fered, and I know that many of them did suffer and die.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I was in Kansas when Opothleyoholo arrived there, at Leavenworth, with his bands, and he stated to me that they lost over five hundred killed by the enemy between leaving their homes and their arrival in Kansas.

Mr. POMEROY. The point I was making is that there are other loyal Indians besides those in Kansas, and that to appropriate this money simply to those who are there, whether they were driven away or ran away, might be unjust to those who remained. I am for the Government either returning them to their homes, or appropriating money to feed those that we have; but I do not want the appropriation restricted to them simply, because there may be others just as good, just as loyal, who suffered; others, perhaps, more deserving, who have remained at home and stood true to their relations to the Government and their own people. While I would do all that my colleague would do for those in Kansas, I would not restrict the appropriation to them; but I would have it so that the Department might alleviate the sufferings of others besides those in Kansas with this money. To carry out the view which I entertain, I move to amend the amendment of the Senator from Iowa by striking out the words " and have been driven from their homes."

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will read to the Senate an amendment, which I have drawn up to take the place of that which was adopted yesterday on the motion of the Senator from Ohio, that I think will accomplish the purpose fully:

That in all cases where the tribal organization of any Indian tribe shall be in actual hostility to the United States, the President is authorized by proclamation to declare all treaties with such tribe to be annulled, abrogated, and set aside: Provided, That in the opinion of the President the same can legally be done. And the President is further authorized to expend so much as may be necessary of any amount of money appropriated for the benefit of any tribe whose organization shall be in hostility as aforesaid for the relief and supply of loyal Indians belonging to said tribe: Provided, That no greater amount shall be thus expended than would equal the rateable proportion of said appropriation belonging to the Indians thus supplied And all disbursements under this section shall be reported in detail to Congress on the first day of the session following the fiscal year during which said money is expended; and all supplies purchased under this act shall be purchased in the inode prescribed by law for other supplies.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I suggest to the Senator from Maine to make an alteration in his amendment, because none of the tribes are at war with the United States as tribes.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; then there would be no trouble arising under the section.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. But you do not reach the money then?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, yes. That is entirely discretionary.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Is that in your second clause?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes. "And the President is further authorized to expend so much as may be necessary of any amount of money appropriated for the benefit of any tribe whose organization shall be in hostility as aforesaid, for the relief and supply of loyal Indians belonging to said tribe."

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. That language ought to be changed, for there are no such tribes.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, which you have been speaking against, is simply nugatory and amounts to nothing.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. If you change it so as to read, "where any portion of the tribe is at war," it will reach what I desire.

Mr. GRIMES. We have been very much misinformed if the tribal organizations are not in hostility to us. Certainly the Choctaws and the Cherokees are.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. No, sir. Ross was imprisoned and was compelled to acquiesce; and yet they did not declare war, and none of them have done so as tribes.

Mr. POMEROY. I should like to have a separate vote upon that portion of the amendment of the Senator from Maine which refers to abrogating treaties.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That has been adopted already.

Mr. POMEROY. I did not know it. I question the propriety of abrogating the treaties, and I doubt our right to do it. The fact is that a por

tion of these Indians are now in Kansas, having been driven out of their country, but they are soɔn to return, as my colleague says, and a military force is about to go forward with them. I want this money used not only for their benefit but for the benefit of any loyal Indians who may have remained in their own country. I say distinctly to the Senate that when these Indians who have been driven out return home, they will find many others there as loyal as themselves, who have never been absent. Unless my amendment be adopted, I fear that the amendment of the Senator from Iowa will deprive the Indian department of the power of doing anything for those who were not driven out, and as they will all be back shortly, I think we ought to allow the department to expend this money for the benefit of all who have been faithful and true, whether they were driven out or not.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. There is force in the statement made by the Senator from Kansas who last addressed the Chair, that there may be some loyal Indians, who were not actually driven from their homes, that ought to be embraced within the benefits of the provision. If the words to which he objects should be stricken out, the provision would apply to all those Indians who the President is satisfied have remained loyal; and with that amendment I hope the amendment of the Senator from Iowa will be adopted.

