Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I think this is one of the most interesting questions that the Senate has been called upon to consider, if not one of the most important. There are 2 or 3 things I wish to say about it before the vote is takeu. 1st, I wish to say in allusion to the remarks that have just been submitted by the Senfrom Oregon, that if there has been any war between the North and the South I have not heard of it. If there had been any such war, perhaps we should have had to settle the account upon a little different basis from that upon which I apprehend this account should be settled. Iun crstand we have had a war on our hands, but. not a war between the North and the South. It. has been a war between the people of the U.S. nnd their enemies. It is very true that we found the most of their enemies in the southern portion of the U.S.; we did not find them all there. It is vcry true we found the most of the friends of the U.S. in the northern States of the Union; I believe we did not find all of them in that section of the country. The war was between those 2 parties, the people of the U.S and their enemies. We did send our armies into the southern States of the Union. as we sent them into the northern States of the Union when we had occasion; but when we sent. them into one State or another I think we sent them for the douhle purpose of bearing the justice and the protection of the Government to our friends, and the rebukes and the penalties of the Government to our ene mies. If we sent them for any other purpose, their mission was u.mistuke; we had better have kept them at home. This bill is one of the proposed means for settling up some of the trnnmctions which took place during this war. Wherever we sent our armies they had to be supported; and they were entitled to that support just as much in a southern as in a northern State; and if any portion of that support was contributed by a iend of the U.S. in a southern State he was just as much entitled to pay for it as if if it was contributed by a friend of the U.S. in the northern States. The Senfrom Michigan has stated, and I believe rather insisted upon, the idea that by our law all of the people in what were called the rebelling States Were the enemies of the U.S., declared so by a proclamation of the President in pursuance of an act of congress. I have 2 t in s to say upon that prop position: 1st, that I 0 not know when the POTUS declared all those people to be enemies of the U.S., nor when he was authorized to make such a declaration; and 2ndly, I have to' say that it was not in the power of the President to make him who was a fricndin fact of the government an enemy in law, nor was it in the power of Congress to authorize him to so transform one who was a friend in fact into an enemy in law. I am a strict; constructionist. I do not. believe there is any power in the government of the U.S. to drive any portion of the people of the U.S. outside of the Union, nor do I think there is any power in any branch of the Government of the U.S. to transform a friend of the Union 'into an enemy. If he becomes an enemy it is his own act, the result of his own perverseuess, and not the effect of any governmental action. It is said that there were but very few or no loyal men in these rebellious portions of the U.S. If thatis so. this bill willhave but. very little or no effect; for it provides only for settling the claims of men who were loyal: But it is said to be very easy to prove that a man was loyal who was not in fact.loyal. That is the difficulty, says my friendfrom Oregon. The issue may be one a little difficult to try; but dare you say that the Government shall sit down upon the assumption that all the men within a certain district are enemies of the Union because it is a little difficult to discrim inatebetweenitsfriends audits enemies? When you are asked only to do justice to your friends, and asked to try the question oi‘loynlty or disloyalty by your own tribunals, is not that protection enough? If you dare not. trust. your own tribunals, thatis not;the fnultof those men in the South; for they have had no part in the creation of them. It is no imputation upon them. The imputation rests upon yourse ves and upon the agencies you yourselves have create. But after all, Mr. President, there is no sort of danger, in my judgment, in passing this bill with the amendment which has been pronosod by the Senfrom Massachusetts, if that shall be accompanied by another amendment which I propose to offer myself. The Senfrom Massachusetts proposes to strike out. the words which would authorize a settlement with those whose property had been taken but to whom no receipt ha been given. Evidently to my mind those words ought to' go out, and evidently in the place of them these words ought to be inserted, “and taken up on the returns ofsuch officer;" so that thou you will be called upon to pay only the claims of those loyal persons whose property had been taken by a quartermaster or a commissary, and receipted for by that officer, and the property taken upon his returns. How can you be in. jured when you do that? Every quartermaster in your service had so many mules and horses to feed. The law rescribed just how much forage should be feout to them; and at the QuarterMGen’s office they know just how much forage he had occasion'for. He stands charged with thatforage in bond, and he has to discharge himself of that. If he charges for more forage delivered out than he had animals in his custody to deliver it to, they know at. the quartermaster’s office that that account is false; the falsehood is detected at once. So of the commissury's dept. Every commissary had a certain number of soldiers to deliver rations to, and they know at the office of the Commissary General just how many soldiers each asst commissary had to deliver rations to and just how many rations he was allowed to make use of, and if he credits himself on his monthly statement. with more rations than he had soldiers to feed them t.o, they know the error at once. fa commissary seizes pork, or beef, or anything which may be a ration, in one State or another, it ishis business to charge himself with it. “To take it. up on his returns, "ll believe is the term used in these offices. When he has entered it upon his returns, he is accountable for it, and his bond is accountable for it, and you have got his obligation to account for it. If he distributes it. in rations, then it takes the place of so much that he would otherwise have to furnish himself; for in the settlement of his accounts, you must romember, his business is to discharge himself of the whole amount of revisions and supplies delivered to him an charged to him by the Government. That is the business he has to do. If he seizes, in other places, or in any place. provisions, and does not take them up on his returns, then they never 'go to the use of the Army; they go to his own use; he does what. he pleases with them. He accounts, in the settlement of his accounts, for every dollar that is committed to him by the commissary dept, and for every man that he delivers rations to. So of a quartermaster. If he seizes a mule or a horse, and does not enter it upon his returns, he is not accountable for it, and the Government never gets the benefit of it. No quartermaster ever accounts for any more property than is on his returns; there is no way of accounting for it. If, therefore, you require the officer not only to give a receipt. for this property, but to take it up on his returns, than the Government is perfectly safe. It can suffer at worst only by reason of paying a disloyal man for goods which it has actuully obtained, but which it might. have obtained, if it. had known the fact. 0 his disloyalty, without any price. You have got. the benefit of the goods anyway., I do not mean to detain the Senate I cannot detain the Senate, for it is evideutthat they care but very little about the question I am said that this was a very important question as it struck Inc. It has been argued by some as important, but only as it alfects the interests of the Treasury. I regard it as of infinitely more importance, because it affects the border of the U.S. It is true that ifyou pay, by the judgment of any of your tribunals, disnot going to detain myself but a moment. I loyal men for gopds of theirs which you have taken. vou do to that extent ulfect iuiuriously tha interests of the treasury; but. it is Pquully true, to mv mind. that if 'ou refuse or neglect.to pay the friends of the U.S. for goods of theirs which you have taken and appropriated to your use, the nation is dishonored. There is no escape from it; it is dishonored. You cannot afford to repudiate one of these obligations. They are as sacred when presented by a man who was your friend where there were but few friends found, and, ifit. were possible, more sacred there than in othersections where the friends of the Government were numerous and strong. Howavcrimportant you may consider it, therefore, as affecting the interests of the Treasury, I say it is of vastly more importance as it alfects the honor of the Government. It is for this reason that I have seen tit to say a word on the subject; and it is for this reason that I am extremal anxious that the Senate shall not place itselt in the attitude of having refused to recognize one of these claims.