Mr. SCHENCK. We thought there should be one or more assts in each Dept. The QuarterMGen was satisfied as it was arranged in his Dept, and so we have left it. We have provided for an Adjutant General, and 2 assts to take his place; the rest we call adjutants. My friendfrom Maine agrees with the Gentfrom lennsylvania that that is unprecedented and all wrong. because if on have adjutants in the field it will create conusion if you call them all adjutants. If you take them now in the field they are all called asst adjutant generals, and there would be confusion, according to the cutle mans reasoning, because of the title, for in each case he would be an asst adjutant general. He an a he must be called asst adjutant general eeause he reports to thogenernl head at Washington. Appiy that to the other Dept. You have asst quartermuster General and asst uartermasters. There is a general head at Vashington to report to. Ilie same reasoning would make asst quartermasters and asst quarterMGens in every case. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania an s it is like the civil Depts, where you mm a Secretary and an Asst Secretary. I admit that, but you do not call all the clerks Asst Secretaries. You have a Secretary, one or 2 Asst Secretaries, and the rest of the subor dinates you call clerks. So his illustration is a bad one indeed. You are not to interfere with titles. congress has interfered with titles again and again, There was a time, and if nocossaryl can refer to the statute, when we had a deputy adjutant general. That portion of the old enuibious system was stricken off. Gentlemen will find it in the act of 1798. There was a time when you had not only a deputy quartermnster General but an asst deputy unrtorinastor general and when one was on led to act in his place because of sickness or disability he had to sign himself A. A. D. Q. N. G., Acting Asst Deputy QuarterMGen. Without those letters he could not indicate his title. I believe differently from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. TnAYsa] I believe that the QuarterMGen showed his sense when he said it was timeto get rid of these long, impropertitles, and to cull quartermasters quarterinasters, and not asst quartermas ters. I believe the same thing in regard to the others, that instead of asst ndjutunt general it is better to have an Adjutant Generals Dept, and to have at the head of it an Adjutant General, with 2 or 3 asst adjutant. generals. I think the gentleman is mistaken in regard to the title of deputy. as he will find if he goes back for enough. Deputy is not a military word. It has no military identity. It is mak ivnlg a civic title of deputy into a military title. 6 have got rid of all that, or propose to get rid of it.