Mr. WOODBRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I did not suppose that this bill would come before the House today. The reconstruction project was assigned for this time, and I an posed it would occupy at least until Wednestfiay. But as that has been laid asideI will briefly present the views I entertain respecting the hi] which has been reported fromt e ComMilAffrs. Sir, whileI am opposedtothe billboth in its principles and details, I do not intend to cast any insinuations against the committee or against any conclusions to which they have arrived, upon the basis that they, or any of the m, have been swayed either by passion or prejudice. The bill proposes to equalize the pay of the officers of the Army and to diminish the expense of the Army; or, in other words, to di minish, in the aggregate atleast, the pay of the officers. If it did equalize the pay of the officers of the Army, so far as that goes it would meet with my approval. But I expect to show, in the very brief remarks I shall make, that in' stead of equalizing the pay of officers it takes away the equalization which now exists. If the bill provides for diminishing the pay of the officers of the Army, as it doubtless does, I oppose it in that regard, because it is wrong. Any gentleman who will look at the past or consider the present, will, in my judgment, acknowledge at once that the pay of officers of the Army is not greater than it ought to be. The ast demonstrates that ofieers who have died have left nothing except pensions to their widows and the charity of friends for their children. Scarcel an officer in the Army, to my knowledge, as died leavin a compe tence to his family. They have left to them a good name a name made sacred by heroic eeds and by adherence to the Constitution and laws of their country, and they have left nothing else. Amen the living, what is true in fact? Take them in Washington, where it is claimed that increased and improper pay is allowed. There are no officers iere below the grade of a general officer who can meet those amenities of. life which are cast upon them by reason of their position in society. There are no officers here who can keep their carriage; there are no officers here who can entertain their friends. And in despite of the pay the chairman of the ComMilAffrs complains of so much, they live in fear lest by the utmost economy the shall not be able to make the salaries which Government gives them meet the expenses of their families. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] who has looked into this subject may, as he says, have no prejudice against the regular Army, and I am quite sure that if he had it would not, if he knew it, influence hisconscious judgment. If prejudices do exist in his mind against this or that branch of the regular ser vrce, I am sure they arise without his knowl edge of their existence. But the mechanism of the mind is more complicated than the mechanism of a watch, and unawares to himself, here and there may crowd in a prejudice or a feeling which, in spite of himself, might influence his judgment on this great question. The 1st argument which the gentleman [Mr. Scar men] advances is that it is desirable to have an equalization of ay, so that the country may know what an o cer of the Army receives. Sir, there are but 2 particulars under the present law where the pay of officers Without particular inquiry cannot e known; those particulars are in commutation for quarters and commutation for fuel. In different parts of the country the price for quarters and fuel varies so greatly that it cannot be known what the commutation is in such cases. It is to be determined by those who know, and who are presumed to be honorable gentlemen, that when commutation for uarters and fuel are allowed, they are to be furnished at the price which the officer is bound to pay in the locality where he is stationed. Sir, independently of this, anyone who takes it upon himself to inquire can know what the pay of an officer' of the Army is. He can learn from the reports made yearly by the War Dept that an officer of a certain rank is entitled to so many servants, so much allowance for. servants and for servants’ clothing, so many horses, so much allowance for the fOrage of those horses. Thus everything that relates to the pay is specified; and anyone who takes the pains to inquire can ascertain what that pay is. Iam somewhat astonished that my friendfrom Ohio should make the complaint that the pay of Army officers cannot be ascertained. Vhy, sir, how is it with the civil officers of this Government? How many men in this country understand what is the pay of the Governors and secretaries of our 'erritories'l How many men know the gross amount of the fees and emoluments of the collectors of the ports of Boston, NewYork, Philadelphia, and the other great ports of the U.S.? Who can tell how much these and 100s of other officers receive under the civil administration of the Government? Their compensation cannot be ascertained except by the most diligent inquiry, far more diligent than that demanded to ascertain the pay of any officer of the Army? Yet we do not hear any complaint that the people do not know what this or that civil officer is paid. The people have faith in Congress that it willcnact proper laws, faith in the Executive that those laws will be properly administered, faith in the heads of the Depts that they will exercise properly and honestly the prerogatives given to them under the law. So far as the argument goes it seems to me that it amounts to nothing. But, sir, the Gentfrom Ohio says that he desires to put the pay of the Army upon a par