May 8, 1866 (4)

Mr. SMITH. I have always felt that when a crime has been committed, an absolute violation of law, upon a proper arraignment and trial and conviction of the party, justice and right and law compel the execution of the' sentence. I entertain that opinion now and shall continue to express it. I therefore disagree with the gentleman who has just preceded me, [Mr. Schenck,] and the committee upon reconstruction who have reported this joint resolution, that those who have been what are usually denominated red handed traitors," who have attempted to destroy this Government and those who have defended it, should be forgiven at this time or even in 1870. I know there is a feeling prevalent in this House and in the country that we must submit to this proposition because there is a sentiment of reconciliation in the words and manner in which it is gotten up and proposed. But, for one, I must dissent, and my name must go upon the record in opposition to those men who have heretofore claimed a higher position for punishing those who have attempted to destroy this Government. I am surprised, and I must express my surprise, that men who have stood by the Government, who have voted men and money to sustain it, who have seen their country overrun, who have seen their armies defeated, who have seen their brothers slain, who have seen large battle fields rendered gory, should at this time come forward and say that in 1870 the doors should ho opened to these rebels and that there should be a general amnesty. You are radical; I am not. You are for general amnesty with universal suffrage; I am not. I stand here as a Union man, and as a conservative man, desirous to restore the Government, to secure the peace and happiness of the people, the unity of the States, and the supremacy of the Constitution. If you ask my consent to the pardon of the leaders of thisrebellion, I say "No." But there are ro men upon this floor who say," Confiscate their property and let them go." I say "No." In the Thirty Eighth Congress I voted far the' confiscation of the property of the leading rebels, and I made a speech in advocacy of that position. 1 stand by that doctrine to day But where are the men. who advocated the doctrine then, and said, "Not only confiscate their property but hang them all?" Those men now say Pardon them all, and restore them in 1870 to all the rights and privileges of citizenship." They do not even propose to wait until 1870. They say, "Confiscate their property and let them go." They would apply this doctrine to men who are guilty of rebellion against the Government, of treason against the Constitution, and war upon all our institutions. Tlicy say of such as Clement C. Clay, "Let them depart in peace." They would say of Jeff. Davis, "Confiscate his property and let him return to his home." All this may suit you; it does not suit me. You are radical; I am conservative. You say "Hang everybody," but you will not hang anybody. You say" Prosecute everybody," but you will not prosecute anybody. You say "Execute the laws," but you do not do it. Not long since the question was asked upon this floor whether you would execute these men through the instrumentality of the President. The answer was "No;" and the reason of that answer was that it was feared that the President would receive a little too much credit for his action in seeing that the laws were executed. I say let these men bo tried; if guilty, let them bo convicted; and then see whether the President will pardon them when thus convicted. Sir, this will never be done if we trust to those men who are all the time urging their radical schemes, who have forgotten the interests of the 'country, who seek not the salvation of the Union, but the salvation of party, and the interest of their particular ilk. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Schenck] said a few minutes ago that he would not admit that these States were out of the Union; that they had been in the Union and were parts of the body politic Well, if that is the fact, how and under what circumstances are they to be gotten out? IIow are they to bo destroyed? The gentleman, in speaking of this subject, adopted a simile, and said that when a child has offended the father whips him, and thus by correction brings him back to obedience to the law. Now, I submit the question whether there was ever on the face of the earth a father who, though he chastised his child because of disobedience, refused that child, even after the chastisement, bread and clothing and a place in his house. The father whips the child from love, remembering all the time that he is" bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh." He chastises him because he loves him.

Now, sir, the honorablegentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sciiexck] has chastised these men. He was a general in the Army, and he helped to chastise them. He did it because he loved them, because they were a part of the family. But now, when he has whipped them into obedience, and they ask to resume their place in the family circle, under the shelter of the great household of the nation, he says, "No, you cannot come in." This is unnatural. It is in violation of every principle that should govern the action of the father toward an erring or rebellious child. It is in violation of those great principles of affection which God has implanted in the human breast, and the disregard of which stamps a man as unworthy the name of man.

Now, sir, these States are in the Union. There is, so far as I know, only one man in this House who says that they are not; and he is the member from the Lancaster district of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens.] I designate him simply by the appellation of "member;"

But the distinguished men upon this floor on that side say these States are in the Union; and I must call to my support again a distinguished gentleman, a personal friend, one I like, one I may appeal to, but who will not say anything to me just now—the gentleman from Ohio who sits across there; 1 meanMr Bing-

Mr. THAYER. I rise to a point of order. It is out of* order to mention by name any member present. I would not make this point upon a new member, but I think I can fairly make it upon the gentleman from Kentucky as the practice has become of late a very common one.