Mr. HARLAN. The object the committee had in view was to provide relief for the Indians that had been driven from their homes on account of their changed condition, so that the Department could pay them more money than they would be able to draw under the treaty regulations; and I make this remark in reference to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine. He proposes that the President may use pro rata, for the benefit of the loyal Indians, what they would be entitled to under the treaties. I suppose that under the bill, as it now stands, the money will be thus appropriated, for the very proviso which I have proposed to amend says that the President may suspend or postpone the appropriations, wholly or in part, at and during his pleasure and discretion. I suppose that the House of Representatives intended, in framing that proviso, to enable the President to suspend the payment of annuities to the disloyal Indians, and to pay out pro rata the amount that would be due to the loyal Indians, whether in or out of their reservations. But in consequence of their changed condition, they having been driven from their lands, and being unable to cultivate their grounds and raise crops, it will require some more money to carry them through the current year than otherwise would have enabled them to live. As I have before remarked, the Department asked for $200,000 for this purpose. The committee believe that if the Department should be authorized to use the money already appropriated in this bill to these tribes in gross, for the benefit of the loyal Indians who have been driven out, so far as it may afford them relief, until they can be returned to their homes, and crops produced for their support, it will be all the relief that is necessary. If any Senator can frame an amendment which will have this effect in language more plain and pointed than that which I have offered, I shall be most happy to have him do so, but I do not believe the amendment of the Senator from Maine does this. I

think the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas reaches a class of persons not contemplated by the committee when they authorized this amendment to be proposed.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from Iowa says that the Department proposes to appropriate $200,000 for this purpose, and now, instead of that, he wishes to let the President apply just the amount of money that he may think necessary out of these appropriations for the relief of these Indians. We have appropriated a good deal more than $200,000, I suspect, in the whole, though I have not added it up.

Mr. HARLAN. I think not. I have looked over the appropriations hurriedly in connection with the Senator from Minnesota, and I think they will not amount to more than one hundred or one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in all. Mr. FESSENDEN. The difficulty is just this: if we take money that we have appropriated to a tribe under a treaty, and pay that money wholly over to a portion of the tribe without any tribal action, the obligation of the treaty remains upon

us, and we gain nothing by saying that we take it out of that money. We may just as well appropriate it out of the Treasury in the first instance, and let the provision stand as it does in the bill, that the President may suspend the whole or a part of the appropriations at his discretion, and then, if you please, give him a certain amount of money to be used for this specific object, for the benefit of these persons, if that is advisable. Whether it is advisable or not, I do not pretend to know. But if these treaty obligations remain upon us, nothing is gained by authorizing the President to spend all the money appropriated under the treaty for the benefit of particular individuals. We shall have to pay it over again to the tribe.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Permit me to state to the Senator from Maine that those of the tribes that have remained at home, I think, have received from the confederate government what was due from us, and it seems to me altogether just that the Indians who came away should be paid by us the amounts that would otherwise be due to the tribes.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the Senator cannot be certain of that fact. I think he cannot know it to be a fact.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I have it from the Indians and from our agent.

Mr. FESSENDEN. In what did they pay

them?

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. They paid the Cherokees $60,000 in gold and the balance in confederate notes. They paid each tribe a portion of gold and a portion of confederate notes.

Mr. SHERMAN. And yet the tribal organization is not at war with us!

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I say still the tribal organization is not arrayed against the Govern

ment.

Mr. WILKINSON. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs told me that he had satisfactory evidence that the confederate government had paid these Indians something between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The money, however, has been appropriated by the Indians who aided the confederate government, and the Commissioner intended in the end to have it applied as a payment from us.

