the flag a damned old rag." At this junc

ture old Ishmael Day rushed instantly up stairs, where he kept two guns loaded, seized one, shot and killed the traitor who had insulted the national flag, and immediately, with the other gun, he pursued the remaining rebel, who succeeded in making his escape. Very soon the whole party of raiders came upon the old man, threatened his life, and burned and destroyed his property, being all that he possessed in the world.

The matter was presented to the consideration of the late President of the United States, who directed that the amount of the loss sustained by the petitioner should be collected by military order and assessment by a levy upon the property of disloyal, rebel sympathizers of the vicinity. But this order, for some reason unknown, was never executed; nor has the petitioner ever received any compensation for any part of his loss in thus defending his country's flag.

The constitutional convention of Maryland, which met soon after Day's display of patriotism and loyalty, passed by a large majority the following:

"Ordered, That the thanks of this convention, representing as it does the people of Maryland, are hereby tendered to the old citizen and patriot of Baltimore county, Ishmael Day, for his heroic and gallant act in shooting down the traitor who dared to pull down his country's flag which he had raised as an evidence of his loyalty and patriotism, which act of daring heroism meets the approbation of the heart and conscience of every loyal citizen of Maryland."

The committee felt that in this case, in the case of this old man, of seventy-four years of age, who, in the midst of that treacherous community in which he lived, remained firm and true to the flag of his country; who never retired at night but he prayed a prayer for our imperiled nation and never rose in the morning but he raised the flag over his door-step; who, when that flag was torn down by a ruthless hand, shot the traitor who did it; and who in consequence of that act was sent forth in his old age to wander upon the face of the earth without a roof to shelter him-in this case the committee thought they were justified in presenting this bill and report.

I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, when in the outbreak of the rebellion, when the Union was in jeopardy from traitors North and South and in foreign countries, and even when the Administration seemed to be conspiring to overthrow the Government, that the first inspiration we rad from official circles, the first word of encouragement from Washington which sent a thrill of joy to every partriotic heart, was the injunction of General John A. Dix to his subordinates, "Whoever shall haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot." That injunction has become "as familiar as household words." It has rendered his name immortal. Old Ishmael Day obeyed that injunction and shot the traitor on the spot. Allow me to express the fervent hope, through all the perils which shall beset our national life in coming ages, may this injunction be remembered and the example of old Ishmael Day shine out to fire the hearts and inspire the arms of our peo

stamp upon this act the seal of our approbation. I hope there will be no dissenting voice. Mr. UPSON. Is this to pay for property destroyed by rebels?

The committee further state that they do not regard a recommendation of this claim as establishing any precedent for the payment of other claims for damages resulting from the ravages of war.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I should like to have read the resolution adopted by the House on the report of this committee, which forbids any claim of this kind going to that committee.

Mr. WARD. will answer the gentleman if he will allow me. That resolution applied only to the States that had been in the rebellion. It does not of course apply to Maryland.

Mr. LOAN. Mr. Speaker, I would cheerfully support this measure if I could do so consistently; but this same Committee of Claims, in the case of a lady from Springfield, Missouri, who lost all of her property of every character and description by the ravages of war, who also lost her husband and has been left penniless with six children to support, reported adversely to it under the rule which they established. If a claim of that kind could not receive a favorable consideration, I do not see why we should make an exception in this case. I think it should fare the common fate and be rejected like all the others.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Claims have not been lavish of their favors, as the House will bear witness. They have felt, as the guardians of the public Treasury at this critical time in our affairs financially, we should be careful what kind of claims they should allow or recommend to the House. They have chosen to be just rather than to be generous, and hence a great many claims appealing strongly to our sympathy and patriotism have been rejected by the committee, not because of unwillingness to give relief in these cases, but because of the condition of our finances and because they would establish a precedent which might involve the country in the payment of large amounts of money.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is for shooting down a traitor.

Mr. UPSON. On what principle is it pro

it to be carried out?

Mr. WARD. He has shot down a traitor for hauling down the American flag. I would sustain every one who sustained the American flag in that way. Idemand the previous ques

tion.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. ROGERS demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DELANO. I see that in some parts of the House this question is not exactly understood. The rule of the committee is to reject all claims for damages that are the result of the ravages of war. This man was a loser to the amount of some seven or eight thousand dollars, perhaps more. The committee felt that they could do nothing for him, but that his circumstances were peculiar, his act noble, and such as commended itself to the hearts of every one. Under these circumstances they proposed to submit to this House the propriety of giving this old man for the remaining years of his life, that are fast running out, who in his old age exhibited this high degree of gallantry and patriotism, a small pension. It is $400 a year. Let us give him something. If $400 is too much reduce it, but I think it is not too much.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I understood it was for property destroyed by the rebels. Mr. DELANO. I knew very well that the question was not understood, and therefore I made this explanation.

Several MEMBERS. We will go for it now. Mr. WARD. I now move the previous question.

