Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has spoken of that which is the objection to this system which I propose, and I admit it is to a imited and to a certain extent true of the present system. Like all other changes, the question iswhether the result is loss or gain by eparting from the present condition of things. If, on the one and, you make promotion in any part of the Army y selection made upon mens merit it is liable to the possible a use of which the gentleman speaks, that there may be partiality, far as examinations are concerned, if he will look at the 34thsection he will find we have provided promotion below the rank of coloneI shall be on examination by a board of Officers as he recommends, not of politicians, not of outsiders, but a board composed of members of the Army. The answer to that objection which may be made, the objection of promotion being made through partiality, is that in every human system we must trust somebody. Everything rests somewhere. The necessity of obedience to law is with those who are to carry it out. You may devise every expedient you can, and you will be scarcely able to get rid of that. While there is a fear of partiality and abuse on one side, look at what may be considered a greater disadvantage if you do not have some rule of this kind, found exedient to be adopted in every country which Iias bad a successful military system except our own. The difficulty into which you run, if you do not make it limited, is this: i all promotion is to be by seniority, the oldest captain will be majorin his turn, the oldest major lieutenant colonel, and the oldest lieutenant colonel, as a matter of course, colo nel; and so all the way through, step by step; and inefficiency and incapacity are sure to result. The gentleman was unfortunate in his illus trations, I think, drawn from exerience during the last war, which experience ms aided us in bringin our attention to this particular subject. fie referred to Grant an Sherman and others who have distinguished themselves as great leaders in the war, prominent above all others. How did they come to have their services secured in these high places? Most of these gentlemen had left the Army, these 2 particularly bad, while others remained in the regular Army. They got appointed as field Officers, some as colonels, some as lieutenant colonels, both these Officers as colonels, and were found on trial to develop such qualities they were is eedily made general officers, and from general officers of subordinate positions advanced by development of capacity over all others until they became chosen the leaders of the war and thus men far below in age, in previous rank, and in date of former commission by the very exigencies of the service and by orce of this rule which we propose you shall now adopt to a certain extent throughout the Army, are brought at the head who are admitted on all hands to be those who ought to be at the head. The illustration is not a good one for the gentlemans argument, it seems to me, but it sustains precisely what I am saying and without extending the argument further, I would say that we have learned, I think, by sad experience a great deal during this war with all its lessons and among other things we have learned that there is good reason and good cause for the adoption of this rule of promotion by merit and selection, above certain grades at least, as it exists in other armies, and we would do well, perhaps, to introduce it into our own. The gentleman sa 5 it is, to a certain extent, a radical change. I admit it. There is argument on both sides, and the gentleman has presented very fairly the arment against it. gut I submit to him and to the House whether there is not more to be gained than to be lost. by the change; whether the danger is not, if we continue with a still larger army, as we have heretofore, when it has not been so much felt, with u very small army in time of peace, making promotions step by step, by seniority alone, we may not find a large number of those highest in command among the worn out, effete, and imbecile officers of the Army, instead of the most vi orous, best, and most gifted.