 21. (3) Constr Div Office
Order 312, 21 Jun 20.
5
Gray Zalinski, Brig. Gen.Arthur W. Yates, Brig.
Gen. William S. Morton, Brig. Gen. Winthrop S.
Wood, Brig. Gen.Louis H. Bash, Brig. Gen.
Patrick
W.
Guiney,
and
Mark Skinner Watson,
WORLD WAR II
of
be made on "any building or military
post or grounds" without his approval.
8
Later
which would govern
tion will be
undertaken where perma-
only
struction
per year. Most of this money went for
a few big
projects: Camp Benning,
Georgia, and Camp
disciplinary barracks at Fort
frigeration plant for the Hawaiian gar-
rison; and a large warehouse at Gatun,
Canal
$4,725,760 was
fully inadequate for the tasks at hand.
10
divest
ties. He placed nine camps and canton-
ments built in 1917and 1918 in care-
taking status to be
11
he
selected
general
hospitals,
time
Napoleon
W.
Estate Division, Construction Service,
negotiated leases which would bring
in rentals totaling nearly $1
million
with
1922 to 1924.
conduct more extensive "mopping
real estate.
Maintenance, rather
Heading the maintenance organization
Danielson faced
9
 Ltr, TAG to Chiefs of Brs, 26 Aug 21. 600.1
Part
10
OQMG,
1920-
as
Summary
of
Mass. (First); Dix,N.J. (Second); Meade,
Md.
(Seventh);
13
Chanute and Scott, 111.; Langley, Va.; March, Calif.;
Mitchel, N.Y.; and Selfridge, Mich.
The
hospitals
Colo.,
15 Oct 23.
QM020 (Constr) 1921-39.
Army."
15
reservations,
sum
for
manent
temporary. Yet in
by
16
pumping plants and thermostats for
heating systems. Installation of an elec-
tric ice box in the Chief of Staff's quarters
at Fort
cookstoves.
reservations,
to negotiate a gas contract for
Kelly Field
ural gas required, of course, a distribution
system. No funds for
distribution
thousand to the contract price of 30
cents
the distribution system had been paid
out. . . . This plan was used in getting
natural gas to Fort Sill and Fort Riley.
A
way concession
rate."
as the Construction Service
18
district
staff
whom were CQM's.
at Fort Benning,
QM's.
dow,
as
16
G-4 for CofS, 20 Jul 25. AG 319.12
(8-21-25).
17
Repairs and Utilities (MS), 1958, Secs 2, 6, 7.
EHD Files.
Memo,
OQMG
210.321 1923.
2 0
21
Memo,OQMG
6
Marshall sadly. Morale
cated few fought to prevent further losses.
When Major Danielson talked of trans-
ferring to the Corps of Engineers, his
brother officers persuaded him to stay.
Conditions,
to improve.
As early as May 1923,commenting on
housing at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the
Chief of Engineers, General Beach, ad-
vised The Quartermaster General:
approaching the end of their usefulness as
habitable shelter. Maintenance cost by
con-
considered a
eral pointed out that temporary wartime
structures were "becoming unfit and
unsafe for occupancy."
posts
at Governors
front page of the New
York Times.
Weeks
living under "unsuitable" conditions.
featuring
Housing: A National Disgrace."
been submitted by Constructing Quar-
termaster General Knight. Both were
based on an Army of
150,000 men,
first made use of virtually all existing
posts; the second concentrated troops
at a few large reservations and provided
for the abandonment of surplus in-
stallations. Although the General Staff
preferred the second plan,
"Difficulty has always been experienced
in securing
that adjoining
objections to having the garrison taken
away." There was another important
consideration: the first plan would cost
$10
million
million over
ramshackle
wartime
22
Part 1.
(9-31-23).
5
©
printed by permission.
1924),
p.
16ff.
27
pp . 178-80. (2) The Literary Digest, Novembers, 1927,
pp. l0-11.
 
ized,
storage plants would
be provided. Later
structed. The Quartermaster General
the program. Since the end of the war,
he had
ment had
from future sales go into a fund to be
used
fund,
in
1926
the first time since the war. Appropria-
tions for maintenance, repairs, and utili-
ties, the
for the
construction and repair of hospitals re-
mained
8
requirement,
fueling systems, and other Air Corps
facilities were
Quartermaster Corps:
known Soldier in
and the expectation of
com-
barracks
ranged in monotonous rows
tive."
