Mr. DUMONT. Mr. Speaker, it was remarked the other da by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Harm] who addressed the House upon the subject of this bill, and who took the same round as the gentleipan who has just taken his seat, [Mr. W oomnnnor: or rather such was the tone and tenor of his is conrse that this bill emanated from and had its origin in hostility to the regular Army. Sir, if any such motive as that actuated those who have brought forward this bill I do not know it. I am not a member of the ComMilAffrs, and know nothing with regard to their feelings upon this subject, but so far as that charge would apply to me I would say that it 1866. omen. sings has no application and does not fit. I favor the principle of the bill now under consideration, but favor the principle of this bill out of no hostility to the officers of the Army. The gentleman who has just taken his seat has been exceedingly eloquent in pronouncing their eulogy. I think he has said nothing in their favor to which many of them are not well entitledg that is to say, the great majority of the m, and exceptions do not disprove a rule. The great majority of the officers of the regular Army are entitled to all the commendations be stowed upon them by the Gentfrom Ver mont, [ Mr. Woonlmmos. I would not pluck one single laurel from their brow, forupon the tented field, where the din of battle raged, they have won all the encomiums which the gentleman is so able and willing to bestow. would feel myself unworthy of the constituency I represent, if, in advocating this bill, I stood up to cast one single word of reproach upon these men, these scarred veterans, these battle worn heroes, these men with. mutilated limbs. In legal parlance, there is such a thing as supgJressio cart as well as suggeslio falsz', and when a gentleman makes a speech which leaves a certain impression behind it, although hemay not make a single false statementstraight out through his whole speech, it may partake a little of the suppressio verz'style of eloquence. With all due respect to the Gentfrom Ver mont, let me suggest to him that that is slightly, but unintentionaly. of course, the character of the speech just made. Any outsider, not famil iar with the law as it now stands upon this subject and with the bill now before the House, would go awn with the impression that the object of the h1i or amendment was to cut down the salaries of officers to a starvation standard, invite the wolf to their door, make patriotism a crime, and the profession of arms disreputable. I say, God forbidl Mr. Speaker, I support this bill of the ComMilAffrs. I desire to have some amendment made; but the general principles commend themselves to my judgment. And yet if I believed that it was open to the charges made against it by the honorable Gentfrom Vermont, [ML Woonnuine n] and by the equally able andingenious Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Min 'IBAYsR] I would, in the language of the country, “drop it like a hot potato;” it would receive no support from me. I do not want to try officers of the Army.extravagantly but I 0 want them to have a respectable salary;I want them paid in a manner worthy of the country the serve; I would adopt no starvation stander, no penny wise and pound foolish policy. Now, it delights me to listen to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Tnsrsn. He is clear and forcible and logical in all that he says when not deluded or la oring under error, to which we are all more or less liable, in regard to the facts and yet under such delusion he floundered terribly in his opposition to this bill. It is true that a stranger occupying a seat in the gallery, and not familiar with the Regulations of the Army, not familiar with the subject under consideration, would have gone awa after listenin to that speech and said that the gentleman had made a conclusive argument; and yet the entle mau from Wisconsin [Mr.PAlNE] knocked isearthworks all to ieces, pulled away the abattis, jumped over e ditch, ot into the citadel, and went in generally on is muscle. There was nothing left of his or ument and the gentleman himself, I kind 0 fancie, felt ashamed ofit. Now, I can make a pretty good speech that is, if I had the talents of my eloquent colleague [Mr. Oars] who now sits before me, kindly giving me countenance and by a benig quant smile yielding assent to my words, feeble and crude as they are if I could have the privilege of manufacturing and imagining my own facts, or letting somebody else, not as honest as I am, do it for me. [Laughter] But when the facts are taken away, vanished, so“ slimmenns, when it is fowl that the superstructure has no foundation, what becomes of the argument? I saw the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Tunas] go over and havea little private conversation with the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Pam‘s] after the latter gentleman had concluded his remarks and taken his seat. I did not hear the conversation, nor did I ask anything about it. But I fancied, believing in the gentleman's generous frankness and willingness at all times to make the