Mr. HALE. A single suggestion. If this is a pension bill it ought to go to the Committee on Pensions.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question being taken on the passage of the bill, it was decided in the affirmativeyeas 107, nays 13, not voting 63; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Conkling, Cook, Davis, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Goodyear, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hogan, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Marshall, Marvin, McKee, MeRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Moulton, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson. Perham, Phelps, Plants, Price, Samuel J. Randall, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-107.

NAYS-Messrs. Beaman, Benjamin, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Hale, Harris, Longyear, Niblack, Nicholson, Rogers, Upson, and Elihu B. Washburne-13.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, James M. Ashley, Barker, Bergen, Blow, Brandegee, Chanler, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Deming, Denison, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Glossbrenner, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Hart, Hill, Holmes, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Kerr, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Loan, Marston, McClurg, McCullough, McIndoe, Morrill, Myers. Noell, Pike, Pomeroy, Radford, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Trimble, Van Aernam, Whaley, Winfield, and Wright-63.

So the bill was passed.

During the roll-call,

Mr. VAN HORN, of Missouri, stated that his colleague, Mr. NOELL, was confined to his house by sickness.

Mr. BROOMALL stated that Mr. STARR was detained at his house by sickness

Mr. ANCONA stated that his colleague, Mr. JOHNSON, was detained at his house by sickness, and that Mr. DENISON had paired with Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio.

The result having been announced as above recorded,

Mr. WARD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

JOHN WELLS AND SONS.

upon

Mr. DELANO, from the Committee of Claims, reported a joint resolution for the relief of John Wells & Sons.

The joint resolution was read. It authorizes the remission of so much of the penalty incurred by reason of the failure of John Wells & Sons, of Baltimore, to complete their contract in 1863 for repairing the steamer City of Albany, as may not be covered by the actual loss of the Government by reason of the delay in the completion of the said steamer in accordance with the strict terms of the contract.

Mr. DELANO. There is a written report, but I can give the House the facts of the case, and then gentlemen may call for the reading of the report if they choose.

The memorialists contracted for the repair of this steamer, with a penalty in the contract of $200 a day for every day that might transpire beyond the time agreed upon for the completion of the repairs. Various circumstances, over which the contractors had not altogether a control, caused a delay of forty-five days, so that the penalty amounted to $9,000, and the entire contract price was only $7,835. The difference between those two sums, namely, $1,675, has been paid under protest.

Now, the examination shows to the satisfaction of the committee that it turns out that the vessel was not required for service during the interval of time, and that the Government did not actually sustain any damage for the want of its use. It seemed to the committee unjust to demand the bond, Shylock-like, for this penalty; and yet they did not feel disposed to decide that there were no damages sustained

by the Government. They, therefore, refer the matter to the Government to say how much actual damages they sustained by reason of the delay in furuishing the vessel, and they allow so much of the penalty to be remitted as was not covered by actual loss.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is that the purport of this joint resolution?

Mr. DELANO. That is its purport, and its language is clear and explicit, and that is all there is in the case.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. DELANO moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

THEODORE G. EISWALD.

Mr. DELANO also, from the Committee of Claims, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, bill of the Senate No. 250, for the relief of Theodore G. Eiswald.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue and pay to Theodore G. Eiswald, of Providence, Rhode Island, two United States seven-thirty bonds of $1,000 each, with coupons attached, in lieu of two such bonds owned by him and destroyed by fire, the charred remains thereof being now deposited in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, the claimant being required to execute a bond to be approved by the Solicitor of the Treasury indemnifying the United States against any loss, cost, or damages on account of the issuing of such bonds,

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to have the report read in this case if there

be one.

Mr. DELANO. There is a Senate report, but I can give the gentleman from Illinois a briefer statement of the facts.

The evidence is clear that two seven-thirty bonds of $1,000 each, by having been accidentally placed in an exposed position on a stove, were burnt, that the charred remains were taken to the Treasury Department, and that the bonds were identified by their numbers. That is attested by the certificate of the officers. The proof of the destruction and also of the identity of the bonds is perfectly clear. The Department itself is satisfied that it is proper that a law should be passed authorizing these bonds to be renewed.

I desire to say here to the House that this subject is one which has given the Committee of Claims great anxiety, and that their rule is to recommend, in the first place, the duplicating of no bond without the most perfect and satisfactory proof of its destruction; and they have gone further and refused to authorize the duplicating of any securities issued by the Government that come under the class of circulation, including compound-interest notes. The committee recommend the passage of this bill. The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. DELANO moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the

table.

2. The report of Major Beauregard in 1852 or in 1853 relative to success of tow-boat company in deepening Southwest Pass as per contract.

There being no objection, the resolution was received and agreed to.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE.

On motion of Mr. DRIGGS, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Public Lands were discharged from the further consideration of the petition of John B. Chapman, and the same was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

PUBLIC PRINTING APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering a small bill making appropriation for a deficiency in the appropriations for the public printing. I understand that the money is needed this month.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SMITH in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being bill of the House No. 500, making appropriations to supply a deficiency in the appropriation for the public printing for the year ending June 30,

1866.

The bill was read by clauses for amendment, but no amendments were offered.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.

Mr. SPALDING. I hope the committee will lay aside this bill and take up House bill No. 211, to authorize the President to appoint certain officers of his household and fixing their duties. The bill has been in the committee for a long time, and it will take but ten minutes to dispose of it.

Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the committee will not proceed to any other business. I yielded to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations only to dispose of the one bill.

Mr. SPALDING. This bill will not take more than ten minutes.

Mr. SCHENCK. It will take much more time than that, I am sure.

Mr. STEVENS. I insist on my motion that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SMITH reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the special || order, being bill of the House No. 500, making appropriations to supply a deficiency in the appropriations for the public printing for the year ending June 30, 1866, and had directed him to report the same to the House without amendment, and with the recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. STEVENS. I move the previous question on the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 361) entitled "An act to reorganize and establish the Army of the United States.'

The following section was under consideration:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Adjutant General's department of the Army shall hereafter consist of the number of officers now authorized by law, namely, one adjutant general, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assistant adjutant generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry; four adjutants,

with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels of cavalry; and thirteen adjutants, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry. But after the first appointments made under the provisions of this section, as vacancies may occur in the grade of major, no appointment shall be made to fill such vacancy until the number of majors in the department shall be reduced to ten, to which number the said grade shall thereafter be limited.

The pending question was upon the motion of Mr. THAYER to strike out all of the section after the enacting clause, and insert the following:

That the Adjutant General's department shall hereafter consist of the officers now authorized by law, and their rank shall be as follows, namely: one adjutant general, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; four assistant adjutant generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry; five assistant adjutant generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels; and ten assistant adjutant generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of inajors.

Mr. SCHENCK. Before the vote is taken upon the substitute, I will move, for the purpose of perfecting the section, to add the following proviso:

Provided. That nothing in this section shall be construed to vacate the commission of any officer now commissioned as assistant adjutant general, but only to change the title to adjutant, in the case of those who rank as lieutenant colonels and majors, without affecting in any way their relative position, or the time from which they take such rank.

Those of the members of the House who remember the discussion upon this subject yesterday, will see that the amendment I have offered removes the objection which was made, that there might by some possibility be a construction of the law, if this bill should be passed as reported by the committee, so as to legislate out of office these particular gentlemen.

There was one other objection to the section made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] upon which I wish to make a very brief comment. It has been the object of the committee throughout to legislate, not with reference to persons, but with a view of. establishing an Army system, having reference to all the various departments of that Army. For that reason, in fixing these bureaus, the committee have adopted this language in regard to each department of the staff-shall hereafter consist of the number of officers now authorized by law." The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that that is wrong, that it ought to be made to read, "shall consist of the officers now authorized by law." In other words, we are asked to legislate with a view to particular incumbents, to the class of persons who now hold the offices.

Now, I should like to know from the gentleman from Philadelphia, [Mr. THAYER,] who is learned in the law, what will become of this department when all these officers die or resign. If you decide that this department shall consist of these particular officers it cannot consist of any other officers. Now, we prefer that the department shall consist of a certain number of officers for all time to come; and that when the offices shall be vacated by death, resignation, or otherwise, the number shall be kept full by subsequent appointments, except wherein we have otherwise provided. As we are to have the application of nice construction of law, I repeat that if you legislate that the departments shall consist of certain officers who now hold certain positions, nobody else can hold those positions until you change the law so as to let others in.

Then, again, the last part of the section which it is proposed to strike out provides for a decrease of the Adjutant General's force hereafter as vacancies shall occur. Now, I do not wish to be repeating arguments which have been already submitted to the House any further than may seem to be absolutely necessary. But I will say this in reference to that and kindred propositions contained in other sections relating to the bureaus; we have been satisfied, in reference to many of these bureaus, that the gradual increase of their numbers has been carried beyond the necessities of the Army; we have been satisfied that this is the continual tendency of legislation, and we think that a great many of the duties of this bureau, as

well as of other military bureaus, might just as well be performed by men who have not received a full military education.

Now, the proposition to strike out the section includes that restriction of the number of majors hereafter to ten, which is but a small reduction in the Adjutant General's department. There is a larger reduction proposed in regard to some of the other bureaus, to which the House may or may not agree, according as they shall or shall not concur in the recommendations of the committee. But the general opinion of the committee is that there are but few officers needed here at headquarters, such as the chief of the department, and some proper assistants to supervise, direct, and control the affairs of the department. Our opinion is that you do not need officers with a military education to remain here month after month, and year after year, to be compelled to remain here as some of them have been, to perform clerical duties. That general feature runs through the whole bill; and the remark is as applicable to other bureaus, and still more applicable to some of them than to the Adjutant General's depart

ment.

I hope, therefore, that the section will not be stricken out, but that the gentleman will withdraw his objection to it. The amendment which I propose certainly removes most of the objections which have been urged against the section. I trust that the amendment will be adopted, and that the section will not be stricken out, carrying with it all this wholesome legislation, as we intended it to be, restricting the number of officers in that bureau.

Mr. BLAINE. I do not understand by what kind of arithmetic my honorable friend, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, makes it out that, while when the Army was only eleven thousand there was a demand for fourteen officers in the Adjutant General's Bureau, yet, when we have an army of eighty thousand there should not be more than twenty of these officers; and it is even proposed to cut the number down to seventeen. Instead of increasing the officers of the Adjutant General's Bureau fourfold, as you propose to increase the regular Army, you do not propose to make an increase of fifty per cent. in the number of officers engaged in that bureau.

that clerks could have performed as well; yet he speaks this morning of some who were compelled to stay here. I know that some of these officers have been compelled to stay here in Washington against their will although they again and again applied for field service. They were refused because they were wanted in the Adjutant General's office in Washington.

One word more. This bill provides for one lieutenant general, five major generals, and ten brigadier generals, sixteen general officers who are entitled to assistant adjutant generals. In the War Department you have only twenty in all. There is never a time you do not have six or eight in the War Department. Take six out of twenty and you do not leave an assistant adjutant general for each general you authorize. Instead of being reduced it ought to be increased. If I did not have the highest respect for my friend from Ohio I would say that the proposition was preposterous to have the number reduced.

Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say a word first in regard to the criticism of the gentleman from Ohio on the word "number" in this section which I propose to strike out and which he thinks it would be improper to strike out. It appears to me that when you put into this law a provision that the Adjutant General's department should consist of a certain number of officers, and when in a subsequent part of the section you put in a provision such as is contained in this section, you thereby give clear intimation of your intention to vacate existing oflices and to provide for new appointments. It was for that reason I could not consent to the insertion of the word "number." I think that the force of that objection still remains.

I desire to say a few words on what the Quartermaster General calls the "awkward titles," and which are proposed to be abolished. It has been the settled practice of the Military Department of the Government for a long time to have what are styled assistants in the several bureaus of that Department. We have in the War Department, I think, an assistant in every bureau of that Department. Commencing with the Secretary of War himself, we have an Assistant Secretary of War, we have assistant adjutant generals, we have assistant quartermaster generals, an assistant paymaster general, an assistant surgeon general, an assistant judge advocate general, an assistant provost marshal general.

One word now as to the nomenclature. The gentleman from Ohio desires that all officers below a certain rank shall be called adjutants. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be found to be true, as a general principle, that wherever a usage has grown up in the Army, whether with reference to titles or anything else, you will find, when you go to the bottom of the matter, that there is some good reason for this usage; and it is not safe to abolish such usages without full inquiry. Suppose, now, that this proposition should prevail, and that one of these adjutants should be detailed on the staff of a brigadier general commanding at St. Louis. Well, there are two or three regiments there, each having its adjutant. Then there are the post adjutants. These are all adjutants. There is no officer there directly connected with the staff department at Washing-ment? ton, known as the assistant adjutant general.

Now, in the military department there is no officer whose position, as connected with the War Department at Washington while upon the staff of a brigadier general. is better understood than an assistant adjutant general. It means a specific thing in the military service. It is not to be confounded with post adjutant or regimental adjutant. If you change the name, as the gentleman from Ohio desires, you only lead to confusion.

Mr. SCHENCK. As it is now, they are all assistant adjutant generals. If they cannot all have the same titles as adjutants, why should all have the title of adjutant generals?

Mr. BLAINE. The moment you change that you have gone to sea on the subject.

Yesterday my friend from Ohio spoke about the officers who remained in the staff departments of the Army in this city doing the duty

If the objection of the "awkward titles" is good to those titles in the Adjutant General's staff, I ask the gentleman from Ohio why he does not propose to abolish all those titles in the other bureaus of the War Department. Why does he retain an officer with the title of assistant commissary general, or with the title of assistant paymaster general, or assistant surgeon general, or assistant judge advocate general, or assistant provost marshal general? Why is the verbal reform he is so anxious to inaugurate in this bill not applied to all of the bureaus of the War Department? Why does he restrict it to the Adjutant General's department, or the Quartermaster General's depart

If this is an inconvenient title, sir, it has endured for a long time without the discovery of the inconvenience, for these titles have been employed in the War Department since 1838, when these offices were created. They are titles which have been found to be of great convenience in the dispatch of business, not only in the various bureaus of the War Department but in all branches of the civil service also. There is no Department of the civil gov ernment, I believe, which has not those assistants also. We have an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, an Assistant Secretary of the Navy, an Assistant Secretary of State, an Assistant Attorney General, &c.

Now, why select two bureaus of the War Department as proper subjects for this reform in nomenclature, and leave all the others untouched in this respect?

