CONGRESS, UNITI.I) 





: rule whieh is a most valuable 



III!.', alld Wh'lrll I Shall llClVaft T (111 ill! 0001 



.\ liirh nre very piv**in:_', insist 

 upon, licit every liill which is brought in for 

 moderation should !> tirst, nnbmitl 



.rutiny iiml examination of a comr. 

 That is my \iew in regard to it, and with tint. 

 I shall vote a-ain-t taking up the bill at 



nt time.'' 



Mr. Howard, of Michigan, snid : "I take it 



for granted, sir, that the great object of this liill 



:!(, to prevent an unwise restoration 



of property to persons who have heretofore 



been en_':i',' d in the rebellion, by the President 



of tin- I'm'tcd States, under the confiscation act 



of 180:]; and if I have been rightly informed 



is u necessity for the speedy action of 



Congress upon this subject." 



Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, urged its consid- 

 ;i, sayiiu;: "Mr. President, I think if 

 tluTe ever was a case when the prompt action 

 of Congress was needed, it is this. It is alleged 

 that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of 

 property confiscated under the law have under 

 that section been restored by the President. 

 The country expects us to act promptly in this 

 case. It is alleged that pardons are for sale 

 for money around the streets of this town by 

 women of at least doubtful reputation, and 

 with those j>ardons property has been restored 

 to the amount of millions. Sir, if there ever 

 was an occasion that required prompt action, in 

 my judgment that occasion is now, and this 

 bill is that occasion. If the President has 

 powers under the Constitution, let him exercise 

 them ; bnt in God's name give him no greater 

 power than he possesses under the Constitution, 

 to exercise as they have been exercised for the 

 volve months." 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, said: "It is very 

 probable that I shall vote for this bill repealing 

 the clause under consideration ; but I think 

 there is very great force in the suggestion made 

 by the Senator from Maine, that it is always 

 .-.it ei- to refer a bill to some one of our com- 

 mittees. The committees are not yet formed. 

 There is now no committee to which this bill 

 can be referred. I know of no pressing neces- 

 sity for the passage of the bill to-day. I will 

 not commit myself to say that it ought to pass 

 at all. I should like to bo better informed 

 than I am to-day before voting upon it. My 

 impressions certainly are in its favor; but I 

 think we had better act deliberately and under- 

 fltandingly, and -not under excitement, as if wo 

 had ronie together and were in a great hurry 

 to repeal this statute whi-.-h \v- ourselves 

 ! only three or four years a.iro." 



The Senate refused to take up the bill yeas 

 21, nays 21. 



On December 5th, the bill was taken up, 

 when Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, moved to refer 

 it to the Judiciary Committee, saying : " It 

 simply take-; from tho President all power of 

 amnesty and pardon except what the Constitu- 

 tion gives him. If he has the power of pardon 



conviction. u,i.l,T the ConHtiluti 

 - il there. If IK- can only pardon after 



conviction, it lecrei it th.-n-. ' it i,-:i- v ,. tho 



1'iv-idriit with the power- that i 

 tution gives hhn, no more and no 

 country understand-, thi- <|iic-tion. and I 

 every member of the Senate imdi-r-tand- H 



I shall ask for the yeas and nays on the 

 ence." 



The motion to refer was agreed to. 



On December 17th, tho bill having been 

 reported back with a recommendation of its 

 passage, was again con-idered. 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, said: "The only 

 effect of the passage of the hiil mid >r considera- 

 tion is to repeal the thirteenth section of the 

 act of July 17, 1862. It is possible, as has 

 been suggested by the Senator from Maryland, 

 from the haste with which this hi]] \vas hurried 

 through tho other branch of Congress, and the 

 anxiety manifested in this body, by some 

 members, to press it to an immediate vote 

 without the usual reference to a committee, 

 that an impression has gone out to the country 

 that by the repeal of this thirteenth section tho 

 power of the President to grant pardons, and 

 restore to rebels their property, would be taken 

 away. Such, however, will not be its effect, in 

 my opinion. The President's power to grant 

 pardons and restore property will be just as 

 complete after the passage of this bill, repeal- 

 ing the thirteenth section of the act of 1862, as 

 before. The Constitution confers on the Presi- 

 dent the power ' to grant reprieves and pardons 

 for offences against the United States, except 

 in cases of impeachment.' It is not in the power 

 of Congress to deprive him of this prerop. 

 A pardon is the remission of the crime or of- 

 fence, and not of the conviction, and may be 

 granted as well before as after conviction; and 

 it also may be either absolute or conditional. 

 All these questions were settled by decisions of 

 tho Attorneys-General, and of the Su;< 

 Court of the United States years ago. Mr. 

 Wirt, who was Attorney -General under Mr. 

 Monroe, gave an opinion, I think in 1820, that 

 the President had authority to grant pardons 

 before conviction. He placed it upon the 

 ground that a pardon was of the offence and 

 not of the conviction for the offence; that tho 

 conviction was only evidence of the crime or 

 offence which had been committed. Subse- 

 quent Attorneys-General have given the same 

 opinion, and the practice of the Government. I 

 believe, has conformed to that opinion. The 

 Supreme Court of the United 'States, in tin- 

 case of ex parte Wells, which is reported in l-< 

 Howard, page 311, and which I have 1> 

 me, quoted with approbation this passage from 

 Lord Coke : 



A pardon is said to bo a work of mercy, whereby 

 the ting, either before attainder, sentence, or con- 

 viction, or after, forgiveth any crime, otlom-o, pun- 

 ishment, execution, right, title, debt, or duty, tem- 

 poral or ecclesiastical. 3 Inst. 233. 



" The same court, in a case reported in 7 Pe- 



