follow the departed with idle lamentation, but to remember their wishes and to execute their commands.”[3] These are the words of Tacitus. I venture to add that we shall best honor him we now celebrate, if we adopt his aspiration and strive for its fulfilment. It is as Defender of Human Rights that Thaddeus Stevens deserves homage. Here he is supreme. On other questions he erred. On the finances his errors were signal. But history will forget these and other failings, as it bends with reverence before the exalted labors by which humanity has been advanced. Already he takes his place among illustrious names which are the common property of mankind. I see him now, as so often during life. His venerable form moves slowly and with uncertain steps; but the gathered strength of years is in his countenance, and the light of victory on his path. Politician, calculator, timeserver, stand aside! A hero-statesman passes to his reward. CLAIMS OF CITIZENS IN THE REBEL STATES. SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 12 AND 15, 1869. MR. PRESIDENT,--This discussion, so unexpectedly prolonged, has already brought us to see two things,--first, the magnitude of the interests involved, and, secondly, the simplicity of the principle which must determine our judgment. It is difficult to exaggerate the amount of claims which will be let loose to feed on the country, if you recognize that now before us; nor can I imagine anything more authoritative than the principle which bars all these claims, except so far as Congress in its bounty chooses to recognize them. * * * * * By the Report of the Committee on Claims[4] it appears that the house of Miss Sue Murphey, of Decatur, Alabama, was destroyed, so that not a vestige remained, by order of the commander at that place, on the 19th March, 1864, under instructions from General Sherman to make it a military post. It is also stated that Miss Murphey was loyal. These are the important facts. Assuming the loyalty of the petitioner, which I have been led to doubt, the simple question is, whether the Nation is bound to indemnify a citizen, domiciled in a Rebel State, for property in that State, taken for the building of a fort by the United States against the Rebels. Here it is proper to observe three things,--one concerning the petitioner, and two concerning the property taken: first, that the petitioner was domiciled in a Rebel State, or, to use more technical language, in a State declared by public proclamation to be in rebellion; secondly, that the property was situated within the Rebel State; and, thirdly, that the property was taken under the necessities of war, and for the national defence. On these three several points there can be no question. They are facts which have not been denied in this debate. Thus far I confine myself to a statement of facts, in order to prepare the way for the consideration of the legal consequences.