Mr. PAINE. I have thus shown that so far as all the items of an officer’s pay are concerned, under the law now in force, except only the items of fuel, quarters, and forage, that law is no better for the officer than is this bill, as originally introduced by the committee; that it is no more ads table to the vaing circumstances in which the officer may fill? himself placed than was this bill. On those points amendments are offered which, if adopted, will, I believe, make the proposed. bill perfectly just and fair and equal in its operations throughout all the U.S. I now propose to call the attention of the House to the injustice of the measure which the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr/Tunas] advocate so earnestly. 'lhey complain hereto us that we are about to take away from our Army officers some rights which have become vested by long usage, by a long‘existing law; they complain that we are about to do injustice to a portion of the Army. Now, it is a matter of amazement to me that those gentlemen have forgotten who it is that this bill aims to benefit. It is amazing to me that they should have for gotten so utterly, should have so utterly ignored those officers serving with troops in the field, who are entitled to the consideration of this House, I will not say more than, but I will say as much as, the officers who are on duty in the bureaus in this city or at posts in other cities. The law as it now stands gives to a brigadier general servin with troops in the field, enduring all the her ships of a campaign, and braving all the dangers of the serVice, a compensation of $3 978 60, includin everythin, or c and all. But if he should e statione in the citfiof Washington he would receive $5, 855 50. ow, we propose to raise the pay of those officers who are serving their country in the field, and gentlemen oppose it. Why do they oppose it? It is a matter of justice; I know it to he a simple matter of justice. I know that the officer who serves with troops in the field is and has been inade uately paid. I know that during this war, ing into consideration the dereciation in value of our currency, the pay 0 an officer in the field has been but a eggarly compensation. And yet gentlemen resist, with a their might, the passage of a bill which (progoses to raise the pay ol these poorly psi officers who serve in the field. It is with coloncls, lieutenant colonels, and majors, and all officers of the line, as with brig adier generals. For example, a colonel of infantry in the field receives for his compensation, includin fora 0, only $2, 520. And yet when on service in ashington a colonel of infantry receives $3, 897. A lieutenant colo nel ofinfantry in the field receives, including fOragc, $2, 436; in Washington he receives $3,565 50. A major of infantry in the field receives $2, 148; in Washington he receives $3, 277 50. Now, I want to know why it is that gentlemen bave so violently Opposed this bill which does an act of such manifest justice to these men who are serving their country in that hard est sphere of military duty, in the field itself. The only reason seems to be an a prehension that it will in some way reduce the pay of a certain other class of officers. Now, I admit that it will have that effect. I admit that it will take off a small amount from the pay, for instance, of a brigadier general stationed in Washington. Instead of receiving $5, 855. as now, he will, ifthis bill becomes a law, receive, exclusive of forage, $5,000; including forage, $5, 384. A colonefs pay will be reduced from $3, 807 to $3, 192; a iieutenant colonefs pay from $3, 505 60 to $2, 792, and a mojor’s pay from $3, 277 50 to $2, 692. And while I am sorry to see those officers, many of whom are among the very best in the Army, deprived of any emoluments to which they have been accustomed, I cannot resist the force of that argument by which it is maintained that the officers who serve in the field are entitled to at least equal pay with those who serve in bureaus and in cities. Nor can 1 for a moment doubt the policy of iving such enconragcment to field service. the country and the Army must gain by the change. It is complained that ifthis bill goes into effect the pay of officers in Washington and at other expensive localities will be so reduced as to become inadequate. Mr. Speaker, the pay of a Senator in Washington is $3,000. A irigadier general now receives $5, 855 50. A colonel of infantry receives $3, 897; a lieutenant colo nel ofinfautry, $3, 565 50; a major ofinfautry, $3, 277 60. Sir, there will be but 3 grades of officers in the whole service, even after this bill is passed, who will receive compensation may terially less than that of the members of this House. The general, the lieutenant general, the major generals, the brigadier generals, the coloncls, the lieutenant colonels, and the majors will all receive either a greater compensation or a compensation in the cases of lieutenant colonel and major only 2 or 300 dollars less than that of the members of this House or of the Senate. Sir, I see no good reason for complaining very bitterly of a bill which makes provisions like these. But, sir, an order from the SecyNavy has been introduced here by the gentleman 'from Pennsylvania, and is expected to have a bearingupon the question now before the House. It appears from this order that the law which prohibited any allowance to officers in the Navy “for rent of quarters, or to