rence the President has no right to invest franchise in anybody. Several of the States have in the exercise of their undoubted right disfranchised those regarded as public enemies. Congress has refused admission to persons claiming rights as members. By the several acts from 1861 to 1865 it has declared the inhabitants of the revolted States to be public enemies. It forbade all commercial intercourse or correspondence with them. It passed laws for their punishment as traitors. Until these acts of the States and of the General Government are repealed by authority of the States and of Congress no person can exercise political power of his own right, or any other than a delegated power.

A pardon whether by individual act or by general amnesty does not, and cannot, change this condition of things. I suppose this principle to be so well established that it does not require the citation of authorities to maintain it. I venture to say that there is not in the history of law a single case of pardon which is held to invest persons with political power in a Government or State other than that controlled by the authority granting the pardon, or to restore other right than exemption from prosecution or punishment. It is a principle which has at least been recognized by the law department of the Government. I think Attorney General Cushing gave it as his official opinion explicitly that a full pardon cannot be held to restore political rights.

Now, it is said that this disfranchisement cannot be enforced. Why not? Because, forsooth, the States to be affected will not accept it. Very well. It is not necessary; there are twenty-five States represented in this House. Twenty-seven is the number necessary to amend the Constitution. The States of Tennessee and Arkansas will accept this proposition of disfranchisement without hesitation. They have already adopted the principle in the organization of their own State governments. It would be impossible otherwise for the loyal men of Tennessee and Arkansas to maintain governments, and their consent gives us the requisite number of States to make the amendment a vital part of the Constitution. If it be defeated at all, it will be defeated by the Republican States or by the Democratic States of the North. It will not be defeated by the insurgent States. There is, then, no justification for the opinion so strongly expressed, that this measure will fail because the rebel States will not consent to the disfranchisement of any portion of their own people. The proposition is for the loyal States to determine upon what terms they will restore to the Union the insurgent States. It is not necessary that they should participate in our deliberations upon this subject, and wholly without reason that they should have the power to defeat it. It is a matter of congratulation that they have not this power. We have the requisite number of States without them. It is said, again, that we cannot enforce it in these States because seven eighths or nine tenths of the people are enemies to the Government. That is not true. We do our cause great injustice, and we do the people of the South infinitely greater injustice when we accept and publish as our own the arguments of rebel enemies of the country. They say that the whole people of these States voluntarily made war against the Government. Mr. Speaker, it is not so.

I do not believe that there is a State in this Union where at least a clear majority of the people were not from the beginning opposed to the war; and could you remove from the control of public opinion one or two thousand in each of these States, so as to let up from the foundations of political society the mass of common people, you would have a population in all these States as loyal and true to the Governirent as the people of any portion of the East or West.

I know that the people of the South are filled at present with prejudice against the civilization, the institutions, and the people of

the North; but the moment they have felt the beneficial effects of that civilization, whenever they become acquainted with our people, as they will at no distant day, they will cordially and honestly fraternize with them. It requires a little time, but the result is inevitable.

During this terrible war, which has cost the people a million of lives, and of treasure inappreciable, the people of the South have been compelled to take up arms and sustain rebellion. In the Southwest it was made a crime, punishable in the severest manner, for any rebel soldier to declare publicly or to his comrades that this was the rich man's war and the poor man's fight. But it was nevertheless a fact. The people knew that it was the rich man's war and the poor man's fight. The legislation of the insurgent States exempted to a great degree the rich men and their sons on account of the possession of property, while it forced at the point of the bayonet, and oftentimes at the cost of life, the masses of the people to maintain their cause. There is nothing in the whole war more atrocious than the cruel measures taken by the rebel leaders to force the people who had no interest in it and were averse to sharing its dishonor and peril. And no public act, in my opinion, manifests more wisdom or a keener sense of justice than the exclusion by the President from the benefits of the charter of amnesty the rebels whose fortunes exceeded $20,000. Would that it had been enforced against them!