The SPEAKER. The rule is imperative that members must not be referred to except as from the States which they represent.

Mr. SMITH. I only used the gentleman s name in parenthesis. [Laughter.] Now, sir, I have heard the gentleman who called me to order ns well as other gentlemen upon this floor mention the names of members in parenthesis. I would like to know, then, by what authority he has called me to order. You will find in the printed speeches the names of members printed in parenthesis.

Mr. THAYER. The names are interpolated by the reporters. The gentleman cannot mention any instance in which I have called the name of any member upon this floor. I consider it unparliamentary. I hope in future we will not have any more of it.

Mr. SMITH. I do not want the gentleman to take up all of my time. I wish to say I have precedents. Every gentleman who has any reputation in this country, and who lias spoken upon this floor, has again and again called members by name when it was necessary to do so. There is the gentleman from Illinois, L will not mention his name, and many others, have called members by name ten, fifteen, and thirty times.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman refers to me I will say that he never heard ine call a member by name.

Mr. SMITH. There are other gentlemen on the floor from Illinois.

The SPEAKER. To call a member by name in the British Parliament is considered the highest censure.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, I want to have one thing settled light here. I find every time within the last four or live weeks that I have risen to address the House I have been interrupted by questions of order. I am a man of good humor, and you cannot make mo mad. I do not mean to do any wrong to anybody, but J do mean to speak the truth. If it offends anybody, why then let them call me to order. T mean to say that none of these States are out of (he Union, and that they never have been out of the Union.

Mr. THAYER. I do not want to interrupt the. gentleman.

Mr. SMITH. I do not yield to the gentleman. The gentleman with his point of order has diverted me from the course of my argument. I am willing .to stand on the principles I have avowed. There is the gentleman from Ohio will not call him byname, but the House will see whom I mean by looking where I am pointing my finger—was allowed to go on making his speech without interruption, but how does it happen when I undertake to speak in vindication of the great principle of the, Union party I am constantly called to order? Mr. THAYER. Does the gentleman want an answer?

Mr. SMITH. You cannot answer me just now. I must come back. It cannot be denied that members on the other side have risen here and abused the President, abused his policy of reconstruction and almost everything else that he has presented to Congress. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ixgersolt,] spoke here on last Saturday for more than two hours in abuse of the President. Now, I want to know why, if they are allowed to speak against him, I shall not be allowed to speak in his favor. There is nothing that they can propose that will restore this Union. They cannot deny the constitutional prerogative of every State, taxation with representation. It is impossible. It is the fundamental law.

But you say that you are the judges of the qualification of Representatives in Congress, and the Senate are "the judges in regard to the qualification of Senators; and so we can decide that question. I venture to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Steyi xs and all that class of men will vote sooner, especially after the year 1870, to admit these traitors into their seats than I will; and I dare you to try it. You do not hate the red handed traitors worse than I do, and you dare not go with me on a jury to try them. You would blanch, you would pale, you would sicken, you would crouch, you would forgive before I would, and save these men from execution who have attempted to destroy this Government, and you say it by your very conduct and by the proposition you make to day Ifyouwantrepresentation by voting, say so, and let us have a plain proposition. Now, I know it is hard to make a speech in the Congress of the United States without referring t o the negro, and 1 thought I would get through a thirty minutes' speech without doing it. But my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Keli ey could not help talk about the darkey; and my friend over here talks about him, and my friend over there talks about him, and my friends all around the House bring him in. Gentlemen, open your pocket, open your hand, open your heart, and let us see whether Union men from the southern States, and wherever they are found, will not do more than you will. I happen to know some of you who have been called upon for contributions to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and you did not respond. [Laughter. er.] And I know there were others that did. And yet you get up with your loud mouth declamation and send your speeches over the country advocating the cause of the poor black man, while the poor black man, with his face turned to heaven, says, "Lord, deliver me from such friends." [Laughter.] And He will do it, too. [Laughter.] We understand it, and we know that if the negro is to depend on you for his bread and his clothing, (now, I am not speaking of the Union party, but of their leaders in Congress; the men who clamor so much about the negro,) you are the last men on the face of God s earth that will help him. Because, no matter whether a man is worth 250 000 and owns a rolling mill or 150 000 and is engaged in petroleum operations, or is worth 500 000 and is engaged in cotton speculations, whenever a poor darkey comes along you cannot do a thing; but if there is an appropriation of 25 000 from the Government of the United States coming through the Committee for the District of Columbia, then the darkey gets it. It is put into the hands of the managers of the Freedmen s Bureau, and that institution goes along swimmingly and all is well with the negro. There are two extremes. j

Mr. KELLEY. "Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH. I cannot.

