Mr. SCHENCK. I know how impatient the House is at this late hour of the session of discussion on any subject; and if this could have been permitted to come to a vote without discussion, I should not have troubled the House. I desire briefly to defend the bounty bill of the House as ordered to be attached to the bill now before the House as being an equal measure, eminently so. In the 1st place, it takes in no soldiers, though it is Generalin its terms, except those of 1861 and 1862. Those who came in after 1862 received large local boun tics and will not come in under the provisions of this bill. Some, in 1862, received small local bounties of from 75 to 100 dollars. Those, so far, will be subjected to deduction; but as aGeneral rule, the soldiers to be benefited by this bill are principally the soldiers of 1861 and l8tl2 the early part of 1802. What does the Government say to them? The Government, in the 1st place, does not recognize this bounty as a debt in any sense. The pay was the compensation of the soldier; but it does recognize the grantin of bounty as an act of something more than c arity, an act of generous justice to the men who have done good service. And when about to perform that act of generous justice the Government may be represented as calling all its children round who have been in the war and saying “We cannot equalize you; that is impracticable, but we will go as near it as possible. We propose every man who has gone into the senvice shall have eight and a half permonth during the war.” It says to every man coming round the Government personified for this purpose, “ How much have you received from any source? What have you received from your State? What have you received from your county? What have you received from any volunteer association? If that is not more than 8 and a half permonth we will add to it. 'Ihose who have received more cannot complain if we do not when the have more than we propose to give others.’ The government says to each one, “Our desire is that you shall have at the rate of $100 per year provided you have not already had it from any source whatever; if you have not we will make it up to you." Then, again, the gentleman objects to another provision of the bill, and moves to amend it, and yet permits it to go as an amendment to the appropriation bill as directed by the House. It is that the generous donation of the Government of $8 38 permonth should be deducted, or withheld rather, from those who asked to be discharged from the service not on account of wounds or disability, prior to the conclusion of the war. It seems to me to have been manifestly just, in saying to the soldiers, “ We propose to give this to you for the time you h“ave actually served, ” that this should be added: Wewill give itto every one of you who held on till the end of the war, and did not voluntarily leave the service except on account of wounds or disability, or against your own will. Ifyon left it because you were mustered out, then it is withheld; if you left it because of wounds, then it is not; but ifyou asked to be discharged voluntarily. before the termination of the war, while hostilities still continued, then we do not think it a hardship towithhold that which would equalize your pay.” I know the bill does not make all equal. It is impossible. But it comes nearer to it than any other reposition. The Government should ascertain 10w much each one has had and endeavor as far as practicable to put all on the same footing. And then when you take into consideration further that it relieves the States from the trouble they otherwise would have, it is a cat oiut gained. If the Government of the U.S. undertakesto equalize boun tics in this way and does not take into account the local bounties, what then? As soon as the soldiers have obtained what equalization they can from the Government of the U.S. you will find them all turning back to the several States, comparing their relative local boun ties, and asking for equalization there. [Here the hammer fell.]