Mr. SCHENCK. It is a somewhat material point, it seems to me. I wish now to call the attention of the House to the fact that the question now before us is the amendment to the amendment, proposing to attach to the substitute of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania the retrenchment. in number proposed in the House bill. That is precise y the retrenchment to which the attention of the House has been called by the Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. FARQUHAR] reducing the number of captains and the number of majors, so as to make an aggregate deduction of 17 from the whole number and the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Puss] rightly apprehended the motive of the committee in not making that reduction immediate. They provide that now, bile we are winding up the vast business of the late war, this reduction shall not take place; but that hereafter, as vacancies occur in these lower grades, the reduction shall take place. The House is now called upon to say whether it will or will not sustain the committee in the proposed reduction. As to the substitute of the gentleman, I desire to make but one or 2 remarks; for probubl the discussion on this subject has alreadybeen protracted to a greater extent than is profitable. 1st, one word upon the GeneraPproposition which the gentleman makes and which I think he cannot well have considered, or he would not have made it that just in proportion as you increase the Army, you must increase its staff corps. I deny it. I say that in proportion as you increase an army, you may increase and ought to increase some what your staff corps, but not in equal ratio. You must increase your line officers in equal ratio. Every gentleman who knows anything about a turupi e company or a railroad company or a banking association will understand the principle involved here. A railroad company, with a road 100 miles long, has its president, its VEEP, its board of directors, its treasurer, its secretary. If that road be extendedto the length of 200 miles, no increase in the number of managing officers of the company is necessarily required, although a larger force is necessary to do the work along the line. So, if you increase the capital of a banking association from $500,000 to $1,000,000, you do not need to increase in the same proportion the number of the General supervisory officers the staff, as it may be called. You may need to increase some what your agencies in that direction, but by no meaiisin proportion to the increase of capital. The case is precisely the same with an army. The staff is the general supervisory power the board of directors as it were, in a certain sense, of the Army; and you do not need to increase the staff just in proportion as you increase the rank and file, just as you increase the number of regiments, brigades, and divisions. You must. increase your line officers, your field and company officers, in the same proportion in which on increase the rank and file; but the staff oes not need to be increased except in a comparatively small degree. Hence the remarks of the gentleman imply a very grave mistake in reference to this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker. let me say in reference to this discrepancy, that within my experience we have never legislated under such peculiar circumstances. nstead of being met here with argument, instead of being met with facts, we are met with some shadowy reference to something that has been done by some General officers, or by the chairman of the ComMilAffr of the Senate, who has written a letter, if I understand the Gentfrom Pennsylvania correctly, to explain to him what this House ought to do.