Sir, I see no inconvenience arising from

these titles. On the contrary I see great confusion and injustice arising from what is called the proposed verbal reform. I am aware that the gentleman had for this the authority of a suggestion made by the Quartermaster General in a letter dated December 18, 1865, which he addressed to the Lieutenant General, and which is now before me. I have good reason to believe that the Lieutenant General does not approve of these proposed alterations.

The Quartermaster General in that letter made this suggestion, of giving up, as he expressed it, the awkward titles of assistant and deputy quartermaster general, "which are relics," as he says, "of the days when the corps was a civil, and not a military body, attached to rather than forming a constituent part of the Army."

Now, sir, I may be mistaken, but I have a strong impression that in making that assertion the Quartermaster General fell into a very grave error. I believe it is an undoubted fact that the Quartermaster General's department has always been an integral part of the Army of the United States. There never was a dayand if I am wrong, I ask the chairman of the Military Committee to correct me-when it was. a civil department of the public service.

The first Quartermaster General of the United States was General Mifflin of my own State, during the revolutionary war; and he was a brigadier general in the service. So also General Pickens and General Greene, both of whom subsequently filled this office, were not only men of military rank, but men of the highest military character and ability, and they both had the rank of brigadier general.

The quartermaster's department has always been treated in the public laws and recognized by Congress as an integral part of the Army, and never as a department of the civil service attached to the Army. Therefore the reason which was suggested by the Quartermaster General for this change, it seems to me, was totally unfounded in fact.

Now, sir, this change was recommended by the Quartermaster General in regard to his own bureau. He did not of course undertake to recommend its application to bureaus with which he had no official connection. He recommended it for his own department as an alteration to be made there, and in the draft of a bill, or a project for a bill which is annexed to his letter, he put in a proviso that no officer of the department should be discharged from the service in the execution of the law. It was very proper to do that, but it was, I am obliged to say, a totally inadequate remedy or compensation for the unavoidable mischief and injustice resulting from the abolition of these offices or titles; because under that proviso, as it was recommended by the Quartermaster General, these officers, although they might have obtained new commissions, would all have lost many years of rank in the service. This would necessarily result from the necessity of their being recommissioned.

The rank which they had earned by long years of service would have been taken away from them. This, of course, was not intended by the Quartermaster General in the suggestion which he made. I have said that the Quartermaster General's department has always been recognized and treated as a constituent part of the Army. Let me advert briefly to the legislative history of this department. The department underwent various alterations after the Revolution, until the war with England, in 1812, when it was increased and reorganized by placing General Swartwout at the head of it as chief of the department, with the rank of brigadier general, four quartermaster generals with the rank of colonel, (increased in 1814 to seven,) twelve deputy quartermaster generals, and thirty assistant deputy quartermaster genI refer to the Army Register, dated January 1, 1815.

erals.

At the reduction of the Army in May, 1815, the quartermaster's department was greatly reduced; yet General Swartwout was retained with the rank of brigadier general; this rank

he retained until May, 1816, when the department was reorganized by having two Quartermaster Generals with the rank of colonel at the head of it. This organization continued until the 8th of May, 1818, when it was again reorganized with a brigadier general at its head, and it was established as a bureau at Washington. It has continued with a brigadier general at its head ever since. Occasionally the number of its officers was increased, until July, 1838, when it was fully reorganized, restoring the grades which had formerly existed, with a slight alteration; the colonels being styled assistant quartermaster generals, (not quartermaster generals, as in previous laws,) and the deputy quartermaster generals with the rank of lieutenant colonel, (a rank still,) which had existed by act of March 3, 1799. It has continued as established in 1838, through two wars and many years of peace, without any inconvenience and without the titles being considered "awkward.”

During all this time the officers of the quartermaster's department have been borne on the Army Register as a constituent part of the Army, as officers of the general staff.

I have made these observations in order to demonstrate that the department has always been regarded and treated as a military department, and not as a civil department attached to the Army.

The remarks which I have made in reference to the Quartermaster General's department have been prompted by the effort which has been made to uphold the proposed changes in the Adjutant General's department, by a reference to the suggestion which was made by the Quartermaster General for alteration in the titles of officers in that department. I hope the changes proposed in the thirteenth section relative to the Adjutant General's department will not be made, but that the House will adopt the substitute which I have offered.

The

Mr. DAVIS. I beg to make a remark in connection with the amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. I think he is entirely in error in striking out the term "assistant" in connection with "adjutant" in this department, and I wish to assign one reason which has not to my knowledge been adverted to on this floor. assistant adjutant generals are directly connected with the military department at Washington. For instance, General Seth Williams was assistant adjutant general in the army of the Potomac, representing the Adjutant General's department at Washington, under Burnside and Meade and every other general who had command in that department. His relations with the generals in command were not those of a staff officer; his relations were with the Department here, and although he issued the orders of the generals in command, those orders belonged to the Department at Washngton. He had custody of the records, and even an order issued by the general in command of the department could not control these records. They belong here, and the duty of the assistant adjutant general is to see that they are presented here as part of the records to be kept at Washington.

