Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, if the Gentfrom Ohio were correct in his interpretation of the substitute which he has offered for this section, I would certainly agree with him as to the propriety of adopting it. Butit seems to me that he has entirely misapprehended the pur ort and scope of his own amendment. I it should be found in any case that an officer in one corps or staff dept of the Army would excel in another corps or staff dept, and ought therefore to be transferred, that transfer cannot, under this substitute, be made, unless the officer is disqualified for the duties of the particular corps or staff dept to which he belongs. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is all wrong. There may be in one arm of the service an officer eminently fit ted to discharge the duties devolved upon him in that arm, and yet by his talents or accomplishments may be better fitted for some other arm of the service in which he may distinguish himself, and more ably and profitably serve the country. Still, sir, under this substitute the President would not have the power to tran's fer him. Take this case, for example: an officer is in the infantry; he is a good captain or lieutenant colonel of infantry. Because he discharges his duty well as an officer of infantry the President cannot transfer him to any other arm of the service. If it be discovered that he would be an admirable engineer officer, or might distinguish himself on better serve the country in the artillery or cavalry. the President cannot transfer him, because he is fitted for the duties he is actually performing. It is on that account I am opposed to this substitute., I am opposed to shutting the door to the transfer of' those officers. who, although qualified for the duties they are discharging are still better qualified for the discharge of other duties. If a man is competent to the discharge of higher duties in another branch of the service, let it be no reason to refuse him atrausfer that he is also competent to his present duties. i