Mr. CLARK. I have no objection to the consideration of this case being postponed, but I want to make a suggestion or 2 in answer to what was said by the Senfrom Massachusetts, that a man who has a claim against the Government mustwait or may wait, and that he would not vote for this claim even if he believed it to be right. I understand him to put it upon that ground. I wantthe Senateto consider for a moment what that ground is. Take the case of a man who is admitted to have an honest claim against the Government, a claim which the Government oueht to ay. The senator says let it o over. New, Hsubmit to the Senate that if the Government ought to pay it, it ought to pay it now, and the obligation to pay it now is as strong as it is to pay it at all, and it is as much bound to do it. l he Government is strong; the Government has the means of discharging the obligation, and perhaps this poor man, or some other poor claimant, is very much embarrassed and suders great hardship " and wrong by the delay of the Government. What I insist upon is, that you should examine the claim, and if you are convinced it is merit orious, you should pay it; if it is not merit orious, reject it; but do not postpone the man from term to term until weary with coming here l he gives up in despair and leaves you to enjoy what you ought to ay him. Why, sir. this is but repudiation in the beginning. Ifany mer chant or any honorable man should so conduct himself with claims againsthim, and, admitting them to be honestl due, should postpone them from time totime, c would most assuredly lose his credit, as he would deserve to do. The ditheulties may be thick around this Government and its responsibilities large, but I am for meeting them now as far agwe can and looking them in the face, and adjudicating upon them, without postponing them. I have no o jection to this bill going ever for further consideration. I have no objection to every Senator examining the claim from the beginning to the end with the most scrutinizing care. I would, in a case like this, require very thorough evidence. I would require evidence that the paymaster was a man of such high character that he could not be believed to a concerned in an operation of this kind. I admit that cases may arise such as have beenmentioned by the Senfrom Massachusetts, but that does not disturb the great principle that when you come to the conclusion a man ought to be paid, you should pay him. It is no an swer to me when I have a claim, that B had a dishonest one which the Government paid. The question is about my claim, whether that should be paid; and ifI establish a good claim against the Government, they should not claim to relieve themselves by saying that B had a dishonest one. I know there are many men who would sponge on the Government. There are men who would have coined the blood of the soldiers into dollars if they could; but let the Government be just, let it be honest, and let it secure the affections of the people by its justice and its honesty.