Mr. DELAXO, from the Committee of claims, submitted a report, which was read, as follows: The ComClaims ask leave to make the followmg report: The attention of the House is called to the large number of claims from citizens of States lutely in rebellion. growing out of the destrucnonpf or damage to. property by the Army or Navy while engagedIn suppressing theinsurrection. ccommittee are impressed With the necessityof establishing a rule, by the House. which shall guide them in deliberating upon this class of  claims. The number of cases from this source is so great as to gender it hardly possible for the committee to examine the particulars of eachonewith the careand scru tiny necessary to prevent fraud and imposition against the Government, providedthere besufficientgrounds to demand the favorable attention of Congress. The dimensions and duration of the war and the persistence with which the rebellion wasmaintained. remdered it necessaryfor the Army of the loyal Government to make large destructions of property and also to make use of Considernble property in states in rebellion for necessary supplies and subsistence. This destructionand appropriation was a piilitary necessity. imposed upon the Governrpent. ine rder to put dowiire offiqn and to savethe life 01the nation. The committee are unable to give the House any definite information asto the quantity or value of the property thus destroyed or appropriated; but it is suggestedthat an attempt to indemnify and compon sato this numerous class of claimants will require an amount of appropriations much greater than the revenues of the nation at this time can Dossibl satisfy. It seems to the committec. thereforc, that the House should determine, by its noion whether these claims should be assumed. whereby the national debt must be increasedto an indefinite extent, TilePIOYlUD Saction of Congress and of the various committees. who. from time to illnl, llflio had this Illblect under consideration, does not. In o“! opinion. Establish such principles nor furnish such precedents asare necessary for the gpvernment of the committee in making recommendationsunder the new and imfiortant circumstances now surrounding the questipn eretotorethe amount of claims at any time restin upon the Governmentfor such losses has been limit so as not to exceed the resourcesof the Government under reasonable and permissible taxation and hence a disposition hasoften been esliibited by both conand the various Committeesof Claims to equalize burdens and lossesby paying such demands. But this disposition has not uniforml exnited, and many instancesof the rejection of sue claims is found in the history of the legislation of the Government. The persistence. howpvar. with which claimants have renewed their applications whenrejectedhasfr ucntly enabled them to finally succeed and often under circumstances which render their success of doubtful propriety. Appeals to our sympathy. humanity, and bencvolence are not easily resisted and it is a credit to human nature that we are so constitutedas to be accessibleto such appeals. It is to be remembered. however. thatsuch appeals ought not to induce and cannot authorize us to levy extraordinary taxation upon our constituents in Oidtlto gratify our charl table impulses. We are not slmoners merely. for the nation and have no JuBl. right to impose increased taxation in order to griitify our feelinzs of benevolence. Nor to establish principles of abstract justice and equity when there is no rule or law requiring it and particularly when the attcm tis to be attended with great uncertainty and be su ccted to innumerable imposition: and frauds. Neither does the committeefind any very well settled principles in regard to a nations liability to pay for t isolass of losses laid down by the commentators on national law. l hero the claimants are of Unidoubted loyalty and the damage has resulted from the appropriation of private property for the useof the Government. orbywayof precaution, in ordertorepel the enemy, it is the opinion ofVattel that the damages should be paid. But for other damagescausedby in evitable necessit that writer in 5: "They aremis ortuneswhich o oncedealsouttothe proprietors on whom the happen to fall. he sovereign indeed. ought to show an equitable regard for thesu orers. It the situation ofhisnffairs will admit it. but no action lies against. the Statefor misfortunesof this naturclor losses which sho has occasionednotwill fully butthrough necessity and by more accident. The same may be said of damagescausedby the enemy. All the subjects are exposed to such damages. nndwoc to him on whom they fall. The membersof asociety may well encounter such risks of property since they encounter a similar risk of life itself. Were the State strictly to indemnify all those whose property is in ured in this manner. the public financeswon d soon o exhausted and everyindiVid Uniin the State would be obliged to contribute his share in due proportion; athing utterly impracticable. Besides. theseindemni fleations would be liable to 1,000 abuses and there would be no endof the particulars. It. is. therefore to be presumedthat no such thing was ever intended by thosewho united to form a society.” These remarks are quoted because of their apparent applicability to the ucslson presented. It seemsto the committee that this magnitude of the public debt createdto suppress the rebellionrenders it impossible for the Government to attempt to compensate all those who have sustainedindividual lossesby the actionof our Army in the field. The attempt would ini air the national creditabroad, dostroyconfidence in t ic public securities everywhere. imposesuchadditional ur densof taxation as to give cause for discontent and complaint and thereby lend to the passableencour agement of such evilminded persons as may be led to favor the policy of repudiation. the committeeare thornloreof the opinion that. in view of the magnitude oi these losses. as well as the magnitude oi the public debt and the 1,000 abuses necessarily resulting from an attempt to satisfythese claims, in the words of Vattcl. “the thing is utterly lmftlflQUOflblB.” and ought not to he encouraged. t may be suggestedthat a distinction should be i made betweenlossesarising out of the destructionof property incident to the ravagesof war and damages growing out of the appropriation of property for the uses of the Army. ithout contrpverting the propriety of this distinctiom so fur ascitizensof the loyal Statesareconcerned, it is suggestedthat it gerous and inexpedient. willbedun to apply it to claims coming fromStateslntelyin rebellion. "It will be difficult to determinc. with a sufllcient degreeotcertainty. the question of individual loyalty: and if it be established, as a rule. that property talren from loyal citizens. in rebellious States. for military supplies shall be paid for. it may be conceded that every claimant w1l lfind some proof to presentoi his devotion and suflcring in the cause of the Government. The examinations beforeacommitteeare necessarily crpnrte consisting mostly of the utfidavitsof personsasto Wwas character for truth and honestylittle can be known. The committee calls the attention of tnc lloiise to anact of Congress, approved July 4. 1864. entitled “ An act to restrict the jurisdiction oflhc conrt oi (. l:iirns. 5:13. "which deprivedthat court ot any jurisdiction of claims against the U.S. growing out of the destruction or appropriation of or damage to property by the Armyor l nvyengagedin the suppression of the rebellion. It wasscarcelythe policy of this law to transfer the adjudication of this class of claims from the court to Congress. for the 2nd and 3rd sectionsof the notprovidethat the claimspf loyal  citizens. in Statesnot in rebellion. for supplirs and subsistence actually furnished the Army and receipted for or takenby oliieers without giving receipts. May be adjustedand allowed by the quurtermnster and Commissary Generals respectively. In the light of this act. it seemsto have been the policy of the authors that the claims of loyal citizenr in lo nlStates for supplies to the Army shouldbe paid. an that the Government should not be held liable for any such claim coming fromcitizensof States in rebellion. nor liable for ring claim. coming from any pprtion of the country. which resulted more from the ravagesof war, at least Without an act of long gasfor the payment of it, The committeo hink that the polio of this act as they understand it shouldbestrictly a heredto. That the necessities of thenation demand that we attempt to pay no claim growing out of the destructionof, or damageto propertyby the necessities of the war: nor any claim for propertyfurnishedto or taken by. military officers, except as the same is now providedfor by the notreferredto. The committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: embed. That until other wrseordered. the committee of Claims be instructed to riscct all claims. referred to them for examination. by citizens of any of the States lately in rebellion. growing out of the destruction or appropriation of or damageto. property. by htiiifir Army or nvywhile engaged in supprming the reion.