Now, I wish to say in connection with this question, that from every military department during the war we have accumulated, through the assistant adjutant generals, all the records pertaining to this war, and that there are in this city a number of buildings filled and stored with these records which are of invaluable service both to the troops and officers of the Army and to the history of the country, by reason of the fact that these assistant adjutant generals are under the direct control of the Department at Washington.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on the floor I may perhaps be permitted to allude to another matter. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs has, I doubt not without intending any unkindness, not only reflected upon the general efficiency of these depart ments in Washington, but he has declared here that to a great extent positions in them are

retained by certain persons as a matter of favoritism as "soft places."

Mr. SCHENCK. I will ask my friend to point to one single phrase or sentence of that kind in anything I may have said. I have said nothing, whatever I may think of anybody in any department, making a reflection upon any department.

Mr. DAVIS. I did not understand the gentleman to refer to special persons.

Mr. SCHENCK. Nor to any department. Mr. DAVIS. I beg pardon if I have misunderstood the gentleman. If I have not misunderstood him, I think he will make the admission. I did understand the honorable gentleman to say here upon this floor, yesterday, that these men in the departments were assigned to "soft" and "easy" places, and that they had shirked the responsibilities of the war.

Mr. SCHENCK. I never used any such language; but now, as the gentleman presses it on me, I will say that as to the greater number of those employed here, while many of them, I believe, would have preferred to have been on active service in the field, but were compelled to stay here by the importance of their services, I do believe that others were here because they preferred to remain here. But, sir, I said nothing of that kind before. I say now that I believe there are officers in some of these departments who preferred to have these places to being in the field. I hope I am now understood. But I made no general charge of that kind, nor do I now.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not intend to go behind the walls of the department for the purpose of passing judgment upon every individual who is within them.

Mr. SCHENCK. Nor do I.

Mr. DAVIS. I do say, however, that the officers connected with the departments at Washington have performed services as valuable to the Government as those who have been in the field.

Mr. SCHENCK. And I have said nothing less of them.

Mr. DAVIS. But the gentleman says that there are individuals in the departments who have been willing to shirk the dangers of the field.

Mr. SCHENCK. I did not use that term at all.

Mr. DAVIS. I know, sir, that there are officers who went into the Veteran Reserve corps when they might have gone to the front, men whose wounds had been healed.

I know officers in the Army who look with distrust upon many persons who entered the Veteran Reserve corps. I know one gallant officer from my own district who, with a wound of an inch and a half in diameter through his body, with a seton in the wound and entirely through his body, went with Sherman's army day and night from Tennessee to Atlanta, and from Atlanta to the coast, fighting on the mountains above the clouds, and never went to the hospital on account of his wound except

when he was in camp. But there are many men in the Veteran Reserve corps who entered it for the easy places in it.

Now, if there are some individuals in these bureaus who have been willing themselves to avoid danger, I can only say that it is in accord

ance with the weakness of human nature. But the men of this department have worked day and night, for I have seen them at their desks day after day and night after night, until physical nature was almost exhausted. And in some instances I have implored them to go away upon the furlough which the Secretary of War was willing to grant them. But no, they remained faithfully at their duties, although they pressingly entreated to be relieved from duty here and allowed to go to the field.

In looking over the lists of officers in the department, I find that of the assistant quartermaster generals now on service here, a large proportion of them have seen service in the field, and some of them have been wounded and disabled in the service. And you will not find in

any department more faithful, efficient, and hard-working officers than the Adjutant General himself, or than his assistants, Hardee, Breck, Vincent, and others. I know personally many of the men in this department; and I do not know one of them who has not rendered efficient and faithful service in the field.

I trust, therefore, that we shall not, by the legislation we adopt here, do any injustice to these men. But I hope we shall be allowed to have the Army bill which was commended to us by the General-in-Chief, and by all our prominent generals.

Mr. SCHENCK. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. DAVIS] has said nothing about my amendment, I ask that it may be again read in order that the House may know upon what we are acting.

The amendment was read.

The question was taken upon the amendment, and it was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. In order to remove all possible objection, I will move to further amend the section by striking out the words "after the first appointments made under the provisions of this section;" so that it shall read, 'but as vacancies shall occur in the grade of major," &c.

66

The amendment was agreed to.

The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. THAYER, by way of a substitute for the entire section as amended.

Mr. SCHENCK. Before the vote is taken upon striking out the section as amended, I must beg the indulgence of the House, as I seem to be left alone to attend to this matter on behalf of the Military Committee, to say a few words by way of comment upon what has been said by gentlemen who have addressed this House, so far as their remarks are pertinent to this section. By the amendments which I have offered, and which have been adopted by the House, this whole matter is now reduced to a simple question of taste and propriety in regard to the titles of these officers, except that the amendment now pending proposes to increase the number of officers as well as to fix their titles.