with the pay of the Navy. In that position I agree with him. Both branches of the service should be equally aid, I admit. If the pay of the officers of the Navy is not enough, I am ready to give my vote to increase it. When the great war broke out each branch of the service proved itselffaithful. The country demanded and expected that both the Army and the Navy would do their duty, and neither failed. One produced, as its exonent, the modest and heroic Farragut, an the other the reticent, indomitable, and unconquerable Grant. Sir, they have all done their duty. They all deserve well of Congress and the country; and so far as we can, with due regard to the finances of the nation, we should see that the officers and men, both of the Army and Navy, who have borne our flag through the bloodiest war in the history of the world, shall receive a compensation which will at least enable them to occupy a respectable position in society. It is impossible to place the pay of the officers of the Army and the Navy upon the same basis. lt has never been done in any nation on the face of the earth. England and France pay their naval officers by fixed salaries. Yet in regard to the pay of the Army, both England and France, after the exierience of more than a century, have adopte and now pursue the same principle which we have adopted and which is embodied in the existing law of the land. Why, sir, you cannot have commutation for fuel and quarters for a naval officer. His home is on the sea; his ship is his home. His quarters and his fuel are furnished to him there. n view of the necessities incident to his vocation, when he leaves the shore of his country, he lays in a suppl which costs him more than he will be oblige to pay in any foreign iort. And there is a sliing scale in the avy. An officer in command of a vessel has not the same pay as an officer of the some rank in command of a squadron' or a fleet. And officers of the Navy aboard ship have allowances which officers of the Army do not have. The are in mess and, as it were, one family aboa ship. The Government provides a steward for them, paid by the Government, who ministers to their wants and does all which a servant is supposed to do. When the officer goes ashore waiting orders he does not get the same ny. Even when on shore the pay of officers of the Navy varies. The pay of an officer of the same rank in the Navy is not the same at the navy yards of Brooklyn, Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Charlestown. There is a difference of pay of officers of the same rank. Why? Because the expenses of living are greater at one place than at another. The officers ashore at different places have different pay. When an officer is on shore duty he gets ordinarily his fuel andhas his quarters. An officer waiting orders receives less pay than an officer doing duty, and simply because he is not in active service. He is supposed to hold himself in readiness for orders. The expenses of an officer waiting orders are greater than of an officer who has an indefinite leave of absence, and hence the pay of an officer waiting orders is larger than that of an officer who is on an indefinite leave of absence. The latter may take his family into the interior and live at such expense as he pleases. But there is no waiting orders in the Army. An officer in the Navy arrives at port in command of a vessel which is laid up for repairs for a year or 2 has to wait for orders. He has to wait until the ship is put into commission again. During that time he is not actually in service. He is waiting orders. Now the officer of the Army has not that privilege. I think the leave of an officer of the Army is only 60 days, and if he stays beyond that his pay, or a portion ofit, is stopped. Mr. Speaker, the 2 branches of the service are entirely different. The officers of the Navy have prize mone. The recent war is an exemplification oft is benefit. More than a 100,000 dollars so the papers report, and I presume they never lie have been given to officers of the Navy. If the Army capture cannon, arms, and material, no matter of what. value, nothing is allowed either to the officer or sdoldier. The contrary is the case in Englan. There when an officer of the army even loses his baggage in war he is allowed for it. The Duke of Wellin on, in his Peninsular cam sign, when he p ueked the roses which Sir folin Moore had planted, was allowed the sum of $5,000,090 for property ca tured. And, sir, [believe that an officer in the Navy will lay up more money at the end of 20 years than an officer of the Army. Hence, I think there is no analogy between a proposition to regulate and equalize the pay of the officers of the Army and the law in regard to the ‘pay of officers of the Navy. In the one case foreign nations, by reason of the character of the naval service, have been doin just what we are doing. In the other, both ‘ngland and France, by reason of the contingencies and condition of the service of the officers of the army, have imposed just such regulations as are now imposed upon our officers, and allow just such commutations as we allow. Now, sir, let us examine the present system and see where the necessity is of changing it. It is far easier to tear down a beautiful temple with its tasteful pillars, its graceful architect ure, wherein all parts are orderly and harmo nious, and its magnificent dome, than to build a better one. It is far easier to destroy social, civil, moral, or political institutions that have had the sanction of centuries than to build out of their ruins a more perfect and more just system. It will be far easier for my friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHDNL‘K] with all his mili tary experience and knowledge, to destroy the present system, which has been applied to the Army for half a centurv, than to build up a new one that will either be better for the government or more just for the Army itself. Now, sir, what is the present system? Let us see whether it is equal or not. Why, sir, the officers of the Eng ish army get so much pay proper and certain allowances. They are sent from one rumor of the world to another; for upon the ritish domains the sun never sets. When they are not in locations where quarters and fuel are furnished they draw commutation. The French system is the same, only when they send an officer to Paris, instead of confining him to additional allowances. on account of the increased expenses they give him an actual increase of pay. Where is the want of equalization in the Army? Every man of the same rank and be longing to the same arm of the service receives the same pay. And now the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Soiisivoit] denying this, proposes to make the pay certain according to the grade of service. tis indeed a Procrastean bed. It destroys that elasticity of the system which now exists, and which ought to exist in order to work justice. Take the cavalry service. The pay proper of a cavalry officer is renter than that of the infantry or artillery. Vhy? Because the necessity of the service demands it, not because the cavalry is the favorite arm, but because the officers must furnish horses and their equipment from their own pocket. In view of this increased espense it has been determined that the pay of those officers should be greater than that of officers of the artillery or infantry. Sir, at whatever point the officer is stationed the salary is the same. There is no difference between a colonel in Washington, Iowa, or California, except that there have been times when the pay has been increased in California on account of the very greatly increased expense of living. If 2 officers are similarly situated their compensation is the same. One colonel, for instance, is stationed in Milwaukee and another in Washington, both belonging to the infantry or artillery. Their payis the same, and if they have been the same length of time in the service their rations are the same, and the are allowed the same number of horses an servants. Officers must live. They are educated for the Army, they are supposed to maintain the dignity of our flag, on are called to mingle with and do their part in society, and in order to do so, wherever they are they are now obliged to exercise an economy unknown to men in the same social position who are in civil life. For illustration, as to the present system, the price of quarters may be much higher in california than they are in Washington; fuel may be more or less expensive in the one place than in the other. What is the result? In each place the officer being detached and not allowed in kind, as the law provides, is allowed commutation according to the actual expense. In California it may he one price and in Washington another, but whatever it is, the officer is allowed. Now, if an officer is ordered to Washington, there can be no favoritism shown him. He is allowed what quarters and fuel cost him in Washington. The officer stationed at SanFrancisco is allowed what quarters and fuel cost him there, so that an officer of the same rank in SanFrancisco and in Washington draws precisel the same pay This is equitable; and Itink I will be able to show before I get through that if this bill is passed it will destroy the equality of pay in a way that the gentleman, With his sense of jiistice, would not be willing to allow. Now, this is not a new question. It is one that has from time to time been before congress for the last 50 years. We have had at cost 3 reports upon the subject from Paymasters General of the Arm, and I do not suppose that an officer would so far forget his position, his integrity, and his rank as a gentleman as to make a false report. In 1826 we had the report of PayMGen Towson, when this question was up, and he by a process of reasoning, which to my mind is unanswer able, proved that the only just,0 nitable, and equalizing system that could be adopted in the pay of officers was the system then and nowin force. “‘ ln 1856 the question came up again, and PayMGen Larned was called upon by the SecyWar to express his opinion. He adopted the report of General Toivson and coincided with it, giving his opinion thatthe present is the most equal and economical system. Then we come to 1866, when we have the report of PayMGen Brice, a gentleman who, I believe, is the personal friend of my distinguished friendfrom hio, [Mr. Shannon] He coincides with the views of Generals Tow son and Larned, and adds a few additional arguments in support of the present system, which is sanctioned by experience of our own and other countries as the most just and equitable that has been devised. Now, sir, I do believe that here and there is an old system which maybe good. It isa sensible motto that “the worl is governed too much." And in these modern days, if there is anything outside of armed resistance which will weaken the foundations of our Government it is the excessive legislation which modern reform imposes upon the country. Why, sir, we have had 10opropositions to amend the Constitution. Should they all be adopted, thatsacredinstrument.whichhuscome down to us from our fathers, will be covered over with patch work. V Now, sir, I sometimes like things because they are old. I like those principles of law which have come to us through the centuries