Mr. NESMITH. So far as it is intended to reward officers who have been wounded in the service, I would be lad to see them all placed in the Army if they desired it, and to give them such reward as it IS in the power of the Government to give them; but I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Indiana, for a variety of reasons. In the 1st place, as has been stated by the Senfrom Maine, there was no particular inducement held out to the officers who went into the Veteran Reserve corps that they should be retained in the service at the close of the war. We all understand thatwhile lighting was oing on at the front it became necessary to have large guards for depots and hospitals in the rear. Officers, many of whom had rendered vex; meritorious service at the front, came home an preferred remaining in hospital to going back to the front and putting up with the hard ships of camp life, and they were detailed o. but in the Reserve corps. do not believe the best officers of the Army went into the Reserve corps. While I have nothing to say against these officers, many of them gallant men, I do not believe they are in any way superior to those who, on recovering from their wounds, went back to the front and rejoined their regiments. There was an inducement to leave the active service and engage in the comparatively light duty assigned to the Reserve corps. At the time this corps was organized without authority of law, it was an inducement to men to remain in the rear instead of going to the front. In providing for an increase of the Army the original proposition of the Senfrom Indiana gives all the othees in certain regiments to those men who from circumstances or accident happened to get positions in the Reserve co s and were withdrawn from active duty in thergeld. I protest that this is unfair to the officers who remained in the field, and who remained with their regiments, many of whom. after having been most wounded refused to take service idnetsperately c rear, and went back to the front. A captain or lieutenant in the volunteers or the regular Army may have been and there have can man such instances desperately wounded at the rout and after recovering and being fit to discha his duties again returned to his regiment, while some subaltern officer who refused to perform that kind of duty got a place in the Veteran Reserve corps and became a maor or a lieutenant colonel or a colonel. e jumped up from the lowest subaltern rank at once to the highest rank in a regiment. You take that man who acquired his rank in that way, and you place him over a captain or a lieutenant who rendered quite as meritorious service in the front and went back convalescing from wounds returned again to duty. It is an unfair discrimination. I do not think that 1/2 of the officers provided for by this bill should be selected from any particular class or from any particular corps, and I should prefer not to vote for the amendment of the Senfrom Indiana as he has modified it. I should prefer to leave that matter Open to those who make the selection of the Officers. The spirit of this bill all the way provides for the very condition of afftahirrosugh0 Resires to provide for by his amendment. It provides that these officers shall be appointed from the volunteer service, and they shall be selected with reference to their gallant and meritorious conduct in the field. It does not always happen that a man who has been wounded in the field is the most gallant or the most meritorious or the most deserving, or is likely to make the best officer. The mere fact of wounds is a casualty, and an inferior officer is just as liable to be wounded as a superior officer. I do not think that in organizing regiments and selecting officers to command them the mere casualties should be taken into consideration and the men who have happened to behit in action should be placed above those who did not happen to meet with such misfortunes. We can name many of the most distinguished officers in this war who were never touched by a ball, and we can name others not so distinguished or so deserving who under this amendment would be entitled to the highest rank within these ten regiments. I am in favor of leaving it to the discretion of the apointing power. If that power comlies with the spirit of this bill, which provides that officers in every corps shall be so ected with reference to the duties they have performed in the field and with reference to their gallant and meritorious conduct, the whole ground will be covered. If men who have been wounded either slightly or desperately are able to discharge duty, it will be incumbent upon the appointing power to select those men in preference to 0ters who have not been. This idea. of providing that ten regiments shall be otheeredp by men who happened to be wounded proceeds upon the assumption that a wound is a qualification. I do not so regard it. As I intimated before, a man may be very badly WOunded and still be a very indifferent officer. Then, sir, there should be some scale of wounds. If a man has a leg shot off, that should enable him to become a colonel, an arm a major, and a finger a captain or lieu tenant, and so on. If a an happens to have been touched by a saber, or musket ball, or bayonet during the war, the provision the Senfrom Indiana proposes would make him eligible to a position in these ten regiments; it would compel his aipointment, then is he might not have suffere at all or suffere very slightly. I think there should be some scale; it should he graduated; if wounds are to be taken asaqualification in filling up these regiments, you should determine what character of wound should entitle an officer to some particular rank, naming the different grades and ranks as provided for by this bill for the ten regiments that are proposed to be officered by those men who have suffered in the service. I am opposed to the whole thing, and I he that this amendment, either as it was originally presented or as it has been modified by him, will not be adopted. I think it will result in juriously to the Army. The paperwhich the chairman of the committee read, signed by Generals Thomas, Meade, and Sherman, demonstrates very clearly that in theselecting of officers we should have sound men. While I would not in the selection make a rule which would exclude those who have been wounded, but on the contrary would select them if they were capacitated to discharge the duties, I would not make a rule which would comcl the selection of officers who were unfit for the discharge of their duties. In reply to what the Senator said in relation to the bill as originally reported, let me tell him that the Military Committee never indorsed that provision; it never had the sanction of the committee. A provision was in the bill as introduced by the chairman that there should be some legislation in favor of these regiments;. but the committee took that matter under consideration and partly upon the strength of a report made by those distinguished officers who had the matter under consideration, it was agreed to strike that provision out of the bill, and I hope the bill will not be modified or changed in that respect. The amendment was rejected.