Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senfrom “’is consin had examined the bill he would have seen that it provided for the very thing which he is at. e 1st section of the bill provides that the stores must have been “actually received or taken for the use of and used b said Army.” A man must prove that in or er to get his claim allowed. The property must have been taken for the use of the Army, and must have been actuall used b the Arm; so that his amendment, think, is provide for. Now, I want to answer in a word, as I am up, the Senfrom Oregon, [Mr. TVILLIAMS] who made a speech of some halfhourin length and the Senfrom Michigan [Mr. Howsnn] one equally long, declaiming against this as a prece eat that would cost this Government, in the language of the Senfrom Michigan,:1 billion dollars at least, and the Senfrom Oregon would like to go for this bill, but it established such aprecedentthat he was alarmed. Now, has the Senfrom Oregon forgotten that he has lived under this law for 2 years? On the 4th day of July, 1864, the Congress of the U.S. passed this law:. “That all claims of loyal citizensin States not in rebellion for qnnrtermaster‘sstoresactually furnished to the Army of the U.S and receipted for by the proper officer receiving tie same, or which may have men taken by such officer Without giving such receipt may be submittedto the QuarterMGen of the U.S., accompanied with such roofs as eachclaimant can iresent of the facts in is case: and it shall be ther duty of the QuarterMGen to cause such claim to beexamined and icflacimonavnint, ce and that aitttihse just ot.reasnhdaovfetbheeelnoaycatlutyalolyf trhce ccived or taken for the useof and usedby saidArmy, th on to report eachcaseto the 3rd Auditor of the Treasury, with a recommendation for settlement." That was the law passed on the 4th day of July, 1864. There was the precedent. 1f the Senator is alarmed at the precedent, he has lived under it for 2 years. That law a plied to Missouri, it applied to Kentucky, it app ied to WestVirginia, it applied to Maryland States in which our armies were. Now, what is the effect.of this bill which we are trying to pass today? It is simply to pay4he loyal citizen in Tennessee and Arkansas just as We have been paying him in Kentucky and in Missouri and in West Yirginia and in Maryland all the time; and it has other limitations on it. We have at on the present bill a definition as to what loyalty shall be, re airing the party af firmatively to show somsdoyal act. hat else have we done? We have taken away from the QuarterMGen and the Commissary General the right to pass n on claims to an unlimited extent, and place all claims over $500 in the Court of Claims. This is a.restrictive bill. It is a bill requiring stricter proof of loyalty than the present law requires. It is a bill placing the larger claims under the juris diction of a court, throwing additional security around the Government. That is what this bill is; and if there is anything about precedent, you have agreed to pay loyal men‘