Mr. WILLEY. I cannot for the soul of me bring my mind to make any distinction between a loyal man in a loyal State and a loyal man in a disloyal State. Sir, if the Senfrom Maine had lived in WestVirginia, if e had lived along the border of the States in insurrection if he had seen men, as I have seen them, hunted in the mountains, sometimes immured in rebel prisons, coming back a sin with hearts unbent and unsubdued, staning up manfully for the flag of their country, eager and willin oftentimes to divide the little of food they ad for man and forage for beast with “our boys in blue” when they passed by their homes if he had seen all this as I have seen it, I think his feelings toward the loyal men in the South would have been different from what they are. Sir, what difference does it make if a man with a loyal heart in his bosom furnishes a portion of what he has to feed our soldiers and forage our horses whether his misfortune was to be born in a southern State or his fortune was to be born in a northern State? Is there not all the more credit due to him because he maintains his integrity in a disloyal State; surrounded by fire and persecution and obloquy and scorn, and stands up, notwithstanding all this, and gives his means to support our armies and for the prosecution of the war? How can it be possible that the nation can receive valu able consideration from loyal men in these disloyal States, and yet refuse in pay for it hou estly and honorably, as I think we ought? Sir, ifIhad I gone down through the"State of Maine during these late troubles, these Fenian troubles, or during those other struggles during the war, when those wretched incendiaries from the South were attempting to burn his towns and his villages, and were robbing his banks, and in the hurry of my progress to his rescue I had taken of his substance, of his food or of his forage to support myself or to forage my beast if I ha done that, or to change the figure, if I had thus gone there on my own business, and afterward he had demanded payment at my hands, and should say, “Sir, you have received so many bushels of corn, you received so much forage, you received so much valuable 'consideration;” and I should reply, “Oh, yes, I have received it; I acknowledge to that fact; but you have no certificate that I received it; I did not give you a receipt, sir, that you had gotit. You do not hold my bond." Wouldthat exonerate me, in the estimation of the honorable Senfrom Maine, from aying full and fair consideration for what ofhis means I had received? Sir, he would have scouted me from his presence as unworthy of the character and pretensions of an honorable man. Let me put an actual case within my own knowledge. I know the man today. It is not a supposititious case. He is an old man. All through this terrible war, although he lived in a southern. State, he was steadfast, unflinching; his iron will and his patriot heart never bent for a moment beforovthe storm that beat upon his household. Sometimes he was im mured, more than once, in rebel risons; at other times he was hunted as a Wild beast in the mountains; sometimes he stole stealthily home at midnight to his fireside to spend an hour with his family, and then again sought his refuge in the'caves of the mountains. Ourarmies on a certain occasion, and on more occasions than one, passed by him. From his retreat he came out to meet them with beaming eyes and bounding heart, so glad was he to look upon the old flag of his fathers, for he inher ited revolutionary blood; he gladly divided with them what little of feed he had for man and forage for beast. On 2 occasions they gave him certificates, on other occasions he would not'have any. He stands here to dny, or those of the class of whom he is a representative stand before Congress, and what is the response they meet at the threshold of justice of this great and magnanimous nation? The Senfrom Massachusetts, always so just and always so generous, turns upon him his back, and the Senfrom Michigan, says, Begone, you are a public enemy; you are of no more consideration than a rebel himself.” Sir, is that the way in which we are to treat these loyal men? Are we in that manner to draw a distinction between Union men of the South and rebel men of the South? Are we to be forever proclaiming that we will make treason odious and that we will make Unionism honorable, and yet make no distinctions between the traitor and the Unlon man? Will we say' to the Union.rnau, “ Yes, you have given us of your substance, but we will not pay you for it?” Or shall we say to such men as he to whom I have alluded, who gave 2 sons to the service of his country, one of whom lies among the melancholy hillocks at Anderson ville, and the other, wrapped in his gory uniform, slumbers on the field of battle where he fell will you say to such men as that, “We will not pay justly and honorably for the means which you have given to the support of the country in the hour of its peril and of its want? Why, sir, it seems to me that it absolutely is abhorrent to all the better sentiments of human nature, not to say entirely inconsistent with the character for justice and magnanimity of a great and righteous nation. I trust, sir, that this distinction will not be made, and that the U.S. Senate will not say to men, “Unless you present as with a certificate, unless you present us with 9. bond for the food we have received and the forage we have had and the means you have given us to support. the war and carry it on, we will not. pay you.” I be e it will not be done.