Mr. H’OLANI). I think there is avery great difference in point of principle. The court held in the prize cases, and justly held, ‘that the blockade must be total in order to be effectual and if our friends undertook to run throiigh the blockade, they were just as liable to fo oiture as our snemies. But the statute upon which these captures upon land were made is this: “That if any personwithin any State or Territory of the U.S., being ended in armed rebellion against the Governmentofihe U.S or aiding and abettingsuch rebellion"then their property is liable to be taken, but no other class of persons excepting those who are actuall engaged in the rebellion. This is al I desire to say in reference to the law on this subject. As I said before, we have constantly gone upon this distinction from the beginning of this war to the end, that loyal persons in the South were entitled to be protected; that they were still citizens of the U.S., with all the rights of citizens living in the loyal States. W e have taken their property for the support of our armies. Has it ever been questioned but what, if loyal persons in the borth furnished provisions for the support of our armies, they would have their ay? We have an express statute to that eg‘ect. That is the very principle of the Constitution, that if you take private property for public use you are to make compensation for it. Now we propose to extend it over these States. What is the objection to it? It is said that there will be danger that some disloyal person will get paid. I suppose there is some danger of it; and if 2 disloyal persons should get pay for what they have furnished where only one loyal person got pay for what be furnished, I would rather pay the 2 traitors than cheat the one loyal and true man. I would forego a great many disadvantages and a great many losses before I would agree that anyone of our loyal friends in the South who stood by us through all the perils and terrors of this rebellion l would do anything almost rather than that he should not have his pay. Now, sir, as to this particular amendment that is proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts, as the Senfrom NewHampshire said, where is the difference in principle? If we really had the procrty, and it went to the use of our Army, an the man is a loyal and true man, what difference does it make whether he has got the evidence of a receipt in his pocket or not? Was it not equally beneficial to us? Was it a matter of choice with him whether he should have the receipt, written evidence, to show what he had furnished? Of course not. But, Mr. President, there is another answer to this, and it seems to me every sufficient one. If this business had all been done in the quiet of a counting room, if it had been done in the ordinary way of mercantile transactions, there would have been some ground to suspect a claim that was not evidenced by a writing; but how was it? That country was invaded by our armies. Generally in the immediate vicinity there was a hostile arm. Everything waster ror and confusion and a rm. In a great many instances the owners of the property were not present to have any receipt given to them. Vlien these foraging parties went out in haste and confusion for the purpose of getting suppliest there was not always time, they had not. the materials, had not the opportunity to give receipts. Of course, this class of cases has got to be scrutinized with more deliberation; more care must be taken; more strictness mustbe required in the proof that the claimant is required to make in order to allow a claim that is not evidenced by writing than one that is evidenced by it; but that is a matter for the administrators of the law. The bill that we have framed, with the amendment that the honorable Senfrom Illinois has proposed, and which we have ado ted, hasbeen made as strong as language could make it. As the Senfrom Wisconsin said, we have the administration of it in our own hands. Are we afraid to trust ourselves to do right for fear somebody else will do wrong? 8That is a very old argument. that we must not do right, must not do what justice requires of us because somebody may mako a pretense of doing wrong. That is an argument that has no terror for me. I trust, 511‘, that this amendment will not he adopted.