Mr. DELANO. I simply want the House to understand the facts of this case, and then they will do what they deem best. The House will remember that at the commencement of the last session of Congress it adopted a resolution that, until otherwise ordered, the ComClaims be instructed to reject all claims referred to them of citizens of States lately in rebellion. That resolution is on record and it is needless to read it. Every member of the House who will recur to what was then said will recollect that it was deemed advisable for the safety of the nation to refuse to entertain claims for damages from the rebel States growing out of the destruction of property under the necessities of war, or for property actually taken and appropriated by the Army for its support. Acting upon this principle, the ComClaims have steadily refused to allow any claim for damages from the loyal States, whose claims resulted from a state of war; in other words, we have refused to allow every thing denominated damages from the war coming from the loyal States; because we deemed that it would be beyond the financial capacity of the nation to undertake to pay for all the damages to property that had been committed under the exigencies and ravages of war. Upon examination of the authorities we were satisfied that national law did not require the nation to pay for this class of damages. The resolution, however, went further and provided that where the claim was for a citizen of the rebel States, although it might be for property taken, and appropriated for the use of the Army, it should not be paid for, for various reasons which it is needless to discuss now. There is a reason manifest to every body, and that is that it would be impossible to determine with any accuracy who was and who was not loyal, and we were admonished, as I can now admonish the House, that to open that door would be to place the nation upon the very verge and border of a gulf in the way of expense that may destroy it altogether. Now, sir, this claim of Mr. Armes is for property destroyed under the necessities of war, under the inevitable ravages of war; and, sir, according to the whole action of the House during this Congress, this man's claim could not be allowed if he resided in Pennsylvania, NewYork, or Ohio. The case is clearly one in which the property was destroyed as one of the necessities of war. That is not all. It is just, patently and openly, one of those cases from the rebellious States that needs no argument. It would be an insult to the House for me to attempt to argue it. I ask, can it be distinguished: It is said that this bill has once passed both branches of Congress and only failed to become a law through some tech nical mistake of a clerk. What of that, I ask the intelligence of this House? What if it did pass? Is it any more meritorious because it failed to pass by accident? Perhaps it was fortunate that it did so fail; but it did not become a law; it got very near to the door of the Presidential Mansion, where the last action was necessary to make it a law, but it did not receive the Presidential sanction.