Mr. DUPONT. Thatis true. I was aware I l of that. My illustration was but supposititious, but the Gentfrom Ohio will observe that I have made out the pay account of a colonel with care. My illustration was just like supposing that a man’s name was John Brown, whereas John Smith would have answered the purpose of my argument just as well. I was simply trying to show the absurdity of claiming perfection for this vicious system. I recollect a story that illustrates this whole thing. When I was in the Mexican war, an officer was allowed forage in kind, but was entitled to commutation for forage, according to the number of horses he had. The re ulutions prescribed, Iwill suppose, that a co cool was entitled to 3 horses, asbrigadier eu eral to 5, a major general in 7, and so on clear through the chapter. A certain brig adier general, somewhat celebrated for his wag gcry when he was provoked into it, had drawn the pay for his horses, and was required by a superior officer, who suspected that he actuall had not the full number of horses, to set fort their cost, so that, if they hop ened to get killed in service, their value might be known; that there might be documentary evidence in regard to what the Government would have to pay. That was the pretense. The real intention was to mortify the brigadier and compel him to tell a bigger lie than he told when he drew his pay. Still he made the report as ordered, and as supplementary thereto went on and gave the pedigree. He came down at length to mule, “pedi ee unknown, ” [laughv ter;] value, “not wort a damn.” Renewed laughter. And that is this beauti ul system embalme in the heart of the nation; a sacred thing not to be touched by sacrilegious hands. Mr. Speaker, I fear I may be charged with making ight of serious things. That is the reason why I want to wipe out this system, as one cannot talk of it without. seemingly at least, making a trifler of himself. He cannot do it and tell the truth without seeming to indulge in unbecoming levity and apparently turnin himself into a mountebank. I think every gentleman will agree with me in one thing. If the salary of every officer in the country was fixed in the same way, it would have a demoralizing influence. The tendency would be to demoralization. I do not say it would demoralize such amau as my colleague. I simply mean that is the tendency of the sys tem. The tendency would be that on] those could resist it who were, like him, of ficman firmness and able to stand side by side with Cato himself in the preservation of his integ rit. I said to a gentleman the other day that I had seldom seen a pay roll which stated the exact truth in every respect, and all its details. He replied to me, “ Have on then made out a pay roll everyitem of which was not in accordance with the facts 'I” I told him that my pay rolls were correct, and if they had not been I did not propose to testify against myself. The pay roll of any honest man ought to be strictly true Take such a case as this. 6 officers may mess together. The have 3 servants to wait upon them. lebw, these 3 servants might go down upon every one of these officers’ pay rolls if they were dishonest, and count 18. There are no charges in regard to this practice. Too many in the same position, an be who lives in a glass house takes good care not to throw the 1st stone. In regard to that part of the bill to which the should be well mounted. Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Tuarsn] so well referred, I mean that concerning for age, I underetand has been remedied by an amendment. It is true on officer cannotear forage in his saddle bags, and that he would find it dilficult to get it on the frontier. The interest of the Government is that an officer I understand that i an amendment has been proposed disarming all criticism in this regard. I simply propose, in concluding these remarks, to say that there are 2 distinguishin features between the law as it now stands on the bill which proposes to abrogato it, both of which are in favor of the bill. One is to give a fixed salary in lieu of these various items, the tendency of which is as I have already described. The other is to discriminate in favor of field dut '. The law as it now stands discriminates iu avor of post duty. The inn as it now stands discriminates in favor of city dut. The law as it now stands discriminates in avor of staff duty. In my judgment, it is a viciocps system, and ought at once to be abro ate. g The distinguishing glory of this bill is that it fixes a just and equitable system and holdsout inducement for men to get into the ficldinstead of ctting into the city. A man to be a good mifitary oliicer should be inured to hardship, day toil and night toil, sleeping on the damp ground with nothing but the canopy ofheaveu above to shelter him. f a man has been effeminated, if the nerve has been taken out of his arm and the strength out of his back bone by living in Washington, Phikrdelphia, or NewYork for a series ofyears, he is not fit to go into the field at all. [his bill encour ages that kind of service most valuable to the country. It encourages that kind of service which makes our heroes. Now, havin disclaimed all hostility to the Army or the o cers of the Army, having disavowed any intention to decrease their pay. in a ruine us manner, as charged, I declare it is my intention to give my vote in favor of this bill after the amendments which have been offered shall be adopted. Itwillbe doing them no harm while doing a great deal of good to the service of the country.