Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, the pro0,sition which is now before the House to alter, the system of payment of officers of the Army v is by no means a new or original proposition l and I am not vain cion h to suppose that i shall be able to shed muc additional light on the subject. It is my purpose, however, to place upon the record my opposition to this bill, an to detain the House a few moments while I give my reasons for that opposition. The system which has always obtained for the payment of officers of the Army is one which is founded upon equity and the necessity of the case. Propositions have frequently been made for a change of that system and for the substitution of a rigid, uniform, and invarivable rule of pay for all officers in all situations. Those propositions, whether made in this House or elsewhere, have, after undergoing careful scrutiny, uniformly failed to receive the approval of those whose judgment is entitled to the highest consideration, and those who have hitherto constituted the lawmaking power of the country. Sir, it must be manifest that in a country including so lar easpace as that which is covered by the U.S., embracing so many degrees of latitude and longitude, the expenses of living must differ vastly in different parts of the country. The price of subsistence is one thing at StLouis; it is a totally different thing at East art. It is one thin at NewOrleans; it is a different thing at Philadelphia. It is one thing at Carlisle, an interior town in my own State; it is quite another thing in Washington. Now, sir, the present system, that which has always been adopted by this Government, and the one which, as I am informed, prevails in every service, is founded upon the idea of remedying all this inequality by making the Government the purchaser of the necessaries of life for the officer, furnishing them to him as a part of his Sir, an officerwpay. o is obliged to pay but a small price for his board in a town where the price of living is cheap, is, as any man must see, on an entirely di erent footing from an officer who is placed in another position where the expense of living is extremely high. The Government remedies this inequality by purchasing the subsistence and furnishing it in kind to both the officers. The Government can 0 into all the markets of the U.S. an purchase its irovisions for the Army. It can purchase t cm at rates vastly below the ‘iflCQSwhich an individual officer would beobiiged to pay for his individual subsistence. The Government, therefore, has hitherto thought it wise to purchase by contract the subsistence for the ofhcer, and to deal out to him, whether he be situated in Arizona or in Boston, those provisions which it has purchased for the common benefit of the Army. So with regard to forage and fuel. The Government can purchase those articles at rates vastly below the prices at which an individual officer would be obliged to provide his individual forage and fuel. Why, sir, an officer who has to pay eight dollars per.cord for wood in the place where he is stationed cannot be said to be on a footing of equality as regards pay with an officer who is o liged to a 50 or even 100 dollars percor or wood, as it has been stated was the case at Fort Bridger, where the Government, as is alleged, was obliged to pay the latter sum. Now, sir, take an officer and place him in a cheap locality and compel him to pay for his own subsistence, allow him to draw no rations, allow him no forage and no fuel and he may pay his way out of his own salary. Take a captain for instance, with $2,000 a year. He may, if he be assigned to a cheap locality, by rigid economy live upon the sum you propnse to assign him for his living by this bill. If you place that oficer in any other position where subsistence and forage and fuel command ine rdinate prices, on do not support that of ficer, you compel iim to resign. That is the only effect of your bill. No man will remain in the service when the compensation you propose to give him will not supply the ordinary necessaries of human existence. Nor will he remainif he sees he is made the subject of invidious discrimination and inequality. Officers have no selection at the posts at which the will serve. Theyuyin the hands of the Var Dept and the President, Where they are ordered there they must go. They cannot make their own he s. They must he wherever the Government chooses to place them. It is a rule, as we well know, that the most desirable positions in assignment of duty shall be assigned to officers who have seniority in the service. officers, then, sir, who have arrived at such a time of life, who have been for a sufficient period in service to command the most eco nomical positions to which officers are assirned, may be relieved to some extent of the Iliard ship s of the proposed bill. But take the genera run of officers, the most of them are not entitled by seniority to any preference of that kind. They must go where they are ordered, and when they go you propose to deprive them of subsistence, of forage, of transportation, andeverything, I believe, that they have had before, no matter whether they are at a chea position or a dear position; no matter whet ier they are at a position where they can save 50 dollars a year or be left $1,500 or $2,000 in debt at the end of the year. You say they shall have the same salary without regard to circumstances, and without regard to the expense they incur. Common sense and common justice are against it, and that is my reason for opposing the bill. An officer is entitled to quarters. You propose not to give him quarters. There are many posts where there are quarters built for the use of officers. You do not intend, Isuppose, to prohibit him from occupying these quarters. You do not intend to say when you send a man to the West that he shall not inhabit our forts. I do not see that you propose to charge him rent for quarters furnished to him. If you do not propose to make him pay for the use of quarters, I ask upon what ground you make a discrimination against other officers, upon what ground you say officers where there are Government uarters shall have the use of them free an where there are none the officers shall pay for them out of their own pockets. Is there any justice in that?