Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, I have endeavored in my remarks on this bill to confine myself to the rules of parliamentary debate. I disclaim what the gentleman imputes to mesneering at the committee. Nothing that I have said is fairly susceptible of any such interpretation; I have said nothing reflecting upon the committee. I have not alluded in a personal way to the committee, or to any member of it. The House will bear witness that I have confined myself strictly to a discussion of the questions which the committee has brought before the House. But, sir, in reference to the subject of the bureaus, whether the gentleman means an insinuation or a charge, everybody will bear witness that he has paraded it constantly in the face of the House whenever he has had charge of a military measure here during this session. He talked yesterday about the centripetal force of the bureaus, as if all the officers of the Army Were engaged in a scramble to get upon a Bureau. 1ft at is not an insinuation o dishonorable purposes and of conduct unbecoming an officer, I do not know what is. Now, sir, I do not wish to waste my time or the time of the House in dwelling upon this matter. I merely touch upon it in passin.I am not particularly called ii on to defen the officers of the bureaus of the Var Dept. In my judgment they need no defense. They have done their full share of labor in the great struggle through which we have passed. Much of the success which we have achieved is due to the labor and the skill of these officers in the bureaus. Deeds in the field have more glitter and glory; but when you come to examine into the matter perhaps you will find some credit is due to officers in the bureaus who attended to those details without which you could not have achieved success. But, sir, this has really nothing to do with the question; and I allude to it only in reply to what was said by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] In my judgment, the bill will do greater injury to the OHICEX‘Sin the field than to those obliged by the SecyWar to report in Washin ten for duty. I have endeavored to explainghow it will work to the injury of those ofhcers by a statement of the facts to which I have referred this morning. Well, sir, if these facts cannot be denied it is apparent, from the nature of the case, that you cannot apply a rigid rule of'pay which will do justice to al officers in all parts of the country under all circumstances; that principle was virtually admitted, let me say in pass in, by the Gentfrom Ohio, when he offered his amendment. allowing officers forage in kind. He abandoned the very principle of his bill when he offered that amendment, for every argument which can be made in favor of the allowance of fora e can be made in favor of the allowance f r fueIand every other allowance to which offiers of the Army are entitled. If, sir, it cannot be denied that the oply way to promote equality in pay is to continue in force that lan for the payment of officers which has obtained always hitherto, then why should we alter it? What circumstances call upon this House to make the proposed change? What high officer of the service has recommended it? What official of the Government in any Dept has called our attention to it? Not one. Why should we make this change and unsettle a long settled usage of the Army on this subject? That brings me to the arguments by which the gentleman supports his bill. I listened attentively yes rday to the argument of the Gentfrom Ohio, and I have read it at tentivel in the Globe this morning. I will undertake to give a perfect analysis in a very few words of the argument he has made in favor of this revolution relating to the pay of officers of the Army. He says, and that is his 1st point, the pay of officers of the Army is a mystery to out siders and the uninitiated. What is the force of an observation like that? It is not a mys tery to those who wish to ascertain what it is. That is proved by the fact that the gentleman has given in his speech the exact pay of a major general of the Army, including his pay proper and all his legal allowances. He has iven you to a cent the pay of a major general. [but shows conclusively that though a mystery to those who will not take the trouble to examine it, it is not a mystery to those who wish to ascertain what the truth is. The 2nd point which the gentleman makes, is the immoral effect of the present system upon the officers, that is, the temptation which it holds out to fraud. That makes a conspicuous figure in his argument He puts the case of an officer entitled to forage for a horse. The law is, he is not entitled to draw forage unless he keeps the horse which he is allowed to keep. He says a man in his desire to get forage will be tempted to make this certificate and certify that he kec s a horse when he does not keep a horse. hat is his argument of the immoral effect of the existing systeinl I suppose ifany officer were to be found guilty of a practice such as that of certifying that he kept a horse and was entitled to forage, when in point of fact he did not keep a horse and was not entitled to forage, he would be instantly dismissed from the Army. But does it amount to anything? As an argument I submit to the House it does not. If a man is determined to be a rascal, he will be a rascal in defiance of all the laws you may make. The 3rd point is, that the present system opens the door for legislation by the chief officers of the War Dept, and the gentleman gives as an example of the exercise of that powera case in which the SecyWar I suppose authorized by law to do itclianged the commutation allowed for quarters in Washinvton and some other places to rates corresponding with the advance of house rent. Well, sir, I so pose there is nothing in that which will frigiiten the members of this House out of their propriety or induce them to change the present system. 4th ly, the gentleman says it tends to take away the independence of officers. Now, sir, is it not really a grim joke to at to this House that a.bill which is entitled “ n act to reduce the pay 'of the officers of the Army" is calculated to add to their independence? He says that now they intrigue for places in order that they may get the largest allowances. Sir, will they not intrigue much more if you put them upon the footing which this bill proposes? If the question is, as it will be under this bill, whether they shall remain in the Army by being at a post where by great economy they can live within the salary which you allot them, or whether they shall be driven by their necessity to resign, will they not be induced to intrigue to get into places where they can exist upon the pay you fix? Is not the temptation infinite y stronger in the circu tances which will arise out of the passage of is bill to induce that intrigue of which the gentleman complains than the circumstances which exist under the present system? Now, Mr. Speaker, I have summed up the arguments which are made in support of this bill by the Gentfrom Ohio. The House will decide whether those arguments are sufficient to justif the recommendation which is made to this Ifbnse to overturn a system which has prevailed from the foundation of the government; which has worked equitably and fairly and justly; which no officer of the Army or of the Government recommends shall be abolished, but which has in its favor uninterrupted usage for a long series of years and the approval of those who are most ca able of judging of its merits. Will the case consider these suggestions of the gentlemaii from Ohio I cannot dignify them y the name of arguments a sufficientjustification for overturnin this long tried, well established, fair, just, and equitable system, to supplant it by one which will work only mischief, injustice, and oppresssion?