pay rent for furni ture, or for lights or fuel, ’7 &c., has been recaled. Now, what does the SecyNavy, whose example is commended to us by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, do when this law is repealed? Does he issue an order corresponding substantially to the present regulations of the Army res eeting uel, forage, and quarters? Not at al. He condemns in express language the provisions which are observed in the Army, and refuses to adopt them. He says: “The Dept in ordertopreventa recurrence of the irregularities. abuses, and arbitrary allowances which occasioned the prohibition. deems it proper to establish it fixed rate of compensationin may of the extra allowanceswhich were prohibited by the law now repealed." Why, sir, the 1st thing that the SecyNavy does, after the repeal of the law ives him power to do anything on the subject, is to sweep away this expanding and contracting] system which these gentlemen seem so much to admire, and to fix a uniform rate of compensation in lieu of allowances, to wit, 33 and a 3rd%. on the pay of the officers,0. rate of compensation for all latitudes and all longitudes. I have nothing to say as to the propriety of this arrangement; I have nothing here to say as to the propricty of the repeal of that law, except that heartily rejoice that justice has at last been done to these noble sailors; but I do say that the example of the SecyNavy, which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania commends to us as worthy of our imitation, condemns, in language which cannot be mistaken, the vcr'y provision which he so strenuously advocates. the Secretary in this order adopts the principle of the bill before us. He allows a fixed compensation in lieu of commutation of quarters, fuel, dte. His order is a singular argument to urge against the measure proposed by the committee. Now, sir, t mm are reasons very palpable to my mind why this pay system so unequal and so unjust has so long continued the law of the country; and the reason is by no means that which has been suggested by the Gentfrom Penns 'lvania. Sir, the fact that a sys tem, a law as continued in existence for a long period of time is no proof to me that it is wise or just. Sir, flagrant abuses sometimes exist for long periods of time. In the history of the world it has been no less common for burdensome, unjust, and oppressive laws to exist unrepealed through generations and cen turies, than for wholesome, righteous, equal laws to continue long in force. I believe that any fair and candid man.will be able tm see, in the circumstances of the case, the reason why this law has stood nnre pealed so long. Those reasons have been indicated by the Gentfrom Ohio. The very men who have been interested in the permanence of this system have been the men who.1have every day had the ear of Sens&Reps in this Capitol. Whenever the interests of officers stationed at Washington are to be touched by any proposed measure, we see honorable gentlemen prompt to rise to vindicate those officers and defend them from all assaults. Sir, in former times instead of a half dozen of the members rising as now, 100were always ready to spring to their feet in this House when any measure was proposed which might possibly affect the int crests of officers stationed in Washington. In saying this I make no complaint against these officers, for as I have already said entertain for them the highest respect. They have not acted disbonorably in this. They were on the ground. They were connected with the executive government, and much of its patrons e was dispensed through their hands. They new every move in this nose and in the Senate. They knew what appliances to bring to bear. They knew what to say and do on this floor and in the lobby. But, sir, officers in the field and at distant posts have not been heard here. They could not be heard. If they caine'into our lobbies they would have no dispensing power in the executive government to give weight to their words and wishes. I see ver clearly a reason for the long continuance of this system of pay for the Army. If this war had not broken out; if there had not been a large increase of the Army; if after the war gentlemen had not come into this House who by practical expe rience were cognizant of the inequalities in this system the committee might never have broug it forward the measure before us. But for this, there might have been 100like the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, the Gentfrom Maine, and the Gentfrom Vermoat springing up in every part of this House to protest against the infliction of a wrong upon these worthy officers. Sir, they have no warmer friend than I am. There is no man lcss disposed to do them harm; but I think it high time that the men who met the bayonets and bullets of the enemy had advocates and defenders on this floor. I am sorry to hear the Gentfrom Pennsylvania and the Gentfrom Maine speak in condemnation of this law which proposes to give to them the justice so long with eld. I trust. tardy th0ugh it be, it will come 4, Bonobrake.praying relief fo at last. I declare my opinion that the bill now before the House is in its provisions more nearly just than the one it proposes to replace. It proposes to do c an] anIexact justice toall. It is just to those who serve with troops. It is not unjust to those who serve without them. I hope it may be amended as I have proosed, and become a art of the law of the land: