Mr. THAYER. I am ver much obliged to the Gentfrom Ohio, [ Mr. Scunsexd who I hope will allow me to proceed for 15 minutes, for I can hardly say what I desire to in ten minutes. I beg the House to understand that I do not intend to traverse again any portion of the ground I have already gone over in who: l had the honor to submit to this House upon this sub'cct. My simple purpose in rising is to reply to some comments which have been made by gentlemen upon the argument which I submitted to the House on a former day. Some strictures, I understand, were made upon my remarks on yesterday b the Gentfrom Indiana, Pk. deiioxr. I do not know that I feel called n on to rely to the Gentfrom Indiana, or several) reasons. 1st, because I was unavoidably absent from the House when he made myvremarks the text for his discussion; 2ndly. because his remarks are not printed in the Globe today, and I have, therefore, no authoritative version of what he did say; and 3rd ly, if the tenor of his remarks was of the character which has been privately reported to me, I do not think that I am called upon to make any reply to them. I do not think that I owe it either to myself or to this House to make any reply to them. I suppose, indeed I have no doubt, that the gentleman displayed the usual characteristics of his with and indulged in the usual refined style of rhetoric which [have listened to from him before in this House, and I have no doubt the House enjoyed the performance as much as it usually does upon those occasions. I have, however, a few remarks to make in reply to the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Min PAixe] who, I very much regret to see, is not in his seat, and who, I much more regret to hear from the chairman of the committee, [Mr. Seusseg] is detained from his seat by indisposition. I desired to submit some remarks to him, because Iknow that he is agentlemnii who is careful in what he says, who can appreciate the language of laws, who knows the force and effect of law, and who will not dismiss from the discussion the laws of the U.S. with the flippancy which substitutes attempted with for argument. Now, sir, the Gentfrom Wisconsin takes issue with me in regard to the law on the subject of rations. Sir, I do not profess to know much about the practice in reference to this matter in the Army. I have not had the benefit of the experience upon that subject which many gentlemen in this House have had. I cannot speak with any authority with reference to the practice, but I begt c House to believe that I have not spoken upon this subject without having examined the law whichis ap licable to it. And by the side of that law I 0 not care what your Army Regulations are, which are a mere abstract made up in the Bureaus and bound together, their various parts often conflicting with one another. I care not what those regulations may be. The law permits an officer to draw rations in kind, and there is no authority in this Government to refuse that privilege to him in the face of the law which secures it to him. Now, the Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. DU Mox'r] if I am correctly informed, says that I spoke upon this subject without knowing anything about it. Sir. I do not profess to know so much about military affairs as the Gentfrom Indiana, butI do profess to know the meaning of a statute which is written n on the face of the statute book of the U.S., when there is nothing ambiguous in its terms, and I tell the Gentfrom Indiana that I can trace upon the statute book of the U.S. from the year 1790 down to the year 1863 this provision which he denies to be aw. I have upon' my notes reference to no less than 25 acts of Congress which either directly or y reference to former statutes place that provision in our laws. The very last one, that of 1861. adopts and incorporates in the provisions of the laws which regulate the Arm the very provision of the act of 1802, which act is the foundation of the law now regulating the Army of the U.S., althoug it may be sneered at because it is more than 40 years old. Sir, the act which made the slave trade piracy is more than 40 years old, but I suppose that no gentleman upon this floor would have the hardihood to contend that it has been repealed because it was passed in 1820. I wish now to turn for a moment to the language of these laws; and the 1st to which I will refer is the act of 1790, the 7th section of which expressly says that "the commissioned officers aforesaid shall be entitled to receive for theirdaily subsistence the following ration of provisions, to wit.” The law then goes ontogive the amcuntof rovisioustowhich each officer shall be entitle, and then it adds, “or moneyin lieu thereof, at the option of the said Officer.” That was the law in 1790, after the adoption of the Constitution, when the 1st Army of the U.S. was organized. There are 25 subsequent acts of Congress which retain that provision. They are as follows: April 80, 1790; March 3, 1791; March 5, 1792; May 9, 1794; March 8, 1795; May 30, 1796; May 28, 1798; July 16, 1798; March 2, 1799; March 3, 1799; March 16, 1802; April 12, 1808; January 2, 1812; January 11, 1812; January '29, 1813; March 3, 1815; March 2, 1821; June 16, 1832; May 23, 1836; July 5, 1888; May 19, 1846; February 11, 1847; February 21, 1857; July 29, 1861. In 1802 there was a general reorganization of the Army, and the provisions of the act of 1802 are, by references in all subsequent acts, made the foundation for the present. organization of the Army of the U.S., and the provisions of that law are, in most respects, the present existing provisions of law in reference to the Arm of the U.S., made so by express reference and incorporation of those provisions in later laws. The act of 1802 provides that" The commissioned officers aforesaid shall beenti itnlegd to receit'efor their daily subsistencethe follow number of rations of provisions." It then goes on to give the number of rations to which each officer shall be entitled; and then it adds: "0r money in lieu thereof at the option of said officeror cadet." In the year 1808, when the Army was again reorganized, the same provision was incorporate in the law with this addition: "That the subsistenceof the officersof the Army. when not in kind shall be estimatedat 25 centsper ration." The act of 1857, as we all know, raised the commutation price of rations to 30 cents. Now, sir, I cannot, in the limited time allotted to me by the courtesy of the chairman of the ComMilAffairs, go through all these various acts 0 Congress and I should probably weary the patience of the House if I undertook to do so. Finally, I desire to call the attention of the House to the act of 1861, entitled “An act to increase the present military establishment of the U.S.” That was an act passed in the beginning of the war to put down terebellion. That act declares “That all officersand enlisted men raised in pursuance of the foregoing sections shall receive the same pay. emoluments, and allowances and be on the same footing, in every respect, of those of the correspondinggradesand corps now in the regular service."