amends honor able, that it was a confession that he was vanquished. such a confession, I know, would be honorable. I do not testify that he made it; it isilall guess work, and may be wide of the trut. Now, how do you explain all this? How do you explain that one of the most intelligent members of this House gets 11 here and talks very sensibly and ably for an our that is to to say, in view of his flimsy premises and after he has spoken, another of great ability, it is true, but no abler than he, gets up and answers him, and it turns out that there is nothing in his speech at all? How do on explain it? I fancy I know exactly how it happens, and yet I do not know anything personally about it. Still I think I know how it was done, for l have been victimized in the same way and sympathize with fellow sufferers. “Aburned c Ill dreads the fire.” I do not intend to he again. I have had the honor, accidentally, on one or 2 occasions to be a member of the State Legislature; and sometimes 1 have been met by a friend in the lobby who has propounded to me such a question as this: “ did you no tice such abill introduced by such amember ‘1” To which I would reply, “ Oh, no, I did not notice it; it has not been brought to my at tention.’ “Well, it is agreat outrage, it is infamous, and you ought to oppose it.” “Well, sir, if it is an outrage, if it isiniquitons, as you seem to suppose, I am entirely willing to oppose it. But I want on to post me in regard to it: to tell me in w notits iniquity consists.” An explanation would ensue, and I, believin him to be an honorable gentleman, who would not deceive or lead me astray, poor confiding man that I was, would give full credence to all he said; and acting on his information, make a speech corresponding therewith, all right on my part, so far as intention goes, but all wrong in point of fact. But I soon found that I stood on a sandy foundation, that my facts were fallacies, and my argument of no value for want ofsomething to stand on. I found myself riddled with bul lets from every quarter, until, as the boys 5a my hide would not hold corn shocks. It taught me a lesson that Iwill not forget to the day of in death, that it is dangerous to be too con5 in. I fear the gentleman has fallen into just such hands, and that they have treated him no better than they did me, but of the 2 I must confessI was a little the worse sold. [Laughter] Although an able lawyer one of the ablest in the country, as all admitet he will pardon me for saying thathe seeme to be not well posted on this particular subject. It was but too plain be has given too willing an ear to some friend in whom he confided, and who had led him astray. Why, he did not seem to be conscious that an officer does not receive his rations in kind; and his own mistaken view on this point he gave as a reason why this whole system a relic of barbarisrn, as I contend ought not to be broken up. His argument was that officers ought still to be crmitted.to draw their rations in kind, as eretofore, and as he asserted the law now to be, because if that privilege was withheld, they could not live on the frontier where provisions are dear. I forbear to dwellon this; it is cruel to criti cise such delusions. It is enough to say that what he states as the existing law has not been the law for lo these many long ears, butI am not prepared to say that it oug t not to be the law. Much has been said of the venerable character of the present law and that we ought to be careful how we innovate upon the wisdom of ages. Now, old things may be very good. I am told that cheese and whisky improve with age; and very likely this is the case with some other things. But when I am convinced that any system of laws is essentially vicious and demoralizing, not such as ought to exist upon the statute book, I will give my vote to wipe it out, no matter how ong it may have continued. Hoary headed error has no charms for me. I am, perhaps, wanting in veneration. I do not venerate it a bit. The gentleman fancies that he can see hostility to the Amryin all this. But it exists, I h'l think, alone in his imagination. We read t t “The lunoflo. the lover, and the poet, Are of imagination all compact. One sees more devils than vast hell can hold; That is the madman.’ So with the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. He could find; some evidence of hostility, some car marks of it in every one of these sections. Why? Because these wereavery meritorious class of men, who had done good service to their country, had taken their ives in their hands and gone upon the tented field where battles are lost and won; therefore he wanted to see no wrong done our injury inflicted. I cherish the same emotions of grati tude, entertain exactly the same feclin, but I come to a different conclusion in regar to the best interest of these men and as it respects my own dutyas a Representative of the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, if these remarks of mine are not well founded; if they do injustice to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania; if it should hap pen thathe is rightwhileI am wrong; if it should