Mr. THAYER. Those provisions, which were in the act of 1802, and which I have said now constitute the basis of the organization of the Army, have, so far as the subject I am considering is concerned, been incorporated into every law which has since been passed upon that subject. In order to refute this position the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mt PAYNE] quoted a foot note from the edition of the revised Army Regulations, published in 1863, which foot note says: “Subsistence storeswill not be issued to officers, nor to their servants, unless they are enlisted men, pail!Iarenoreported on the officer'saccountand pay Now, of how much force is that? Turn to page 368 of the same book and you wilI see printed the certificate which the officer is bound y the rules of the Dept to sign before hf: can draw his pay. That certificate begins t us: “I hereby certify that the fore oing account is accurateandjust: that I have not beenabsentwithout leaveduring any part of the time charged for: that I have not received pay. nor drawn rations. forage or clothing in kmd.’ &c. That is what he is bound to certify before he can get his pay, and that is in the same vol ume of regulations which contains the foot note which the Gentfrom Wisconsin read to show that ecannot draw his rations in kind. Now, these discrepancies are very easily accounted for. The portions of the Regulations relating to the different bureaus are made up in those different bureaus. That relatin to the commissary dept is made up in the commissary bureau; that relating to the quartermaster’s dept is made up in the quarterinaster’s bureau; that relating to the pay dept, in the aymaster’s bureau, and so on in regard to tie different bureaus. And these abstracts thus prepared in the different bureaus are bound together and form what are called the “Revised Army Regulations." But they are the mere observations of officers of the various bureaus put in the sha e of notes to the text of the Regulations. IThey are of no conse uenee so far as changing the law is concerne. Will any man undertake to say that he can abrogate an act of Congrees by merely iitting a foot note in the book of Army Reguations? I declare that thatwhich I say to be the law upon this subject is the existing law, and all the commissaries and quarterinasters and paymasters in the world, who, in their compilations of the Army Regulations should put in1,000 foot notes contradicting the express law upon that subject, are impotent to change the law. I have here another copy of the revised Army Regulations, and on page 268 I find this note: “If rations are drawn for a commissioned officer on this return. his name.rank. regiment, and corps must bementionedin the remarks." Now, these facts show conclusively to anybody who will examine the law, that what I have stated upon this subject has been correctly stated. That has been the law from the 1st organization of the Army. I do not say that the practice of the Government has been‘ uniform. The variation from the law may, perhaps, be due to that deptal legislation to which the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Soiissex] referred in his remarks the other day. The subsistence dept, in order to avoid the trouble of issuing rations in kind to officers, may have put that foot note into the Army Regulations which has so utterly misled the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Pauli 2] an by which he has been so completely victimized. It must be clear to anybody who will examine the law that the provision to which I have referred relating to officers’ rations still constitutes a part of the law relatingto the military service of the U.S. venture to say that no sensible person will undertake to dispute that who has carefully examined the law upon the subject.