Mr. BLAINE. I beg the gentleman's pardon; I do not propose to increase the number of officers, but merely to increase the rank of some three of the majors.

Mr. SCHENCK. He proposes to provide for certain officers in the department who have acquitted themselves well. Now, upon that point I have simply this remark to make: in legislating upon this subject I have tried to legislate in regard to things and not in regard to persons. One officer who has been referred to here, and who has been named, and therefore there will be no impropriety in my repeating his name-Colonel Vincent-now brigadier general by brevet, or it may be major general, for these officers go up so rapidly that I lose sight of their titles-he is an officer of whom nothing can be said in praise by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] to which I will not accede. Yet, no matter who or what one of these individuals may be, what I claim is that if I do not think it necessary to have two or three more colonels, and two or three or four more lieutenant colonels, I will not consent to make them a permanent part of the Army organization with a view to any particular purpose.

I hold that there is a propriety in deciding in the first place upon what your Army system requires, doing it without reference to persons, leaving persons to get the advantage of it or not afterward. Now, if the gentleman thinks, as I presume he does, that there ought to be a greater number of colonels and lieutenant colonels generally, without reference to the particular persons who may first fill these places, that is another question.

Mr. BLAINE. Will the gentleman from Ohio permit me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLAINE. I desire to say, in the first place, that the gentleman has, by a figure of speech-literally a figure of speech-increased the effect of my amendment. It provides for

only two more colonels and one more lieutenant colonel, making three officers in all. If the gentleman had given attention to what I attempted to say yesterday, he would remember that I distinctly took the ground that the Adjutant General's corps had not, according to the bill reported by the gentleman, as many officers of rank in proportion to other staff corps as it ought to have. My concern is not with regard to the effect of the bill on individuals; what I desire is the equalization of rank between the different staff corps, not discriminating against the corps which ought to be above the others. I say that, instead of discriminating against the Adjutant General's corps, our legislation should be in favor of that corps.

Mr. SCHENCK. I understand the gentleman, Mr. Speaker; and I repeat, there has been, in all these departments, a gradual, but though gradual, pretty rapid, creeping up in everything that relates to rank. Five years ago, when this war began, we had an Adjutant General, who, however, ranked only as a colonel. We now make him a brigadier general. At that time, one assistant adjutant general, ranking as a lieutenant colonel, was deemed sufficient. Now, there are two assistant adjutant generals in that bureau, both ranking as colonels. Then the Adjutant General's Bureau was satisfied with four majors and nine captains. We now propose to give its bureau thirteen majors and no captains. Everybody in that department is to be raised above the rank of captain. Thus it is continually with these bureaus. Step by step, from point to point, throughout our whole legislation for many years past, particularly since the war commenced, there has been a gradual advancement in number, titles, rank, and compensation.

Now, we propose to have for this increased regular Army as many of these officers as may be necessary. We assent to an advancement in numbers and rank. But the gentleman says this is not sufficient. While one colonel at the head of the Adjutant General's Bureau was formerly sufficient, we must now have not only one brigadier general, but four colonels. While formerly one lieutenant colonel served as an assistant, we must now have five lieutenant colonels as assistants. Besides, all the captains must be raised to majors, and the number of majors must be increased to thirteen.

But, sir, enough upon that point. I believe that this section makes ample provision for that department with regard both to the number and the rank of the officers; and however much I might be willing to gratify particular individuals or officers, I am not willing to ingraft upon the Army what I deem an unnecessary addition with respect to rank or numbers. Therefore I object to the amendment of the gentleman from Maine.

Now, as to this question of title, the_gentleman from Philadelphia [Mr. THAYER] was compelled in looking at the bill to shut one eye in order to sustain himself in his argument. "Why," asked he, "do you not have assistant adjutant generals? Why wipe them out entirely?" If the gentleman will read the bill, he will find that we provide for an Adjutant General, and for two assistant adjutant generals, with the rank of colonel, while all those who rank as lieutenant colonel or as major are to be called simply adjutants. So the gentleman is entirely mistaken.

Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman allow me to make a single remark by way of correction?

I say the gentleman has singled out these two departments

Mr. THAYER. If there was any inadvertence about it, I wish to say now I meant that the gentleman has abolished these titles in the Adjutant General's department and the quartermaster's department, while he has left the titles in all of the other bureaus.

Mr. SCHENCK. We thought there should be one or more assistants in each department. The Quartermaster General was satisfied as it was arranged in his department, and so we have left it. We have provided for an Adjutant General, and two assistants to take his place; the rest we call adjutants. My friend from Maine agrees with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that that is unprecedented and all wrong, because if you have adjutants in the field it will create confusion if you call them all adjutants. If you take them now in the field they are all called assistant adjutant generals, and there would be confusion, according to the gentleman's reasoning, because of the title, for in each case he would be an assistant adjutant general.

