May 10, 1866

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the joint resolution reported by the committee on reconstruction, on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] has the floor.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsj lvania Mr. Speaker, in discussing this question briefly, as I am compelled to do by reason of the limited time allowed me, I shall advert to the proposition now before the House as a whole, not undertaking a lengthy discussion of the various amendments which have been proposed, and I trust the chairman of the committee [Mr. Steven s will, when the proper time arrives, call the previous question, and in that manner induce a vote upon the main proposition as embraced in the whole five sections of the proposed amendment to the Constitution.

And for that purpose 1" desire to analyze the various sections of the proposed amendment. The first section proposes to make an equality in every respect between the two races, notwithstanding the policy of discrimination which has heretofore been exclusively exercised by the States, which in my judgment should remain and continue. They relate to matters appertaining to State citizenship, and there is no occasion whatever for the Federal power to be exercised between the two races at variance with the wishes of the people of the States, ror myself, I would wish that the colored race should bo placed in the same political condition as it occupies m Pennsylvania; but I would leave all this to the States themselves, just in the same manner as the elective franchise is permitted. If you have the right to interfere in behalf of one character of rights may say of every character of rights, save the suffragehow soon will you be ready to tear down every barrier? It is only because you fear thepeople that you do not now do it. I consider the Federal restraints upon the States in reference to rights of- citizens as now in the Constitution safe and sufficient. I feel it, in consequence, my imperative duty to oppose this section. Grant this power, insert it in the Constitution, and how soon will the privilege of determining who must vote within the States be assumed by the Federal power? Gentlemen here admit that they desire this, but that the weak kneed of their party are not equal to the issue. Your purpose is the same, and but for that timidity you would now ingraft negro suffrage upon our Constitution and force it on the entire people of this Union.

The second section, to my mind, is ambiguous, and is liable to a doubtful construction. What does this amendment mean? Does it mean that those males over twenty one years not allowed to vote shall not be counted in the basis of representation? If so, why not say so in terms; but if it means, as it may, that the diminution of representation is to be in proportion they bear to the voters, it may deny all or greatly abridge representation. Suppose, for instance, a State with one hundred thousand voters, and a similar number excluded, if proportions are considered this State would seem to have no Representative. I desire that my colleague, [Mr. Stevens,] the gentleman having charge of this legislation, shall answer what they claim it to mean, so that the issue when before the country may be rightly understood.

In addition, this section makes an entire change in the basis of representation, which should in every country rest upon inhabitants. This is the safest and has been found to work the best. I do not consider there is any need to change, more especially when a large portion of our people with whom we hope for all time to live on terms of peace and equity are not now here to present their views and consider the effect this legislation will have upon their interest.

The injustice and the animus of the third section have been so fully stated by gentlemen on the other side that I will not consume my limited time in reproducing, but dismiss it with the remark that it is intended to secure what you most -nosh, an entire disagreement to the whole scheme by the eleven southern States, and a continued omission of representation on this floor. This brings me to another point in the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania who introduced this report. The fourth section I need not discuss, because I believe if that proposition was presented to this House as a simple proposition it would be almost unanimously adopted. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] tells us— "Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, wo did not believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify any proposition more stringent than this. I say nineteen, for X utterly repudiate and scorn the idea that any State not acting in the Union is to be counted on the question of ratification."

In this respect let me say that the gentleman must fly directly in the face of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; he has to put at naught the precedent established in reference to the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery; he has to overcome what is clearly the common sense judgment of the people of this country upon this point. And moreover, I believe his opinion, as there expressed, is in contravention of the judgment of a majority of this House, with whom he is politically associated.

Such is the plan of the committee of fifteen, or what may perhaps be described as the congressional view of this vexed question. It is a plan of disunion, and it is a deception to call it otherwise; and the friends of the Union, by whatever name, must cooperate to defeat this measure, or the Union will sooner or later be destroyed by those who have arrogated to themselves to be its special defenders.

This proposition is worthy of having emanated from the tower of Babel. It carries with it a confusion of tongues and a confusion of purposes. One design, however, is clearly apparent, and that is to secure the success of the Republican party, even in the event of the overthrow of the Union.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what have we in the opposition to this plan of procrastination and delay? The President, immediately upon his accession to the Presidency, took up the plan which Mr. Stanton informs us was the mode which Mr. Lincoln had marked out for himself; and he has steadily pursued it, regardless of threats and clamor, exhibiting a moral courage of the equal of which we have but rare instances in history. Thus guided by wisdom and prudence, he has brought us along until now the admission of loyal representatives in Congress from the late rebel States is all that is required to complete and make perfect our Union.

His plan is simple and effective, just and equitable; and acceptable, as I believe, to a vast majority of the people both North and South. What is this policy?

1. That the southern States are in the Union. Their ordinances of secession being null and void, they have never been out, and are legally entitled to representation in Congress.

2. That whenever the people in any of those States elect Union men, of whose loyalty there can be no question or doubt, it is the duty of Congress to admit them.

8. That all those claiming seats in Congress from the southern States who were prominently identified with the rebel government or rebel army should be immediately rejected and their constituents requested to elect loyal Union men in their places.

The issue is now made up, and to the people we must appeal. It rests with them whether we shall at once permit the people in the eleven States to do as Generals Grant and Sherman told the soldiers of their disbanding armies to do—go home, resume their occupations, be good citizens, and then promised them that they should not be disturbed.

No real and hearty peace can for years come from the course the majority in this House are pursuing. You are continuing to do with the loyal people of the South what the rebels did during the war, persecute and contemn them. All this is unjust, and is not the way to approach restoration. Let us leave the war path and return to the ways of friendship and peace.

Complaint is made, Mr. Speaker, of the support which the Democratic party, as a party, throughout the country is giving to the President in his plan of restoration. That should not surprise any one. The Democratic party, during the period of the war, have closely adhered to the Constitution and the laws of the country. They find in President J olinson that same disposition to adhere to the Constitution and the laws. The course of the Democracy, in their support of the President, is actuated by a devotion to principle. It does not emanate from any seeking for office or from any other sordid motive.

There is another matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the House, and through the House the attention of the country. I would suggest that in the view of just and reasonable men the time has arrived when this system of virulent abuse of the President of the United States should Cease. It is time that there should be an end of these appeals to the morbid feelings and prejudices of the people of the North, appeals calculated to array the northern people against the people of the South, who have laid down their arms, and who, I believe, are now seeking in good faith to conduct themselves in allegiance to the Constitution. They have been punished severely, not more severely, perhaps, than they deserve. But why should we not accept their words as expressing their real sentiments? Why should we treat them as aliens and outlaws, a policy which must for a long time prevent us from securing the full benefits of our victory?

