Mr. WILLIAMS. New, sir, how do we know what views the QuarterMGen will lake of' this question of loyalty?, I venture to say that I can pick out 3 men in this Senate who would constitute a tribunal whose judgment on the question ofloyalty under this law would appropriate millions of dollars more out of the public Treasury than the judgment of 3 other men whom I could ick out in this Senate to constitute a similar tribunal for judgment upon such questions, and not because there was any difference in the merits of the claims, but because there are certain men here who regard loyalty as one thing, and certain other men who regard loyalty as another and a different thing. I do not know who the QuarterMGen may be and what his views may be upon the question of loyalty. I have heard southern men complain of those people who claim to have been loyal men during this war, and say that many of them were property holders, men of influence in the South; they agitated the question of secession, they fired up the southern mind, and when the collision of arms came, when they had inveigled the poor and the ignornut into the war, then they stood back in order to protect and preserve their property and took no part; they were Union men when it was to their advantage to be Union men, and rebels when the safety of their persons and property required them to be rebels; and they preserved that state of neutrality through the war while their dnpe's were fighting the battles of the rebellion; and since the rebellion is overcome they because they did not bear arms, because they did not go into the ranks of the war, come forward now and claim it as a pecu liar merit that they are the Union men of the South. Now, sir, I think it is a question yet to be determined which class of men in the southern States is the more reliable, which class of men are those who are more willing to submit to the authority and acquiesce in the control of the Federal Government those who remained at home, skulked all responsibility, who were one thing or another thing as circumstances required, or those men who went into the bat tle field and experienced all the hardships and sufferings and calamities of this war, and know something of what it costs to fight against the Government of the U.S. I suppose that the men whose property was protected in this way by this sort of neutrality are the men who are to obtain the advantages of this bill, while poor men who were misled by these lenders of public opinion there, who were induced to go into the war and carry arms, are to be excluded from its benefits, and if any of their property was taken they are not to have any advantages under this bill. Now, sir, I question whether those men who were able to say that they were loyal during the warare entitled more to the pretection of the Government than this other class of men, and I doubt very much whether they are entitled to more credit, under any circumstances, or favor at the hands of this Government. Here is a class of cases to be referred to the QuarterMGen; t u there is another class of cases to be referre to the Commissary General, and parties are to appear before these respective officers with their claims, and they are to establish their loyalty. Now, how is that loyalty to be established? Suppose a man comes to the quartermaster from the State of Mississippi, in whatwa is he to prove his loy alty? Can it be proved, in any other way except by the production of affidavits? Will anybody be able to testify as to the loyalty of that man except his neighbors, those who were acquainted with him during the war? And they will testify on that subject according to their views ofloyalty; and they will swear, and they may be conscientious in it, that in their opinion this man was a loyal man because he may have before the commencement of hostilities expressed his opposition to the rebellion; but he was coerced, it will be claimed; a draft was Ordered; there was a military force organized to impress men into the rebel Service, and he was compelled either by actual force or the fear of a tual compulsion tago into the rebellion; and in that way a case can be made out of loyalty on the part of the claimant. This man has a claim against the Government, and his neighbor has a similar claim. The thing may be arranged and understood there among di erent persons who have claims against the Government. I do not wish to make any whole sale charges agaiust these people; I do not wish to say that they are more inclined to er jury than other people; but we know that there is a very large number of persons in that section of country who are enemies of the Government and regard it as lawful, under the circumstances, for them, if possible, to indemnify themselves for the injuries which they say this Government inflicted upon them while they were trying to defend their rights, and we must exact that that feeling will have more or less inf uence upon the judgment and the opinions of those men. I say, therefore, Mr. President, that not withstanding this bill seems pretty carefully drawn, the difficulty is inherent in the case, and I am afraid that if Congress now by this bill uts the adjustment of all these claims, which are innumerable and which amount to millions, beyond its control it will have occasion hereafter to regret it. I know it will be a great relief to Congress, and particularly to the ComClaims, to have all this business transferred to the depts and to the Court of Claims. I find t iat from the provisions of this bill the large claims are to be submitted to the Court of Claims. The evidence before that tribunal must consist of depositions taken in the southern States where these people reside. I do not suppose that it is expected that witnesses, will come before the court and orally testify upon the subject; but the evidence will be taken