Mr. SCHENCK. I desire to submit a few remarks in reply to the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Hana] It seems to me that Gentlemen in their eulogies upon WestPoint and upon those who have had the honor to be graduates of the Military Academy, run away entirely from the issue which is presented, or which at least it is desired shall be presented to this House by the provisions contained in the section as reporte by the ComMilAffrs. Gentlemen say it is a discrimination against graduates of the U.S. Militar Academy to provide that they shall not be e igible to selections for office in the subsistence Dept. Now, there is another light in which that may be viewed; and I may here repeat, without rearguing it, a proposition which I stated yesterda. S ill in the part of war, thorough instruction in military science, such as is obtained at a national school like that we have established at WestPoint, is not necessary to make a cometent Officef of subsistence. So far is this lUlIl being the case that an man from civil life, having good business habits and character, accustomed to trade and to make contracts, understanding something about the ordinary affairs relatiligto the subjects of those contracts, is likely to be quite as well, if not better, qualified than a man who has turned his attention exclusively to the acquiring of technical knowled e in the particular line of war. I lay that down as a proposition from which all the rest follows. Now, sir, how do these gentlemen get this information? It is afforded to them at the expense of the Government. It is education given by the Government to those who, under the law, receive the appointments to WestPoint. The Government which gives education has the right to impose what conditions it will as among the terms upon which that education shall be conferred. s it unreasonable to say to those gentlemen, when we give them a 4 years education, at great cost, at a public institution maintained from the Treasury of the country for the purpose of instructing them in all that relatesto the technical knowl edge of war, they shall not throw all that away by goin into a situation which requires no such technical knowledge? Why did we propose to put this condition in the bill in regar to the subsistence Dept. Because experience has proved there is an evil in that Dept to be cured. If you take the Army egister prior to the war, never but one man was appointed who was not educated at the U.S. Military Academy, and he only from happening to be son of the chief of the dept. After the war began. up to 1863, but a single appointment not from graduates of WestPoint, and including 1863, only some 3 or 4. On the contrary, gentlemen graduating, it is to be presumed, reasonably high in their class, for we find them in the artillery branch of the service, have been a ain and again appointed to the subsistence Dept. Congress here intervenes and (Ice res by law that hereafter it will be expected the Dept shall not I simply desired to throw be made up of men who have been educated at the public expense for other purposes. That is the whole case. Suppose the Army Registershowed you could not get a chaplain in unless educated at WestPoint, that you could not get a surgeon in unless, in addition to hisknowledge as asur con, you superadded graduation at West oint, would not Congress feel itself authorized to intervene and say by law this is not what we educated these gentlemen for? Therefore I repeat what I said yesterday, justin proportion as gentlemen say graduates of WestPoint are good engineers, capable artillerists, excellent infantrymen, gallant and skillful cavalrymen, just in proportion as we have educated them for occupation in these particular branches of real war, we say that it is not unreasonable in us to expect they shall confine themselves to that for which we Educated them. I will not be drawn off into the comparative merits and demerits of WestPoint cadets or WestPoint graduates. There might be a great deal answered to what has been said on that subject. All comparisons are odious, and very often, if they comprise allusions to a whole class of men, they are as unjust and uugenerous as they are odious. No man has a higher idea for the purposes of war of the military knowledge acquired in this military school than I have, but it does not follow from that we must therefore give to the gentlemen who have these qualifications, and who have correspondinggoo qualities of mind and character and courage and integrity in the general, all the places, as well those which reguire no such military education as those which 0. It is unjust. It is not part of the contract. Bnt when gentlemen would speak of WestPoint they had better speak of it with bated breath, even on this question of remarkable loyalty. Iadmit the great body of the grad uates of WestPoint, when the trial came, espoused the cause of the country and fought under the flag under which they had received their education, but I do not so much wonder they generally did that, as I abominate, despise, and enounce the infernal and damnable spirit of those who committed double perjury, going off to the enemy after they had thus been educated. I draw the distinction that my friendfrom Iowa [MFGunman] drew. I say if civilians, if civil officers, if men in the ordinary walks of life, subjected to the political influences which surrounded them, with mistaken ideas mixed up with this heresy of secession, went off to the South and fought against their Government, that is more easily to be accounted for than that men, educated under the flag of the country and at its expense, enjoying its emoluments and honors and under the obligation to defend that fla, should have committed a double peljury, such as RobtELee and others did when they deserted that flag. A good man of them who remained loyal, as it is terme, my friendfrom Vermont will himself admit manifested only a qualilied, moderate, and temperate sort of oya ty. Now, I do not say this in general disparagement of WestPoint. I would repel any attack upon the Military Academy or its graduates, as if they had generall shown a lukewarmness in the great cause of t a country. But while I make that admission, I do not believe, on the other hand, in any of these comparisons, any of these allusions. which would seem to uphold the idea that WestPoint, above all other institutions, had sent forth men who had particularly si nalized themselves as bein peculiarly devote to the country which be. protected, nourished, educated, and provided for them. But, sir, all this, I repeat, is out of the question. It is no part of it. The question presented really by the committee when they proposed that as a feature of the bill, is one of the simplest possible to be conceived. It does not involve any inquiry into the comparative fairness or unfairness exercised toward "men who are graduates or cadets at WestPoint, in reference to their origin as being more or less exalted or humble. Why that is brought in I do not understand; nor whya comparison should be made between the son of a professor there and the son of a tailor. I believe in these latter days it is not considered a thing otherwise than to be boasted of to have been connected with that honorable profession a tailor. [Laughter. We are not to be drawn aside into any such igression. I repeat that the whole of this matter is in a nutshell. We educate these men at the public cost. We have places enough for them in the Engineer corps, in the cavalry, in the infantry, in the bureaus, and in the different staff Depts, and we say to them, as the peculiar education which we give you was in. tended to qualify you for these places, ifyou will insist upon finding your way into other places not requiring this peculiar kind of knowl edge, and if those who have the management of affairs will indulge youin getting these places we will cutoff all possibility by law and hold you to your calling as military men, peculiar and special, for which you were educated at the public expense. Tequestion being taken on the amendment of Mr. (iIALE, no quorum voted.