31
Cheatham's
formerly with McKim, Meade & White,
it included Luther M. Leisenring, a
graduate of the University of Pennsyl-
vania and a former associate of Cass
Gilbert; 1st Lt. Howard B.
Nurse,
a
had practiced in Rochester, New York;
and a number of other fine professionals.
Although cost would be an important
factor in the
pressed by Nurse, who quoted a passage
from Ruskin: "You may have thought
that beauty is
sion for the Southwest. To help lay out
the projects,
post."
33
the
Construction
sure, there were more than enough quali-
fied
to handle the load. But relatively few
were available for construction
Law, under
ington
Washington
Constructing
means
Washington QM Depot.
tenance division,
ward a master's degree at MIT.
Only with difficulty could Constructing
30
(1) 44 Stat. 302, 264, 783, 914. (2) Summary of
Appns, 1920-40. (3) Report of the Secretary of War, 1926
(Washington, 1926), pp. 33-36.
P.19 .
32
Army
319.12.
49
POST CHAPEL, R A N D O L P H FIELD, TEXAS
Quartermasters be found for the growing
number of
wartime division; Maj. John D.
Kilpatrick, holder of two engineering
degrees from Princeton
that commanding officers act as CQM's
at
Army." Handsome
masonry buildings
of World War I. Telephones, oil burners,
automatic stokers, storm doors,
ties of life on reservations. The new Air
Corps stations were to be showplace
installations. New medical facilities would
be
innovations and improvements sparked
every post.
Cheatham, assisted with
the decor of
buildings
source
Virginia, with its
and imposing grounds,
able enthusiasm
Davis. The attitude of Congress was
favorable;
hospital
Brothers Memorial
at
Arlington,
sive buildings at the U.S. Military Acad-
35
(2)
Ltr,Chief
Constr
Serv
Summary
the strain. The officers of the Construc-
tion Service were aging, and few young
men
careers. In the spring of 1928 General
Cheatham
had
only
A
Nurse, and Thomas—endeavored to hold
the line. CQM and Vicinity offices, each
having jurisdiction over a wide area,
were established
office.
as
ham felt the need for an "automatic
supply of
never had before, men from
West Point
graduating classes.
a
year a few vacancies in the Quarter-
master Corps would be open to Academy
graduates.
37
discouraging; one instructor asked a
cadet
spoke to the first classmen, stressing the
advantages of a Quartermaster career.
In
response
Hayden, Elmer E. Kirkpatrick, and
Clarence Renshaw—joined the Con-
struction Service. Assigned to West
Point in the summer of 1929 as CQM
for the new million-dollar project there,
Hartman assumed the role of talent
scout. During his 5-year stay at the
Academy, he helped guide a score of
graduates into military construction.
engineering schools. Hopes for the future
depended heavily on these young ca-
reerists.
unusually able and forceful officer who
was Chief of Construction from 1929
to 1933, DeWitt took further steps to
strengthen
the
organization.
He
revived
their specialty. Years later
a Jack-of-all-trades is master of none."
More new blood was infused into the
Construction Service. DeWitt personally
the Quartermaster Corps.
in this way. Meanwhile, Bash and his
36
210.321 (Asgmts) 1928.
Christian F. Dreyer, 27 Feb 59. (2) Ltr, Hartman to
DeWitt, 16 Jun 31. QM
210.321.
39
(1) Interv with Gen John L. DeWitt, 10 Apr 57.
See
Jan 33.
Pitz.
A
figure in construction during the 1930's—
"a
train
him.
40
DeWitt and Bash in 1930 was the revival
of the name Construction Division—a
change which
complishment.
the
volume
of
construction
modest increases in
administration, approximately $100 mil-
organization. The landmark legislation
gency
Relief
some sixty projects, including million-
dollar jobs at Barksdale,
the early
Recalling the
when
termaster General, DeWitt stated: "There
were no weaknesses that I know of. We
did a good job."
situation changed radically. Assuring
greatest primary task is to put people
to work." At the same
time he pledged
his administration to
income
the
same
vided $12 million for routine main-
tenance but no new
directives reached the War Department
severely restricting expenditures and im-
pounding construction money appro-
produced
picture
250,000 young men in the forests by
early summer and when the Chief of
Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, re-
quested a large sum of PWA construc-
tion money.
