Mr. SAULSBURY. The particular question before the Senate, I believe, is whether that provision of the bill which requires that paymerit shall be made for the (property taken 0 ongmg to loyal persons on not receipted for shall be stricken out. It. was not my in tention to say a word on this subject; nor do I intend now to detain the Senate more than a moment. Mr. President, I have heard some very strange principles of law announced during this debate. t. seems to be assumed by some gentlemen that the laws of war applicable to questions of this kind have undergone no change from the foundation of the world to the present time; but that today, in the 19th century, they are precisely what they were when ignorant barbarians met' in conflict on the field of battle. When I hear it contended on this floor that a nation at war with another must regard every individual of that nation as a personal enemy, and must treat him with all the rigors of war, though he be not a combatant, I am amazed. As well would I expect to hear announced the old rule of law applicable to war, that when you take a prisoner of war you have a right to put him to death or that you have a right to reduce him into perpetual slavery. Look into the books, and you will find that at one time those were well recognized principles of the law of war; but, sir, they were principles recognized in ignorant nu barbarous ages, and the civilization of advancing times has caused them to pass away, and nowherc throughont the civilized world today are such principles contended for. Throughout the civilized world today the doctrine is not practically enforced that, as between foreign nations, every inhab itant of one nation innst. be treated by the other with all the rigors and penalties of war. such a doctrine is acted n on today by no civilized nation on earth; and, the law of war today, in every nation of Europe and in every civilized country is, that you have nota right to take the private persona goods and chattels of a non-combatant foryoupown use without compensation. The spirit 0 Christianity and the principles of civilization have modified, practically, those harsh rules of war which were cutbrcal in form'er times. Why, sir, in the war of 1812, a war waged between this country and GreatBritain, we contended that the British Government had no right, according to the laws of war and laws of nations, to take the private property of our citizens Without making compensation for it; and upon the conclusion of that war, when it was established that the military power of GreatBritain had seized slaves on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, had decoyed them from their masters, had taken them upon their ships and carried them to England, our minister demanded compensation for those slaves from the Government of GreatBritain. The matter was the subject of negotiation for some time. Finally, the law as laid down by John Quincy Adams was acknowledged to be correct in principle, and the British Government was made to pay for those slaves which her military force took from their masters in this country and carried to England. If it be so in reference to the taking of slaves, the principle is equally applicable to the taking ofother private property. In the negotiations which resulted from the capture of those slaves by the British Government, no less a person age than John Quincy Adams declared that you might just as well fight with poisoned arms that is his strong, vigorous language as to undertake to take the private property of a non-combatant and convert it to your use without compensation. anyone who will take the trouble of. looking into Lawrence’s Wheaten will there find these opinions and declarations all cited. 30 convincing was the argument of our minister at the court of StJames that GreatBritain gave up the contest and paid to this Government for the benefit of the owrTers of the slaves the value of those slaves admit ting, thereby, that as a belligerent lower, a Power at war with us, she had no right to take the private property of private citizens who were not engaged in the Army and convert it to her own use. But, air, that is not the question now before the Senate. The question before the Senate is this: when you find in the southern States an individual who has been true to the Federal Government and to the Union of these States, whose property has been taken for the use of the Army, shall he be paid for it? I do not use the word “ loyalty." Ifthere is any word in the English language that ought to be blotted out on account of the gross perversion that is made of it, it is that word “loyalty.” It has no application in a RFG, unless we give it the definition of“ conformity to and observance of law.” If you use the term “loyalty” in that sense it is ap licable; but in the sense in which the word “ loyalty” is generally used it has no possible, conceivable application to a RFG, and never was intended to have such an application. No word can be found in any lexicographer, ancient or modern, which has been so grossly perverted, so egregiously misunderstood, and 'so wrongfully applied as this term “loyalty.” I say, then, the proposition now is, when you find acitizen or inhabitant of one of these southern States, who, during all this sanguinary conflict, amid all the raging of passion and conflict of arms, turned his eye and fixed it intently upon the flag of his country and wished to see it again float in glory and triumph over his head whether, when you go and take that man’s private goods and chattels, when you stri him bare of eve thing, turn his wife and chi dren houseless an homeless out of doors, and throw them upon the cold charities of the people among whom he lives, and a people unfriendly to him, you shall deny him compeiisation. Go, ye war men, who thought there v'vasno means of preservin this Union but by the bloody arbitrament ot the sword; go, ye who proclaimed to the southern people that if they would not unite their fortunes with those who were warring against you, you would be their friends and protectors; o 'e now, and tell the man who has prove