Mr.FESSENDEN. How can he do it? That is the question. Suppose they have taken the confederate money in that way and have gone to war with us, the question still remains, has their action abrogated the treaties. If it has, that will answer. If it has not, the fact that they have received money from the confederate government, the fact that other people have chosen to give them money to engage in war against us, does not relieve us from our treaty obligations. We cannot avail ourselves in any possible way that I know of, of money thus paid. Therefore I say if the object is what it is said to be by my friend from Iowa, we gain nothing by authorizing the payment of this particular money. The money goes out of the Treasury, and it makes no difference whether it goes out under a treaty stipulation or whether it goes out by way of appropriation, so that it goes out but once. If it is absolutely necessary-and of that I cannot judge-to make an appropriation for the support of these Indians, I really prefer that we should appropriate a specific sum for their support right off at once. Then what is the result? If we appropriate and pay it to them, it may be deducted afterwards rateably from the amount due to them if there is enough to meet it, and if not, we must lose the difference, and the money remains in the Treasury under the treaties just as it did before. That is an obligation entirely distinct.

I agree with my friend from Ohio that we are under no more obligation to appropriate money to relieve these Indians than to relieve white people unless that obligation comes upon us by virtue of having money of theirs in our hands which we are bound to pay. I see no reason in the world, merely because they are Indians, why we should take money out of the Treasury to pay them, and not do the same by white people, who are suffering just as much as they are, unless, as I said before, we have money of theirs which may be appropriated for their benefit. Now, my friend from Iowa will consider that there are two years in arrears here for these Indians-the appropriations made last year and the appropriations which

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. The gentleman from Maine can do with the Indian Committee as the Irishman did with the frog: take us with generous confidence. That is the way we take the Committee on Finance frequently.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Generous confidence works curiously in regard to the Treasury sometimes.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. When other Senators interfere with the reports of the Finance Committee, they are met with the Senator's rebuke.

Mr. COLLAMER. I do not want to interfere with the business of the Committee on Indian Affairs; but the suggestion of the Senator from lowa that the question of abrogating treaties by the President could be settled after the adoption of this

amendment seems to me to be inconsistent. I understand that his proposition now is to pay over to loyal Indians money due by treaty to the whole tribe. Now, suppose the President, under the previous clause inserted on the motion of the Senator from Ohio, abrogates the treaty, there will then be no money to pay over to anybody. It seems to me that the question of the abrogation of the treaties should be first disposed of, and then we may talk about disposing of the money due by treaty; and as to abrogating treaties, I think the point of the Senator from Kansas exceedingly well taken; we ought not to attempt to abrogate them.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I move to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment of the Senator from Ohio in regard to the abrogation of treaties.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CLARK ) That motion cannot be entertained at present unless the Senator from Iowa shall withdraw his amendment.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. We cannot get through with the bill this evening. I move that its further consideration be postponed till to

morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

DEATII OF HON. GOLDSMITH F. BAILEY.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr.JAMES W. CLAYTON, announced the death of Hon. GOLDSMITH F. BAILEY, late a member of the House from the State of Massachusetts, and communicated the proceedings of the House thereon.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, the last Representative of Massachusetts snatched away by death during the session of Congress was Robert Rantoul. Ripe in years and brilliant in powers, this distinguished person tardily entered these Halls, and he entered them not to stay, but simply to go. Congress was to him only the antechamber to another world. Since then ten years have passed, and we are now called to commemorate another Representative of Massachusetts, snatched away by death during the session of Congress. Less ripe in years and less brilliant in powers, Mr. BAILEY Occupied less space in the eyes of the country; but he had a soul of perfect purity, a calm intelligence, and a character of his own which inspired respect and created attachment; and he, too, was here for so brief a term that he seems only to have passed through these Halls on his way, without, alas! the privilege of health as he passed.

Born in 1823, Mr. BAILEY had not yet reached that stage of life, when, according to a foreign proverb, a man has given to the world his full measure; and yet he had given such a measure of himself, as justified largely the confidence of his fellow-citizens. This was the more remarkable, as he commenced life without those advantages which assure early education and open the way to

he sets types he studies and becomes familiar at least with language and the mystery of grammar, orthography, and punctuation, which, in early education, is much. And, if he reads proofs, he becomes a critic. At the age of twenty-two our young printer changed to a student of law, and in 1848 was admitted to the bar.