He says he must be called assistant adjutant general because he reports to the general head at Washington. Apply that to the other department. You have assistant quartermaster general and assistant quartermasters. There is a general head at Washington to report to. The same reasoning would make assistant quartermasters and assistant quartermaster generals in every case.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania says it is like the civil Departments, where you have a Secretary and an Assistant Secretary. I admit that, but you do not call all the clerks Assistant Secretaries. You have a Secretary, one or two Assistant Secretaries, and the rest of the subordinates you call clerks. So his illustration is a bad one indeed.

You are not to interfere with titles. Congress has interfered with titles again and again, There was a time, and if necessary I can refer to the statute, when we had a deputy adjutant general. That portion of the old cumbrous system was stricken off. Gentlemen will find it in the act of 1798. There was a time when you had not only a deputy quartermaster general but an assistant deputy quartermaster general. And when one was called to act in his place because of sickness or disability he had to sign himself A. A. D. Q. M. G., Acting Assistant Deputy Quartermaster General. Without those letters he could not indicate his title.

I believe differently from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [MT. THAYER.] I believe that the Quartermaster General showed his sense when he said it was time to get rid of these long, improper titles, and to call quartermasters quartermasters, and not assistant quartermasters. I believe the same thing in regard to the others, that instead of assistant adjutant general it is better to have an Adjutant General's department, and to have at the head of it an Adjutant General, with two or three assistant adjutant generals.

I think the gentleman is mistaken in regard to the title of deputy, as he will find if he goes back far enough. Deputy is not a military word. It has no military identity. It is mak ing a civic title of deputy into a military title. We have got rid of all that, or propose to get rid of it.

Mr. THAYER. I could not go back further than General Mifflin, who first filled this position.

Mr. SCHENCK. What time?

Mr. THAYER. I will tell the gentleman by referring to the paper.

Mr. SCHENCK. It is suggested that the gentleman may go back to 1492. [Laughter.] Mr. THAYER. No, sir.

Mr. SCHENCK. I will give the gentleman an opportunity to settle the question after he has consulted his authorities.

Mr. THAYER. It was May, 1776. He was Quartermaster General of the Army with the rank of general.

Mr. SCHENCK. By the amendments I have

made this morning and before the question is taken I will ask to have it read as amendedwe have removed objections thought to be so serious to the bill, and if the House does not want to give higher rank to these officers it will let the section stand as it is.

Mr. STEVENS. I want to know if I understand what this dispute is about. If I understand it, it is reduced to this, whether you shall say John Jack, or simply Jack-whether you shall say "assistant adjutant" or simply "adjutant.' If there is any confusion in a name, one is just about the same as the other in that respect.

Now as regards surplus titles, the German barons, having some nine or ten titles, would not like to part with any of them. I do not see why "adjutant general" is not as good as "deputy adjutant, or "assistant adjutant," especially when, if the amendment of the chairman of the committee is adopted, it is to make no difference in their rank or pay.

But I wish to say that if I understand it, the amendment of my colleague [Mr. THAYER] makes an increase in the pay of three officers. Instead of having thirteen with the rank and emoluments of major, he proposes ten, and to put the others into a higher rank. Now I do not know precisely what that is for. I do not know why it is necessary to increase the pay of those three instead of having it as it is in the bill-thirteen adjutants with the pay and emoluments of major. I have not heard any good reason yet. Are there not enough colonels who are willing to be appointed adjutants now? Why, therefore, increase the pay to this amount?

Then I cannot see any good reason why you shall not diminish the expense of the Army when you can do it without legislating anybody out of office. When they die, the number is to be reduced to ten.

A single word more. The whole question between my colleague [Mr. THAYER] and the committee amounts to this: a curtailment of the word "assistant," and making it read simply "adjutant," with an increase of the pay of three, and a prevention of the diminution of the expense when they go out of office by death or resignation (they are not legislated out) by three. That is the whole question. It is hardly worth quarreling about, but if you adopt the amendment of my colleague you largely increase the expense and prevent a reduction of the number of these officers.

Mr. THAYER. I will not detain the House but a moment. I wish to make an explanation in order that the House may act with full knowl edge of the present position of the question. The substitute which I offered makes no increase and no alteration in the present number or rank of the officers in that department.

Mr. STEVENS. It was a misapprehension on my part.

Mr. THAYER. No, sir, the gentleman is correct, but at the suggestion of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE,] I accepted his modification, which gave increased rank to two who are already assistant adjutant generals. It was not my understanding at the time the proposi tion was made by that gentleman that it would necessarily increase the pay. If I had known that I would not have accepted the modification. If, therefore, the House wishes to retain the present organization precisely as it is, with no alterations, all they have to do is to strike out the section and disagree to the amendment as modified by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE,] and I will offer the section of the Senate bill, which will keep the department precisely as it is, with no increase at all.

Mr. SCHENCK demanded the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, being first on the substitute proposed by Mr. THAYER.

Mr. UPSON. I ask for a division of the question.

The SPEAKER. A motion to strike out and insert is not divisible.

The question was taken; and there wereayes 35, noes 30; no quorum voting.