and become a part of the common law. I do not much believe that modern civilization can improve, by new enactments, the old law; and yet, air, at the same time, I have favored, amendments to the Constitution, as the votes which I have. given in this House will show. This bill, sir is an innovation 1] on this long settled and well and if passed, another Congress will be calle upon to legislate for the benefit of this or the other class of officers. It overthrows a system which has the authority and sanction of time and the intelligent judgment of those who know what the requirements of the country and the Army are. It is amusing to hear the gentleman say that he wants to equalize the pay of the officers of the Army. hy, sir, is that so? I know it is said that there is acentripetal and not a centrifugal form so for as offices at Washington are concerned; that they are all seeking to come here and perform the duties of officers in the various Depts of the Government. Sir, I do not believe it. They are educated men, educated to arms; and when the 1st alarm of war was given, many of them, to my knowl edge, desired to join the forces in the field. They preferred the paths of glory, though they lead but to the rave. But an officer may be in Oregon or in ‘alifornia; the head at Wash ington deems him to he possessed of those pe culiar and rare qualities which fit him fora position at Washington, and issues his command to him to repair to Washington for that purpose, and he must obey the order or be dismissed the service. The officers come to Washington because they are ordered, and not because they desire it. Their labors during the war is their high est encomium. Look at yohr brave chief, the SecyWar; a man whose head is ful of active, thinking, well balanced brain; and whose heart is as pure and as tender as a woman’s. And, sir, when the history of this war is written, as it will not be it? your day or mine, Edwin M. Stanton will have a place in the scroll of honor but one step below that of the martyred Lincoln. He and all those under adjusted policy of the country(i, i him, in the Adjutant Generafs office, in the QuarterMGen’s office, and the Commissary Generafs office, have so managed the affairs of the war that the nations of Europe, rememberin how their troops in the Crimea were starve and frozen, have sent officers to our land to examine and ascertain how under the administration of such men in Washington we have been able to feed and clothe and arm, a million and a half of men so that not one word of complaint has come from the length land breadth of this land. The gave to the soldier bravery and courage, for lie knew that in due time, and when he required it, all that was necessary to his comfort would be at his hands; and that when he gave up his life for his country there would be some one there who would lay him in the pleasant shade and erect a little monument over his grave with his name upon it, so that when his friends should come there they could plant flowers upon and weep over his last resting place. These are the gentlemen who it is sai should no longer be a lowed to remain in Washington. Now, sir, the Gentfrom Ohio [ML SCHENCK] ought to know that in England an officer cannot be assigned to the staff of the army until he has served in every branch and dept of the army; and that in France where an officer is put upon staff duties he is obliged to serve one, two, or 3 years, or as long as may be necessary, in the different branches of the service in order to enable him to become acquainted with the various conditions and wants of the array. Much has been said about officers in the field. No one has a higher appreciation than I have of the officer who, leaving behind him father, mother wife, children, famil, friends, and all, has taken his lifein his ban and gone forth in defense of the flag of his country, and with a stout and resolute heart has stood up against the enemies of the country. I see one here who now bears upon him the honorable scars of battle; who went into the war from my own State, and came out with a record 2nd to that of no one in the service of the country suffering from a wound which almost proved fatal. going home to recover, and then returning, he was again wounded, and has lost his arm, but is still ready to do noble and fearless service for his country. He put his heart and his all upon the altar of freedom. And now, when such men have thus rendered faithful service, a bill is introduced to cut down their pay. Sir, I have no patience with such propositions. Butit is said that in'ustice has been done to officers in the fiel, and that too much has been done for officers of the staff. Let us see how this is. The officer in the field has had what the Government provides him to shelter his head; either a building or a tent. He has had such food as the Government allowed him. Does he comlain? He has had all to which he is entitle. Does an officer stationed at Washington have more? He has enough more only to enable him to keep soul and body together. There has been no injus tice to officers in the field. But we hear much about the duty of officers in the field. Sir, the duty of an officer in the field in time of peace does not compare to the duty of an officer in Washington. The labor is not so great; the res oiisibility is not so great; the risk of life, taing all things into consideration is not so great as it is in this 'pent up and dirty city. Now, we will see how much the bill of my friendfrom Ohio equalizes the service. A coloncl of infantry ora commander of a regiment gets in Washington or elsewhere $3,000 a year nothing more. Does not the