It was the very year of his admission to the bar that the question of slavery assumed unprecedented proportions from the efforts made to push it into the Territories of the United States. Although he took no active part in the prevailing controversy, it must have produced its impression on his mind. It was to maintain the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and to represent this principle, that he was chosen to Congress. In a speech at the time he upheld this cause against the open opposition of its enemies and the more subtile enmity of those who disparaged the importance of the principle. Never had Representative a truer or nobler constituency. It was of Worcester, that large central county of Massachusetts, and broad girdle of the Commonwealth, which, since this great controversy began, has been always firm and solid for freedom. To represent a people so intelligent, honest, and virtuous was in itself no small honor.

But with this honor came soon those warnings which teach the futility of all honor on earth. What is honor to one whom death has already marked for its own? As life draws to its close, the consciousness of duty done, especially in softening the lot of others, must be more grateful than anything which the world alone can supply. Even the spoiler, Death, cannot touch such a possession. But this consciousness was not wanting to the invalid who was now a wanderer in quest of health. Compelled to escape the frosts of his Massachusetts home during the disturbed winter of 1861, when these civil commotions were beginning to gather, he journeyed nearer to the sun, and in the soft air of the Mexican gulf found respite, if not repose, when he was overtaken by that blast of war, which, like

"A violent cross-wind from either coast," swept over the country. Escaping now from the menace of war in Florida, as he had already escaped from the menace of climate in Massachusetts, he traversed the valley of the Mississippi, and succeeded in reaching his home. At the session of Congress called to sustain the Government, he appeared to take his seat; but a hand was fastened upon him which could not be unloosed. Again he came to his duties here during the present session. But while his body was weak, his heart was strong. He often mourned his failing strength, because it disabled him from speaking and acting at this crisis. He longed to be in the front rank. But he was not a cipher. He was a member of the Committee on Territories in the House of Representatives, and its chairman relates that this dying Representative was earnest to the last that his vote should be felt for freedom.

"Let me

know when you wish my vote, and, though weak, I shall surely be with you," said the faithful child of Massachusetts. This is something for his tombstone, and I should fail in just loyalty to the dead if I did not mention it here.

As a member of this committee he put his name to a report which became at once a political event. In the uneventful life of an invalid, who was here for a few weeks only, it ought not to be passed over in silence. By a resolution adopted on the 23d of December, 1861, the Committee on Territories was instructed "to inquire into the legality and expediency of establishing territorial governments within the limits of disloyal States or districts." After careful consideration of this momentous question, the committee reported a bill to establish temporary provisional governments over the districts of country in rebellion against the United States. This bill assumed two things, which, of course, cannot be called in question: first, that throughout the rebel region the old loyal State governments had ceased to exist, leaving no person in power there whom we could rightfully

recognize; and secondly, that the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding all the efforts of rebellion, was still the supreme law throughout this region, without a foot of earth or an inhabitant taken from its rightful jurisdiction. Assuming the absence of State governments and the presence of the national Constitution, the bill undertook, through the exercise of congressional jurisdiction, to supply a legitimate local government, with a governor, legislature, and court; but it expressly declared that "no act shall be passed establishing, protecting, or recognizing the existence of slavery; nor shall said temporary government or any department thereof, sanction or declare the right of one man to property in another." In a succeeding section, it was made the duty of the authorities "to establish schools for the moral and intellectual culture of all the inhabitants, and to provide by law for the attendance of all children over seven and under fourteen years of age not less than three months in each year." It was with a thrill of joyful assent that Mr. BAILEY united with the majority of the committee in this bill. It was his last public act, almost his only public act in Congress, and certainly the most important of his public life. As a record of purpose and aspiration it will not be forgotten.

