Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, the tem perature in this Chamber is too high to allow me to occupy the attention of the Senate but a short time. I cannot, however, forbear to make a feeble attempt, warm as it is, to say something by way of reply to the remarks which have been addressed more especially to me. the bill now before as does not call the attention of Congress to any individual cases ofhard ship which may have arisen in the course of the prosecution of the war in the rebel districts. As to such cases, as I remarked yesterday, I shall always hold myself ready to come to the relief of suffering humanity, and to do that which is generous and magnanimous to those who were at heart the friends of the Government in these districts. When such individual eases shall arise, they shall be sure of my careful attention; for I would not, under any circumstances, withhold from atrue Union man that which is justly his, or refuse to indemnify him for the loss of property while he was really and truly at heart a friend of the Union, and willing to aid in upholding it. Nor is the present bill founded upon the idea of making reparation for losses sustained by Union parties in the insurgent States who have actually rendered valuable service to the Union Army in the prosecution of the war. In such cases, where services have been actually and openly rendered by a person residing in a rebel community, I should always be read to indemnify him for his losses and to pay film for his services. I. The present bill is founded upon a different princip c. It assumes, and so ithas been argued by the honorable Senators from Wisconsin and NewHampshire, that there is a legal obligation on the Government to extend this indem nity to persons resident in the disloyal States who were, in the phrase of the bill, loyal to the Government of the U.S. It does not require any act of loyalty to have been performed by the claimant. It does not require that he should have acted even as a spy in be half of the Union Army; or thathe should have contributed a single dollar of his money; that he should have ever traveled a single rod from his own door, or furnished voluntarily for the service of the Union Army a mule or a horse, or any other article of property, or, in short, to have rendered the sh htest service openly and above board in behalf of the Union cause; but the bill contents itself, and its advocates here content themselves, With the fact, to be proved by exparte affidavits to be used before a person having no judicial power, that the claimant has been at heart friendly to the government, not that he should have done any not. to promote the interests of the U.S. during the war, but that he should have remained simply neutral at home, and entertained at heart sentiments friendly to the Union cause. Sir, I oppose this kind of legislation because I recognize no obligation whatever on the part of the Government to afford indemnity in such cases. The calamities of this war were brought not only upon the South but the North by the misconduct and traitorous proceedin s, not merely of individuals constitutingirregu ar and irresponsible masses within the insurgent districts amounting to little more than mere mobs, but by States organized as political communities, possessing all the attributes of sovereign political power, each with its Governor, its legislature, and its judiciary. It has been settle, as I before remarked, that the whole of the rebel States, one after another, as communities occupying territory and invested with the attributes of political power, and in the actual exercise otpthat power, have become by their own not the enemies of the Govern vment, and that their persons and their property, whether found upon the sea or the land were, in law, to be treated as enemies an enemies’ property. When I speak of enemies of the U.S., I mean, not that they were all influenced by actual feelings of hostility to the Government, not that they hated that Government and would have destroyed it, but enemies because they happen to be embraced within the territorial limits of the country upon which their proceedings and our legislation have stamped the character of belligereuey. Every enemy of the U.S. is not, therefore, necessarily a traitor; and this is a distinction which is drawn with great clearness and force in the decision of the SCOTUS in what are known as the rize cases. My friendfrom Vermont [Mr. Pnnusns] yesterday denied the distinction; and for his information, as well as for the information of others, I will take this occasion to read a few paragraphs from the decision of that high tribunal upon the question who were the enemies of the U.S., and what was enemies’ property during the war. Speaking of the civilWar which may break out within the territorial limits of a nation, the court held this language: “The true testofits existence, asfoundin the writings of the sagesof the common law, may be thus summarily stated: ‘when the regular course of jus tice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion or insurrection so that the courts of justice cannot be kept open, civilWar exists, and hostilities may be prosecutedon the same footingasif thoseopposin the Government wero foreign enemiesinvading the and.’" Again: "The law of nations is ture; also called the law of na it is founded on the common consent as well as the common sense of the world. It containsno such anomalousdoctrine as that which this court are now for the 1st time desiredto pronounce, to wit, that insurgentswho have risen in rebellion againsttheir sovereign. oxpelled her courts, established a revolutionarivI goyernment, organized armies, and commciicod hostilitics. are not enemies becausethey are traitors; and a.war levied against the Government by traitors, in order to dismember it is not a war becauseit is an insurrection.’" Again say the court: “ we now come to question. the consideration of the 2nd what is included in the term ‘enemies’ DEOYBHY T. s the property of all persons residing within the territory of the Statesnow in rebellion, captured on the high sons, to be trgated as ‘cnemies‘ property.’ whether the ownerbe in arms against the Govern ment or riot? The right of one belligerent not only to coerce the other by direct force.but alsoto cripple his resources by the seizureor destruction of his property, is a.necessaryresult of a state of war. Money and wealth the products of riculture and commerce, are said to be the sinews 0 war, arid asnecessaryin its conduct as numbers and physiicalforce. Hence it is the laws that ofwar race in the right of a belligerentto out' thesq swarmof t a turing his property on power of the enemyby cap the high seas.” And I may here add that there is no distinction in principle between prizes made at sea and prizes mad upon land in the prosecution of a war. [Mr. cusp shook his head.] Yes, air, that is the law. “The appellantscontendthat the term enemy' is properly applicable to thoseonly who are subjectsor citizensofa foreignState at war with our own. They quote from the agesof the commonlaw whichsay that personsw i0 wagewar againstthe King may be of 2 kinds; subjectsor citizens. The former are not proper enemies, but rebelsand traitors; the latter are those that come properly under the nameof enemies.’, “They insist, moreover, that the President himself, in his proclamation, admits that great numbers of the persons residing within the territoritfl inpossession of the inscrgent governmcptare loyal in their feelings, and forced by compulsmn and the violence of the rebellious and revolutionary party and its ‘fic fat togovernment’to submit to their laws and assist in their schemeof revolution; that the acts of the usurping government cannot legally savorthe bond of their allegiance. They have.therefore, a correlative right to claim the protection of the Government for their persons and property, and to be treatedas loyal citizens till legally convicted of having re nounced their allegiance and madewar againstthe Governmentby treasonahlyresistingits laws." such was the argument presented to the court by the counsel on the Opposite side. The court proceed: “Under the verypeculiar constitution of this government, although the citizens owe supreme allegiance to the federal Government, they owe also a oumaliiicieiledda. llc ia nccto the State in which thei pre T on persons and property are subject to its laws. “Hence. in organizing this rebellion. they have acted as Statesclaiming to be sovereign over all personsa ndproperty wilhin their respectivelimits and asserting a right to absolvetheir ‘citizens from their allegianceto the Federal Government. Several of theseStateshave combinedto form a new confeder acy, claiming to be acknowledgedby the world as a sovereignState. Their rights to do so is now being decidedby wager of battle. The ports and territory of cach of these States are held in hostility to the General Goverment. It is no loose, unorganizedin. no defined boundary or possession. It hasii boundarymarked by lines of bayoncts and which can be crossedonly by force southof this line in enemy‘sterritory, becauseit is claimedand held in possessionbyan organized, hostilc, and belligerent power. “All persons residing within this territory whose property maybe used to increasethe revenues of the oatilopowerare. in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigncm. They have cast off their allegiance and madewar on their Governmerit, and are nonetheless enemiesbecausetheyare traitors.” "Again: the produceof the soil of the hostileterritory, as well asother property engagedin the commerceof the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength. are always regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner, and much H'IOI'Osoif he resideand tradewithin theirterritory.’, I have read enough to show the character of the war. It was waged upon us by the rebel States as political communities, and every feat ure of a war was imparted to We had our blockades of the southern ports, established by our own laws. We had a legal statutory interdiction against the prosecution of trade and commerce between the communities living south and the communities living north of this divisional line between the contending parties. We had an absolute non-intercourse; and whatever articles of property may have been brought from the rebel community north of the Union lines, or taken south of those lines and transported into the confederacy, became liable to lie forfeited, unless accompanied by a license to carry on trade. The 2 communities, then, were belliger ents, to whose character as such were applied all the rules and principles and liabilities of belligerency that pertain to a struggle between 2 nations; and Senators will not deny that in the' prosecution of a war by an army enter. ING hostile territor it is the right of the officers commanding t iat army to forage upon the enemy and supply their army from the private property of the enemy. It mom of the ordinary rights of war. f it was a calamity or a misfortune to any portion of the southern people, it must be remembered that the calamity or misfortune was brought upon them by the misconduct of a majority 0t their own people. It was not the fault of northern men or northern State governments that brought on this war, although we have been compelled to suffer for it as no communit ever suffered. We have spent, as the recur s of the Treasury Dept show, in its prosecution nearly 3,000 million dollars. That money must now be raised by taxation upon those who contributed to our successes. We have duty 0 lost more than half a million of the loyal soldiers of the loyal States. We have submitted to every privation necessary to give success to our great struggle. We have gone through it patiently, boldly, heroically, until at last we found the enemy under our feet, a fallen, conquered, humiliated foe. It will not be pretended for a moment that this Government would be under any obligation to indemnify a person who, domiciled within the limits of a foreign nation with which we should happen to be at war) had suffered damage in consequence of the taking of his property by our Arm, although such person were a friend of the U.S. It might be a cruelz a harsh thing, to take his property; but it must be remembered that war itself in all its operations and rules is a harsh and cruel proceeding. Sir, what has been the conduct of this socalled Union party in the rebellious States toward the Government during the whole of this war, and before the war? Did they not foresee that war was to come? Had they in fluence at the South? Who heard their mul titudine us voices in 0 position to their leaders and rulers? Wh di they not make their in fluence felt? when the 1st shot was fired n on Fort Sumter, how did it happen that this nion party at the South did not unite their voices and their efforts in some effectual way to check the progress of the rebellion and the violence which was threatened by the secessionists? Why did they not take measures years and years ago to avert the danger of such ' an occurrence? H‘bey had notice, because the laws of war contained it, that in case of a collision their individual private property might be taken by us as well as their own army in the prosecution of the war, without indeiuiiity, as an overruling necessity not to be questioned or resisted.