Mr. FESSELSJDEN. My friendfrom NewHampshire is so very eloquent on this subject that do not know but that I on ht to yield to it. Still, it strikes me, after, al that there is some danger connected with this bill. There is a manifest distinction between cases where on the spot the officer who took the property gave a receipt for it, thus making proo at once, and cases that may be brought up hereafter to depend upon oral testimony entirely. Our officers were not overanaious, I take it, to consider men as loyal in an enemy’s country. It may be presumed, therefore, and I suppose it was the fact, that they exercised or tried to exercise a sound discretion on that subject, and did not give a receipt for property taken unless they were satisfied of the loyalty of the person. So far as that evidence thus taken on the spot goes, crhnps it may be relied upon with some consr erable degree of safety. But it seems there are a great many cases the argument of the honorable Senfrom NewHampshire would rather tend to satisfy me that the cases are very numerous where officers who took property of this descrition did not choose to give' any receipts. 'l e inference naturally, therefore, from that would be that they did not think the case a proper one for a receipt to be given, that they were not satisfied about the party’s loyalty. We propose to legislate that, although a recei t has not been given, oral evidence may yet taken to establish the fact, in the 1st place, of loyalty, and in the next place, that t 1c property was actually taken and went to the use of the U.S.; and where that is made out, then that the same rule shall apply which applies to cases where the proper receipt was given upon the spot. I think this would be a dangerous practice. It would be dangerous for several reasons. In the 1st place, from the evidencethat I have had and the observation I have made with ref erence to other cases, the easiest thing in the world will be to prove loyalty. I think when it comes to matters of claim it will be pretty well made out that there was never anybody down in that country who was otherwise than loyal, but that they were all forced into the rebellion. Who forced them in, inasmuch as they were all forced in, we cannot exactly tell; but the argument now is, whenever thereis a claim against the Government, or whenever anybody wants a pardon or anything of that sort, that there was compulsion used from somewhere to force the whole population into rebellion, and the evidence is fortheoming at once. From the regard which has been paid to oaths, so far as I have observed, and to the taking of oaths, I do not think it will be very dilficult to establilsh loyalty in any given case, or to make out the amount of any claim, or to prove anything that is necessary. Then again there is difficulty arising from the meaning of “loyalty.” That, I think, ought to be defined in the law. If you leave that to a clerk in the War Dept, ver much will depend upon what sort of a cler you have. This will be running along for a course of years, and we cannot tell what may be the character of the man to decide the question; he may be one of these “loyal” people himself; an very likely he will be, to settle all these claims on oral testimony that may he adduced there. Thus it will be within the power of a clerk in the war Dept (be cause after all in the office of the QuarterMGen it goes thRJu h the hands of clerks in the 1st place) to Sett c all these questions. Taking the course of time that this will run over, taking the chances as they will occur, and all the difficulties about amounts, I really do think that in all cases except those that were settled upon the spot by the officer who took the property by giving his receipt for it, it would 0 very unsafe and unwise to open this door to extraneous proof with regard not onlyto the character of the claimant but the amount of the claim, and ever thing about it; and although that power is limited here to $600, yet a great many claims of $500 make considerable of a sum. For that reason, and outside of the fact that we had very excellent soldiers from some parts of the disloyal region, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts. The case is not like that of the soldier. My friendfrom NewHampshire asked the question, if you would recognize the loyalty of the soldier and take care of him why not of his neighbor who furnished the property? So I would. But with regard to the soldier the rolls show the fact; it is easily established whether he was servin the country or not; it does not depend on ora testimony; it is a matter that is established as easily as anything else that is matter of record. Everything of that sort is plain and palpable; but when you come to oral testimony taken as this must be, and to claims to be settled as these must be, I think it is much better that they should go to the court and be settled judicially rather than in the way proosed.