372 



CONGKESS, U. S. 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said : " I should like 

 to know by what authority the Senator says 

 we cannot get any more, because if we are act- 

 ing under a kind of duress, I want to under- 

 stand it." 



Mr. Clark replied : " I do not say that we 

 are acting under any duress ; but it may be 

 that there may be objections to the bill as it 

 now stands, somewhere, and it may be that an 

 amendment like this will cure the difficulty and 

 enable us to get over it. I suggest to Senators 

 whether it may not be better to adopt the 

 amendment in that view of it, rather than to 

 reject it." 



Mr. Sherman : "If the Senator from New 

 Hampshire will state to us in explicit language 

 that the President of the United States will 

 veto the bill unless we pass this amendment, I 

 am in favor of passing it ; but I want to throw 

 that responsibility upon those who ought prop- 

 erly to assume it. I will not shirk myself, and 

 I do not want anybody else to shirk. If the 

 President desires to say that in his view of the 

 Constitution and I do not criticise him he 

 wishes this amendment in order to enable him 

 conscientiously to sign the bill, I will pass it ; 

 but I want him to take that position before the 

 people of the United States." 



Mr. Clark: "Mr. President, I think I may 

 say that I am authorized to declare that I do 

 know that that is one of the objections made 

 to the bill by the President, and it is with a 

 view of removing that objection and inducing 

 his signature to the bill that I offer this amend- 

 ment, not that it satisfies me." 



Mr. Sherman : " Then I will vote for it." 



Mr. Clark : " There is one other amendment 

 that I propose to make, and I may as well, as 

 I am upon the floor, state what that is. I pro- 

 pose, after this amendment be adopted, if it 

 shall be adopted, to move this further amend- 

 ment: 



"And be it further resolved, That the words granting 

 an amnesty in the thirteenth section of said act shall 

 be so construed as to authorize the President to restore 

 the offender any property which may have been seized 

 and condemned under any proceedings of this act, or 

 the proceeds thereof." 



Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, said: ."Will the Sen- 

 ator state whether that is also at the instance 

 of the President ? " 



Mr. Clark: "It is. The thirteenth section 

 of the bill provides : 



That the President is hereby authorized, at any 

 time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons 

 who may have participated in the existing rebellion in 

 any State, or part of a State, pardon and amnesty, 

 with such exceptions, and at such times and on such 

 conditions as he may think fit. 



" The question was, whether that would au- 

 thorize him, if a man showed himself to be in- 

 nocent, to restore his property ; and it is only 

 to extend the words to give him that privilege, 

 if he finds the man has been innocent, to let 

 him have his property back again." 



Mr. King, of New York, likewise objected to 



the amendment, saying: " Mr. President, this 

 mode of proceeding presents to us a question 

 that is entirely new. We are called upon to 

 make a precedent as to the manner in which 

 communications shall take place between coor- 

 dinate branches of the Government in the exer- 

 cise of their powers. I look upon it as a graver 

 question, if possible, than the merits of this 

 particular proposition. 



" I am astonished that this proposition should 

 be made. I regret it. I think it ought not to 

 be made or acted on." 



Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said : " Now, sir, 

 what is the part of common sense under such 

 circumstances ? If all the essential features of 

 the bill can be retained, or if the greater num- 

 ber of the most essential features can be secured 

 by yielding one, without which the bill can- 

 not become a law, or may not become a 

 law, what is the objection, as a matter 

 of common sense and common prudence, to 

 taking the best we can and the most we can 

 under such circumstances? Is there any loss 

 of dignity in that ? Is there any loss of charac- 

 ter on the part of the Senate ? Is it better that 

 no bill be passed with regard to this object, 

 which gentlemen profess to have, and have, so 

 much at heart ? Is it best to have an open de- 

 fiance, and to say that nobody shall have an 

 opinion but ourselves? That would seem to be 

 the inference from the argument. I have al- 

 ways been opposed to that idea. While I am 

 very anxious to have my own views carried 

 out into practice, I acknowledge the same right 

 on the part of others in the same position with 

 myself, and those in a different position from 

 myself, if they are to act on the same subject." 



Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, proposed an amend- 

 ment, saying : " I now notify the Senate that 

 at the proper time I will move to amend the 

 pending amendment by striking out the word 

 ' real ' before ' estate,' so that, confining the 

 forfeiture to life, it shall apply to all estates, 

 both real and personal ; and upon that point 

 I will remark very briefly. 



" I am clearly of opinion, and have expressed 

 it heretofore in the Senate, that the clause in 

 the Constitution which declares that 'no at- 

 tainder of treason shall work corruption of 

 blood or forfeiture, except during the life of 

 the personal attainted,' applies both to personal 

 and real estate. The chief object I have in 

 view now, however, is to call the attention of 

 the Senate to a very short, but in my mind a 

 very cogent argument that cites the author- 

 ities on this subject. I have delivered to the 

 clerk a written article upon this very subject, 

 which was sent to me some days ago, by Judge 

 Nicholas, of Louisville, Kentucky, who is one 

 of the best lawyers in the country, and he has 

 written most luminously on all this subject of 

 confiscation and the war power. Judge Nicho- 

 las cites the opinions expressed upon this point 

 by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Browning), 

 and l>y the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 

 Simmer), and he makes his argument, adduces 