Gentlemen seem to fear that unless something is. done by legislation to prevent it the great conservative men of the country, under the leadership of Andrew Johnson, will come into possession of the legislative branch of the Government. Nothing can avert this. Your reckless extravagance, your unnumbered violations of law, your constant effort to change the organic law for party purposes; your persecutions of the President, who lias planted himself upon the plan of restoration which Mr. Lincoln determined upon; and your careless mode of taxation, relieving affluent men and heaping the expenses of our debt upon those least able to bear it—all these point to your certain overthrow.

All these points are certain to have their effect. The Democracy,- so far as I know, stand ready to operate with anyparty or set of men to crush out the party which started with a disposition to let the" South go," and now at the close of the war seek the same practical result continued separation of the States of the Union.

I now yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. STROUSE. Mr. Speaker, any proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States would, a few years ago, have excited and aroused the greatest interest 011 the part of the people as well as of Congress. The good old charter produced by the inspired wisdom of the great and patriotic men who founded the Republic is ignored by the modern reformers. Amendments are offered and passed with as much haste and facility as a bill to admit a wilderness with a few hundred adventurers roving in it as a State in the Union. There is danger in this, danger to the country at large, danger to our institutions and liberties. The Constitution was never intended to be plastered and patched as latterly it is proposed to do, no more than the Union of States formed by the thirteen old colonies was over designed to be broken or severed by secession or rebellion of any one or more States. Wo are prone to speak lightly of an amendment to the Constitution, as if it were no more than the passage of an ordinary act. 1 regret this exceedingly. Members of Congress, who are here to represent the great body of the people, should be extremely cautious how they tamper and tinker with the fundamental law. History should be our guide and counsel. The gradual undermining, changing, altering, and amending of the foundation so strongly built, so massively erected, so skillfully constructed by the master minds of the revolutionary patriarchs, may destroy the temple of the Republic which so majestically rested on it for eighty years.

What necessity is there now, Mr. Speaker, that demands the change which this bill calls for? I am answered that the necessity grows out of the war, that the South is vanquished, the negroes are liberated, and that therefore the organic law must be so amended that the emancipated slave shall in all respects be the equal of the white man. Well, 1 have listened patiently during this week to the many heavy and light speeches made here on the subject in hand by the friends and advocates of amendment and negro equality, from the chief engineer down to my dramatically tragic colleague who reads anonymous rebel letters for the instruction of this House, and yet I am not enlightened on the subject under discussion. Instead of debating this grave and serious question as becomes statesmen and jurists, we hear some six or eight stump speeches every day, and in truth, not very courteous or good at that. Gentlemen on the loyal side, as it is called, in place of arguing the point of difference among themselves, that is, whether the southern States are in or out of the Union, or whether they fre conquered provinces and the people aliens, or States and the people citizens, indulge in political slang, abusing and vilifying the Democratic party by charges and accusations as groundless as they are discourteous. I honestly believed that the time had gone by for the utterance of such foul and false attacks and aspersions, and especially in this place. Thi- Democratic party of the country and the Democratic members of this Congress require 110 defender here or elsewhere. The history of the United States is the history of the Democratic party; its creed is the Constitution, and its principles have been for seventy five years the operative cause of our country s rise, progress, strength, and greatness.

When I see members here so intensely loyal, who owe their present bombastic greatness to the kindness and generosity of the Democratic party, and who now traduce and malign their Democratic colleagues, I cannot help thinking that ingratitude is a crime and ought to be made odious. I am inclined to think that there are some furiously loyal gentlemen here, who, when they shall give an account of their stewardship to their constituents, may be politely informed, by virtue of the power vested in the people, that the private station is henceforth their post of honor, and sic transit gloria mundi for hypocritical loyalty, niggers, universal suffrage, bureaus, southern plantations, office, power, glory, bag, and baggage.

Mr. Speaker, my first inquiry is, are the southern States still States and integral parts of the Union, or have they, by the act of secession and war, brought themselves to a territorial condition, or the condition of a conquered foreign country, now reduced to provinces? The chairman of the reconstruction committee [Mr. Stevens] answers affirmatively, and doubtless many others here hold the same opinion. If this be so, if that is the status of the southern States, then all your constitutional amendments, acts, conditions, prohibitions, and directions are in order and must be submitted to by the conquered and vanquished foreigners inhabiting Virginia, the Carolines, Georgia, Louisiana, &c.

It cannot be that this monstrous doctrine is seriously entertained by a majority of this House. This point has been so thoroughly discussed that it were a waste of time to enlarge upon it. A short time ago, when 1 had the honor to address the House on a subject akin to this, I stated that our case, the late rebellion, issuigeneris, which cannot be classed under any ordinary description of war, civil or foreign. The law of nations, as construed by these old and eminent authors in monarchical Governments in a past age, ought not and cannot be fairly applied at this day in our dealing with a portion of our own people, inhabiting a part and parcel of our own territory. A war with a foreign Power, or with a sovereign nation, would place the legal question involved in a very different light. We quelled the rebellion among our own citizens and in our own country. We conquered nothing. We have not more territory, people, or property than we had before. This, in my judgment, is the rational and natural deduction from the premises, in law and in fact.

And this is my opinion now, that the States are and never ceased to be, in law and in fact, constituent parts of our Union. If I am correct in this opinion, and it is the view taken by the most eminent lawyers and publicists of the country, then what necessity exists for these amendments of the Constitution? Let the States be represented in the Senate and House by men who can conscientiously qualify as members, and after that, when we have a full Congress, with the whole country represented, let any amendment that may be required be proposed, and let those most interested have an opportunity to participate in the debates and deliberations of matters of so much moment to every citizen. If it were, not for the malignant party spirit, the overweening desire to perpetuate radicalism, proscription, and the centralization of power instead of enlightened statesmanship acting in a spirit of justice and equity, the States would now be in their proper positions quo ante helium, contributing and adding to the general welfare and prosperity of the country. North and South.

