Mr. SCHENCK. That isjustit. We have introduced a bill here to make the compensation to be afforded to the different classes of the army of the U.S., classed, I mean, by their employment, if not more favorable, at least equal, for those who are serving actively in the field with troops to the pay which is given to those who are engaged in bureaus or at headquarters, or in recruiting in cities and towns, where their services are more allied to those of civil life. The resistance made to this bill isa resistance made in behalf of thosewho are pursuing rather civil avocations and against those who are following the active duties of their profession, serving with troops in the field. That is the broad line of distinction between those who support this bill and those who 0 pose it. I am not at all unwilling to stand by the bill in the form in which we have now submitted it. There has been a great deal said in the rog ll ress of this discussion and the House will hear me witness that I have been willing there should be the fullest and fairest discussion allowed which has little to do with the bill itself or the particular principlo involved in its consideration. All t int the gentleman has said just now about the ration, with due deference to his opinion, valuable as it usually is. I submit has nothing to do with the real question at issue. The ration, whether it can be drawn in kind or whether it cannot be drawn in kind, as we know is the construction and practice under the law which forbids it, or whether it be paid in the shape of commutation, as it now is, in lieu of the ratibn in kind, is in fact, in assuming the form of money. nothing more than so much money added to the salary of an officer, and the question is whether we shall cgutinua to pay the salary of an officer in that s a e. Gpentlemen have referred to this bill as one that has not come before the House with the unanimous indorsement or assent of the committee who reported it. With that I apprehend the House has little to do. It must have had the assent of a majority of that committee when a quorum was present for the transaction of business, as I know it did. Although, to my surprise, my colleague on the committee, [Mr. BI.AI.'E] who did not attend during the discussion before the committee, in order to give us the benefit of his valuable suggestions there, opposes the bill now in the House, and although the intimation comes from one other member of the committee that he is opposed to it, yet it is reported with the cordial and hearty assent of at least a very considerable majority of the committee from which it came. But I do not suppose it is a matter of opinion with gentlemen in this House whether they shall sustain a bill or not according as that opinion is strengthened by the assent or dissent of this, that, or the other person. we 0 not put the bill on that ground. We present it upon its merits before the House as containing a wholesome reform, as providing for the abnndonmentof a vicious system which has long prevailed, in order to introduce in its steada better system for the payment of officers of the Army. We are met nextwith the intimation that this bill has its origin in certain prejudices or cunning and sinisterpurposes or concealed motives on the part of those who introduced and who sustain it here, and that it is in fact but a covert attack upon somebody WestPoint, for instance, or the regular Army and not really a measure in the interest of the Government at all. I have no reply to make to such imputations as those. They are unworthy of those who make them and nndeserving of answer. Those who impute low or malicious motives I have always found to be influenced by such motives themselves. They therefore speak from a sort of consciousness of what they themselves might do underlike circumstances. I say again, we putthis bill before the House on its merits. We wish to introduce a reform in the manner of payment of the Army, and although the abuse sought to be reformed is one which has not only lasted for many years, but has gone on step by step enlarging and increasing in strength, I find in that fact only a further argument for applying the hand of reform and I trust it Will be successfully applied now. Sir, it is not opinion that gentlemen who have o posed this bill have found in their way or in the way of their arguments. The difficulty with them is that they have been met at every point by facts in regard to existing abuses, by facts in regard to the present mode of payment, by facts in regard to the opportunity for abusing that mode of payment. Their difficulty is therefore not in our putting authority against authorit, but in our interposing facts in roof of teabuse in answer to all their citations of authority. But let us look at their citations. Gentlemen inquire, who has asked for this bill? And they reply, not the regular Army. Now let me ask, who constitute the regular Army? The regular Army as it exists today, so far as its officers are concerned, is made u, more than 4 5th s, of officers appointe from civil life, and never educated at WestPoint. So that disposes, I believe, of the a prehension or fear in regard to this being a.b ow at WestPoint. What next? Who are they who are opposed to the passage of this bill? Officers of the regular Army? Sir, I aver, without the fear of successful contradiction, that a very large majority of the officers, including some of the very best in the Army, are exceedingly solicit ous that a bill of this kind should pass. But they are officers who are not here in Washington; they are officers who are away on duty. Some of them have been here, however, and within the last 24 hours I have been appealed to by 2 or 3 of them who did most gallant service in the field, sweeping the rebels from the Shenandoah valley and performing deeds of valor elsewhere, who desire nothing more than that such a bill as this should pass this House and should pass congrass. 9 Now, sir, there is a good deal of the regular Army away from Washington, away from hil adelphia, away from NewYork, away from the various stations about the country, away from the headquarters of the various military depts and divisions. And everybody that is away from those places desires this bill to pass; because it will more or less hel. them while everybody who is at this station (Ilesire this bill not to pass, because it will cut alittle into their pay. And that is the fact in reference to the witnesses who have been arrayed here upon the one side or the other. But, sir, I will refer to the witnesses produced, and they are not so much witnesses as to facts. Who are they? “ 3 that bear witness.” I hope I shall not be deemedirrev erent. And upon this roof, furnished for the occasion by the War dept, gentlemen have spoken pretty much all they have to say upon this subject. They might just as well have had this printed communication from the pay dept read at the Clerk’s desk, and there rested their case, than’ to have amplified upon it and made it, erhaps, a little obscure in doing so. [Lang ten] On the 10th of March, after this bill was reported from my committee, it was deemed important to get an opinion in regard to it; and accordingly a copy of) the bill was furnished to my very excellent friend. the present PayMGen. Hegave his opinion that the bill was inexpedient and oughtnot to pass; and he sustained that opinion by reports made heretofore upon that subject. By whom? By Paymaster fowson in 1826, when the subject was before under discussion, and he backed it up by a corroborating opinion of Piiyinaster General Larned, made in 1856, and he indorses the reports of both Towson and Larned.