To such a measure he was instinctively moved by the strength of his convictions and his sense of the practical policy needed for the support of the Constitution. He had no tenderness for the rebellion, and he saw with clearness that it could be ended only by the removal of its single cause. His experience at the South added to his appreciation of the true character of slavery, and increased his determination. He did not live to see this rebellion subdued, but he has at least left his testimony behind. He has taught by what sign you are to conquer. He has shown the principle which must be enlisted. Better than an army is such a principle; for it is the breath of God.

Mr. BAILEY was clear in understanding as he was pure in heart. His life was simple, and his manners unaffected. His, too, were all the household virtues which make a heaven of home, and he was bound to this world by a loving wife and an only child. He was happy in being spared to reach his own fireside. Sensible that death was approaching, he was unwilling to continue here among strangers, and though feeble and failing, he was conveyed to Fitchburg, where, after a brief period among kindred and friends, he closed his life. His public place here is vacant, and so also is his public place in Massachusetts. But there are other places also vacant: in his home, in his business, and in his daily life among his neighbors, in that beautiful town scooped out of the wooded hills, where he was carried back to die.

I offer resolutions, identical with those adopted on the death of Robert Rantoul:

Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate mourns the death of Hon. GOLDSMITH F. BAILEY, late a member of the House of Representatives, from Massachusetts, and tenders to his relatives a sincere sympathy in this afflicting bereavement. Resolved, (as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased,) That the Senate do now adjourn. The resolutions were agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, May 15, 1862. The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. THOMAS H. STOCKTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE BLUE BOOK. Mr. TRAIN. I ask unanimous consent to report a joint resolution for the distribution of the Blue Book, and to have it put upon its passage.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was read a first and second time. It authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to each of the several bureaus in the Executive Departments one or more copies of the Blue Book for 1861-62, from the surplus copies now deposited in the Interior Department, provided the number to any one bureau shall not exceed two copies.

Mr. TRAIN. There are now in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior four hundred copies of the Blue Book, which must remain undistributed unless their distribution be provided for by Congress. The heads of bureaus cannot get a copy under the present law. I therefore desire to have the resolution passed.

doubt as to their correctness or their inadmissibility, and at the same time afford a reasonable

The eighth section provides that the commissioners shall adopt such rules and regulations for carrying this act into execution as the President of the United States shall approve, and publish the same for eight weeks, successively, in the newspapers in the several States and Territories in which the laws of the United States are published. The ninth section gives the commissioners power to hold their sessions at such times and places, in the United States, as they shall deem proper and conducive to the public interest and convenience of claimants. They may also, in their discretion, make a personal examination of any farm, plantation, building, or property in relation to which any claim for losses or damages shall have been presented. They shall also have power to examine on oath any claimant, and all other persons, in relation to said claim, who have any knowledge thereof; and shall cause the testimony so taken to be reduced to writing and signed by the person taking the same; and shall return said testimony, with their proceedings in relation to said claims, to the Secretary of War; and it shall be his duty to lay the same before the Congress of the United States at the commencement of every session thereof, to the end that such provision may be made for the relief of the claimants as shall be deemed just and proper.

The tenth section directs that the commissioners shall not take cognizance of any claim against the United States for the loss, value, or services, of any slave or person of color, nor for damages or losses arising from his or her escape, capture, or detention; nor shall any person who has engaged, or shall at any time engage, in the present rebellion against the Government of the United States, or been at any time hostile to such Government, or given aid and comfort to those engaged in said rebellion, derive any benefit under this act. And it shall be the duty of said commissioners to inquire into and take testimony as to the loyalty of every person who has sustained loss or damage to his or her property during the present rebellion, and as to the loyalty of those who may present their claims under this act; and also as to whether the said persons in any manner favored or supported a secession ordinance in any State, or in any manner supported or favored rebellion against, or resistance to, the laws of the United States.

Mr. FENTON. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Claims have had the subject of this bill under consideration from an early day in the session, and they have given it the most careful and earnest attention.