While discussing the report of the committee with a learned friend of mine, he informed mo that the subject was most ably treated in an editorial in the New York Times. The Times is acknowledged to be one of the ablest and most leading Republican papers in the United States. Fully concurring in the views therein expressed, I beg to read the article for the benefit of this House. It is sound, patriotic, statesmanlike, and just, and well deserves the serious consideration of every truly patriotic man who loves his country, its history, and glory:

"As a plan of pacification and reconstruction, the whole thing is worse than a burlesque. It might be styled a farce, woro the country not in the midst of a very serious drama. Its properdcsignation would be A plan to prolong indefinitely the exclusion of the South from Congress by imposing conditions to which tlio southern people will never submit.' This being: tlic obvious scope and tendency ot the proposition, wc arc bound to assume that it clearly reflects the settled purpose of the committee. So that the joint committee, appointed nearly live months ago to take exclusive charge of the question of reconstruction, now offer as the result of all their labors what would in fact render reconstruction forever impossible.

"There is an anomalous feature in the affair as it stands, which of itself reveals the monstrous nature of the pretensions set up by the committee. All the provisions of the proposed amendment imply tlio adoption of the cxtienie view in regard to the relation of the South to tlio Union. Wo must begin by assuming that what were States before the war are mcro Territories now; or this attempt to dictate terms as the condition of recognition becomes undisguised usurpation. Wo must assume, in fact, that the South is at this moment neither more nor less than an aggregate of Territories, waiting for admission j s States, and from whose people Congress may therefore require compliance with certain proposals. And yet the amendment, on its iacc, declares the existence, as States, of all the States recently in rebellion. and presupposes tlic exercise by their several Legislatures of the highest constitutional attribute of State sovereignty. They have 110 right to representation in Congress, forsooth. They may not say yea or nay on the most trivial questions that come before Congress. They are not permitted to enjoy a particle of influence in matters affecting the finance, tlic trade, the industry, the foreign relations of the country, or any of its concerns, great or small. These privileges they are denied on tlio pretense that they are not within the Union, and therefore have no right to recognition as parts of the Union. Nevertheless, under the contemplated amendment, they are treated as sovereign States, whose ratification of the amendment is essential to its constitutional validity. Tlicy are to vote for 01- against a change in the Constitution of the Union of which, on the radical hypothesis, they are not present members! Could absurdity go further? Could the folly of this fanaticism he made more manifest?

"LYorn the dilemma into which theeommitteo bavo thus plunged thereisno logical escape. Ifthesouthern States are in a condition by their Legislatures to ratify or reject a constitutional amendment, they must of necessity bo qualified to send Senators and Representatives to Congress, subject only to the judgment of either House as to the eligibility of the persons sent. A State which may assist in the sovereign task of molding the Constitution under which Congress acts may surelydemandavoiccin whatLlicConstitution creates. The greater right covers the lesser right in this or in othcrcascs. On the other hand, if the southern States are not entitled to admission to Congress the point lie established, as tiic radical doctors say it is, that these are States no longer, but Territories only, subject to the will of the conqueror—then it follows that they are not entitled to any lot or part in the business of amending the Constitution. Upon which horn shall tlic 'central directory' be impaled? Shall wo take it that this prodigious amendment, this mighty mouse brought forth by a mountain alter five months' parturition, does not mean what it says when ifc speaks of the States lately in rebellion as States still, with their sovereign functions unimpaired, though for a time uninterrupted? Or shall wo conclude that the doctrine of State suicide is abandoned, the doctrine of subjugation given up, and the criminal blunder of which the radicals have been guilty in excluding the South from Congress at length confessed? Let there be explicit answers upon these heads of tlio subject. As it at present appears the position of the committee is utterly untenable.

"Aside from these points the worthlessness of the committee s proposition is obvious. It cannot by any possibility effect anything. Wo may confidently take it for granted that the people of the South will never under any circumstances acquiesce in their own disfranchisement for four years m reference to all that relates to the Federal Government. There is room for difference of opinion on the general merits of the reconstruction problem; on this point there can bo none. The South has taken its stand on the ground of a common citizenship, and it will never accept as the price of congressional representation that which would be equivalent to an acknowledgment of four years' serfdom ori inferiority as tho penalty of rebellion. Nor should it be asked to accede to terms of this nature. Punish the rebel leaders, if necessary, by banishment or otherwise. But to propose to punish a whole people to suit the partisan conveniences of those who dictate the penalty is an outrage upon justice and common humanity. With all their errors and faults, the southern people have shown that they are not cowards. They will not belie their nature by writing themselves down slaves at the bidding of a committee appointed to consider the question of reconstruction."

If we would do aught to hasten the result which all moderate men admit to be exceedingly desirable it is necessary, without more ado, to discard the idea of constitutional changes as tlio condition precedent of the readmission of the South to Congress. That is the primary step toward reconstruction, practically considered, and we should prepare to take iit on th e ground of existing rights, subject only the lawful test of individual fitness. To talk of wholesale and almost indiscriminate punishment as. a preliminary measure, to call for concessions implying the relation of supplicants petitioning for favors instead of citizens insisting upon their rights, to demand a confession of inferiority with one breath, while with another admitting the existence of constitutional equality, is to aggravate feelings already much too bitter, and to multiply difficulties which the joint committee have thus far vainly endeavored to overcome."

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, the measure before the House presents a basis upon which it is proposed the insurgent States shall be restored to the Union. It is, therefore, the most important question which can be presented to the House or to the country. It deserves the most mature consideration. I should have been glad if a more general and thorough discussion of the subject could have been had on these particular measures, but the House has decided otherwise. I desire to make a few suggestions as briefly as possible, chiefly in reference to what has been said by other gentlemen who have addressed the House. It is my belief that reorganization of governments in the insurgent States can be secured only by measures which will work a change in the basis of political society. I do not think this can be done by theoretical constitutional or statutory provisions. Anything that leaves the basis of political society in the southern States untouched leaves the enemy ia condition to renew the war at his pleasure, and gives him absolute power to destroy the Government whenever he chooses. Therefore, sir, no proposition meets my entire approval that does not propose a radical change in the basis of political society in these States; but I do not, of course, expect the House to adopt my opinions, nor do I ask that they shall be embodied in these propositions which may be adopted.

There are two methods by which the change I propose can be made: one by extending the elective franchise to the negro; the other by restrictions upon the political power of those heretofore invested with the elective franchise, a part of whom are loyal and a part of whom are disloyal; a part of whom are friends and a part of whom are enemies.

