Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say a word 1st in regard to the criticism of the Gentfrom Ohio on the word “number” in this section which I propose to trike out and which he thinks it would be improper to strike out. It appears to me that when you put into this law a provision that the Adjutant generals Dept should consist of a certain number of officers, and when in a subsequent part of the section you put in a provision such as is contained in this section, you thereby give clcar intimation of your intention to vacate existing offices and to provide for new appointments. Itwas for that reason I could not consent to the insertion of the word “number.” I think that the force of that objection still remains. I desire to say a few words on what the QuarterMGen calls the “awkward titles, ” and which are proposed to be abolished. It has been the setted practice of the Military Dept of the Government for a long time to have what are styled assts in the several bureaus of that Dept. We have in the War Dept, I think, an asst in every bureau of that Dept. commencing with the SecyWar himself, we have an Asst SecyWar, we have asst udjutant generals, we have asst quarterMGens, an asst payMGen, an asst surgeon general, an asst judge advocate general, an asst provost marshal general. If the objection of the “awkward titles ” is good to those titles in the Adjutant Generals staff, I ask the Gentfrom Ohio why he does not propose to abolish all those titles in the other bureaus of the War Dept. Why does he retain an otheer with totitle of asst commissary general, or with the title of asst payMGen, or asst surgeon general, or asst judge advocate General, or asst provost marshal general? Why is the verbal reform he is so anxious to inaugurate in this bill not applied to all of the bureaus of the War Dept? Wh does he restrict itto the Adjutant Genernls epnrtment, or the QuarterMGens Dept? If this is an inconvenient title, sir, it has endured for a long time without the discovery of the inconvenience, for these titles have been employed in the War Dept since 1838, when these offices were created. They are titles which have been found to be of great convenience in the dispatch of business, not only in the various bureaus of the War Dept but in all branches of the civil service also. There is no Dept of the civil government, I believe, which has not those assist ants also. We have an Asst SecyTreasury, an Asst SecyNavy, an Asst SecyState, an Asst AttyGen, die. Now, why select 2 bureaus of the War Dept as propersubjects for this reform in nomenclature, and leave all the others untouched in this respect? Sir, I see no inconvenience arising from these titles. On the contrary I see great confusion and injustice arising from what is called the proposed verbal reform. I am aware that the gentleman had for this the authority of a suggestion made by the QuarterMGen in a letter dated December 18, 1865, which he addressed to the Lieutenant General, and which is now before me. I have good reason to believe that the Lieutenant General does not approve of these proposed alterations. he QuarterMGen in that letter made this suggestion, of giving up, as he expressed it, the awkward titles of asst and deputy quarterMGen, “ which are rel ics, ” as he says, “of the days when the corps was a civil, and not a military body, attached to rather than forminga constituent part of the Army.”. Now, sir, I may be mistaken, but I have a strong impression that in making that assertion the QuarterMGen fell into a very grave error. I believe it is an undoubted fact that the QuarterMGens Dept has always been an inte ral part of the Army of the U.S. here never was a day and if I am wrong, I ask the chairman of the Military Committee to correct me when it was a civil Dept of the public service. The 1st QuarterMGen of the U.S. was General Mifliin of my own State, during the revolutionary war; and he was a bria ier general in the service. So also Genera Pickens and General Greene, both ofwhom subsequently filled this office, were not only men of military rank, but men of the highest military character and ability, and they both had the rank of brigadier general. The quartermnsters dept has always been treated in the public laws and recognized by Congress as an integral part of the rmy, and never as a Dept of the civil service attached to the Army. Therefore the reason which was suggested by the QuarterMGen for this change, it seems to me, was totally unfounded in fact. Now, sir, this change was recommended by the QuarterMGen in regard to his own bureau. He did not of course undertake to recommend its application to bureaus with which he had no oiiicial connection. He recommended it for his own Dept as an alteration to be made there, and in the draft of a bill, or a project for a bill which is an nexed to his letter, he put in a proviso that no officer of the Dept should be discharged from the service in the execution of the law. It was very proper to do that, but it was, I am obliged to say, a totally inadequate remed or compensation for the unavoidable mise lief and injustice resulting from the abolition of these offices or titles; because under that proviso, as it was recommended by the QuarterMGen, these officers, although they might have obtained new commissions, would all have lost many years of rank in the service. This would necessarily result from the necessity of their being recommissioned. The rank which they had earned by long years of service would have been taken away from them. This, of course, was not intended by the QuarterMGen in the so gestion which he made. I have said that the uarterMGens Dept has always been recogniZed and treated as a constituent part of the Army. Let me advert briefly to the legislative history of this Dept. The Dept underwent various alterations afier the Revolution, until the war with England, in 1812, when it was increased and reorganized by placin General Swartwout at the head of it as chic of the Dept, with the rank of briadier general, 4 quarterMGens with the rank of colonel, (increased in 1814 to 7 ) 12 deput quarterMGens, and 30 asst eputy quarterMGens. I refer to the Army Register, dated January 1, 1815. At the reduction of the Army in May, 1815, the quarter masters Dept was greatly reduced; yet General Swartwout was retained with the rank of brigadier general; this rank he retained until May, 1816, when the departs lment was reorganized by having 2 QuarterMGens with the rank of colonel at the head of it. This organization continued until the 8th of May, 1818, when it was again reor ganized with a brigadier general at its head, and it was established asa bureau at Washington. I. has continued with a brigadier General at its head ever since. Occasionally the numberof its officers was increased, until July, 1838, when it was full reorganized, restoring the grades which had ormes; existed, with a slight alteration; the coloncls being styled asst quarterMGens, (not quarterMGens, as in previous laws) and the dep duty quarterMGens with the rank of lieutenant colonel, (a rank still) which had existed by act of March 3, 1799. It has continued as established in 1838, through 2 wars and many years of peace, without any incon venience and without the titles being consid cred “ awkward.”. During all this time the officers of the quar termasters Dept have been borne on the Army Register as a constituent art of the Army, as officers of the general stag". I have made these observations in order to demonstrate that the Dept has always been regarded and treated as a military Dept, and not as a civil Dept attached to the Army. The remarks which I have made in reference to the QuarterMGens Dept have been prom ted by the effort which has been made to up old the proposed changes in the Adjutant Generals Dept, by a reference to the suggestion which was made by the QuarterMGen for alteration in the titles of officers in that Dept. I hope the changes proposed in the 13th section relative to the Adjutant Generals Dept will not be made, but that the House will adopt the substitute which I have offered.