It was evident to all, in the early stages of the rebellion, that the border States, so-called, were to be occupied as the chosen ground of the rebels in their wicked and terrific struggle to overthrow the Government. I do not say that the citizens of these States could not by a resolute and determined stand for the Union have avoided many of the desolating consequences to them and to their property which have followed. Passing by this fact, the painful necessity was presented, that in order to defend, sustain, and protect our noble Government, and to punish its enemies, we must march our forces to this middle ground, occupy it, and possess, use, and destroy, to some extent, the property of innocent and loyal men.

I need not speak of the ruin, desolation, and suffering that has marked almost every cultivated and occupied section of these States-this was the fortune of war; but to the extent that the property of loyal men, from whatever part of the country, has been or may be made subservient to our success by order of the proper military authorities, the nation should adopt early measures to adjust and settle upon the principles of equity and justice. Memorial after memorial, petitions large and small, and individual applications have been sent to the Committee of Claims asking for relief, and the question arose whether we should continue the slow and unsatisfactory method of passing upon cach case, and submitting it to the consideration of the House and the Senate upon testimony furnished by the claimant, or whether we should, while these cases were fresh, institute such authority for examination as would leave no

relief that recognition and payment would not be unnecessarily delayed.

Mr. Speaker, I know something of the delays of payments, and the doubts of the legitimacy of claims, in seeking the usual routine of adjustment through the committees of Congress. People have come here year after year, as the followers of Mohammed went up to Mecca, and with results too often about as unsubstantial. I really believe that there is no civilized country in the world where meritorious claims against the Government are subjected to more intolerable delays than in our own, or in which claims of a most exceptionable character have been more frequently allowed. But, if in the past this method of acting upon claims against the Government was tolerable, it would truly be intolerable now, when the number growing out of the prosecution of this war for the Union is so wonderfully increased, and their urgency in many cases so painfully evident. Therefore, the committee, with entire unanimity, except in regard to one paragraph in the last section, have agreed upon the bill now under consideration, providing for a commission, under certain rules and regulations, and in conformity to certain well defined principles, to take testimony and report to the Secretary of War their conclusion, and to be by him submitted to Congress.

This plan has much to commend it to the approval of the House and the country. It provides a mode for relief at the earliest practicable time, consistent with a thorough investigation and the condition of the Treasury. It would have uniformity of action within fixed rules. There would be increased certainty of obtaining reliable testimony and facts, and there would be an almost total avoidance of incongruity of action and of frauds.

Mr. Speaker, the Government may not be in a condition to pay all just claims this session or next, or even next year, but it should institute such proceedings as will, while guarding itself against imposition and fraud, enable it to pay as soon as the means are at command for such purpose. Everybody knows, who has had the experience of one term in Congress, that the action of the Committee of Claims would be slow, uncertain, and irregular, varying somewhat with the changes in representation which are liable to occur at the beginning of every Congress.

"It seems to have been admitted, from an early day, that the Congress was a tribunal unsuited to the proper adjustment of private claims which depend upon the application of legal principles."

This results from the nature of its organization, the number of its members, and the magnitude of the interests of national concern which continually engage its attention.

The care and responsibility in such cases usually rests with the committee, and the time commonly devoted to the investigation of claims is therefore of necessity extremely limited, and hardly, in any important case, sufficient for an investigation of the facts or the proper thought of the legal or equitable principles which ought to govern the final determination of all such questions. It is equally notorious that the exercise of this jurisdiction by Congress tends to the practice of corruption. The personal solicitation of claimants is not unfrequently made to take the place of facts and sound arguments. Members are influenced by personal appeals, ex parte statements, and various considerations having but little reference to the merits of a claim. Thus it is that claims without merit are often allowed, while others of a meritorious character are suffered to slumber, or are rejected. I have to complain, then, Mr. Speaker, that the rights and convenience of worthy claimants are disregarded too often by our present practice; and not unfrequently from the considerations I have mentioned the utmost incongruity of action arises, and the allowance of almost any claim that can be made up by human assurance or ingenuity.

