136 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



Whatever may be the rule of public law with 

 reference to property seized in time of war, and 

 which may have been occupied or used by the 

 public enemy, this Government established its 

 own rule, as it had a right to do, by enacting 

 the Confiscation Act of 1862. None of the rail- 

 roads surrendered had been seized, condemned, 

 and sold under the provisions of that act, nor 

 had the stock which represented the title of the 

 stockholders to the property been confiscated 

 in pursuance of its provisions. The Govern- 

 ment had not acquired title to this property by 

 either of these modes. The Government held 

 possession of the roads for military purposes, 

 and when the war closed surrendered that pos- 

 session to the corporations owning them, which 

 action was in accord with the opinions of At- 

 torneys-General Speed and Stanbery, that the 

 property of corporations did not come within 

 the Confiscation Act of 1862 ; and that, if it did, 

 said act, being a war measure, could not prop- 

 erly be enforced after the rebellion had been 

 suppressed and the war had ceased. It does 

 not occur to me that this branch of the case 

 affords evidence of criminal conduct. 



" The surrender of property to individuals is 

 covered to a great extent by this view of the 

 President's legal advisers, and in a larger 

 degree by the well-established principle that 

 a full pardon restores to the recipient all of 

 his rights which have not become vested in 

 third parties. * The construction given to the 

 Confiscation Act of 1862, and the effect of a full 

 pardon, may be said to cover all of these cases 

 of surrender of property. If the pardons, 

 whether by special act of grace or by general 

 amnesty, were in any case corruplly granted, 

 the record submitted to this House by the com- 

 mittee does not disclose the fact. 



" The sale of movable property to railway 

 corporations is complained of. In all cases 

 where this character came within the rule 

 already stated respecting the property of cor- 

 porations, all sums realized by such sale were 

 gains to the Government. In other cases, as 

 when the Government owned the same by vir- 

 tue of purchase or manufacture, the sales were 

 not authorized by law, but it does not appear 

 that they were made from corrupt or criminal 

 motives, or for the purpose of private gain. 



"The first plan adopted for the regulation of 

 these sales seems to have been the work of the 

 Quartermaster-General, approved by the Sec- 

 retary of War. This was subsequently changed 

 by the President, and the sales proceeded. 

 How has the President been profited by this? 

 The sales inured to the benefit of the Gov- 

 ernment. The President derived no benefit 

 therefrom. 



"But it is alleged that he did derive a benefit 

 by extending the time for the payment of the 

 amount due to the Government from the Nash- 

 ville and Chattanooga Railway Company; that 

 he held bonds of this company, and, by extend- 

 ing the time in which the company had agreed 

 to pay the same, he secured the payment of the 



interest due on his own bonds. The interest on 

 these bonds was guaranteed by the State of 

 Tennessee, and the utmost amount he could 

 save thereby would be the interest on the 

 amount of interest due which might accrue be- 

 tween the date of the extension or final pay- 

 ment. This would be at most an inconsider- 

 able sum. Still this action of the President 

 might afford some color to the argument of the 

 gentleman from Massachusetts, if it stood alone 

 amid the demands of Southern railway com- 

 panies for extensions of time in which payments 

 were to be made by them to the Government. 

 But it does not stand alone it is not an excep- 

 tional case. The first extensions were granted 

 by order of Major-General Thomas, others by 

 order of the Secretary of War (Mr. Stanton), 

 until nearly, if not quite, all of the Southern 

 companies became the recipients of the bene- 

 fits of a system which seems to have become 

 general. If these acts of the Secretary of War 

 and of General Thomas were illegal and crim- 

 inal (which I presume no one will claim they 

 were), the President cannot be charged crimi- 

 nally with them, unless it appear that they 

 were done by his subordinates with his con- 

 sent, or at least with his knowledge, and it 

 will hardly be claimed that this is established 

 by the testimony in this case. 



" Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House 

 much longer by commenting on this case. If 

 I were to refer to all of the facts of the case, 

 in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

 I could accomplish no more than has already 

 been achieved by the minority report, and I 

 am content to leave it with the House upon 

 the argument and review presented by that 

 document. It would be an unprofitable con- 

 sumption of time for me to go beyond it. A 

 few minutes more, and I will have done. 



" The gentleman from Massachusetts has ex- 

 pressed his fears that a failure to impeach and 

 remove the President from office will result in 

 a total defeat of the congressional plan of re- 

 construction. How can this be ? The consti- 

 tutional life of this Congress will measure the 

 full limit of the President's official term. We 

 most assuredly will not surrender our plan. 

 No power can turn us from this determination. 

 Before the expiration of this Congress we hope 

 to have every State restored on the just and 

 equitable principles of our plan. If this result 

 be not realized, to our successors will be left 

 the task of completing our labors, unless the 

 people in the next congressional elections de- 

 termine to reverse our resolve by returning 

 a majority to this House hostile to the system 

 of reconstruction which we have adopted. I 

 am willing to trust the people in this regard, 

 without fear as to the judgment they will pro- 

 nounce. A failure of our plan of reconstruc- 

 tion can be secured only by the voice of the 

 people at the ballot-box. I cannot believe 

 that it will thus fail, but if it should it will be 

 the act of the people and not of the President. 

 We may not impeach for this. 