I have no doubt that the Government of the United States has full power to extend the elective franchise to the colored population of the insurgent States. I mean authority; I said power. 1 have no doubt that the Government of the United States has authority to do this under the Constitution; but I do not think they have the power. The distinction I make between authority and power is this: we have, in the nature of our Government, the right to do it: but the public opinion of the country is such at this precise moment as to make it impossible we should do it. It was therefore most wise on the part of the committee on reconstruction to waive this matter in deference to public opinion. The situation of opinion in these States compels us to look to other means to protect, the Government, against the enemy. The other has reference, of course, to the disfranchisement of those who are or may be considered public enemies. In regard to that section of the amendment relating to representation, I have this to say: while it is entirely equitable, and does not admit of question on that score from any quarter whatever, yet I do not think it will exert any controlling influence upon the political character of those States, it reduces the representation of the insurgent States some fifteen members. The reduction is not of paramount importance, whether they have more or less members, however loyal they might be. It is but just that they should be restricted to a fair share of representative power. But they do not seek to govern by opinion. They do not rely on ideas for success. They govern by force. Their philosophy is force. Their tradition is force. Whether they befew or many, they will have power whenever they arerestored here. While, therefore, sir, I accord cheerfully with the proposition, it does not meet the emergency presented at this time.

The third proposition is one which disfranchises the enemies of the country. I approve that. I think it right in principle. I think it necessary at this time. If I had any opinion to express I should say to the gentlemen of the House that it is impossible to organize a government in the insurgent States and have the enemies of the country in possession of political power in whole or in part, in the local governments or in representation here.

It does not change the result, in my opinion, if you couple with this the franchise of the negro. Certainly it will be much better, if rebels are allowed to vote, that the privilege should be extended to the colored people. I propose, so far as I am concerned, to lose no opportunity to impress upon the country the necessity for the extension of suffrage to the colored men inthe best and most effective way possible. But that question is not now presented.

Now, sir, what are the objections to the disfranchisement of the enemies of the country? And in speaking of them I mean those who organized and sustained rebellion against the Government of the United States forfive years; who contemplated it for thirty years j who are ready now, not as friends, but as enemies of the Government, to accept whatever share of power may be accorded to them in a Government where the people have the entire power to do that which seems to them right and just. An enemy to the Government, a man who avows himself an enemy of its policy and measures, who has made war against the Government, would not seem to have any absolute right to share political power equally with other men who have never been otherwise than friends of the Government. That proposition would seem to recommend itself to the judgment of every But it is said that there are certain practical difficulties in this matter which ought to control our judgment. It was intimated the other day that there had been some understanding when the enemies of the country laid down their arms that they were to return to power; an implication, if not an agreement, that we are to restore them to their full status as citizens of the United States, with local and representative power.

Now, sir, I do not agree to that at all. I think they had the most distinct information possible given from every department of the Government, by all its officers under all circumstances, that they were not to claim or receive political recognition or the recognition of political power. They surrendered because, as they say, they were beaten. They could not or did not choose to continue the fight any longer, and they laid down their arms, as I believe, with the conviction that it was impossible for them to prosecute the war any further.

The measures adopted by the Government at the time of the surrender show exactly its determination, which the enemy could not misunderstand. General Johnston of the rebel army proposed a treaty with the army of the Union in which it was stipulated that the rebels would lay down their arms on condition that the rebel State governments should be recognized, the Supreme Court deciding where conflicting governments existed, and that the people should be guarantied their political rights and franchises as well as the rights of person and property. This was summarily rejected by the Government. President Lincoln, when applied to by General Grant for instructions, sent a dispatcii written by his own hand, with the approval of President Johnson, directing General Grant to have no communication with General Lee unless for the capitulation of his army, and not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any political question. Certainly those officers who treated with General Grant could not have had any expectation of that kind.

The terms of surrender to General Grant were that the rebels were to return to their homes, not to be distui bed so long as they observed their parole and the laws in force where they resided. The Attorney General decided that they had no right to return to the places where they resided before the war within the loyal States, and that to wear the rebel uniform was a violation of their parole and a fresh act of rebellion.

President Lincoln, as late as March, 186b, in a proclamation in which he referred to a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, declared that while he did not assent to all its provisions, he should be governed by its conditions in any settlement that he should undertake with the insurgent States. One of these conditions was that the mass of rebel leaders, civil and military, were to be forever excluded from political power. President Johnson, in his proclamation of May 29, I860, which, I think I may say here, what I have said elsewhere at all times, presents a plan of settlement that would be entirely satisfactory to the country, and enable us to reorganize these governments immediately without detriment or danger—President Johnson, in his proclamation of amnesty of the 29th of May, 1865, declares that all persons in military or naval custody, as prisoners of war, including, of course, all the paroled officers and soldiers of the rebel army, were excepted from the act of amnesty and pardon. The proclamation enumerates thirteen or fourteen distinct classes of rebels, embracing nearly all the influential people of the rebel States, who were excepted from the benefits of that proclamation. These facts show that there is no ground for the supposition that the surrender of the rebels proceeded from any just expectation of being restored to power in the Government. And, so far as the President is concerned, his proclamation gives evidence that it was not his intention, even some months after the surrender, to receive them or recognize them as the representatives of political power.

It is said that the acts of pardon granted in individual cases, or the general charter of amnesty and pardon of the 29th of May, changes in some measure the political relation of the public enemies to the Government itself. I do not think so. A pardon does not confer or restore political power. A general act of amnesty differs from an individual pardon only in the fact that it applies to a class of offenders who cannot be individually described. It secures immunity from punishment or prosecution by obliterating all remembrance of the offense. But it confers or restores no one to political power. On the contrary, the general charter of amnesty, even if authorized by Congress, as it maybe said to have been by the act of July, 18C2, contains conditions and limitations of purpose which excludes any idea of restoring political power to public enemies who might be affected by its provisions. Amnesty and pardon are granted to all persons not in the excepted classes, '1 with restoration to rights of property" in cases where legal proceedings had not been instituted for its confiscation. So far as the charter of amnesty and pardon is concerned, by its own conditions and terms, by its express terms, all idea of extending to them political privileges or power is excluded.

But, sir, the effect of a pardon deserves to be a little more carefully considered. A pardon restores a criminal when pardoned to all the rights that can be conferred upon him by the authority granting the pardon. That is all. If the President of the United States, in addition to the authority to pardon which he has, had also the power to invest those people with political rights and he expressed it in his pardon, then they would not only be free from prosecution, but be invested with political rights; but the President has no such power. He has the simple power of pardon. The power of declaring who shall exercise the franchise is in the first instance conferred upon the States by the first article of the Constitution; and in the second instance, by the provision conferring the right to judge of the election of its members, on the Congress of the United States, and without their concurrence the President has no right to invest franchise in anybody. Several of the States have in the exercise of their undoubted right disfranchised those regarded as public enemies. Congress has refused admission to persons claiming rights as members. By the several acts from 1861 to 1805 it has declared the inhabitants of the revolted States to be public enemies. It forbade all commercial intercourse or correspondence with them." It passed laws for their punishment as traitors. Until these acts of the States and of the General Government are repealed by authority of the States and of Congress no person can exercise political power of his own right, or any other than a delegated power.

