Mr. GARFIELD. I move to amend by striking out, in the 4th section, after the words “pep month, ” in the 9th line, the following wort s: For each month of faithful service in the 2nd year of his enlistment, and a.further likeincrease of one dollar moreper month for faithful servicein the 3rd year of his enlistment. And inserting in lieu thereof the following: During the 2ndyear of his enlistment; a further increaseof one dollar permonth during the 3rd Ypeear r of his enlistment: and one additional dollar month during eachadditional year of his enlist men So that the clause will read: Hereafter each enlisted man shall, instead of any allowancefor bounty, receivean increaseon his pay proper of one dollar permonth during the 2nd car of his enlistment a further increaseofonedol ar permonthduring the3rd year of his enlistment; and one additional ollar permonth during eachad ditional year of his enlistment. Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I have offered is designed to render more definite what appears to some of us a little ambi none in the language of the section as it stan s in the bill. he intention of the committee is, I presume, that after a man shall have served one year of his term of enlistment he shall, during the 2nd year, receive one dollarger month more than during the 1st year; that if he shall serve a 3rd year he shall receive an additional dollar permonth, and so on, an additional dollar permonth for each additional year of service. In orderto obviate what appears to me an ambiguit in the lan e of the section, I have recas'li it and Igtthiifik it expresses more clearly the intention of the committee. I believe the chairman of the committee will accept the amendment. Mr. Speaker, while I am on the floor I will saya word on the bill. I have been very much surprised at the opposition which has been manifested to this measure. In the 1st place sir, the bill comes from a committee that has had this subject particularly in its charge and has given it a careful and thorough examination. The very fact that the bill is reported by that committee whose members have always been stanch defenders of the Army should, it seems to me, commend it to favorable consideration. But what is of more cowequence, the provisions of the bill are such as commend themselves to my judgment, and I approve it on account of its own palpable merits. I have heard no adequate reason offered in opposition. The present system of pay and a lowances of Army officers is objectionable because of its uncertainty, because of the expanding and contracting mode of compensation In the 2ndplHCQ, the system is objec tioble because of t 10fact, which will not be denied b anyone familiar with the adminis tration o the present law, that the easier and more comfortable an officer’s' duty, and the further removed from‘danger, the larger is his pay; while in proportion to the exposure and peril of the service in which he is engaged the smaller is his compensation. Now, what I have just stated is a matter of fact which every gentleman who has drawn his pay as an officer of the Government, 1st on active duty in the field and then on some post duty, wel knows. I believe no gentleman acquainted with the operation of the laws on that subject will.deny this statement. It is a remarkable rule of compensation that the more dangerous and arduous the duties of an officer are the less is his pay, and the more comfortably he is situated in quarters in a city where he is in safety in the midst of society the greater is his pay. The object of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is, in the 1st place, to make the pay definite in amount, giving the proper range in consequence of the character of service, light service tesmaller pay and arduous service the larger pay; and next, instead of the longevit ration, giving a certain%. of increase pay for more years of service, both to the officer and the enlisted man. This is a wise provision, and will encourage men to remain in the Army. The argument relied upon as the Samson of objections by the op orients of this bill is, that in some parts of tocountry it costs an officer more to live than in others, that his fuel, rations, and quarters cost more, and therefore the old system of pay and allowances should be kept up so that the officer may get what he needs from the Government at cost price. I answer this by the fact that our postmasters, our route agents. our territorial judges and circuit judges of the U.S. have fixed salaries, without regard to the ilace where they may serve or the price of board where the may live.