prove to be a fact that he has made no mistakes at all, while I say that every criticism he made was a mistake, it will be so understood by the country when his remarks and mine go forth. I may have spoken at little rough with no bad intent, butam consoled by the rejection that no one can be ultimately injured but him who is in the wrong, by letting truth and error grapple. Why, sir, the gentleman says that this bill deprives officers of quarters; and there has been a terrible surge upon the subject of norters. We are almost reminded of the 0] expression about Satan shearing swin roeeeds, more noise than wool. Yet this item 0 'quarters is more restricted now than some supppose; I mean, of course, commutation of quarters. The gentlemen on the other side seem to be unwilling to let upon the subject of quarters. It seems to be a avorite theme, the harp of1,000 strin s, the burden of their song. On that particu r point they seem to be sun charged. A case is cited of a colonel who has been on duty on the frontier or in the field, and is ordered to some duty at Washington city. He gets so much as an annual salary under this bill. He keeps his family here, and rents: house, not being permitted to commute quarters, which takes up half of his salary. In the 1st place, unless he is willing to foot the bill himself, he has no business to have his family tagging on his heels. He has no right to billet them on the Government. [Laughter] They have no business with him, except as my family has with me at my own expense when away from their fixed home. You might as well say ifa man took his family with him in an active campaign in face of the enemy, and bought a farm on which to settle that family where the fight was about to take place, that it would use up all his salary. Of course it would. It is resumed that a man who has been educated by the Government from boyhood to.manhood and who goes into the field, having adopted the profession of arms, has some fixed abode. That is a reasonable presumption. It occurs very much to me in that way. He is liable to be stationed, so to speak, at Washington to day, at Boston tomorrow and at SanFrancisco the next day. He is liable to be at one I place one month on one duty and at another place next month on another duty, and so on; and if he rent a stately mansion at enormous rent at each place where his duty may take him, and bring his family to it, the gentlemen are not mistaken in supposing that it will eat up his salary, no matter what it is. We could hardly fix any salary that would meet such expenses, but it is a burlesque upon the profession of arms to suppose them legitimate. In the field an officer is not now entitled to commutation of quarters. There is but a single case in which an officer is now entitled to commutation of uarters, and I will show presently that it is on y paying his tavern bill. He is entitled to commutation of quarters in one predicament, and there is nothing in that one tried by the touch stone of truth except aying his tavern bill. Whenever an officer o the Army is on duty with troops, the Government is bound to furnish him with quarters. If he gets the quarters in kind he is notentitled to commutation. It. may be patent. Itinay be rails sloped up against a fence, with a little straw thrown over them. It may be a thatched roof. Lt may be a manger. It maybe a stable, or it may be a alace. Nothing is charged, one way or the other. The Government furnishes thesequarters to the officer, and deducts nothing from his compensation, and will not, under this bill. This bill leaves it unchanged. In the case where an officer is entitled to commutation of guarters, let us investigate that to see whether am right that it is nothing but paying his tavern bill. The gentlemen who cling to this remnant of barbarism simply want the people to pay the tavern bill of these officers while they seem a little reluctant to let the people know it. I do not wonder at that; theymight rumble. Suppose a colonel of cavalry or infantry or a colonel of the engineer arm of the service should be ordered to go from this city to Philadelphia to make an estimate of the cost of a certain fortification or to build one. He has no troo)8 with him. He has no ad'utant with him. c has no men with him. 0 military famil as it: is called. He does not even take acerk with him. Why? He does not need these appendages. He goes to Philadelphia in the discharge of his duties. He goes to the best hotel and of course puts up there and applies himself to the duties for which he was sent. It takes him 6 months to perform them. At the end of 6 months he comes back here and enters upon another duty Now, I ask, if'Y‘m allow that ofieer commutation for quartersnot for cities rent, for if an office is needed the Government isto furnish it if you allow him commutation for quarters will you be doing an hing more or less than paying his tavern 'llf That is all there is in it. Gentlemen seem to contend that every time an officer of the Government occupies a.post. gets aroom assigned to him by the Government by hook or crook, that it diminishes his compensation, that there is to be some kind