A pardon whether by individual act or by general amnesty does not, and cannot, change this condition of things. I suppose this principle to be so well established that it does not require the citation of authorities to maintain it. I venture to say that there is not in the history of law a single case of pardon which is held to invest persons with political power in a Government or State other than that controlled by the authority granting the pardon, or to restore other right than exemption from prosecution or punishment. It is a principle which has at least been recognized by the law department of the Government. I think Attorney General Cushing gave it as his official opinion explicitly that a full pardon cannot be held to restore political rights.

Now, it is said that this disfranchisement cannot bo enforced. Why not? Because, forsooth, the States to be affected will not accept it. Very well. It is not necessary there are twenty five States represented in this House. Twenty seven is the number necessary to amend the Constitution. The States of Tennessee and Arkansas will accept this proposition of disfranchisement without hesitation. They have already adopted the principle in the organization of their own State governments. It would be impossible otherwise i or the loyal men of Tennessee and Arkansas to maintain governments, and their consent gives us the requisite number of States to make the amendment a vital part of the Constitution. If it be defeated at all, it will be defeated by the Republican States or by the Democratic States of the North. It will not be defeated by the insurgent States. There is, then, no justification for the opinion so strongly expressed, that this measure will fail because the rebel States will not consent to the disfranchisement of any portion of their own people. The proposition is for the loyal States to determine upon what terms they will restore to the Union the insurgent States. It is not necessary that they should participate in our deliberations upon this subject, and wholly without reason that they should have the power to defeat it. ]t, is a matter of congratulation that they have not this power. We have the requisite number of States without them. It is said, again, that we cannot enforce it in these States because seven eighths or nine tenths of the people are enemies to the Government. Thatis not true. We do our cause great injustice, and wo do the people of the South infinitely greater injustice when we accept and publish as our own the arguments of rebel enemies of the country. They say that the whole people of these States voluntarily made war against the Government. Mr. Speaker, it is not so.

I do not believe that there is a State in this Union where at least a clear majority of the people were not from the beginning opposed to the wer; and could you remove from the control of public opinion one or two thousand in each of these States, so as to letup from the. foundations of political society the mass of common people, you would have a population in all these States as loyal and true to the Governirent as the people of any portion of the East or West.

I know that the people of the South are filled at present with prejudice against the civilization, the institutions, and the people of the North; but the moment they have felt the beneficial effects of that civilization, whenever they become acquainted with our people, as they will at no distant day, they will cordially and honestly fraternize with them. It requires a little time, but the result is inevitable.

During this terrible war, which has cost the people a million of lives, and of treasure inappreciable, the people of the South have been compelled to take up arms and sustain rebellion. In the Southwest it was made a crime,' punishable in the sevorest manner, for any rebel soldier to declare publicly or to his comrades that this was the rich man s war and the poor man s fight. But it was nevertheless a fact. The people knew that it was the rich man s war and the poor man s fight. The legislation of the insurgent States exempted to a great degree the rich men and their sons on account of the possession of properly, while it forced at the point of the bayonet, and oftentimes at the cost of life, the masses of the people to maintain their cause. There is nothing in the whole war more atrocious than the cruel measures taken by the rebel leaders to force the people who had no interest in it and were averse to sharing its dishonor and peril. And no public act, in my opinion, manifests more wisdom or a keener sense of justice than the exclusion by the President from the benefits of the charter of amnesty the rebels whose fortunes exceeded S20 000 Would that it had been enforced against them!

Now, if by any means wo could reach the masses of these people we should find loyal men in numbers and strength in all these States. The common people have no interest hostile to the United States. 1 do not mean that class of men best acquainted with public affairs, I mean the men who have borne no part in the important duties of public life—the common men, the laboring men. We shall find that ultimately, and at no distant day, they will become the truest and best friends of the Government; and this amendment, as I understand it, will contribute greatly to the beneficent result.

Sir, it does not exclude and it will trot exclude nine tenths of the population of any of these States. How will it operate? It will begin with the beginning and it will go on to the end. In the first place, it will commence its operations in the States in the valleys of the Ohio and the Mississippi. In each one of those States there is a majority of llie people, perhaps a large majority, who, if lei t to their own judgment, will be friendly to the Government of the United States. And thus from its operations, where it can be immediately applied, and where it will bo immediately successful, it will produce the exact result which wo desire, the immediate restoration of the governments of the States to the Union, the recognition of the loyal people, and the disfranchisement of the implacable and unchangeable public enemies of the Union, and the creation of State governments upon the sound and enduringbasis of common interest and common affection.

Suppose, for instance, that until 1870 some oflhe southern States—South Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama—should decline to accept the terms of the amendment, and remain outside of the Union. Is it not better that they should be out than in, if that is their spirit? Will it do us any harm or them any good? I think not. On the contrary, the fact that some of the States may be admitted in 18G0, as I believe they will be, and others perhaps in 1807, and so on until the last recusant Commonwealth returns to the Union, shows this to be by far the best process that could be devised for the maintenance of our Government and its institutions and the restoration of States.

It was said by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gakfteui] that there is no tribunal which can judge of the proper or improper enforcement of this provision. That is an error. In regard to the election of members of Congress here is the tribunal. In regard to the election of Senators, the Senate at the other end of the Capital is the tribunal, perfect, absolute, competent, and ready always to discharge this duty and make the right decision.

In regard to the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, which seems to have caused more apprehension, the solution is equally simple, certain, and just. There is always a tribunal that is competent to judge whether this provision of the Constitution has been properly enforced. It is not altogether a new question. In 1844 the country escaped a revolution, as many persons think. They did not then, as now, comprehend the secret springs of that peril. In the State of Tennessee one hundred and seveniy five or one hundred and eighty men voted directly for Polk and Dallas as candidates for President and Vice President instead of for the presidential electors. If those votes given against the law were counted, then Mr. Polk would receive the electoral vote of that State. If they were excluded, then the electoral vote of the State would be given for Henry Clay. So closely hung the balance that for six weeks it was impossible to determine who had carried Tennessee. It ultimately became of little importance, because the vote of the great State of New York was given through Silas Wright to Mr. Polk. Had New York voted for Clay, Tennessee would have decided the election. We can now estimate the consequences of that departure from the letter of the law of a small number of Democrats in Tennessee. Had the question reached this House it would present exactly the problem the solution of which gives so much trouble to the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Garfield.] And its solution removes the difficulty presented by him.

