Mr. SCHENCK. What I said was that the lower the grade the greater are the allowances in proportion to the ay. Mr. THAYER. ow, sir, I have pointed out to the House the fact that the amendment which I have odered as a substitute proposes but one more officer than the gentlemans bill. The gentlemans bill provides for 76 quarter masters; the substitute provides fer 77 and I affirm, With entire confidence in the accuracy of my calculation, that the77 uartermaster awith the ranks which are assiguc them in the substitute now before the House, will be less expensive to the Government than the 76 quartermasters provided for in the gentlemans bill. He may figure all day and he cannot make the contrary a pear. The reason is that his bill increases to number of the higher grades of officers on the staff. Now, sir, a fey! words more and I have done. The gentleman has proposed this morning an amendment looking to a reduction of the staff. For one I am opposed to that reduction. Iam opposed to it becauSe I do not believe that the present force is too large for an army upon the present scale. If you desire to organize an army of smaller dimensions than that proposed m this bill, if you will cut down our Army from 50,000 to 30,000 men, or if youwill to any extent materially reduce its numers you may diminish the stuff. But what I say is, that these distinguished generals, with all their vast experience and personal knowledge, recommended for an army of 45,000 men, contemplated by bill No. 67 of the Senate, 87 quartermasters for the istaff. The number proposed in my substitute is 77, being, as I have already several times remarked, the some number proposed in Senate bill No. 138, with the t recchief assts stricken out. Now, sir, I am willing to stand upon the opinions of those distinguished military officers. I say that if in their judgent a staff of 87 officers in the garterMGens Dept was a sufficiently small staff for such an army as was contemplated by Senate bill No. (37, then it is impossible for me to conclude thatt77, exactly ten officers less, is an immoderate number for a bill which contemplates the organization of an army with, I believe, 5,000 more men as a minimum, but which, you will bear in mind, it is possible to expand, under the provisions of"the gentlemans bill to, I believe, 80,000 men. Now, sir, why legislate upon a contingency which may not exist? If you contemplate a general reduction of the Army, you cannot properly reduce it piecemeal in this way. This rs not the way, in my judgment, to begin to reduce an army, You must make the reduction consistent in its details. You must 1st ascertain the size of your Army; and then when you have concluded upon the extent of the reduction you may set ourself to work to reduce all the several sta corps proportion ally. I do not find that the gent cman proposes a general reduction of the other stalls or a reduction of his proposed force. On the contrary, the gentleman sbill proposes an army for a peace establishment. I the Army should be reduced at any time in the future, it will be perfectly competent for Congress to proceed to rearrange the several staff corps, and to adapt them in numbers and details to any reduction which may be made in the force; but why proride for oreduction of the staff cors when you do not provide for a reduction of the Army? [Here the hammer fell.)