Mr. SCHENCKJ The proposition of the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. Woonnnmon] is to strike out the House section and to insert the Senate section as a substitute. He admits the difference s to be 3, the 1st of which is in the titles given to these officers. The House bill proposes to get rid of the titles of asst commissary generals of subsistence and asst commissaries of subsistence, and to provide for them by a couple of asst commissary generals, and call all the rest commissaries. This is, as it was in regard to the quartermnsters Dept, a matter of taste. The House has concurred with the committee, by adoptin the section which they have reported in raga to the quartermasters Dept, and I they will agree with the committee to applyhtepe a same rule to commissaries of subsistence. The gentleman admits that there is noquestion between us as to the legal effect of that part of the bill, because I have ready an amendment precisely similar to that which was offered to the other 2 sections of the bill an amendment of such a character as to avoid effectnally any such legal consequence as to deprive these officers of their commissions. Ileave, then, as a mere matter of taste ora mere matter of convenience for it is nothing more the question whether these officers shall be called “ asst commissarics general” down the line till on come to the lowest, the captains, and t on “ commissariesof subsistence, " orwhetherthey shall all. except the 2 principal assts, be called commissaries. The next differenee between the gentlemans substitute, borrowed from the Senate bill, and the provision of the House bill which we have reported, is that we propose to provide that, as vacancies occur, the number of these Officers shall be reduced, so as to take own one of the colonels, 3 of the majors, an 6 of the captains, making a total reduction of ten. Sir, what 4;the fact in regard to the present number of officers in the commissary Dept? There are now 29 oficers, from the highest to the lowest, in the subsistence Dept properof the regular Army. The Senate adopts that number; the House committee adopt that number, legislating nobody out. The Senate propOses that the number shall always continue 29. The House committee propose that, after the winding up of the business of this war, asvncancics occur, there shall be an omission of one of the coloncls, 3 of the majors, and 6 of the captains, until the whole number shall be brought down to 19. How many officers did we have in that Dept before the war? I hold in my hand the Army Register for 1860. At that time there was one Commissary General, with the rank only of a colonel; there was one asst commissary general, with the rank of lieutenant colonel; there were 2 bra and 8 captains. Those constituted thriliiTiQle of the subsistence Dept 12 officers in all, and only 4 of them above the grade of captain. We now have in that Dept a brigadier general. 2 colonels, 2 lieutenant colone s, a number of majors, and a number of catains, the whole number being 29. This is the force of that Dept as it now stands upon the Register. Now, is it necessary to retain 29 officers in that Dept forever? If 29 officers will be required 2 or 3 years hence, when the business of winding up the operations of this war shall be all over, then the Dept oughtto have more than 29 officers now. But it is not contended that more than 29 are needed now. General Eaton is satisfied with 29 now; but he wishes that the Dept shall still embrace 29 officers after all the present pressure of work shall have gone by. 1here seems to be some inconsistency in this. Either there are too few now, or there will be too many hereafter. There is no ese ape from this proposition. The adjustment of commissaries accounts, and the other duties connected with the winding up of the vast business arising out of the war, have thrown a great burden for the next 2 or 3 years upon each one of these Depts. But, I repeat, there is no ese ape from the proposition that if 29 officers in that Dept he sufficient now, as General Eaton admits, then 29 will be too many when this surplus business shall be disposed of. Before the war, I repeat, the officers in that Dept were but 12. During the war the number has been more than doub ed, being now 29. Gentlemen may say this was on account of the war. But the regular Army has not been much increased during the war and while this increase from 12 to 20 ninc was going on, 514 commissaries of volunteers were given to that Dept to help in the work. The gentlemon takes no account of these 514 commissaries of volunteers whc have helped to do the increased work consequent upon having millions of men in the lie (I. The 5 bun red and 14 that did the work consequent upon the vast army brought into the field, exceeding the old regular Army, are now mustered out or immediately to be mustered out. What is left? 29, more than double as many as they had before the war commenced, and that is because of the increase of the Army we propose in this bill. I say we have too many now. I say their own records prove that. I say that 29 has been because of the increase of the regular Army, and made necessary by the increase of business, and as that business decreases you may fall back, not to 12, but to 19. As I intimated a moment ago, you do not require increase of stuff in proportion to increase of line officers. As you increase the Army increase of staff need not be in arith metical prorcssion at all. increase of staff, rather, uec not be in that exact ratio at all. increase of line officers must be. As they had 12 before the war, we propose they shall keep 29 now, never to be reduced below 19 in the new Army we propose to establish. I see, therefore, no argument in what came from the gentleman, nor any in the communication of General Eaton, except an honest intention, honestl entertained, a mistaken idea of every one of these men that they can never spare an officer after they have once had him. lflhey have increased to 29 with 514 volunteers, if you muster out the 514 volunteers they must have the 29 now with increase of the Army. The proposition, therefore, we make is not to cut down the 29 now, but, as the Senate proposes, to leave it as it is, reducing as the business of the war is closed up until you come down to 19, but not to go below 19, 7 more than they ever had before prior to 1801.