Construction Division faced an
(2) 47 Stat.
QM 319.1.
of the Presidents of the United States, pp.
236-37.
44
1933, pp. 62, 59.
(2) Annual Rpt of the CofS, 1933. In Report of the
Secretary of War to the President, 1933 (Washington,
1933). PP- 15-l6, 19.
spending $135
was the
assistant, Colonel Pitz, in the
spring
of
tion." "Everything had to be done before
it was started," Danielson recalled.
45
shoulders, when CCC construction was
decentralized to the
corps area com-
the Army allotment under the
3.3-
to
MacArthur had requested.
since
1918.
46
Pitz
hastened
signs, and
They rounded
They issued standard blueprints,
by corps
for any extensive effort toward creating
designs, drawing new plans, or effecting
variations
satisfactory."
47
Within a 4O-week span, they awarded
contracts totaling $47.5
more than
ects undertaken with PWA funds in-
cluded extensive construction
graphic plant at Fort Belvoir, a riding
hall at Fort Myer, a chapel at Fort
Meade, and
needy over the
businesslike than Interior
Hopkins in the fall of 1933. With a bil-
lion
from
4,000,000 people in thirty days. Par-
ticipating in this program, the Con-
struction Division
million
camps to employ 55,000 men. The bulk
of the money went for
wages
49
M-D,
46
319.1.
47
9 Jun 33.
(1) QM 210.321. (2) Annual Rpt of TQMG,
1934, p. 20. (3) 1st Ind, 9 May 34, on Memo, G-4
for TQMG,
49
 
and more money flowed into
this type
Ad-
ministration
Progress
time, the flow of PWA funds slowed to
a
trickle
programs,
late 1920's, came to a halt and mainte-
nance funds dwindled almost to the
vanishing point. From 1934 through 1936
only $14 million was appropriated for
military construction,
at West Point and for Hickam Field,
Hawaii. The Wilcox Act, passed in
1935,
States
southeast
tain area, but no funds were voted for
this work until 1937, when Congress
made available $8.8 million. Appropria-
tions for maintenance and repairs hit
bottom during this period.
1934, $19
be
spent
for
wages
dollars. An increase in the enlisted
strength of the Army to 153,212 in 1936
led to serious overcrowding.
confined in a Hessian
more and more dilapidated.
"We reached a situation
house
was
52
a resumption of constructive effort were
bootless. Year
mates based on the Army's needs. Year
after year the
of the set phrase,
"not in accord with
Mean-
50
QM 600.3 (Misc) 1941.
Relief Funds
S.3 (WPA). (2) G-4/30552.
S Subcomm of the Comm on Appns, 76th Gong, 3d
sess, Hearings on H R 10263, p. 6.
 
WPA. In a speech to the annual con-
vention of the AGC
industry's "viewpoint of recovery
is to put the water into the pump. This can't
be
done
by
taking
bulk of the water waste itself in holes in the
ground . . . . A pump cannot be
primed
that is to be
be done by somebody who knows something
about the industry to be used as the primer.
54
Scott Dickson, a personal
trator for in accomplishing new
construction projects, Hopkins told
ects. I just want to put men to work. I
don't give a damn if they dig a hole one
day and fill it up the next. I want them
working."
55
to 165,000 in 1937 and to 170,000 in
1938, continued efforts were made to
resume the military construction pro-
gram suspended in 1933. Colonel Pitz
developed a plan for spending $162
mil-
Hartman,
as
chief
the plan across.
Senator Morris Sheppard and
result
$25.5 million to be spent at forty-six
posts
twelve-mil-
later, when President Roosevelt
million—$50 million in PWA funds and
$15 million
dition
that
started by 15August.
the person of the Constructing Quarter-
master General, Brig. Gen. A. Owen
Seaman, who declined to accept the
money
officer
the opposition of construction officers
who
refusal to take the
master General, Maj. Gen. Henry
Gibbins, Craig arranged to "sidetrack"
Seaman.
(0 Ltr, BOB to SW, 25 Jan 36. G-4/30552 Sec
II. (2) WD Ltr AG (5-1-37)
Misc
M-D,
4 May 37. (3) Memo, G-4 for CofS, 20 Jan 38.
G—4/30552 Sec IV. (4) The Constructor,
March
1936,
52 Stat. 651. (4) Ltr, Roosevelt to Ickes, 21 Jun
38. AG 600.12 IR (3-11-33) Sec ID. (5) Memo, G-4
for
TQMG,
1938.
the Construction Division
wishes
I was ordered by the Chief of Staff to re-
port to The Quartermaster General with
instructions to
out
authority
to my approval.
ing
his junior by some ten years.