A very important feature of this bill is the mode adopted for taking the evidence in support of a claim. It will be seen that the claimant is required to publish for four successive weeks the nature and extent of his claim, the property used, taken, or destroyed, and the names of the witnesses intended to be offered in the case, thus advertising

to the world, and inviting the closest scrutiny. It is scarcely possible, with the checks and safeguards in this bill, for a fraudulent claim to go undetected. Is it not the best provision against fraud and imposition in such cases that could be devised? Thanks to the Secretary of War for the suggestion, and I thank him moreover for his approval of every section and paragraph in this bill. The committee have been careful not to overstep the principles and rules laid down for the guidance of Congress in the adjustment of claims during the past history of the Government. They have looked at the precedents in legislation, and have had occasion to refer to the greatest intellects of the periods in which the Revolution and the last war with England occurred. The views of Hamilton and Madison, and later, of Whittlesey and Giddings, have given to the Committee of Claims in earlier days an enviable fame, and from such we have sought wisdom and guidance.

After the war of 1812, and during a time of great suffering and distress, the Congress thought proper in justice to claimants to make certain provisions for them, and to establish certain rules and principles in regard to their allowance. Our troops then, as now, had taken for their use, subsistence, or comfort, horses, cattle, wagons, implements, forage, and quarters; and some of these claims it was thought ought to be allowed, and therefore the law of April 9, 1816, and the principles then affirmed are those upon which this bill is founded. I send the law to the Clerk's desk, and ask that the portion I have marked may be read.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"When any property has been impressed or taken by public authority for the use or subsistence of the Army during the late war, and the same shall have been destroyed, lost, or consumed, the owner of such property shall be paid the value thereof, deducting therefrom the amount which has been paid, or may be claimed, for the use and risk of the same while in the service aforesaid.'

"This provision relates to every species of property taken or impressed for the use and subsistence of the Army, not comprehended in any of the preceding classes, and which shali have been in any manner destroyed, lost, or consumed by the Army, including in its scope all kinds of provisions, forage, fuel, articles for clothing, blankets, arins, and ammunition; in fact, everything for the use and equipment of an army.

"In all these cases, the certificates of the officers or agents of the United States taking or impressing any of the aforesaid articles, authenticated by the officer commanding the corps for whose use they were taken or impressed, and, furthermore, of the officers and agents under whose command the same were destroyed, lost, or consumed, specifying the value of the articles so taken or impressed, and destroyed, lost, or consumed, and, if any payinent has been made for the use of the same, and the amount of such payment, [must be furnished;] and if no payment has been made, the certificate must state that none has been made.

"Before any other evidence will be received, the claimant must make oath that it is not in his power to procure that which is above specified; and, further, that the evidence which he offers in lieu thereof is the best which he is able to obtain.

"Under this provision, no claim can be admitted for any article which has not been taken by the orders of the commandant of the corps for whose use it may be stated to have been taken. For any taking not so authorized, the party's redress is against the person committing it."

Mr. FENTON. Then, as now, the depredations of the enemy were so extensive that indemnity to citizens was a matter of absolute impossi bility; but Congress passed the law prescribing the principles upon which the Government would hold itself bound to its citizens. That is all; and it may be summed up in general terms, that when the losses occurred in consequence of the act of the Government in taking possession of private property, the Government is responsible for making compensation; but in cases where claims have been made for the immense losses by reason of the enemy passing through a section of country, the Government has with uniform action disclaimed any obligations to its citizens. So, also, has the Government distinctly denied any liability on account of depredations made by lawless individuals upon its citizens, whether such lawless individuals were citizens or enemies. The law I have referred to, and the principles evolved from it and cotemporaneous legislation, were intended to cover all the claims against the Government for which it was willing to be bound, and for which it would hold itself responsible.

I am as much opposed as any gentleman can be, to paying for losses or damages to those who have aided or abetted this monstrous crime against liberty and free government, but knowing its source, and the stimulating impulse, we should be careful not to confound those whose independence of action has been temporarily borne down by the