the notice of this Bureau by the commanding officers of all com-
panies using this arm. These defects show that the Remington
arm should not be adopted before being thoroughly tested in ser-
vice."

To this is subjoined the endorsement of the War Department as
follows: "The recommendations of the Chief of Ordnance are ap-
proved by the Secretary of War. Signed Ed. Schriver, Inspector-
General," under date of July 16th, 1870. In consequence of these
contradictory results, a fourth Board, it is officially stated, will be
convened during the present year to take into further consideration
the question of the adoption of breech-loading arms for the United
States army. Against the decision of the St. Louis Board the proprie-
tors of the Peabody issued a protest, which, as belonging to the history
of this arm, is quoted nearly in full. After recapitulating the decisions
of the two Boards preceding, the protest continues :

These deliberate and formal opinions of two boards in favor of the Peabody pun, might
appear conclusive of the merits of tliat arm. But at this juncture persons who had anx-
iously urged the adoption of another system, succeeded in securing the appointment of a
board of naval officers, for tlie purpose of reporting upon the merits of small arms. This
board consisted of the following persons:

Captain William Reynolds, President of the Board,

Commander S. Nicliolson,

Commander K. R. Breese,

Captain McLane Tilton, U. S. Marines,

Second Lieutenant George C. Reid, TJ. S. Marines, Recorder
No considerable publicity was given to the fact of the appointment of this board, and
tlw manufacturers of the Peabody gim knew nothing of its existence until their deliberations
were nearly concluded. No opportunity was afforded the makers to present the Peabody
system to this board, and their report was made with no sample of the arm having been
before them. The board naturally recommended the adoption of the Remington system
for the naval sei'vice.