But that case does not stand alone. There is nothing new under the sun. In 1856 Wisconsin did not vote for electors on the day required by law. Her vote when presented here was not counted. If the vote of that State had decided the balance between General Fremont and Mr. Buchanan it would have made trouble, because we noflnjpl w that long and careful preparations had been made for rebellion and the opportunity only was wanting. The case presented in 1814 or in 1850 would have been more propitious than that offered by the election of Mr. Lincoln, because it would have concealed the real object of the conspirators, and secured an open and powerful support in tlie North. It presented the difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Ohio. But this is its solution. It exhibits the almost supernal wisdom of our frame of Government. ll shows that the sacrifice of blood and treasure was well made to defend it.

In either of the cases presented by Tennessee or Wisconsin, the Congress would have been the tribunal to decide the issue. The two Houses would have met in convention according to the Constitution. If they agreed the question would have been decided, and the election of President declared in accordance therewith. If there was difference of opinion in regard to the question presented, the Senate would have withdrawn to its Chamber; the House would have remained in its seats; and then after mature deliberation, it may have been for weeks or months, each House would have determined what should be done. And should the two Houses not come to the same conclusion, and refuse to recognize an election, the President of the Senate, or in his absence the honorable Speaker of this Ho se would have administered the Government until another election could have been hold. This would have been done by resolution of Congress within eighteen months from the 1th of March when the vacancy was found to exist. Tne Constitution is equal to every emergency, and what there is defective, if anything, the wisdom of the people will supply. If then, as lately, a portion of the States had determined to break up the Government, they would then have appealed to arms, and been beaten, in the providence of God, as now. Men in every crisis of our history have predicted the failure of our Government, but it has stood every storm thus far, and will last, I trust, till time is no more. There is less chance of difficulty from this cause than ever before.

It is said again, on the other hand, that there has been no successful example of this plan of organization of Government. Mr. Speaker, America presents new illustrations of history and of government. But we are not left entirely without light. It will be so to the end. She is the pioneer of Christian nations. If we were without a guide, it would not be unwise for us to say that the powers of the Government should be intrusted to its friends and not to its enemies. In a dark night, on a stormy sea, the humblest man on ship board would know enough to advise that the helm should be put in the hands of a man who wanted to save the ship, and not in his whose purpose was to destroy it. We are not left without guidance. Switzerland, the wisest Government on the face of the earth, one that has encountered greater difficulties with a higher degree of success than any other, has given us a lesson which we ought not to disregard.

In 1848 she suffered from rebellion not dissimilar to ours. She met it as we did. The insurgents were conquered. The revolt was suppressed. She organized governments in the cantons, as Mr. Lincoln undertook to organize governments here. The friends of her Government, soldiers and civilians, marched into the insurgent cantons, outlawed those engaged in the rebellion, and they organized governments on such principles as were consistent with the safety of the governments. They proceeded from canton to canton until all were restored. Power was maintained in the hands of its friends. The disloyal inhabitants of the disloyal cantons were deprived of the rights they had forfeited by crime. As the result of that policy, Switzerland to day is as sound and safe a Government as there is on the continent of Europe. In a little time she readmitted her recusant sons to their former privileges, and they now, through her liberality, enjoy, without endangering her institutions, the same rights which they enjoyed before the war. What wiser course could they have followed? What better example for us? If we need counsel, to what people can we turn with greater profit than to heroic Switzerland, that for centuries has nurtured republican principles in their purity and in triumph against the despotisms of Europe?

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ECKLEY. Mr. Speaker, any question affecting the fundamental law of the land demands careful and mature deliberation; and it is only when the necessity is great that such changes can be justified. That necessity is upon us, and we cannot, in view of the past and our duty to the present and the future, postpone it.

My colleague [Mr. Fixck] has signaled the alarm at the proposition. Those of us who were members of the last Congress heard the same cry while the amendment was under consideration abolishing slavery, but we heeded J* not. The amendment was adopted and ratified, and every person now rejoices, except a small faction known as copperheads, and they lament it only because of the loss of political capital.

Ih^ old ship has outrode worse storms than he and his colleagues can invoke from the people of the South, and she will outride this; and we shall, I hope, all live to see the day when this proposition shall become a part of the Constitution, with the same acquiescence of its predecessor, that, like this one was born amid the storms of southern rebels and northern copperheads.

The revolution in our affairs, caused by the gigantic struggle through which we have passed, renders such a change absolutely necessary. Congress is the only organized power that can make it; and we should be craven in spirit if we shrunk from the responsibility. It is claimed that this presents questions entirely now in American politics. I do not think so. If we but follow the wise examples left us by our fathers we shall find in the footprints of the past a precedent for our action that will produce wise and salutary results.

I listened with pleasure to my honorable colleague as he described the terrific struggle through which the nation had passed; a struggle caused by these same rebels for whom he now pours out his sympathy; and I was really sorry that he stood so badly on the record during the time of that unnatural and wicked conflict. I was sorry that he and I did not stand side by side in resisting the attempts of these rebels on the nation s life, as we stood in former days when the Whig party was on earth, resisting the encroachments and demands of this same party. But, alas! how fickle is poor human nature at best. With what pleasure would I recur to the Journals of the ThirtyEighth Congress if I could find the name of my colleague recorded in favor of any of the measures necessary to levy men, raise money, provide means, or even to punish a guerrilla for shooting down a soldier or a citizen. But with what sadness must I turn over that silent scroll to find the name of my honorable colleague, upon every measure necessary to sustain the Government and resist the rebellion, just where I should have found the name of Jefferson Davis, General Lee, Jacob Thompson, or any other of the rebel leaders, had they been placed as members upon the rolls of this House.

Mr. FINCK. I dislike to interrupt my colleague; but I desire to state what he ought to know very well, that during the Thirty Eighth Congress I voted for every bill making appropriations to pay our men in the field.

Mr. ECKLEY. I desire my colleague to state whether he voted for the proposition to punish guerrillas.

Mr. FINCK. I will explain that.