by depositions; and any lawyer who has had any considerable experience or practice knows that it is very unsafe to depend upon (10 positions for evidence, because you cannot may 'e the witness appear upon the paper, and he may concoct a story, and he may he shrewd enough to avoid a cross examination which would expose the falsity of that story, when the whole effect of his testimony will be to produce a false impression. These judges are not allowed to go beyond the record; they must take the depositions, and they must be controlled by those depositions and by the preponderance of evidence as it appears upon the papers. Now, there is information abroad in this country that is of great value in passing upon these questions that cannot be allowed to reach the ears of a judge, that cannot be received by a court of justice information that is satisfactory to any reasonable mind, at the same time that it does not come in the shape ofJawful evidence to be submitted to a court of justice; and we, in adj usting these claims, ought to be in a situation where we can avail ourselves of this information. whatever it may be. While I do not wish to be understood as saying that I am opposed to the payment of all claims that may originate in the southern States, while I am rea y to concede that cases may arise there where the person whose property has been taken should be indemnified, yet I think there may be cases where it requires the examination of persons whose loyalty is of a certain complexion; and I would much rather that Congress would appoint a special commission of persons whose views and opinions upou tha tsubject are known and can be depended upon to act on these questions than to refer them to those personsw ose views and opinions and feelinns are not known. There is a great difference of opinion, as is generally supposed, between the executive dept on Congress on that point; and I suppose if the executive dept was to pass upon questions arising under this bill, many more millions of money would be allowed than would be allowed by the majority in Congress, because there is a difference of opinion as to what was or was not loyal. At present until there are further developments, until I have more light on this subject, I am determined to vote to retain tbe‘control of the subjectin congress. I am not disposed to be illiberal or vin ictive; I am willing to be kind and generous to these people;I am willing to do everything I can to promote their material interests. I have only one point to make against them, and that is that, in myjudgment, it is not safe at this time to put the political power of this country in their hands; but whatever I can do to promote their material interests I am willing to do. I do not take this position from any vindictive or illiberal spirit toward these people, but because I regard it as unsafe at this time, now upon the very heel of the rebellion, before public 0 inion is settled, before we fully under stan the circumstances of these people at this particular time, to pass this bill and commit Congress to the payment of all these claims. This bill is more important in my judgment as a precedent than it is in its effect upon these particular claims. We are informed that with this bill is another bill that is now lyin upon our tables to pay loyal claimants for all property that was destroyed by GenlSheridan in bi celebrated and effective raid through the Shenandoah valley. Pass this bill, and it seems to me, the argument possesses great force and cogency that if you pay a loyal man for property which an officer took in the prose cation of this war, why not pay a loya man for property which an officer destroyed in the prosecution of this war? And so if you take this step, the next step will be to pay for the destruction of the property of loyal men in the southern States; and do not know but that it may be followed u finally by an argument in favor of paying the loyal men of the South for the slaves that were taken during the prosecution of the war. It is urged by a large minority of the people of this country at this time that loyal men are entitled to be paid for their slaves taken in the prosecution of this war, because they were not responsible for the rebellion; their slaves were their property; that property was taken away from tiiem without any wrong on their part, and therefore the Government ought to indemnify them. I am afraid of the 1st step in this direction, and I think we should take that step with great care and with great caution. We may be compelled to take it; but I do not believe the time has now come when we ought to take this step in this direction a step that seems to me to be going to the full extent of committin our selves, not only to the payment of these claims, but to the payment of the loyal men of the South for what they suffered during this rebellion. Sir, you can never pay the loyal men of the North for what they have suffered in the suppression of this rebellion. Can you pay the father whose son sleeps beneath the southern soil for the loss of that sou? We must be very particular to pay a southern man perhaps a man who helped to fan the fin e of this southern rebellion, who helped to p unge the country into the abyss of civilWar for a mule or a orse or anything that was taken by the federal Army in the prosecution of the war; but how can we ever pay the innocent people of the North who lost their fathers and their broth,ers and their sons in their efforts to suppress this rebellion? That people should lose in war is one of its unavoidable calamities; but we who bore the burden of the war, it seems to me, ought not now to undertake fully and completely to indemnify the South for all it suffered until we can in some way indemnify the North for what it expended of blood and treasure in its efforts to suppress this rebellion.