of eduction on account of it. A eater error than that one could scarcely fnl into. There is not a word of truth in it. The government furnishes quarters, and an officer occupies them without charge or deduction one way or the other, under the law as itnow stands, and that is just what he will do under this bill. In that regard there is no change where there is an actual occupancy of Government quarters, all we have heard to the contrary not withstanding. Of an officer we might say whenever he gets quarters he gets them, and when the Government gets any money of him for it it will do it good. But under certain contingencies that I have just named he gets commutation of quarters. It is very well indeed to make fine spun theories in regard to this matter, but the better way is to come down to the regulations. What is written in black and white, what the law of the country is on the subject, will be found in sections ten80 and ten84, page 161, of the Regulations of the Army: “1080. Whewb heliequarters cannot be furnished to Officers fistat' 'WllllOUl troops, or to enlisted at senor: lor dept. Il |u:lf!('lr, quartersmWeilnl be coniinnled at a rate Iixed by the ccretnr of War and fuel nt the innrkt l pricedelivered. hen fuel and quartersare commutedto an officerby reason of his employuient on a oivilworh the commutation shall e chargedto the npproprinlion for the work. No commutation of roomsor fuel is allowed to“the officersor messes." 11m.Ulllccrsflnd troops in the ficlrlare not entitled tocouiinutation for quartersor fuel.” Why? Because they get the quarters and the fuel, and it is simply absurd to talk of commutation for a thing furnished in kind. I desire to say a few words more in regard to fuel. From what gentlemen have been saying one would naturally infer, if we did not know better, that an ofllccrulwaysgot commutation of fuel. Now, it is the rarest thing in the world that an officer gets any such thing. I have been near 5 years in the service of the U.S. in 'self as an officer, part of the time during the exican war and the rest of the time during the late rebellion. I have been stationed at posts and I have been in the field. I have commanded posts, brigades, and divisions. I have been in WestVirginia, in Kentucky, in Tennessee, in Alabama, and in Mexico. I was stationed in command of Puebla, in Mexico, and at Nashville, in Tennessee. And yet I never drew asingle dollar at any time, nor did I receive a dollar for couimntation of quarters or of fuel. because I was not entitled to it, and because the Government always furnished it. Fuel is public property. If the Government delivers to me ten cords of wood and I use up one hnlfof it and am then ordered to another duty I have no right to approprinte the remainder to my own use. but the Government has a right to come around and take what is left. I cite the following section of the regulations in regard to fuel: “1073.Fuel issued to officers or troops is public property for their use. What they do not actually consumeshall ba returned to the quarteruiasterand taken up on his quarterly return.’ We had read to us the other day a passage from u very interesting volume called “Across the Continent.” The object of it was, I suppose, if it had any application at all, to show the enormous price of provisions at Denver and at other posts on the Pacific slope. But that fact is of no consequence at all unless the officers there stationed had a right to draw their rations in kind, a right which has not existed for many years. It is 40 years since the letter of I’uymnster General Towson was written. It seems that at that time rations might be drawn in kind. To proceed with the argument, take a colonel stationed where the ration is worth 2 dollars instead of 30 cents. He has no right at all to draw that ration in kind and then deduct the 30 cents. What he had the right to do under the old law and that this bill does not change at all was to draw commutation for his rations and then go to the coininissary and buy the subsistence necessary for the support of himself and his family, paying the Government the cost price, less the eXpense of transportation. The regulations declare in so many words that rations must be commuted at the price fixed by the Government. And then section 1213 provides that an officer may draw subsistence stores, paying cash for them at.contractor cost price, without including cost of transportation, on his certificate that they are for his own use and the use of his family. Suppose his rations or subsistence are hauled from StLouis to Denver, part of the way in wa one. An officer, as the law now stands an under the present bill, though he cannot draw commutations for his rations, can go to the commissary and buy them at the cost price to the Government, less the cost of transportation. The truth is, as regards nearly every one of the criticisms. the law will be exactly the same after this bill has passed as it was before. I suppose that every one of the gentlemen who op se this bill is willing to arrive at the truthmin regard to the matter; and having heard so much about this thin of reducin the pay of the Army I