Mr. ECIvLEY. I trust the gentleman will not take too much of my time. I would like him to answer "yes" or uno."

Mr. FINCK. I will state the facts. There was upon the statute book a law to punish guerrillas. The bill to which my friend refers was to amend that law and to take away from the President the power to revise the findings of the military courts. I voted "against that bill; but I was in favor of punishing guerrillas.

Mr. ECKLEY. That is sufficient. The gentleman voted against the bill.

Sir, we must all bow to the decrees of fate, and I must grieve the loss of an early political associate; but with what indignation must I regard that party by whose winning smiles and lascivious caresses he has been seduced from the paths of virtue. What cup contains bitterness enough to pour upon their heads? What judgment is severe enough to be pronounced against them? Why, sir, in my State they would be prosecuted, under an act entitled 'An act for the support and maintenance of illegitimate children."

I agree with my honorable colleague that we have passed through a fearful ordeal; that we have made untold sacrifices, and that our flag in triumph floats over every inch of territory. I join with him in complimenting the gallant men by whose valor the nation was saved, and to whom we are indebted for victory and the peace we enjoy. To the God of battles and the God of peace do we make our acknowledgments and return our thanks. To our gallant Army in the field, to the Union party that sustained it there, will the present and future generations accord as the human agencies that saved the country from destruction against the combined attack of organized, armed rebels and organized, unarmed copperheads, each in their place in the role performing their part in the plan for the nation s overthrow. Buttomy I colleague and the copperhead party no credit J is due. They may exhibit their fantastic tricks and play their political games for a little while, but their days are numbered, and the faithful chronicler of these sad events should consign them to the grave of oblivion,

"Unwept, unhonorcd, and unsung."

Peace, we are told, reigns throughout our borders. I wish I could believe that. But admitting its truth, are we not bound by every consideration to secure to the people, as well South as North, such safe grounds as will forever prevent its being broken? But what securities shall we demand; and in what manner shall they be obtained? By following the precedents of our past history will we find the path of safety.

Two instances of treasonable plots and conspiracies stain our former history. The one, an armed conspiracy to resist the execution of the laws, was organized in the State of Pennsylvania, known as the whisky insurrection. That, like the late rebellion, (though small in comparison,) organized its misguided followers, set the law at defiance, plundered the public mails, and murdered the officers of the law. The Government suppressed it by the power of arms, seized the insurgents, instituted prosecutions against them; but the leader and great instigator in this outrage upon the laws escaped the country and took shelter in foreign lands, thus evading justice and saving his life. His deluded followers were saved by executive clemency. Had Bradford, the instigator, been arrested he would certainly have suffered the fate of a traitor. So cautious was the Pennsylvania Assembly at its next meeting that it carefully scrutinized the claims of all members returned from the insurrectionary district, with a view of cleansing itself from all stains of treason by excluding all participators in the insurrection. Not even the talented and distinguished Gallatin could obtain a seat until he disproved the charge of his having been identified with this hostility to the execution of the laws.

The second occurred some years afterward, and was claimedHo have covered a wider field. A prominent Democrat of the State of New York, who had been elevated to the second office in the gift of the people, was charged with having set, on foot an armed expedition for the purpose of dismembering the Union. Burr crossed the mountains to the Ohio river, fitted out his flotilla of boats, and floated down the Mississippi. The key note of alarm was sounded, the President issued his proclamation the officers of justice were quick upon his track; he was arrested, indicted, and tried. The trial, the most important of any in this country, was conducted on both sides with almost superhuman ability. Nothing on either side was left undone. It is the only case in the history of the Government in which the President left his seat to personally superintend the trial. For want of evidence, under the ruling of that profound jurist and pure patriot, Chief Justice Marshall, Burr was acquitted, and with his acquittal fell all the indictments against those charged as accessory only in his guilt. No one ever doubted that if Burr had been legally convicted he would have made atonement to an outraged country with his life.

What Burr s real design was remains a mystery; and many innocent persons were doubtless implicated with him; some, perhaps, not so innocent. His expedition was fitted out, in part, in my own State; and among those induced to join him was John Smith, then a Senator in Congress from the State of Ohio. Smith was never tried by a civil tribunal, but, for his participation in the so called conspiracy, was expelled from the Senate.

From these two incidents in history I deduce two things: first, the determination on the part of the Government to vindicate its authority and dignity by inflicting punishment upon such as have violated the law; and second, to expel from its councils such as have participated in treasonable designs. From these we learn the duty of the Government generally and of Congress in particular; for these things have passed into history, and are not influenced by the opinions or prejudices of the present day; audit receives great force from the fact that both the justice and propriety have been approved by the American people for three quarters of a century. Placing ourselves upon these precedents, and relying upon the justice and wisdom of the past, we are not endangered by unexplored paths or the experiments of new adventures. Guarded by the wisdom and example of many Administrations, we but mete out to those of the present day the well established law that in former times was administered to others for similar offenses, but of lesser magnitude.

How to secure the fruits of that victory and obtain a permanent peace is the question for solution. To admit such members of Congress as they would elect from the States lately in rebellion would secure neither, but lose us both, and we should permit them to gain everything, through congressional action, that they sought to accomplish by arms.

It is claimed that wo have no right to exclude their Representatives. I think we have. We do not want another war, and we would bo faithless if we did not secure such guarantees as would last through all time. If they have given up the idea of rebellion, they can assure us such guarantees as will secure them in their right of representation and the country in harmony forever. We should exact nothing of them unjust or inconsistent with reason* but we should insist upon that wellrecognized principle that maintains in every civilized country, that the highwayman, burglar, and pirate are not fit to sit as administrators of the law.

Those who engaged in the rebellion and strove to overthrow the Government, of their own volition withdrew their allegiance, are not fit, without bringing fruits meet for repentance, to administer its affairs. The foreigner who comes to our shores because he loves our institutions and admires our form of Government, who never, by word or act, evinced hostility to it, is put upon five years' probation before we admit him to citizenship. The reasons that exclude him from citizenship are strengthened in excluding open and avowed traitors. Decency would demand from them at least modesty. They have committed a crime that in any other country they could expiate only with their lives; they ought now to rejoice that by five years of fasting and prayer they could regain the rights of citizenship. From the instances I have given no one who had done an act hostile to the Government ever after participated in its affairs, and no one who was suspected was permitted to hold any position under it until they had cleared themselves of all imputations, and proved their allegiance by a renewal of the covenant of their faith. Even Burr, one of the most ambitious of his day, lived and died in obscurity, declining all marks of distinction, and avoiding all political notoriety. And the instigator of the whisky insurrection chose to be an exile in theland of strangers, and never sought position under a Government against which he had made war. But that kind of delicacy is not a characteristic of the rebels of this day. Their acts of treason, of cruelty, and barbarity are urged as qualifications for political positions. Already the most prominent places in the rebel States are filled with the most virulent traitors. And scarcely had the smoke of battle cleared away, and the shout of victory died out on the air, before the vice president of the confederacy is demanding a seat in the United States Senate. Such impudence is without- a parallel among men, and can only find a precedent in the temptations of the devil to the Son of Man.