Mr. KELLEY. Just a question.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left?

The SPEAKER. Six minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Well, how long do you want me to yield?

Mr. KELLEY. Half a minute.

Mr. SMITH. Very well.

Mr. KELLEY. I ask the gentleman whether he knows the fate of those who are neither hot nor cold.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. And whether that is your position.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, [laughter,] I understand what is the condition of those who are "neither hot nor cold." The Bible informs me they are spewed out, and you are about the worst "spewed out" man I ever saw in my life. [Great laughter.] You take care of yourself and some of your colleagues over there from Pennsylvania.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want it distinctly understood that the friends of the black man, and I use the words with emphasis, are those who know them, who have been associated with them and familiar with all their characteristics. They are the men who have defended them in the past, and will defend them in the future.

Now, the "spewed" gentleman from Pennsylvania talks about hanging rebels, and hanging all sorts of men. I remember, as he must, too, the time when he saw, walking through the streets of Washington, a whole company of black men, dressed in grey, who were prisoners of war. Would you hang them, sir?

Mr. KELLEY. I never saw them.

Mr. SMITH. Then you were blind. [Laughter.] Your deeds were dark, and you could not see what was going on. [Great laughter.] I tell you I saw them, and they were there. I would not hang those men. I would not prosecute them. 1 would not interfere with them. I would give them a general amnesty, and I would extend it to the great masses of the people of the South.

You will have to live with those people; they are a part of the Government; their States are States of the Union; they are under the Constitution; they are subject to your laws, and they obey every precept that you lay down for them. And, sir, one remarkable thing is this: that if a rebel obeys the law, you want to hang him because he does obey it, you believe the law must be wrong because he assents to it! But, if ho violates the law, you want, also, to hang him! What is the poor man to do? If he obey the law he is hung, and if he does not obey it ho is hung.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing I wish to say. There are two parties in this country who are against this Government, and are attempting to overthrow and destroy it— the one is an extreme party on the one side, and the other is an extreme party on the other side.

Mr. PERHAM. To which party does our friend belong?

Sir. SMITH. If you will keep quiet a moment 1 will tell you.

I remember very well a beautiful allegory in the Bible, which I have referred to before on another occasion and in a different place. It was when, under the administration of that great and wisest of men, a long time in the past, Solomon, a harlot stole the child of a kind and affectionate mother and claimed it as her own, or keptit to secure a large bounty for its return. The claim of the legitimate mother to the child had no effect upon the harlot. Distressed, heartbroken, and troubled beyond endurance almost, the mother appealed to Solomon for redress and the return of her child. He ordered both women and the child before him, and after hearing both he directed the child to be cut in twain and the one half to be given to the harlot and the other half -to the woman the true mother." Well," said the harlot, "I agree; I am satisfied; let the child be divided." "No," said the mother, "that is my child; I have petted it on my knee, I have nursed it at my bosom; 'tis part of my bone and flesh, and I love it as I ao my life; do not kill it, do not destroy it; let the harlot have it, but save it." Solomon said, "Thou art the mother, take thy child." The Government of the United States is our mother; harlots North and South have attempted to destroy the child of the Government, the Constitution and the Union. It was proclaimed in the South, "Let the Union slide;" it Was echoed back from the North, Let the Union slide." They said, divide the Union; they attempted it. A long war was prosecuted for this division, but it failed. The wisdom, energy, and patriotism of the people said" No, we will make sacrifices of blood and treasure and the great institution of slavery; but defend, save, and let live the union of the States." These harlots cry to day the Union is dissolved, it is dissevered and gone; the sacrifice made, the destruction of slavery, is not enough; let the child be divided. Their followers, but few in number it is to be hoped, however, say; "Let the Union slide;" but the party to which I belong, the great party of the Union, say "No; we love the Union; it gives us life, protection, homes, plenty, liberty, individual freedom, and* by the Eternal it shall be preserved."' Now, I hope the gentleman understands to which party I belong.

The hour of half past four o'clock p. m. having arrived, the House, pursuant to order, took a recess until half past seven o clock