178 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



of a duty, winch we think was laudable, or 

 which was innocent, under color or pretence of 

 authority, we may step forward and rescue 

 him. I do not know that any such case can 

 arise under existing laws ; but if it should, we 

 could indemnify the officer upon the ordinary 

 and usual principle which has prevailed in 

 other countries as well as this. The present 

 bill, however, which proposes to close the 

 courts of justice, and forbid the citizen to ap- 

 proach a tribunal where the laws will be ad- 

 ministered, ought at least to stand condemned, 

 and be rejected." 



The amendment was rejected yeas, 9, nays, 

 30 ; and the bill was passed by the following 

 vote: 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Cattcll, Chandler, Con- 

 ness, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fogg, Fos- 

 ter, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, How- 

 ard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, 

 Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, 

 Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 

 Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates 36. 



NATS Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Hen- 

 dricks, Johnson, McDougall, Norton, and Saulsbury 

 8. 



ABSENT Messrs. .Brown, Creswell, Fessenden, 

 Guthrie. Henderson, Nesmith, Poland, and Rid- 

 dle 8. 



In the House, on December 3d, Mr. Eliot in- 

 troduced a bill to repeal the thirteenth section 

 of an act to suppress insubordination, etc., as 

 follows : 



Be it enacted, etc., That the thirteenth section of 

 an act entitled " An act to suppress insurrection, 

 to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confis- 

 cate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," 

 approved July 17, 1862, be, and the same is hereby, 

 repealed. 



The section which it was moved to repeal 

 was as follows : 



SEC. 13. And be if further enacted, That the Presi- 

 dent 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 thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such excep- 

 tions and at such time and on such conditions as he 

 may deem expedient for the public welfare. 



The bill was passed without opposition by 

 the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, James M. 

 Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Bea- 

 man, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, 

 Boutwell, Brandagee, Bromwell^ Broomall, Buck- 

 land, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cpbb, Cul- 

 1 lorn, Darling, Defrees, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eck- 

 ley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farqnhar^ Ferry, 

 Garfield, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hawkins, 

 Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, 

 Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. 

 Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kas- 

 son, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Koontz, Kuykendall, 

 Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Law- 

 rence, Loan, Lynch, Maynard, McClurg, Mclndoe, 

 McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, 

 Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Pat- 

 terson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, William H. 

 Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, 

 Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, 

 Starr, Stevens, Stokes, Francis Thomas, John L. 

 Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. 



Van Horn, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. 

 Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, 

 Stephen F. Wilson, and Windom 112. 



NATS Messrs. Ancona, Boyer, Campbell, Chanler, 

 Dawson, Eldridge, Glossbrenner, Hale, Aaron Har- 

 ding, Hise, Kerr, Le Blond, Leftwich, Marshall, Nib- 

 lack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Samuel J. Randall, 

 Ritter, Rogers, Shanklin, Sit greaves, Stilwell, Na- 

 thaniel G. Taylor, Nelson Taylor, Thayer, Trimble, 

 and Andrew H. Ward 29. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Alley, Anderson, Delos R. 

 Ashley, Bergen, Bundy, Conkling, Cook, Cooper, 

 Culver, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Deming, Denison, 

 Dodge, Dumont, Finck, Goodyear, Griswold, Harris, 

 Hogan, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hub- 

 bard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, 

 Longyear, Marston, Marvin, McCullough, Morrill, 

 Pomeroy, Radford, Raymond, Ross, Sloan, Strouse, 

 Taber, Thornton, Burt Van Horn, Hamilton Ward, 

 Elihu B. Washburne, James F. Wilson, Winfield, 

 Woodbridge, and Wright i9. 



In the Senate, on December 4th, Mr. Chan- 

 dler of Michigan, moved to take up the above 

 bill. 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said: "I have 

 some doubts whether it was necessary in the 

 first instance for Congress to pass the section 

 which it is now proposed to repeal. The power 

 of pardon is given by the Constitution to tho 

 Executive ; and the only necessity for the origin- 

 al act now sought to be repealed was a doubt, 

 I suppose, whether under that powei the Presi- 

 dent of the United States could pardon all, in 

 the form of a general amnesty. I am not pre- 

 pared to say whether he could or could not do 

 it; but it is a question that is certainly open 

 for deliberation. If he could do it under the 

 Constitution as it is, the original act was wholly 

 unnecessary ; but if he could not do it under 

 the Constitution, without the authority of Con- 

 gress, in the form in which Congress author- 

 ized him to do it, by a declaration of general 

 amnesty, he could certainly issue a pardon to 

 every one of the parties who might stand in a 

 situation requiring to be pardoned. Over that 

 power, of course, Congress has no control. 

 Practically, the question is of little or no mo- 

 ment, I suppose ; for the President has issued 

 no general amnesty. The amnesty, which he 

 has issued is less extensive than that which was 

 issued by his predecessor." 



Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said: u If I saw a 

 necessity for immediate action on this matter, a 

 pressing necessity for prompt action, I should 

 be willing to take up the bill for consideration 

 at once. It is suggested aside that the matter 

 is pressing because the President may do several 

 things under the act of 1862 which the repeal 

 of the law would prevent his doing. Suppose 

 it to be so ; the President has ten days to con- 

 sider every bill that is submitted to him, 

 and if this bill should be passed by the Senate, 

 and he is disposed to act in the way suggested, 

 he has ten days within which he might do 

 whatever he might choose to do before the 

 bill was either approved by him or disapproved 

 and returned so that it could be acted on by 

 Congress. Then I do not see any advantage 

 that is to be gained by immediate action and by 



