Mr. HENDERSON. I apprehend that the Senfrom Wisconsin, if he will reflect for a moment, will not insist upon that amendment. For myself, I am perfectly indifferent about this bill. The Senfrom Wisconsin knows as a member of the ComClaims that I have voted constantly against the allowance of all these claims, not upon any legal ground, but because I have insisted that in all probability they would bankrupt the Government, and I thought we had better look into them somewhat before entering upon their payment. I shall not object, hovever, to the possage of this bill. But if the Senfrom Wiscousin insists upon the amendment which he now offers, it will certainly defeat the very object that he a.little while ago said he had in view. If he thinks that no claim should be allowed except those which have been taken up on the uartermaster’s return, (and he makes no 0 made now by saying “ entered upon, ”) he is sally mistaken in so posin that, HIS amendment does not affect the ill. here a quartermaster has put upon his return a claim and it is returned here, of course he could not have done that without issuin what is called a quartermaster’s voucher. I'That is ptterly impossible. He retains one copy of it, and gives du licates to the individual from whom c getst e property. That certificate in the hands of the individual from whom the property is obtained is never paid until the returns come in to the uartermaster’s dept. When they come in and the quartermaster has made his settlement, this becomes a voucher in the hands of the individual, and any quar termaster in the U.S. will give him the cash, any banker in the U.S. Will give him the cash. Bankers purchase up these certificates after it is certain that they have been returned, “ taken up” on the quarterruaster’s returns. It is not worth while now to say that the QuarterMGen may allow those claims which may have been taken up on the quartermaster’s return, because they are worth the cash all over the U.S.; they are bound to be paid anywhere. If I understand this bill it is for the purpose of covering altogether a different class 0 claims. For instance, a quartermasterpassing through my State took forage from an individual, a farmer, and he did not enter it upon his returns, he UGVBP charged himself with it, and did not credit himself with it; it was an out side matter. He may have iven the part a certificate, or he may have sai “ You are a disloyal man and I will not give you any certifi; cate, ” or he may have given him a receipt, say in, “This is to certify that I took from this individual on this occasion 500 bushels of corn; I have not time to inquire into his loyalty.” Quartermasters in my State never have receipts unless they were satisfied of the loyalty of the individual. He may say “I am not satisfied of the loyalty of this individual; I give my receipt, but I do not put it on m returns.” lf Iunderstand it, thrs bill is for cases of that character, and for cases where property has been taken and a receipt not given at all. taiuly by saying “entered upon the returns” or “taken up on the returns, because then the voucher is perfectly good and worth the cash. in any part of the U.S. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. '