58
Despite
his
awkward
situation,
Hartman
gust.
59
one of many achieved by the
Construction
Division.
did a remarkable job,
men, erecting more than
gen-
ones, constructing schools, laboratories,
the military plant.
An annual
to
out of six. Overhead generally ran well
below
7
lean years of the
hard-working, experienced, competent, and
a fierce pride and take
great pleasure in the
of which they
tary
impressed
the posts of Fort
Benning, Fort Sill, Fort
60
was open to question.
Preparedness and Public Works
almost any emergency
Engineers. A nationwide network of
field offices, a host of professional civilian
employees,
partment. A $2.5-billion program of
navigation, flood control, and fortifi-
cations projects, undertaken
ment's stability.
response to questionnaire from the authors), 5 Jul
55, pp.
Dec 36. (4) Ltr, Dickson to
McIntyre,
1933-34. (5) Intervs with Mr.
Dickson,
Brig Gen George P. Tyner, 28 Sep 55; Maj Gen
James H. Burns, 24 May 56. (6) Memo, Gibbins for
Rcd, 21 Jun 38. QM 625 1935-41. (7) Memo, G-4
for
SGS,
59
60
Answers
to
Questionnaire,
title:
Sub—Constr
Transfer, QM-CE.
tensive
preparation for war. Depicting opera-
tions at the $86-million Fort Peck Dam,
one officer declared: "This is not theo-
retical training
compared with real war."
dividends in a defense
the system which produced
Resuming their campaign against the
Engineers in the fall of 1920, proponents
of a public works department tried a fresh
approach. Admittedly, the tussle over
military construction had been a mistake.
"My
ward confessed.
function in the War Department, at
least temporarily. Criticism of the En-
62
Th Military Engineer,
 Maj. John C. H. Lee, "A Flood Year on the
Mid-Mississippi," The Military Engineer, XX, no. 112
(July-August 1928), p. 307.
 
temperate.
commendation of the Corps:
engineers
has
been accompanied by
political partisanship.
themselves,
but
high standing, were
out real cause. It is the principle in-
volved in this matter which
should be pre-
served. . . . To apply
that
be
given
as secure a tenure of office as is given to offi-
cers of the Army and Navy.
The Engineers' contention that public
works experience was essential to pre-
paredness received this
modern war
vision should therefore be made for the full-
est use desired by the
Army
can be as eligible for immediate detail with
the
Army
as are the present officers of Army engineers
who are
65
The Federated American Engineering
headed the drive for
sumed
its aggressive managing director,
movement.
During
forts focused on reviving the Jones-
Reavis
proposal
session of the 66th Congress convened
in
lution established a committee of the
House
branch of the government with a view to
reorganization.
work
department.
66
The
Engineer
To combat the charge en-
gineers nor soldiers," the Corps adopted
a career
a civilian engineering college in addi-
tion
works. The latter day Army
Engineer
graduate
of
Patrick
veloping Engineer officers, Patrick stated:
This is a matter which is not
thoroughly
The
Constructor,
January
1922,
Stat.
"The Need
Works," The
Incl with OCE
prepared in EHD,
 
conduct
clearly
and
misconception
duty bears to the work of the Corps of En-
gineers in war. . . . We must have in
the permanent Army a sufficient number
of trained
military engineers
such time
sant with military conditions. . . . We
know
can be
of controversy. Much as they
wanted
the
military
Aiding
the
cause
Thanksgiving Day, Attorney
taling $55 million against eleven of the
sixteen World War cantonment con-
tractors. A
and
hearing
a
number
of
witnesses,
wartime
jury indicted
to defraud the government. Charged as
co-conspirators were Starrett, Lundoff,
"To indict a great industry, to
accuse
character, is to attack the morale of the
entire country and feed the dangerous
fires of distrust and lawlessness."
71
By
military aide to Presidents Harding
and
Coolidge,
ment . . . . I feel no hesitation
in saying that if that work had
been
72
can administration, Crowell and his
fellow defendants retained
in the Taft administration, and Frank J.
