Mr. DAVIS. I understood the gentleman to say that he knew it, and also that he had never seen a pay roll which told the truth: and leapposed he meant that those pay rolls had passed llS supervision, and had been certified through his instrumentality. IfI have done him injus tice in that I ask his pardon. A great deal has been said here upon the subject of commutation of rations, and there appears to he an issue raised on that subject between the'Military Committee and the friends of this bill and some who are opposed to it. Ithas been asserted here most positively that under the present system and under the present law there 15no such thing as drawing rations in kind by an officer. Sir, if that fOVlSIOllexists under the law, then there could bementioned cases in which to deny it would operate as a gross injustice. Now, I undertake to say that the provision of the law today is such that it is within the option of the officer to say whether he will draw his rations, fuel, &c., in kind or will commute. The Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. PAIXE] in whose ability, in whose integrity , in whose character in every respect I have the highest degree of confidence, stated that all who had asserted a different principle were utterly mistaken. I know he said it because he believed it. He said he did not know where the legislation was, but that that was the uniform practice of the Army and was the law. Now, sir, if the gentleman will turn to the Stat utes oflTllf), 2nd session, chapter 44, section 11, he will find this provision: “That the commiaioned officersaforesaidshall be entitled to receivefor their daily lowing subsistencethe fol number of rations of provisions. to wit." And after specifying the number of rations to which the officer of each grade shall be entitled, the section continues: “0r moneyin lieu thereof at the option of said ofllcers.at the contractprice at the postsrespectively where the rations shall becomedue." Now, sir, that law was amended by an act passed in 1796, in which we find a similar provision. I refer gentlemen to the Laws of 1796, 1st session, chapter 39, section 13, where it is provided“ That the commissionedofficersaforesaidshall be entitled to receivefor their daily subsistence the following number of rations of provisions." After specifying the number of rations to which the officer of each grade shall be entitled, the section continues: “0r moneyin lieu thereof at the option of said ofieers at the posts respectively where the rations shall becomedue." Now, I know it will be said, and said with parent fairness, that the Government furnishes rations at the posts where the officers are located at the price paid by the Government at the point of purchase. That is very true; yet, sir, how often does it happen in the experienceofanarmythatstoresare destroyed, vessels bearing them are shipwrecked, ware houses are burned down, so that the officers of subsistence have no recourse but to go to the nearest market and there purchase subsistence at exorbitant prices emanded for revisions upon the frontier and in other local ities. Yet, in such a case, under the provisions of this bill, an officer, instead of paying what it would cost him for rations under other circumstances, pays 3 or fear times as much from his fixed and unchanging compensation. New, sir, while I think of it, let me state that the reason why the change referred to has been ado ited is found in the Articles of War, or in the egulations of the War Dept, in regard to rations. In 1847 or 1848, soon after we took possession of California, officers in the interior, who were entitled to draw rations at their cost to the Government, found that they could not live upon their pay. As I have stated, the rent of a single room, scarcely large enough to furnish space for a wash stand an a bed, would, in some instances, amount to $100 permonth; board would cost 6 or 7 or ten dollars perday; labor would be worth 5 dollars perday, and the price of everything else would be in the some proportion. Officers in California, being entitled under the law to draw their rations in kind at the place where the Government held them, and at the cost to the Government at the point of purchase without. transportation, drew their rations in kind and 50k them for 2 and a half or 3 dollars perration. In this way one officer drew at one time, as I have been told. $9,000 in money from the Government; and thus he was enabled to sustain himself. I see nothing unlawful in the act although it was censured. This is the reason why this change was introduced. It is not a matter of law. The law stands today as I have read it, nnrepealed and in full force; and I do not believe that it is best for us at this time to abolish a system which has worked harmoniously and e uitably with respect to all parties, and to su titute for it a system which fixes an arbitrary and unchanging rule of compensation. Again, sir, on the subject of forage, there have been times when on the plains the horse of an officer could not be supportedfor 6 dollars a day. Yet this bill, as 1st introduced, made no allowance for such a case. The chairman of the committee has, however, very wisely, as I think, proosed, and the House has adopted, an amendment obviating this difficulty; an amendment introdu ein into this bill the very principle on which he used his objections to the existing law. Now, sir, if he will go further, if he will do justice in reference to the commutation of quarters, I have no objection to the provisions of the bill. All I ask is justice, and that is all these officers demand. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SCHEKCK] in his Opening speech assumed what was denied by the Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. DUMOh'T] who addressed the House yesterday on this subject. The chairman of the committee then said: “ This bill, it will be observed.isentitled‘A bill to reduce and establish the mayof the officers and to regulatethe pay of the soldiersof the armiesof thoU.S.es.'" I have no doubt the gentleman was entirely sincere iuthut declaration: but I wantto know where the reduction is. Is it in reference to those who have been long in the service? No, sir. As to them, when you come to the amendment he proposes in reference to the longevity rations, you give an officer who has been long in the service largely increased pay. You do not reduce the pay of such officers, but you do reduce the pay of those who cannot hear the reduction. You take the junior officers, the 2nd lieutenants, and you reduce them. It costs as much to clothe and fceda 2nd lieu tenant as a major general. Their quarters and their family relations may be different, but their personal expenses for clothing, the are generally not very unequal. The Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. DvuoN'r] after criticising this bill, advocates it because it is a measure for the increase of the pay of the Army. Ifthat be so, I say this is not the time to increase the pay ofofficers of the Army. And if it is to reduce the pay, I also say that this is not the time to do so. I am not willing in the year 1866, when a year has scarcely elapsed since the gallant Army of the Republic struck down rebellion in the field; I am not willing that those who stood gallantly by the flag, and who carried it on many battle fields through fire and blood to victory, now wounded,perhaps disabled, broken down in health; I am not willine that they shall be met by the Congress of the U.S. with a proosition to reduce their pay. I want ever officer who served his country well shall be fiberally compensated for the service he has rendered. They stand high in the record of this nation, exhibitin a more brilliant array of martial deeds an prowess than was ever before exhib ited by any country in the world. I am not willing that those men whose names are raven indelibly on the tablets of time should now, one year after the war has ended have their pay reduced by the action of this Congress. l N ow, sir, whether it be to reduce the pay or to increase the pay of the Army this is not the time, and [wish this whole subject could be deferred until the next session of Congress, when a lau might be adopted embracing litany of the i cos of the honorable chairman of the committee which would meet with the cordial concurrence of the country. I am sure I should be glad to sustain it. Iyicld the remainder of my time to the Gentfrom NewJerse, [Mr. Rooms]