Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, I will, in the 1st place, clear up the matter referred to by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Goss use. ] The House will remember that when Iproposed as a substitute for the section of the bill now under consideration the corre sponding section of the Senate bill No. 188, relating to the Adjutant Generals Dept, a suggestion was made by a member of the Military Committee, the Gentfrom Maine, iMr. 1314mm] to modify the substitute which had offered. The effect of that modification was to increase the rank of 3 of the officers in the Adjutant Generals Dept. It did not occur to me on the instant, (although if there had been opportunity for reflection it would probably have occurred to me) that the effect of the modification proposed was to increase not only the rank but the pay of those officers also. The modification having been olfered by a member of the Military Committee I was induced to accept it. I was led to suppose by its proceeding from that source that it was a modification favored by that committee, and it did not strike me as particularly objectionable. Subsequently, when my colleague [Mr. STEVENS] pointed out the fact to the House that it would increase the expenses of the Government, and when it was too late for me to get rid of the modification, I distinctly informed the House of the then existing position of the question. I told the House at that time that if I had been aware that the effect of the modification proposed by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. linux21] was to add to the expenses of the GovernmentI would not have accepted it; and I gave the House notice that if they chose to vote down the modified substitute then peuding I would immediately offer my original substitute without the modification. The substitute went to the House in that shape with fullnotice of the existing state of the question, and the substitute as modified by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] was adopted by the House. I have alluded to this because I do not wish it to be understood that if there was an misapprehension on the part of the House in the vote which was cast upon that occasion, the Elaine of it can in any measure be laid at my oor. I desire now to say a few words upon the question now before the House. I am well aware, sir, that the proposition contained in Senate bill No. 138, with regard to the organization of the quartermasters Dept, is not the precise proposition which was indorsed and approved by the distinguished generals who were consulted upon these questions. I refer to Lieutenant GenlGrant and to Generals Sherman, Thomas, and Meade. What they did approve was the organizntion of the Army as proposed in Senate ill NO. 67, known as Mr. WILSONS bill, for which Senate bill No. 138 was offered as a substitute, and was finally “lepted by that body. What I wish to call the attention of the House to is the fact that the organization of the quar termasters Dept, which was approved by the distinguished generals referred to, was the organization contemplated in Senate bill No. 67. Now I have prepared a comparative statement 5 owing the organization of this Dept of the Army at the present time, what it would be under Senate bill No. 67, 0. proved by the enernls of the Armywho had this matter undgcrconsideration, what it would be under Senate bill No. 138 which passed the Senate, and what it is proposed to be under the House bill now under consideration. It is as follows: At the present time the number of quartermasters is 65, including the QuarterMGen and all the members of his staff. Under Senate bill No. 67, the total number of the staff would be 87. That was the bill approved by Generals Grant, Meade, Shell man, and Thomas. Under Senate bill No. 138 which passed that body, the number is 80, or 7 otheers less than the bill recommended by those generals.