That the rebels are conquered, is an admitted fact. That they have any loyalty, any love, for the peace of the country and permanency of the Government, is not manifested by anything they have done. It is true they say they accepted the situation, so does. the culprit. They say they laid down their arms. But their arms were forced from them. They say they disbanded their armies, but their armies were captured or scattered by the Union forces. Then what have they done to prove their submission to the law? They have neglected to pay their portion of taxes; they have expelled loyal citizens from the South; they have treated with brutality the freedmen, and enacted laws disgraceful to a Christian age or a Christian people. Those who engaged in the rebellion are as disloyal to day as they were at any time during the war. Will any one pretend that they have changed? Will anyone with truthfulness assert that they have any love for the Government of the United States, and would they not at any time rebel if there was a prospect of success?

In my judgment three things are necessary to be done before we can with safety restore them to their former relations with the Government:

1. Equal and just representation.

2. Security of life, liberty, and property to all the citizens of all the States.

To reject all debts or obligations incurred in aid of the rebellion.

The ratification of the constitutional amendment changed the condition of representation and rendered an amendment to the Constitution necessary in order to equalize the just basis of representation. Under the Constitution as it now stands they would count the entire population in the southern States. Before the Constitution was amended, they counted the entire free population and three fifths of the slaves; but there being now no slaves they would count all. In none of those States do they confer the right of .suffrage on the colored population. This presents the anomaly of allowing five million white rebels to represent four million loyal blacks, and makes two white persons—rebels at that —in South Carolina equal to five white loyalists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New York. To this unjust demand I cannot and will not yield. If all other objections were removed, that one would be ajustification for rejecting their Representatives. I could not return to my own gallant State and say to her loyal people and to the three hundred thousand gallant sons she sent to the field that by my vote I had reduced their political power until it required five of these scarred veterans to equal two of the rebels against whom they fought.

If South Carolina persists in withholding the ballot from the colored man, then let her take the alternative we offer, of confining her to the white basis of representation, and instead of the seven hundred thousand, her entire population, lether accept the two hundred and ninety thousand white population as the basis of her representation. For mypurpose this sufficiently illustrates the operation of the rule, and the only practicable remedy is in an amendment to the Constitution changing the basis to the voting population, and making that a conditionprecedent to the admission of Representatives from the insurgent States. But it is said wo should admittheir Representatives, and if they are not loyal, turn them out. I hope we shall not be deceived by such a trick as that. Some of us have had experience in expelling a member. If Georgia was to send her Toombs here as a Representative, or Kentucky her Breckinridge, both gory with the blood of our murdered soldiers, both ardent supporters of the rebellion in every stage, supporting in every way, and when conquered, and its failure no longer a question, they would not risk thensafety in this country, but sought refuge in Europe, not one vote on the other side could be had for their expulsion.

But how are members admitted here? By producing a certificate of election to the Clerk, who makes up the roll, calls it himself, and prepares them for qualifying. Much, then, depends upon the Clerk in the organization of the House. He could exclude them if he desired so to do. The experience of Congress has taught us to beware of dangers from Clerks of their own selection. I heard of a Clerk once who decided that a certificate, setting forth that a person was duly elected a Representative, did not prove that he was elected according to law. As an apology for his fine spun theory it was said he had partially lost his reason; but I think he had suffered, if possible, a worse calamity than that. He had united his fortunes with the disunionists, enough certainly to drive any man mad. When the Clerk makes up his roll, calls the members, they take the oath, how are you to get them out of their seats but by expulsion, which requires a two thirds vote. Let us look at this matter in its practical operation. Suppose we admit the Representatives from the rebel States, and the bloodyGeneral Forrest should be returned a member, who produced his certificate of election, was placed on the. roll, answered to the call, and took the oath; could you expel him on account of his treason? Certainly not; unless you could expel all the rest from the insurgent States, and that you could not do. And it would be the merest folly to attempt it. It would then become a political question. The Democratic party would then all be here—the open rebels of the South, the three hundred thousand Knights of the Golden Circle, the sympathizers of the North; the prisons would be emptied, the gallows cheated, the Canadian refugees would be called home, and if that was not enough, they would resurrect the conspirators and call from the tomb of infamy the murderers of the Andersonville prisoners. Then they would have a, Democratic party strong enough in this Hall to prevent the expulsion of one of their number. As to the provision disfranchising those who have participated in the rebellion, it is objected to, first, for want of power, and second, on the ground of expediency. Neither, in my judgment. are sound. As to the first, I have no doubt of the power under the Constitution as it is. Such is and has been its interpretation from the foundation of the Government. Under a congressional act persons convicted of a crime against the laws of the United States, the penalty for which is imprisonment in the penitentiary, are now and always have been disfranchised, and a pardon did not restore them unless the warrant of pardon so provided. The second is equally unsound. It was formerly doubted whether it was expedient to restore the elective franchise to those who had been convicted of a crime. The objection rests upon the ground that the number to be disfranchised are so numerous. This is greatly exaggerated if we take as true what is said by southern men, for it is seldom you can find one who has not been opposed to secession and in favor of the Union all the time. Whether this be true or not it should he no argument against it. The reason for it proceeded upon the ground of self-preservation, by protecting the elective franchise and keeping it pure. Others may desire to make up a party, or to strengthen one already made, by incorporating in it the worst kind of criminals; but it will destroy the object and purpose of the principle referred to. I have no desire, and should take no pride in any such political association. And the country certainly derives no security from such political organizations. But suppose the mass of the people of a State are pirates, counterfeiters, or other criminals, would gentlemen be willing to repeal the laws now in force in order to give them an opportunity to land their piratical crafts and come on shore to assist in the election of a President or members of Congress because they are numerous? And let it be borne in mind that these latter offenses are only crimes committed against property; that of treason is against the nation, against the whole people—the highest known to the law.