Mr. INGERSOLL. If I understand this matter the ComClaims is acting upon the theory that the people of the States which were declared to be in rebellion became public enemies, and that consequently under the laws of war all property captured within their territory became the property of the captor, without compensation to the owner. So far as the matter now in question is concerned, it is claimed that M.". who was a loyal citizen of Alabama, and who may have been ever so true and loyal a citizen, was in the eye of the law a “public enemy, ” and his property liable to capture. But, as I understand it, the case does not fall under that rule. The State of Missouri was never declared inrebellion. It was in the eye of the law as loyal a State as Indiana or Illinois, and these citizens of Indiana took a contract to carry the mails within the limits of that State. They found after awhile that danger threatened; rebel guerrillas surrounded them; and they notified the Government that they wished to withdraw their property to a place of safety. They were denied that privilege by an officer of the U.S., and their property was seized by Government officers, and the property used in carrying the mails upon the route for which they had the contract. These loyal citizens are now denied pay for property thus taken for the use of the Government. Now, gentlemen tell us that if we recognize such claims as this it will bankrupt the government and that there are other claims awaiting the action of Congress upon this which will be passed if this be allowed. Sir, will it bankrupt the Government to pay its honest debts? If I am a citizen of such a Government, I want to be a citizen of it no longer. If the Government cannot pay its debts now, let it give its note. It can do that much. If the report of the committee is true, these men are entitled to this money, or to as much of it as may be found due. The bill involves the principle of the Government paying its debts. It does not involve the principle of paying for property taken by the enemy, or from the enemy, but only the principle of paying citizens of the U.S. for property taken from them by the Government for the use of the Government. The Government has no more right to refuse the payment of this claim and I base my remarks on the report than it would have to refuse payment for fo furnished under contract for a regiment raised in the State of Illinois. Sir, I hold that this Government cannot afford to cover itself with dishonor by refusing to pay to its loyal citizens the value of that property which the Government deemed it necessary to deprive them of in the prosecution of the great work of putting down the rebellion. These remarks I do not extend to the case of citizens who unfortunately resided within the enemy's territory, within the 11 States declared to be in rebellion. But I place a loyal citizen of Missouri upon the same footing with a loyal citizen of Illinois, and I imagine if these citizens of the U.S. who are pressing this claim were residents of the Galena district,, which my colleague [. WASHBURNE] has the honor to represent here, you would hear him for once advocate the payment of a just debt. Now, I am not in favor of straining our ideas of equity in order to embrace all those who may unfortunately have resided within the enemy's territory dur. ING the rebellion. But I would manifest the high generosity of the Government toward that spirit of loyalty that was awakened by the appeal of the nation to its children to come up and defend it; to all the loyal citizens of all the loyal States. But you cannot do that by denying to pay them their just claims.