Hogan, a
preme Court of the District of Columbia
in the fall of 1923,they assailed the in-
dictment as "an attempt to turn a dif-
ference
68
Lecture
69
 (1) Ltr, CofEngrs to Col S. M. Felton, 24 May
26. 400.12
70
December 5, 1922, p. 10; December 31, 1922, p. I.
71
February 1923,p. 22.
 H and S Joint Comm on Reorgn of the Admin
Br of the
Res 282,p. 744.
New
1923, p. 21.
suits against
which went
three
minutes
As General Marshall put it, the prosecu-
tions "begun with a shout" had "ended
with
Mencken's—became
down
cision, a joint
committee of Congress
witnesses appeared in support of a public
works department—officials, professors,
"At the present
knowledge
of
ities."
75
ner . . . . The question of a desirable
project is, of course, a relative question.
There are
desirability may be
function of the
so regarded,
point out to Congress or to the Senator who
might have been responsible
than
fore them.
standpoint of preparedness, Professor
would have its
he added, "it would then work under
military direction."
advantages of this plan to the Engineers,
General Marshall stated: "I think it
would be a distinct addition to their
training . . . they would go back
to the service and to the Army with
a
78
Opposition
of
things
as
they
bors work from the War Department,
he concluded:
dis-
4
Suits Now in Discard," The Constructor, November
1927. P. 19.
Reorgn
Hearings on S
76
ter to admit of practical proof
one way or
should
successful operation
to its
credit, whereas
a theory with which to support its claim.
I want to say at this point, Mr. Chairman,
that I
in
That the work could have been more eco-
nomically done under civilian administration,
I do not believe.
Colonel Sherrill. Disposing of insinua-
tions about "little
creeks and streams"
Harbors,
created
in
1902,
against flying to ills they knew not of.
Civilians,
than
military
dom of detailing Engineers to the
pro-
posed
outside the Army. Taking a bolder line
than the Chief, Colonel Sherrill made a
strong
tions. High on his list was the work of the
Constructing Quartermaster General.
with the
these men was to fasten that system on
the government. Alluding to cost-plus
profiteering in the
the traditional tiger getting his taste of
human blood."
branded
as
"mani-
deplored their "wholesale chargesof graft
and incompetency." The resolution went
on to urge that, "in the best interest
of the people of the United States," all
river and harbor work be placed "under
civilian and not under military engineer-
ing direction."
ques-
believe that
worthy; did the Engineers deny that the
building
Chief
no court had upheld?
Frederick L. Cranford,
president of the
engineers as "despicable and damnable."
He contended that the Corps had "fixed
upon a policy of destroying the estab-
lished method of conducting
any means to accomplish its purpose.
Unless the Engineers were stopped,
virtually all federal construction
79
1924. Reprinted in The Constructor, May 1924, p. 34.
82
printed in The
 
works
department
tractors believed
1924, the
subject
assignment of Army Engineers to river
and harbor work is at the
present
time
ficers
the demands put upon them in time of
war; and, on the other hand, there is a
measure of economy in
public
Corps.
84
Terming
this
call for a new
to the Federated
before Congressional committees, in
nounced
ments were being accomplished
pur-
Panama Canal had furnished a striking
demonstration of the system's
1916, pro-
control
bids
exceeded
86
By
1924
in
1900;
87
The Bolshevistic regime of
tion
by
individuals
same principle
falls under
whatever industry it controls as the
soviet
den costs, such as
more work by contract; with equal
regularity, Congress declined to enact
such legislation.
works department
Wyant bill of 1927 called forth a thought-
ful statement by Secretary of War Davis.
Taking up the "specious arguments,
speculations,
and
postulates"
advanced
84
85
86
H of the on the Judiciary,
69th Cong, 1st sess, Hearings on H R 8902, pp. 1-12.
88
followed
 
ing
sense-
gineering was a means to an end, not an
end in itself. Each operating unit ought
to
have
quite the contrary. Competition made
for
no complaints
Corps had been exceptional. After men-
tioning the Panama Canal, the
work
on
Great
the
improvements
of the
which I do not believe are equaled, and
certainly not surpassed in either private
or Government
achieve this
spiration." Predicting that in future wars
engineering would be "even more im-
portant and far more complicated"
than in the past,
Engineers
tee that
breach with industry. A younger genera-
tion of officer