gentleman know that when a colonel is in the field he ets in addition to his $3,000 his quarters and his fuel, while the officer stationed in Washington does not by this bill? Take the case of a colonel in command of Fortress Monroe or Fort McHenry, or any other fort upon the sea board or upon the lakes in the interior. What is the difference? Why sir he is at a post, and he gets $3, 500. liesidcs, an officer at. a post like Fortress Monroe gets his fuel and uarters from the Government for nothing. (Ifhat is the cost of an officer’s fuel and quarters in Washington 'I The Gentfrom Ohio, who is keeping house, nows something about what these expenses are, and so do I. He knows, as I do, that by the most rigid economy you cannot obtain unrters and fuel for less than $1,500 a year. Vhat is the effect, then, of this equalization? The man at Fortress Monroe or Fort McHenr, indulging in all the pleasures of life, havin is uarters and fuel furnished him, with his wi e and children around him, and with comparatively nothing to do, will receive under the operation of this bill $2,000 a year more than an officer of the same rank on duty in Washin ton. The latter receives $3,000, out of which he is obliged to pay for his quarters and fuel, $1,500 so that e has $1,500 left to live upon; while an officer of the same rank at one of these forts receives $3, 500, the whole of which he has for the support of himself and family. Sir, go still further and take the case of a 2nd lieutenant 0 infant. What is his pay under this bill?‘ 1600 dollars. ake the case of the colonel. He is ordered to Washington. He is obliged to come. He must obe orders or be dismissed, though he mbay be a out as willing to be dismissed as to o e. Ay2nd lieutenant in the field gets $1, 600. A colonel in Washington gets $3,000. of which $1,500 goes for house rent and fuel. leaving him $1,500 to pay for his living in this dirty and extortionate city. The colonel has only that amount to live on, whereas the 2nd lieutenant of infant or other branch of the service when in the lfiyeld has quarters and fuel, and besides all these, which are furnished to him, he receives $1, 600 to live on; in other words, the 2nd lieutenant gets $100 a year more than the colonel who may have served in the field for 20 or 30 years and may happen to be stationed in Washington. This is equalization with avengeance. There is no equalimtion about it. he gentlemen admit the whole principle involved b the very amendments which the have offered: When they propose the amen meats they ive away the question, in the advocacy of which they have been so earnest. What do these amendments propose? 1st it is provided that a mounted officer at his post may draw forage. Instead of the longevity ration it is provided that there shall be a certain increase of pay at the end of ever 5 years. And what dyoes the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Puma] propose? That food shall be furnished to the officers wherever they may be stationed without adding the cost of transportation. When gentlemen offer these they give up the very proposition for which they have argued with so much zeal, cogency, and ability. 5They say impliedly that their proposed system will not do; that this Procrustes' bed will not do for our officers to sleep on. With these amendments the bill is the same as the existing law with one or 2 exceptions, and those are in reference to servants, and ser vants’ clothing, and commutation of quarters and fuel. And I have shown, I think, that these are eminently just. Now, sir, shall we, say to an officer at SanFrancisco, who must obey you, that he must come to Washington with only $1,500 to suIp ort himself and family? fihall we say, a though he has no commutation for fuel or quarters, he must come to a city where his expenses are largely increased and support himse fon that sum? Is that the way to support this great and honored branch of the Government? Is it right toward officers who have imperiled their limbs and lives in defense of the country? Is it the we to treat' men who have borne our flag through t ‘estorms 9f battle riddled with bullets and now placed in the War Dept as the symbols of to and the evidences of the safety of the nation an‘ilrestoration of the Union? Is such the way to treat them? The gentleman has too great a sense of justice, if e agrees with me in my promises, to resist the conclusion to Which they force him. I do beg and implore gentlemen not to vote blindly on this question. Do not take my ipse dizil. Do not trilre as law whatever my friends or the committee may say. The bill itselfdoes not come before the House with the unanimous recommendation of the ComMilAffrs. It is a fair question of difference. It is a fair question of dispute. I ask gentle men to inform themselves whether he bill works 0 nity or not. Let them satisfy themselves whether if this bill be passed great in justice will not he done to valuable and worthy officers of our Army. The Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Pan's] used the following language: "For example, a colonel of infantry in the field receive: for his compensation ine ludin forage. only $2.520.And yet when on servicein Washington a colonel of infantry receives $3, 897. Alicutenanlcof one !of infantry in the field receives.including forage. “tenettritaz‘r“testes vs are“: 0 In g. i he receives83, 27750."we l a u I“ a It is very evident that a colonel or major stationed in a city is at much more expense than when stationed in the field. And yet the difierence between the compensation of an officer stationed at Washington or in the field does not amount to what the officer has