concludei that I would institute a comparison; that. Iwnnld lay the books down he ore inc and see whether these charges were true, and if they were in any material and ruine us degree the bill should have no support from me. 1 have according! entered on the right hand margin of this bifl the compensation fixed by it and on the left hand margin the compensation under the present law, and l propose to compare them in order to see how Just the criticisms of the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. Woommiucs] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. TBAYEH] are. The Lieutenant General under this bill gets $12,000 perannum. Under the law as it now stands he gets $13, 392. The Gentfrom Vermont will bear in mind that [start out with what would scem to sustain his charge; and it does so so far as this officer is concerned. I am entirely willing to make the salary of the Lieutenant General $15,000, for that matter. I should be very reluctant to vote against any sum for his salary, secing where it would go to. A major general, under the law as it now stands, receives, exclusive of fuel, commutation of quarters, and forage, $5, 772, and under the law as provided by this bill he would get $7,000 in one contingency, $6, 500 in another contingency, and $6,000 in a still further contingency; graduating the compensation according to the character of the service performed. A discrimination is made in the amount of sal ary in favor of the hardest kind of work and the most valuable service to the country. Does that bear out the charge of the Gentfrom Vermont? Did he not “waste his sweetness on the desert air” when he expended so much eloquence on the reduction of salaries? A reduction from $5,000 and fuel, quarters, and forage, to $7,000l It seems to me that it was a waste of eloquence, and that I should be wasting eloquence were I capable of it if I were to take up time in replyin very much at length to that part of his very able speech. The gentleman is from Vermont and will pardon me for repeating what his fellow countryman said, that “he hated to kick at.nothing, it wrenched him so." [Laughten] We come now to brigadier generals. I have already adverted to lieutenant generals and to major generals, and we have seen that neither of them is turned out upon the cold charity of the world without house or home. I come now to the brigadier general. He receives, under the law as it now stands, $3, 918, with the other items mentioned and under this bill, in one contingency he would receive $5, 500, and in another contingency he would receive $6,000. Now, ifthat is raining an officer of that grade, I imagine that he would like to be ruined ever day of his life. [Laughter] Ifthat is sac an enormous wrong that it cries to Heaven for ven canoe, I suppose that he wishes all mankin to stand hue and let him become its victim. [Laughter.] We come down now to the office of colonel. Under the law as it now stands the colonel gets $3, 180 and the other items named. And bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in instituting this comparison I have taken the highest grade of compensation; that is to say, I have taken the pay of a colonel in the cavalry arm of the service. There is a very slight difference between the pay of officers in the cavalry arm of the service and those in the infantry arm of the service. In order to make the comparison most favorable to the Gentfrom Vermont, I have taken the cavalry arm of the service. A colonel in that service receives now, under the present law, as I have stated, $8, 180 and the items named. Under the bill now pending, this terrible bill, this bill that is going to starve these men, and turn their children out of house and home, subjecting them to the merciless peltings of the pitiless storm, gives a colonel $3, 600, in one contingency, and $8,000 in another, according to the service he performs, a sort of advalorem system. We come now to lieutenant colonels. You will notice that I havementioned lieutenant general, major generals, brigadier generals, and colonels, and the 1st officer we find whose pay is reduced, with the excetion of the Lieu tenant General and everybo y will consent to make that what anybod wants it made is the lieutenant colonel. 'Ilie diminution is very small. It is so small that it is hardly worth talking about. I know that the lieutenant colonels of the country would not regard it as a matter ofany magnitude. A lieutenant colonel of cavalry, under the law as it now stands, gets $2, 940. Under this bill he gets $2, 800 in one contingency, and $2, 600 in another. A major, as the law now tands, gets $2, 580; under this bill he gets $2, 500. captain, under the present law, gets $2,010; under this bill he gets $2.000. A 1st lieutenant gets $1,809, as the law now stands; and he gets $1, 800 under this bill. A 2nd lieutenant gets $1,770, as the law now stands; and under this bill he gets $1, 600 the next day after he comes out of the WestPoint Academy, having been educated b the Government scot free. After having ha afree ticket through his education; the 1st day he enters the service he gets the salary of $1, 600a