Mr. DELANO. By no means. I was not putting the question upon the ground that all those who had necessarily suffered werepublic enemies. But Iwill ask the Gentfrom Kentucky Mr. Smrii] upon what principle of law even the loyal men of Tennesseerand I take the case as strong as he has put itcan say to the General Government that it must pay 510 i Jannalfim, I them for their losses? Upon what principle of law can they say that? lhey were citizens of a State that had attempted to overthrow the Government, of which itwas a constituent member and as citizens of that State, why should not they be allowed to bear the losses of property as well as of life that were necessariy the result of the acts of the Government in over, throwing the rebellion? Let us look for a moment at this question. The Government of the U.S. owed it to itself, its constitutional duty required it, to save and protect the republican governments of thoseStates in rebellion. That was its great constitutional duty, and upon another occasion I may make some remarks upon that subject. The Government went out in arms and in armor to perform its duty. That was aduty above all others that it must perform in order that thd nation might be saved. Whatever was necessary to fal in order to enable it to perform that gent guarantee must be allowedto fall. Is the government necessarily bound to make indem nity for individual losses that have resulted from the performance of that great duty of saving the nation? If so, then see where the principle would lead. Would itlead to the payment or the loss of innumerable and invaluable lives sacrificed in the conflict, and with them necessarily all property of far less value and far less consideration? here is no principle of law that would compel the Government to assume the nyment of those damages. Hldwever, that is a little off the course of argument upon the subject I was discussing. was simply discussing, when interrupted by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr and the Gentfrom Kentucky, [MConnSrmMIiTvHo, q the equitable consideration of this question of the payment for property taken an appropriated for the subsistence and supply of our armies. I will not recur to the legal view of the subject which has been suggested by the interruption of the Gentfrom NewYork; but I will take it for granted that there is an equitableduty to make compensation, and will again call the attention of the House to the impossibility even if epuity calls it on us to make payment of perorming that duty under existing Circumstances.