Mr. HENDRICKS. Unquestionably it is very desirable to accomplish all that the senator suggests will be accomplished by this bill; but, sir, I am not able to see the propriety on the part of Congress of undertaking to settle titles under a tax sale. No class of titles are regarded with more care and jealousy by the courts than tax titles. It seems rather an unheard of proceeding for the legislative dept of the Government to confirm a tax sale. The Senator is aware that to make a good title under a tax sale, all the proceedingsinust have been most accurately pursued according to the requirements and the very letter of the law. The courts will not hold a title good unless in every respect the proceedings connected with the sale have been in conformity with the law. Now, it may be that the Senfrom Massachusetts is much more thoroughly informed than I am upon this subject. I have but. little information about these sales. I am not prepared to say whether the sales were valid or not. They may be. If so, they do not need any confirmatory act by Congress. if they were so irregular as to be void, oughtCongress to undertake to confirm them? a other words, the tax sale being void, can Congress by an act ms the title from the real owner of the lands to the purchaser? Tax sales lave never been favorites in the courts, and should not be; and perhaps no set of tax sales are entitled to less regard than the sales which it is now proposed to'confirm. in the other States this tax was not collected. The people of Indiana, as individuals, and of other States, were not required to pay this tax, and no sales were made; but in SCarolina, where the peeple were in a condition making it almost impossible for them at that timeto meet the demands of the tax gathercrs, the sales took place. Whether the proceedings were at all regular; whether they were partial or im artial; whether they were fair or unfair, i think is not known to the Senate; and now it is proposed to confirm them. I should desire very much to settle the controrersy that has grown up in consequence of GenlSherman ‘s order; but I would not desire to settle that controversy by perpetrating another wrong; and I am not sure that the purpose of the Senator, even in that regard, is altogether right, because the colored people who occupy the lands under GenlSherman 's order are not the same as those who hold lands under the tax sales; and howit will dojustice to)ersons who hold under Sherman’s order to conrm the tax sale to other people, I cannot understand. It may be all right; but I do not see the propriety ofit. GenlSherman’s order was a military order. I believe no Senator has pretended that GenlSherman‘s order was sufficient to pass the title. It gave the right of occupancy during the command of the officer who made the order. It was a military order, ceasing to have force at the termination of the war, so that that order conferred no title; and it is simply now aquestion of possession and the right of possession. I iresume that the parties can settle their rights in the courts, ifin no other way. I am hardly willing to say that a set of tax sales, about which we know but little, shall be confirmed merely to satisfy other parties under GenlSherman ’s order. I do not intend to discuss this measure, because I presented my views in regard to it at a former period of the session, on at least a branch oft is subject. I have felt it to be my duty now to suggest this much.