Mr. CLARK. I hope this amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts will not be ’ ‘7 THE qoNGREs made. The bill provides that where property has been taken and a receipt given, and also where property has been taken by a proper officer of the Government authorized to direct the taking of the property, and no such receipt has been given, the property shall be paid for. Now, I will thank any Senator to tell me why there. should be a distinction in the 2 cases ifthe claim in each is fairly proved. The receipt is for the purpose of proof. If when the property was taken the officer taking it gave a receipt to the man from whom it was taken that he had so taken it and that the man was entitled to he paid for it, then that man had the proof that his property was taken; but where a man can clearly prove, aside from the receipt, that his property has gone for the benefitot‘the Government, that it was taken by a proper officer and used by the Army, pray let any Senator tell me why he should not be paid for it. What is the ground of the claim? simply that you had the man‘s property for public uses and ought to pay him. Ought. you not to pay him just as much where you have had his property and given no receipt us where you have had that property and given a receipt? And if yon allow the man to be paid who has a receipt and not the man who has no reecipt, then you make the officer who gave the receipt the pen er to determine the right of the man to payment; and perhaps the man who has the receipt may not he a loyal man and may not have so good a richt to be paid as the man who has no receipt. The ground of the claim is the taking of the property and the use of it for the Government. not the receipt the man may have from the officer; and is it not as just to pay the man who has no receipt as to pay the man who has the receipt, ifhe he a loyal man and you have had his property? And now one word, Mr. President, in regard to this bill. to its general provisions, and what, in my judgment, the Senate ought to do. I know it is objected that where you have taken the troperty of a man in a disloyal State, whether he be a loyal man d‘r not, you ought not to pay him because he was livingin the enemy’s country. Gentlemen undertake to say that the law is that when 2 parts of a country are at war as we have been at war, all citizens on one side of the line are to be considered as enemies of the country; that is, everybody who was in the disloyafStates is to be considered as an enemy to the Government, no matter how loyal he was himself, no matter how much he may have sighed for the appearance of the Union Army, no matter what aid he may have given the Union Army in its progress; he may have fed it, he may have housed the soldier, he may have taken his gufiand gone off in your Army, and yet if he lived within that country he is an enemy of the country. I know; sir, that in deciding certain rize cases in the Supreme Court the court laid own this rule; but when the Government comes to deal with its OWn citizen, and the citizen comes to the Government for relief, can the Government say to that citizen. ifhe has been a loyal man, “ Because you have lived within that section of the country I have no aid for you?" Why, sir, in the State of Tennessee, which was within this disloyal country, we raised how many soldiers?