Mr. HENDERSON. While this subject is But because of, possi ly, the very great l I i under this act of July 4, 1864, referred to by the Senfrom Illinois, and that in my opinion the construction which has been given to the act by the quartermaster's dept prevents the benefits intended by this act. do not complain that every act should be construed in favor of the Government in reference to claims as much as it possibly can be. Imake no complaint on that subject, because as a member of the ComClaims, I think I have been as particular and as careful about the allowance of claims as perhaps any other member of this body. The Senate will see, however, that from the construction given to the law already passed very few claims can be allowed. For instance, the say that before any claims can be allowed they must be shown to have arisen under circumstances that would have laid the ground for an action of assumpsit, not of trespass, as between individuals. Where supplies have been taken by force or violence, they seem to think that act does not cover it; that there must be an implied assumpsit. as it were, between the individual whose preperty was taken and the officer of the Government. There must have been a promise; that is, the property must have been taken under circumstances that would create a promise. In other words, there is no reliefif aquartermaster took a man’s property vi ct armis, as was frequently done in my State, and had to be done, the armies marching across the State, and marching so very rapidly that they scarcely had time to stop and execute recei ts. The did not know exactly what they ha taken. the quar termaster’s dept, under some opinion, given by Judge Holt, I believe, has come to the conclusion that those claims cannot be allowed. Then, on another point which I now propose tomention, they have rejected a great many claims. The law is that claims of loyal citizens in States not in rebellion for quartermus ter’s stores and subsistence supplies shall be allowed. A question arises, where must the claim have arisen? A claim arising in Arkansas, it being a seceded State, the uartermhster says we cannot recover for, 11 though the owner of the claim is an inhabitant of my State.