Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, ever Gentleman in this House accustomed to legisation, including my colleague, [Mr. GABFIELD] must know how much easier it is to attempt to at here and there a patch upon a bill, which aRer all will render it incon none in its parts, than it is to deal with that hi las an entirety with all its parts coherent. I think if the gentleman should succeed in making some or any of the amendments he proposes, it would result in marring the harmon of the bill as it now stands, and would only render necessary its recommit to] in order to “lick it into shape, ” to use a vulgar expression. So far as the amendment which I objected to going back to insert in the preceding section is concerned, it is borrowing language from the 10th section of the bill, which contains a provision in reference to enlisting men who could not otherwise pass medical ins ction, unless there was a statutory provision that they might be received as enlisted men in the Army and the only object of inserting the amendment in the 4th section instead of confining it in that connection to matters to which it properly belongs, must be to get rid of the WOXs “ Veteran corps.” It seems to me it would be much better in connection with the matter of enlistment s, which is provided for in the 10th section. Then comes the amendment which the Gentleman now proposes to the section under consideration, that you shall not have a Veteran corps, known as such, but shall authorize the SecyWar to receive as many into the service, of all rades, as would. if at together, make up a sufficient number of o cersfor ten regiments. Now, what is to be done with these wounded officers? You are either to take them as wounded officers and mix them up with the whole of the rest of the Army, so thatyou shall have light duty and hard duty, garrison duty and frontier duty, to be performed by a class of men not quite well suited for hard duty, because of their suffering arising from wounds received in former service, instead of assigning to that duty the able bodied men who are peculiarly fitted for it. You make your Army incongruous in its character as regards its efficiency and capability and the physical characteristics of its various Officers. ou mix them all up together and then does the gentleman intend to separate them, and assign them to duty inten particular regiments? If so, that constitutes a Veteran corps and legislate as we please on the subject it will always be called such. One of these 2 things he must do, either mix up improperly and inappropriately, and to the detriment of the service, officers of different physical characteristics throughout the whole Army, or else separate them. If you do the former, you encounter a difficulty in that direction. If you do the latter, you have a Veteran corps whether you choose to call it so or not. If not known by law as such, it will receive some soubriquet or nickname from those who speak of it as a part of the Army. Then in regard to the revision as to th05e who have been officers O colored troops, why make a special provision that you she. l select enough officers who have heretofore commanded those troops to command the 8 regiments, unlessyou mean to have 8 regiments commanded by them? Why select that particular number O men who have had espe rience in command of colored troops, unless you mean something by it? Why pick out enough of those officers to replete them if you are only intending to scatter them throughout the Army 1 It seems to me, therefore, that the only effect of all this is simply to mix up the whole matter, and to fail either on the one hand to accomplish the object intended or else to accomplish it without giving the appropriate name, and leave it to be nickname in such a way as those who shall turn their attention to giving names to these particular arms of the service may choose when they shall once have been or dered. NOw, as to the latter part of the amendment, I have no objection to it. It was the intention of the ComMilAffrs of the House to provide that without reference to whether they beloned to one corps or the other, in promotions ereafter to be made, there might be promotions in anyone arm of the service without reference to these distinctiOns or divisions, and that is all that is necessary, it seems to me, to accomplish the object the Gentleman has in view. In the Senate bill, as originally printed and laid upon our tables. there was a provision that promotions in the colored troops, in the Vet eran Reserve corps, or in any branch of the service should be confinEd to that particular division of infantry. Afterward, when the Veteran Reserve corps was dropped in the Senate, the colored troops remaining, this section was stricken out, and the bill of the Seinate and the bill of ihc House both agree now on the subject of romotions in the divisions created between ifferent portions of the infantry force; and therefore, the gentlemans amendment will only carry out what, it seems to me, is a fair construction of the bill, either the Senate bill or the House bill. But, in order to render it perfectly clear, as suggested by the Gentfrom Iowa, WILSON] I have no objection that it abs 1 be made, by specific terms, to be understood that promotions in that way shall be competent hereafter. But asto the original organization of these corps I think that while nothing is accomplished, except perhaps confusion, by that which is proposed Y my colleague, he will not ese ape from that difficulty which he thinks, as I believe imroperly, Will occur from having these different branches of the infaiitr of the Army.