Mr. PAINE. I rise to relply to some of the arguments presented yester pay and today by the Gentfrom Maine [llIL BLAINE] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. TnarnafiI have listened to these arguments closely, because I take eat interest in the subject inatter of this bill. But I am not ple god to anything contained in the bill, as I am not a member of the committee that framed and reported it. Those who framed the bill, after having made up their minds thatit is right and ought to be adopted, naturally come into this House pledged in advance to its support. It is a duty they owe to themselves, to their committee, and to the country to undertake to carry through this House a bill which they regard as ea culated to promote the interest of the country. But, sir, I address myself to the consideration of this bill, intending to oppose those ro visions of it which do not commend themse ves to my judgment, and to support those which do. And after listening carefully to the arguments which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] and the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] have respectively presented, I must say that unless stronger and more satisfactory reasons to the contrary can be presented I shall be constrained to vote for the leading features of this bill, insisting, as I shall insist, upon certain amendments, necessary, in my view, to render it complete and equal in its operation, for the reasons which they have given are not satisfactory to my mind, and if gentlemen will give me their attention I think I shall be able to show that those reasons are not entitled to great weight with the members of this House in makingu their decision upon the question now before t cm. I repeat that I am not pledged to anything in this bill. [undertake its consideration with no prejudice in favor of oragainstany of itsprovisions. lf the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER] or the Gentfrom Maine, [Mr. BLAlNl I] can charge with truth that any members of this House are disposed here in their places unjustl to reproach officers who have been stationed on duty in Washington in the several bureaus of the War Dept, they can bring no such charge as that acainst me. No word of complaint of that kind has ever escaped from my lips; on the contrary, I have nothing but good to speak of those officers of the Army who have been stationed at Washington, with whomI have happened to have personal communication, whether the have been engaged in the bureaus of the I or Dept or on other duty. I have never seen among them anything but fair dealing, zealous devotion to the service of the Government, and a determination to do all in their power to discharge the obligations they owe to our common country; and I take pleasure here in declaring my appreciation of their services. Ifanything has ever occurred in my intercourse with them of which I could possibly complain, it escapes iiiy recollection now. a On the other hand, if the Gentfrom Ohio [Min Sennsex] can justly charge any member of this House with a disposition to stand up in his place and defend these bureau officers, right or wrong, in any controversy which may arise between them and officers in the field, he certainly can make no such charge against me; for, sir, among my most intimate and highly valued friends are those who have, as officers of the regular Army, served in the field during the progress of this war, and I am bound to them by those strong ties which bind together men who have shared danger and disease and hardship and victory in common. Sir, I declare here my belief that I enter upon the consideration of the question before the House without any prejudice either for or against the officers of the Army on duty in Washington; either for or against those gallant men who have borne our country’s flag to victory on the field during the progress of the late war. I declare it to is my purpose to do justice, equal and exactjusticc, to these patriotic men, no matter where the fortunes of war may have cast their lot. But, sir, I am compelled to say at the outset, that the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYI IR] seem to me utterly to misunderstand the law now in force on the subject which they have discussed, and I am amazed that they should have crowded into their argument so many mistakes upon points vital to the propositions which they have undertaken to maintain. Mr. Speaker, they have, both of them, declared and attempted to show that the present system of pay is elastic, eXpansive in its na ture, adaptable to the necessities of officers, in all the different portions of the U.S.; that the system adapts itself to cities and posts in the for West, as well as to cities and posts in the East, and makes the pay of officers of the Army as nearly as possible equal and just, while the plan before us is uniform, arbitrary, and unyielding, without adaptability to the changing circumstances of the officer, and tends to inequality and injustice. And, sir, they refer mainly in proof of this to that item of an officer’s pay which is denominated "' rations” or “commutation of rations.” They refer, also, to fuel, quarters, forage, and to servants’ pay, rations, and clothing; but they mainly base their arguments upon what they conceive to be the existing law relating to that item of an officer’s pay which is called “rations, ” or “commutation of rations, " as contrasted with the provisions of the bill before us on the same subject. Now, sir, I wish to call the attention of these gentlemen, and of the House, to the mistake they have made in their statement of the law now in force. But in order that I may make no misrepresentation of their positions, I send to the Clerk’s desk, and ask to have read, their remarks upon this subject. made yesterday, as reported in the Globe. I desire them read for the information of those members of the House who were not then present, and also to refresh the recollection of those who were resent, and assure them that I do not misnn crstand the honorable gentlemen to whom I refer. I ask the Clerk to read 1st from the remarks of Mr. BLAINE.