faithful to you, and whose fidelity stripped him of every earthly comfort, and made him a pauper, that what you told him before was a deception and a fraud. Did you not promise them protection? Had the not a right to believe that if they clung with unflinching fidelity to their country and their country’s interest you would see that loss should not come to them? Did you not. tell them that wherever the American flag floated, or should thereafter float, it should be a.shield and a protection to them and theirs? you not tell them that fidelity to the government of the U.S. would be of more advantage to them than fidelity to the southern conIbderacy? Certainly you did., During the whole regress of this war, we heard it hour after our, day after day upon this floor, that down in these seceded States there were 100s and 1000s of true and patriotic citizens who had been forced by circumstances to yield a passive obedient e to the government of the confederate States, and who were looking with wishful eyes to you as their deliverers. It was one of the strong arguments which you used that you were bound under the Constitution of the U.S. to secure a RFG to those people and to 5 them ample and full protection. You said that as American legislators it was your solemn duty to see that the faithful men of the South were protected; and on many oc casions you declared that except in the State of SCarolina, the Union men were in the majority. You said it was your duty to send armies down into the southern Sfltes to give to those people protection. If you now deny to them the benetits proposed by the provisions of this bill, I ask you what kind of protection are you giving them. If you deny them this, what more. were you doing for those people whom you say were true and faithful to you, than you were doing for those whom you said were rebels and traitors and who had arms in their hands trying to dissever this Government? The reposition now is to put them all on an equaity, the men who with arms in their hands made war against you, and the men who refused to take up arms dgainst you but welcomed you when you entered into their midst. Sir, had youproelaimed in the inception of this war to the southern people, “ when we enter your borders we shall make no discrimi nation between those who united their fortunes with the confederacy and those of you who wish to be true to us, ” you would have had the uni ted opposition of all classes of society from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, and from the Ohio to the Gulf. What sane man is there living in one of these southern States, if you had proclaimed to.him that you were going to invade his State and that you would take every particle of property in the State, and make no compensation to anyone, but would have rushed with arms in his hands to repel the in vader and to protect his family from starvation and ruin? Not one, sir. But the promises you made them no doubt induced 100s and 1000s to adhere with fidelity to the government of the U.S and prevented them fromuniting their destinies with the southern confederacy. Mr. President, I appeal not to may nanimity; I appeal not to generosity; I appea to hon;I appeal to justice and if there be honor and justice in man, I protest before this Senate that you cannot refuse compensation to those who were faithful to the Federal Government in that struggle. Wh, sir, even among those who sympa thize with the southern confederacy, but who were non-combatants in the war, there certainly has been enough suffering to gratify the feelings of the most vindictive. I have in my mind’s eye now a lady, the daughter of a chief justice of one of these States, the daughter of a former member of congress, a widow with 4 children, who lived on her plantation comfortable, happy, almost rolling in wealth, who when the armies of the U.S. asse through SCarolina, was stripped eve living thing; her house burned over he!"has., and but 2 little corn cribs left standing; whose faithful negroes, to save something from the wreck, ook ier 300 pieces of china and buried them in the ground, and there they are lying today; who has returned to this city, and now, with 4 little children upon her hands, is trying to make bread for them by keeping a humble boarding house. Mr. President and Senators, in view of the devastation, the have c, and the ruin which your armies ceaselessly made in the destruction of private property, pause before you add to“that great Injustice by denying to those who, you your selves say, were faithful to you, a just compensation for their property which you took to support your armies, and which property, if it d been just across the line, you would have most willingly paid for. The question, then, is simply this, when nar rowed own to a point: whether compensation shall be allowed only tbr the goods receipted for of loyal persons, or whet er upon proof of what you call loyalty, clear and unquestioned, the parties shall be paid, although tiey Were so unfortunate as not to obtain a receipt for it. That is the particular question before the Senate. Is there any dili‘erence in principle between the 2 cases? If the person was true to you, does it make any di erenee whether he had a receipt or not? The giving of a receipt was a matter dependent upon the whim, the caprice, it maybe the pressin engagement of the commanding officer. I you are satisfied that the person who has no receipt was just as true to you as the person who has, where'is the principle of justice and the principle of right that can discriminate between them, and say that you shall pay the one and shall not pay the other ‘1 The fact that the party had no receipt is no fault of that party. t there be fault attaching to anyone it is to the officer. I see, sir, that it is near time to close this debate, and I shall not detain the Senate further; but I am surprised that the good natured and kind hearted Senfrom Massachusetts should make a proposition of this kind, to discriminate between 2 worthy persons, and base that discrimination upon so uniniportauta fact as that one has a receipt and the other has not.