diers of the Regular Army while prisoners of war the same pay and emoluments as if in actual service and this usage has continued to the present time. Inasmuch as the general policy of our military system has been to place the militia when sworn into the service of the United States on the same footing with the Regular Army the act referred to was probably not necessary to secure them their pay and emoluments while prisoners of war, so long as the term of their enlistment remained unexpired. The principal if not the sole object of the act was to continue to them and to non-commissioned officers and privates of the Regular Army their pay and emoluments after the expiration of their term of enlistment. This is made manifest by the fact that while officers and non-commissioned officers and privates of the militia and non-commissioned officers and privates of the Regular Army whose periods of enlistment are all liable to expire during their captivity are specially named the officers of the Regular Army who are appointed for life are omitted.

The fifth section of the act of 22nd July, 1861, chapter 17, declares that the officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the volunteer corps organized by it shall in all respects be placed on the footing as to pay and allowances as similar corps of the Regular Army. In view of this act and of that of 30th March, 1814, and of uniform usage, officers, &c., whether of the militia or Regular Army, are entitled during their captivity to the same pay, subsistence and allowances to which they would have been entitled had they been in the actual service of the United States.

Officers while in actual service or doing active duty as General Orders, Numbers 9, expresses it, may under existing laws claim certain allowances upon condition; that is they are entitled to allowances for horses and servant provided they have them in their service but not otherwise. The act and the general order quoted as well as settled usage service. To this extent do they go but no further. Is an officer under such circumstances entitled to an allowance for horses when he has none, and for servants, when in fact none have been employed by him? Unquestionably not. Such a construction would not give him the same pay, subsistence and allowances as if he were in actual service but a different and larger allowance. In a word, it would make his condition during captivity a better one so far as pay and allowances are concerned than it could have been had be been in actual service. This result is not contemplated by the law or general order, nor can the language or spirit of either be held to justify it. If allowed it would be the announcement of a fatal policy and would be the offer of a direct bounty to our armies rather to yield than to resist the enemy in battle. When the Government places the captured officer and soldier on the same footing with those who resist and overcome the enemy it goes as fa in that direction as the public safety will permit.

The first section of act of 17th July, 1862, chapter 200, after abolishing communication for forage, declares that "it shall hereafter be issued to officers in kind actually kept by them when and at the place where they are on duty not exceeding the number authorized by law. " The stringency of this enactment would seem necessarily to cut off all allowances to officers for forage while prisoners of war.

No such stringency of legislation, however, has obtained in reference to allowances for servants. The servants of an officer need not necessarily attend upon his person. They may perform their duties at his home or elsewhere as he may direct. The law not inquire what