Mr. STEVENS. Iwant toknowifl understand what this dispute is about. If I understand it, it is reduced to this, whetheryou shall say John Jack, or simply Jack whether you shall say “asst adjutant” or simply “ad jutant.” If there is any confusion in a name, one is just about the same as the other in that respect. how as regards surplus titles, the German barons, having some 9 or 10 titles, would not like to part with any of them. I do not see why “adjutant general" is not as good as “deputy adjutant, " or “asst adutant, " especial] when, if the amendment oft a chair man of t a committee is adopted, it is to make no difference in their rank or pay. But I wish to say that if I understand it, the amendment of my colleague [Mr. TKAYER] makes an increase in the pay of 3 officers. Instead of having 13 with the rank and emoluments of major, he proposes ten, and to put the others into a higher rank. Now I do not know precisely what that is for. I do not know why it is necessary to increase the pay of those 3 instead of having itas it is in the bill 13 adjutants with e pay and emol uments of major. I have not heard any good reason yet. Are there not enough colonels who are willing to be appointed adjutants now? Why, therefore, increase the payto thisamount? Then I cannot see any good reason why you shall not diminish the exease of the Army when you can do it without legislating anybody out.of office. When they die, the number is to be reduced to ten. A single word more. The whole question between my colleague [Mr. Tnnrsn] and the committee amounts to this: a curtailment of the word “asst, ” and making it read simply “ adjutant, ” with an increase of the ay of 3, and a prevention of the diminution of the expense when they go out of office by death or resignation (they are not legislated out) by 3. That is the whole question. his hardly worth quarreling about, but if you adopt the amendment. of my colleague you largely increase the expense and prevent a reduction of the number of these otheers.