year, and we see and hear gentlemen holding up their hands in holy horror and declaring that the poor boy will starve to death. I say that if he does, let him starve. The sooner the breed of such become extinct the better. Why, sir, many of our circuit and of our supreme judges, who have devoted a.life time to the acquisition of the knowledge necessary to qualify them for those exalted positions, do not get more than is given to these oung, bear less bo 5, who have been educate at the expense oft 0 Government; that is, $1, 600 a year. And yet if one of those 2nd lieuten fl. Tint: U.S. ants should come here to Washington city, rent a palace and put in it his wife and children, as the gentlemen have talked about and he is likel to have about 19 children, I fancy, judging from his tender years [laughter] it will take the whole of his $1,000 to pay for his house rent, and there will be nothing left for the support of himself and his family. Now, as we say out West, that kind of an argument will not bear a head; it will not bear the touch stone of truth; it has neither rhyme nor reason nor justice in it. And I trust the members of this House will not be led astray merely by fine talk when figures and facts, which are stubborn things, nail those arguments as spurious coin to the counter and fix upon them their proper weight and value. I would be in favor of this bill if it did not make a single farthing's variation between the compensation these officers now receive and that which they would receive under this bill. I favor it because it is a fair, open handed measure. What it does it does above board. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Seusxex] said that under the law as it now stood it was very difficult for the people, the uninitiated and uninformed in the affairs of the Army, to as certain what was the compensation of an officer of the Army. The Gentfrom Perin sylvania [ML THAYEa] relies, in substance, as I understood him, “ ell, what of that? What if the people do not know? They do not have to pay any more on that account.” Now, this happens to be a Government of the people; the people here are the sovereigns, and if any man who may happen to get a little brief authority should set himself up above the people the will soon let him know who is master. the people of this country have to foot the bills, and any officer, whether he be a constable or POTUS, is nothing under heaven but a servant whose duty it is to perform the behest of his master, the No. 3. people, for which he will receive his compensation at their hands. I hope the gentleman will pardon me when I suggest that it is hardly right fora representative of the people to stand up and sayt at they have no right to be in formed on these subjects. I say, in all sin cerit ', they have that right; and that he who stan s between them and that right will repent before he gets through that kind of business. No man in the country can stand up against the torrent of indignation that would pour down upon him should he dare go before the people and make a declaration that it did not concern them what the compensations of their public servants were. The force of the argument of the Gentfrom Ohio Mr. Sonssex] was felt by members here, and that is the reason they have tried to bring it down into ridicule. 'lhey knew that it was the truth; they knew it could not be denied that a military officer now receives his compensation, not by any determinate salary, but y such various allowances and commutations and circumlocutions that it would require all theingenuity of a Philadelphia lawyer to determine what compensation he actually did receive. That is the true secret of all this fight over this bill. The compensation of an officer of the Army consists of various items; it should consist of but one single item, as a eneml rule, with such exceptions only as the absolute necessities of the case may demand. Now, I do not want to bring this subject into ridicule. But I am almost tempted to read a pay roll; the kind of paper a military officer has to make out before the paymaster will pay him the money that is due. I am almost tempted to do it, in order to show the kind of humbug stuff which has come down to us from an age of barbarism, the hoary headed error that does not belong to this enlightened age. Here is the pay roll of a colonel made out for a month: To JAMES SMITH, @loncl 3rd Regiment Gwalru, Missouri Volunteers. Commencementand expiration. Te"? 232"?“ Pay permoptli. Amount. On what account. Remarks. FromToMonths. Days. Dollars. Cents. Dollars. Cents. 0 I Pay. I hereb cortif, on honor myself., the 31stof May. 1866, the Ist of July, 1866, or 2 private servants, not soldiers. the 3lst of May, 1866, the 1stof July, 1866, or' a “m on “0, 5, ”. by authority of Special For 2privato servants.not soldiers, the 31stof May. 1866. the 1stof July, 1866, ord" N “ted Hud‘ quarters ‘51:.z5 Post orplucc ffl O wheredue. ". Subsistence. Limo Rock, I heicby certify that I lrfor giyself'for year sorvico.. the 31stof May, 1866, the 1stof July, 1866, 30 6 or Dr“ ntosen ants, not soldiers, the 31stof May, 1866, the lat of July, 1866, 30 180 Arkansu' have seenthe above incri 2 60 “(mod order and noted 240 50 120 00 this paymentthereon. 