Mr. THAYER. There is no issue between the Senate bill No. 67, and thestatement which I have made. The statement in the letter accords with Senate bill No. 67, which was Mr. Winsoss bill, and the gentleman is incorrect in undertaking to deny that it is so. If there is an issue between the Gentfrom Ohio and the chairman of the Military Committee of the Senate, I have nothing to do with that. I shall not undertake to settle the differences between the 2 committees of the respective Houses any more than I shall undertake to settle the differences which notoriously exist in the gentlemans own committee. That is a matter which I leave to him to adjust. I am now engaged in pointing out to the House the fact that in the Senate bill approved by the major generals who had these subjects under consideration, the number of officers proposed for the quartermasters staff was 8yseven, that in the bill now before the House the number is 76, and that in the substitute for the section which I offered it is 77. So that the House will perceive that the number of officers embraced in the QuarterMGens staff by the bill which passed the Senate, No. 138, and which is the same as my substitute, excepting that in the latter the 3 chief asst quartermasters are omitted is 7 fewer than was contained in the Senate bill 67, which Was approved by the generals who had this matter under advisement. New, sir, from the remarks that were made by the chairman of the ComMilAffrs when this bill was last under consideration, one might be led to suppose that the substitute which l have offered for this section, which is the Senate section with the alterations that I have adverted to, provides fora larger and more expensive stall"than that which is recommended by the Military Committee of this House. I wish, by a very few figures, to point out the total incorrectness of any such representation. Now, it will be perceived by any gentleman who will take the trouble to analyze these 2 bills I mean Senate bill No. 138, which passed that body, and the bill now before the Housethat although by the Senate bill, with the 3 chief asst quartermasters left out, as in my substitute, there is one more uartermaster in the Dept than is provied for in the House bil. yet the expense of the number provided for is actually less, and I can demon strate it to the satisfaction of the House in a very few moments. I he gentlemans bill provides a staff for this Dept of 6 colonels, each of whom receive $211 a month; ten lieutenant coloncls who receive $187 apiece permonth; 15 maors who receive $163 permonth apiece; and 44 ca ins who are paid $129 60 apiece per month The aggregate monthly expenditure, therefore, of the gentlemans bill for quartermasters (I leave out, of course, the QuarterMGen in these calculations, because he is in both bills) will be $11, 279 permonth. Now, if you take the substitute, you will find that, instsad of providing for 6 colonels, it gives only 4 colonels; that it gives, in stead of ten lieutenant colonels, only 8 lieutenant colonels, that it gives you instead of 15 majors, 16 maors one more than is provided for in the House bill; and that it gives you 48 captains instead of 44 captains. The pay of the 4 colonels provided for by the Senate bill at $211 per month amounts to $844; the pay of 8 ieutenant colonels at $187 a month to $1, 496; the pay of 16 majors at $163 a month to $2, 608; and the pay of 48 captains at $129 50 per month to $6, 216. lhe aggregate mont ily expense, therefore of the officers called for by the substitute I have offered amounts to $11, 164, being exactl $115 less permonth than the expense under the House bill, although the substitute provides for one officer more. The annualdi erence between the 2 propositions is, therefore, $1, 380 in favor of the substitute which has in it one more quartermaster than is provided for in the House bill. Now if there is an mistake about this, I invite the attention of the chairman of the ComMilAffr to this calculation, and ask him to point out, if it is possible for him to do so, wherein this calculation is erro neous. I state without any apprehension of denial that the result is as I state it. The gentleman made agreat display on Friday last in a comparison which be instituted between my proposition and his own bill, and he gave the impression to this House that the former created a more numerous and expensive organization than his own bill; instead of which, in point of fact, it now appears by figures that the former, although it provides for one more quartermaster than the gentlemans bill, is cheaperthan his bill by $1, 380 perannum. So much for that. I think I have disposedof the argument which rests upon the assertion that the substitute proposes any expense on the part of the Government exceeding that contgmplated by the bill of the Gentfrom hio.