to pay for his quarters and fuel here, so that in pomt of fact an officer of the same rank comes out better at the end of the year in the field than at Washington. And yet we are told with an air of triumph by the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Ma Pawn] that oliicers stationed in Washington get more than in the field, and that there are only 3 officers who in point of fact receive less compensation than a member of Congress, a lieu tenant, captain, and major. Sir, it depends upon where a member of Congress lives, and what milea e he gets. If he lives in Balti more he is a lowed only 32 dollars mile age. But mileage is adjusted upon a sliding scale, however erroneous or unjust it run he in the estimate of many. The pay instead of being $8,000 is by reason of mileage greatly increased, so that the average pay of a member of Congress is betterthan that of an officer of the Army below the grade of general. Take the case of a member from the Pacific coast, who receives the highest amount by this sliding scale. He receives for miles e 6 or 7,000 dollars, while the member from Vermont receives about 400 dollars. It is a very elastic system, so much so that it was alleged 2 years ago in this House that of 2 members residing in the same county one drew $1,000 more than the other. The gentleman knows, moreover, that an officer of the Army can engage in no private business; when he does it he is stricken from the roll. But as regards a member of conress, everybody is aware that he is detained ere at most only about 11 months in the 2 years, so that more than halfhis time can be devoted to his chosen profession or pursuit, He can return from the session of Congress to his farm, his counting room, or his office, to those avocations in which he is supposed, at least, to have been successful in life. Then, the gentleman’s illustration is a poor one. Sir, I do not hesitate to say, coming, as I do, from a section that is supposed to understand what economy is, that the pay of a member of Congress is not enough. I come here with my family for I like family influences, which keep a man pure but I know that no man can live here on the pay of a member of Congress, except by the greatest economy. I am sure I cannot do it, and my economical friend, the chairman of the ComMilAffrs, [Mr. Senssex] tells us that he cannot. And yet, because we get just enough to starve us, must we starve the heroes of our Arm upon alike fixed compensation? Why sir, the title of this bill ought to be amended so as to read, “A bill to provide for the gradual starvation of the officers of the Army. But the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Senzxcl] says that this bill will prevent officers from struggling and engineering for this, that, or the other post. Why, sir, under the existing law that cannot be done. Why '1 Because the pay of the officer of the sonic. rank is the same, and hence it makes no difference to him in point of pay whether he goes to one (‘narter or another, whether he is stationed in Vashing ton, NewYork, Boston, or Denver. His regular pay and allowances are the same wherever he is stationed and if he is detached so that the Government does not supply quarters and fuel, then he is allowed simply the amount which he is obliged to pay for them. But pass this bill and you will stir up the spirit of rivalry. The colonel who, when stationed here, has but $1,500 for the support of himself and family out of his $3,000, y going to Fortress Monroe or other post, can get $3, 500, with his quarters and fuel found him. Then would come the trouble. Pass the hill and you starve the officers in Washington, NewYork, Philadelphia, Boston, and other detached stations. They cannot live there upon their pnilow, sir, I have one through the provisions of this bill at much greater length than i in tended. What is its necessity? The memory of officers who have been true, faithful, heroic, honorable, and honest, who have served their country and gone to paupers’ graves cries agains it. No officer has received more than was absolutely necessary for the expenses of his position. The present system of pay comes to us sanctioned by a number of decisions in Congress, and by at least the decisions of 3 Pay masters General, and by the experience of halfa century, during which no evil has been wrought under it. It is drawn from England and hence military nations which for a cen tury have adopted the same principle that we adopt now in the payment of the ofhcers of our Army. Sir, the pay is not too much. It was not too much when the expenses of living were half what they are now. And now, just after this terrible conflict, just. after the dove has come back to the window bearing the olive branch, just after the dread conflict of arms; just after these officers have clothed themselves with glory, as patriots and brave men; at such a time as this, when expenses are double what t“hey were before the war, gentlemen insist that as a reward of their heroism, as areward of their patriotism, as a badge of their glory, wo, should take away a portion of their pay, and 1 make it less than it was before the war. Sir, for one I do not believcin such npolicy. I believe in letting well enough alone. I believe in adhering to s vstemssanctioned by time, when I can see no 0 jection and no evil to the Government. I say, then, “Let well enough alone." Do not trust to tearing down an building upon the ruins of what you have torn down, for 9 times out of ten where a system sanctioned b experience and time is ruthlessly destroye and a new one built upon its ruins, you will find that you have may eafatal and inevitable mistake.