275 00 I’m/ master. I HEREBYcsarirv, That the oing account is accurate and just: that I fore have not been absent, win! on wrraou'r LEAVE, during any part of the time churnedfor beyond the limits proscribeifby existing laWs: that I of on part thereof, have not receivedpay, nor drawn rations fora e, or clothing, in kind, or receivedmoneyin lieu for any part of the time therein charged: that I actually kept in service the horses, and amp oyed the private servants for which I thew role of the time charge, for charged, and that I did not, during the term so charged or any part thereof, keep or employ a annexedis an accurate description of my servants; soldier as awniter or servant: that the that for the whole period charged for my staff appointment I did duty in the dept; actually and legally held the appointment and that I wasthe actual and only commanding officer at the double ration claim. for said servicesfor an that I was actually in the commandof a companyfor t which I claim or have received extra compensation duri has a right to claim or does I out chargedtbr: and that no officer. within my knowledge. y part.of the period charged: that for the whole time brevct pay is claimed, I be had whole time additional pay is charged: that I have not been in the performanccof any staff duty for as the time an additional ration is chargedfor; that I have beenin the the command stated: U.S. Army as asioned cam for commis the number of yearsstatedin the chargefor extra rations; that I all duesto the amnot in arrearswith the U.S.on any account whatsoever and that U.S.for hospital indebtedness have been paid by me, and that the hut payment I 1stday of June, 1866. Received was from Paymastor Major Jones and to the I at the same time acknowledgethat I the sumof have receivedof 275 dollars and cents.being the amount and in full of said account. (arena in cantons.) Major James Smyth.'Puymaster U.S. Army, this let day of July, Description of servants. Recapitulation. Height. Pay. 8 Names. Complexion. Eyes. Hair. 8 b Feet. Inches 1: sistonce. Forage. Jim Jones.. Black. 5 8 Dark. Black. Clothing...". John White. Black. 5 10 Dark. Black. l 1 Amount.. 1 n' 11. H Now, it may be said that the above is the “a perfection of all reason not divine, but I confess it does notseem so to me. It will be seen from the above that a colonel gets 180 rations permonth for himself and 160 or his servants, and yet he is not permitted to draw a single one of them, but is, bound to take the commutation or take noth, in. Who is wise enough, then, to divine why ‘, it is put down as rations at all, instead of being 1 added to his pay proper as so much money? i Who can tel, uness it was to throw mystery around the matter and keep somebody in the dark? Then look at the private servants for the clothing of which and monthly wages and 5 subsistence an olIicer draws pay. Why not add all of these items to the pay proor at once, and let it be an honest gross sum that all may understand? In pronouncing this system the perfection of human reason, I presume that the descriptive list that is given above of the servants isincluded in the encomium. Oh, how importaut it is to set forth their complexion, and height in feet and inches, and the color of their eyes and hair! What amazing virtue that kind of stuff imparts to a pay roll! How insipid it would be Without that kind of information! I do not see how it could be improved unless there were a provision in the law requiring the weight to be set forth, such, for instance, as that the aforesaid Jim weighs 100 pounds and the aforesaid John 150 pounds, avoirdupois weight by Fairbanks’s cattle scales. If that provision was added it were as easy to garnish the stars as to add to the perfection of this blessed system, born, as we are' told, of the wisdom of ages. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when a man wanted.to convey a piece of real estate worth $500 he we; obliged to spread it out over 4 or 5 sheetao paper. And that kind of hoary headed error was in vogue for years. And men were not wanting prepared to swear that the country would go to ruin if any change should be made in that regard. Yet I can now convey $100000 worth of real estate, the most valuable real estate in the whole country, and not use more than 20 words, and the conveyance is just as valid as this ancient parchment that has been handed down to us from the remoteat iod of the old Enlish law. It was revere almost as much as he vicious system proposed to be abrogated by this bill. Thus we have 9 glim se, imperfect though it be, of the sublime wisdom handed down to us from a former agel This is the wisdom to tnsnch upon which is sufficient to make the angels weepl Thisis the sort of hoary headed error that we ought to continue from age to age and from generation to generation! And when the people, through their representatives, complain about it they are to be told that it is none of their business. This is what we are to say to the people who foot the bill. the hard handed comanry of the countgzwho furnish the money.