140 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



nificant by the late elections. The bill refuses 

 pardon for political offences, but grants full 

 and general grace, amnesty, and oblivion for 

 the thief, the burglar, the arsoner, and assas- 

 sin, whether the criminal be of the South or 

 of the North. For my own part, I hold that 

 the man who committed robbery, murder, 

 arson, or any other felony, under the pretence 

 of making war, is a worse man than he who 

 becomes an outlaw against society, and com- 

 mits crimes at his own risk. Such criminals, 

 whether they be of the North or of the South, 

 should be arraigned and tried for their offences 

 as a warning to desperadoes, should our coun- 

 try be again involved in war. On the other 

 hand, acts done according to the laws of war 

 need no amnesty, for the simple reason that 

 acts so committed by one belligerent against 

 another are lawful. Hence, no one even 

 dreams of putting on trial any soldier of the 

 Confederacy for military acts done during the 

 late civil war. A great deal was said as to 

 trying Jefferson Davis ; but he was never put 

 on trial, although during a long time he was 

 held as a prisoner. Then, sir, the granting of 

 this pretended amnesty without the restora- 

 tion of political rights would be a mere cheat." 



Mr. McKenzie, of Virginia, said: "When I 

 attended the convention of the Republican 

 party at the city of Richmond, we pledged our- 

 selves to go for universal amnesty. I am for 

 carrying out that pledge like an honest man, 

 with no dodging about it. If we cannot whip 

 our opponents honestly with the colored vote, 

 why, let Democracy reign. My own opinion 

 is, decidedly, that we ought to pass a general 

 amnesty bill, and let us have peace, or try to 

 have peace; although I know some of these 

 people are not much inclined to peace, and do 

 not like the Government. I am sorry for it; 

 but I do not think we shall get them to like it 

 any better by keeping them in a state of bond- 

 age. Now, if this bill is to pass, I would like 

 to have it pass without all this stuff about 

 'general grace, amnesty, and oblivion,' etc., 

 which I cannot comprehend." 



Mr. Farnsworth, of Illinois, said: "I pro- 

 posed that amendment because I want to have 

 no half-way work. I do not think that the 

 present condition of the country requires that 

 we should any longer hesitate to remove the 

 disabilities of all persons, as it was contem- 

 plated we should do at the time that amend- 

 ment was adopted. That section of the amend- 

 ment imposing disabilities was intended at the 

 time to remain operative until (and no longer) 

 reconstruction could be completed and the 

 rights of all persons under the Government 

 should be secured by proper constitutional 

 guarantees, so that it should be safe to relieve 

 these persons. 



"I find from Representatives from Southern 

 States, members of the same political party to 

 which I belong, that it is pretty nearly the 

 unanimous sentiment of the Republicans in 

 those States that these disabilities should be 



removed. I am not aware that anybody in the 

 country has asked that Congress should make 

 any exceptions in this matter of removing dis- 

 abilities. I have seen no petition from any 

 State in the Sonth, or from any quarter, re- 

 monstrating against our relieving all persons ; 

 nor has any member of this House, I venture 

 to say, seen any petition from any source 

 praying Congress to pass any such bill as has 

 been reported from the committee. 



" The fact has already been adverted to by 

 other gentlemen that this bill is a very singu- 

 lar and incongruous mixture. It contains mat- 

 ters which may become law if adopted by a 

 majority vote ; and it contains other matters 

 which cannot become law unless adopted by a 

 two-thirds vote of each House of Congress. 

 Now, these things ought not to be grouped 

 together in the same bill. It is contrary to all 

 precedent, contrary to all fairness, that they 

 should be so grouped. It is a cheat, whether 

 so intended or not, to group together things 

 of that sort, contradictory in their nature, 

 some of which may be adopted by a majority 

 vote, while others cannot be adopted except 

 by a two-thirds vote ; thus hoping to get votes 

 for the relief of disabilities, so as to pass the 

 bill by a majority vote, without any expecta- 

 tion of a two-thirds vote for the relief of po- 

 litical disabilities. 



" There is another thing about this bill 

 which has been adverted to. It comes from 

 the Committee on Reconstruction, which is 

 the political committee, not the law committee 

 of this House. That committee should have 

 nothing to do with the settlement of legal 

 questions, the relief from legal disabilities, or 

 the definition and restoration of legal rights. 

 There is a law committee here, composed of 

 gentlemen supposed to be learned in the law, 

 whose duty it is to investigate all such ques- 

 tions, and to report to the House all bills of 

 that kind. But this bill, unless passed by a 

 two-thirds vote, so as to make it apply to po- 

 litical disabilities, is in no sense a political bill. 

 It becomes then a law adopted by a majority 

 vote of both Houses, settling legal questions, 

 and legal questions only. 



" Sir, if this bill be adopted without amend- 

 ment, I defy any lawyer in this House to give 

 a clear and satisfactory explanation of the 

 effect it will have when construed by the 

 courts upon these various controversies. It 

 will land us I certainly do not know where. 

 This, perhaps, is owing to my ignorance ; but 

 I have read and reread the bill several times 

 with a good deal of care, and I confess that it 

 is beyond my ken to tell where it would land 

 us; what construction the various provisions 

 would receive from the courts. I do not know 

 what claws are covered in this meal ; but that 

 there are claws we shall certainly find out if 

 the bill ever becomes a law." 



Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, said: "I am for 

 amnesty whenever it is safe to grant it ; but 

 before I grant it I want some evidence that it 



