Mr. PAINE. I am considering these items aeriatim as they are arranged on the pay table, and will soon come to fue and forage. That there may be no doubt on this subject, I will again read to the gentleman the law as it stands in the Arm Igtegulations of 1861, revised and republished in 1863: “ An oficer may purchase subsistence from the commissariat, paying cash for it on delivery at cost priees, without including cost of transportation. on his certificate that it is for the useof himself and family." And on page 262 of the Army Regulations it is stated that' " Subsistence storeswill notbo issuedto officersor to their servants unless they are enlisted men and are noreported on the officers’ pay aeoountor pay roll. An omeer may purchase an sistenee from the commissicen igiit'imihniii: tiiiit iinro'iiii'sh'iieo'ri himself and family." Now, sir, it appears from the extract which has been read from the speech of the Gentfrom Maine made yesterday on this subieet, that the Government has been obliged at ‘ort Bridger to contract for wood at nearly 100 dollars or cord, corn at 12 dollars perbushel, and Sour at 75 dollars perbarrel. I ask the attention of those gentlemen who are so much in favor of the law asit now stands to the practical operation of thatlaw as applied to the case at Fort Bridger. suppose that an officer of the Army desires to pure use from the subsistence dept abarrel of this flour; suppose that his necessities compel him to make the purchase. He is obliged under the law as it now stands to pay 75 dollars for the barrel of flour because it costs the Government 75 dollars. If the Government sees fit to purchase the flour elsewhere, in the StLouis market or in any other market, the cost of transportation is deducted; but if the Government buys the flour there and does not afterward transport it, the officer, unless the law be violated, must pay 70 five dollars for his barrel of flour. Sir, I shall propose, before I sit down, an amendment which I think will obviate all such objections to the measure introduced by the committee as pertain to subsistence of officers. It will not permit an issue of rations in kind to officers, nor will it permit them to commute subsistence. It will banish them from their. pay accounts altogether. But it will authorize them to purchase subsistence henceforth as hitherto, at cost rices, if indeed there can be any possible doulit as to their authority to do so under the bill now before the House. So far as subsistence is concerned, then, there is no more elasticity, no more adaptability to the varied circumstances of officers in the law now in force, than in the plan of the committee modified by the amendments to which I have referred. The next item on the officers’ pay table is the pay of servants, or the commutation of servants’ pay. Of course there is no pretense on the part of the Gentfrom Maine or the Gentfrom Pennsylvania that the system now in force can vary at different points in the country so far as the pay of servants is concerned. This is fixed at a uniform rate by the law for all parts of the country. We pass next to the commutation of servants’ rations. Precisely the same thing is true there which I have shown to be true of the rations of the officer himself. There in no adaptabilityto latitude orlongitude or to local ities more or less expensive so far as commotation of servants’ rations is concerned. 1‘40 man not insane can pretend there is any advan tage in this respect in the law which these gon tle men now defend over the measure which the so strenuously oppose. ext comes the itemof commutation of set" vants’ clothing. Is it pretended that this varies at different posts? ‘entlemen must be pro' foundly ignorant of the law and of the Army regulations if they advance any claim like that. No, sir; this commutation is not a variable quantity in the officer’s pay. Nor is the law now in force at all superior in this respect to the measure before the House. We have now passed through the 5 items of pay received through the pay dept, an we find that they are invariably fixed; that they furnish not the slightest foundation for the claim ofsu eriority which gentlemen attempt to set up in ever of the existing law and against the bill under consideration.