Mr. JOHNSQN. ' The bill as it originally stood excluded from compensation all persons whose property may have been taken by the Army, although they were residing in and the property was located in that portion of a State or States which was not declared to be in rebellion by the proclamation specifically mentioned in the amendment just adopted by the Senate. There were other proclamations subsequent to that. I forget the date of the 2nd proclamation; but I know that there was one, and perhaps more than one, subsequent to the specified proclamation of 1862. forget the date of the occupation by the U.S. of NewOrleans and the surrounding territory, but I think it was some time after the particu. lar proclamation, and from the time that was acquired the authority of the U.S. was never for a moment disturbed within the limits of that military occupation. We follow the language Now, I suggest to the honorable member from Illinois, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, and to the Senate, why it would not be just and right to secure to loyal citizens of Louisiana who were within the military occupation of that State by the U.S., and whose property was taken for the U.S., the benefit of this bill. If it be right to give the benefit of the bill to those who were occupying a part of a State not embraced in the rebellion, by force of the proclamation of July 1, 1862, I cannot see why it is not equally right to give the benefit of the bill to those who were within the military occupation which the U.S. obtained in Louisiana, being loyal, and who may more or less have contrib uted to the military occupation or the retention of it, whose property may have been taken subsequently for the use of the U.S. I have reason to know that there were in NewOrleans and the immediate surrounding country a great many men who were really loyal, many more than the country is now aware of who looked with the greatest solicitude to the coming of the troops of the U.S., and who rejoiced when that event occurred, not for a moment, forgetting the allegiance they owed the U.S or their love of the institutions of the General Government. Now, to say that their property which was taken by the U.S. for the benefit of their troops after that period is not to be paid for seems to me to be as unjust as it would be to say that the property of those who happen to be in a portion of a State not included within the proclamation of the President of July 1, 1862, should not have the benefit of the law. The principle upon which the provision stands is that the property of a loyal citizen which has been used by the U.S. is to be paid for, provided only that he does not happen unfortunately to be within the limits of a State the whole of which was declared to be in rebellion. I propose, therefore, to amend the bill by inserting between the 15th and 16th lines these words: “ or which at the time the property was taken was within the military occupation of the U.S and so remained to the close of the war.”