Now, if by any means we could reach the masses of these people we should find loyal men in numbers and strength in all these States. The common people have no interest hostile to the United States. I do not mean that class of men best acquainted with public affairs, I mean the men who have borne no part in the important duties of public life-the common men, the laboring men. We shall find that ultimately, and at no distant day, they will become the truest and best friends of the | Government; and this amendment, as I understand it, will contribute greatly to the beneficent result.

Sir, it does not exclude and it will not exclude nine tenths of the population of any of these States. How will it operate? It will begin with the beginning and it will go on to the end. In the first place, it will commence its operations in the States in the valleys of the Ohio and the Mississippi. In each one of those States there is a majority of the people, perhaps a large majority, who, if left to their own judgment, will be friendly to the Government of the United States. And thus from its operations, where it can be immediately applied, and where it will be immediately successful, it will produce the exact result which we desire, the immediate restoration of the governments of the States to the Union, the recognition of the loyal people, and the disfranchisement of the implacable and unchangeable public enemies of the Union, and the creation of State governments upon the sound and enduring basis of common interest and common affection.

Suppose, for instance, that until 1870 some of the southern States-South Carolina, Geor gia, or Alabama-should decline to accept the terms of the amendment, and remain outside of the Union. Is it not better that they should be out than in, if that is their spirit? Will it do us any harm or them any good? I think not. On the contrary, the fact that some of the States may be admitted in 1866, as I believe they will be, and others perhaps in 1867, and so on until the last recusant Commonwealth returns to the Union, shows this to be by far the best process that could be devised for the maintenance of our Goɣernment and its institutions and the restoration of States.

It was said by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] that there is no tribunal which can judge of the proper or improper enforcement of this provision. That is an error. In regard to the election of members of Congress here

is the tribunal. In regard to the election of Senators, the Senate at the other end of the Capitol is the tribunal, perfect, absolute, competent, and ready always to discharge this duty and make the right decision.

In regard to the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, which seems to have caused more apprehension, the solution is equally simple, certain, and just. There is always a tribunal that is competent to judge whether this provision of the Constitution has been properly enforced. It is not altogether a new question. In 1844 the country escaped a revolution, as many persons think. They did not then, as now, comprehend the secret springs of that peril. In the State of Tennessee one hundred and seventy-five or one hundred and eighty men voted directly for Polk and Dallas as candidates for President and Vice President instead of for the presidential electors. If those votes given against the law were counted, then Mr. Polk would receive the electoral vote of that State. If they were excluded, then the electoral vote of the State would be given for Henry Clay.. So closely hung the balance that for six weeks it was impossible to determine who had carried Tennessee. It ultimately became of little importance, because the vote of the great State of New York was given through Silas Wright to Mr. Polk. Had New York voted for Clay, Tennessee would have decided the election. We can now estimate the consequences of that departure from the letter of the law of a small number of Democrats in Tennessee. Had the question reached this House it would present exactly the problem the solution of which gives so much trouble to the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD.] And its solution removes the difficulty presented by him.

But that case does not stand alone. There is nothing new under the sun. In 1856 Wisconsin did not vote for electors on the day required by law. Her vote when presented here was not counted. If the vote of that State had decided the balance between General Frémont and Mr. Buchanan, it would have made trouble, because we now know that long and careful preparations had been made for rebellion and the opportunity only was want ing. The case presented in 1844 or in 1856 would have been more propitious than that offered by the election of Mr. Lincoln, because it would have concealed the real object of the conspirators, and secured an open and powerful support in the North. It presented the difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Ohio. But this is its solution. It exhibits the almost supernal wisdom of our frame of Government. It shows that the sacrifice of blood and treasure was weli made to defend it.

In either of the cases presented by Tennessee or Wisconsin, the Congress would have been the tribunal to decide the issue. The two Houses would have met in convention according to the Constitution. If they agreed the question would have been decided, and the election of President declared in accordance therewith. If there was difference of opinion in regard to the question presented, the Senate would have withdrawn to its Chamber; the House would have remained in its seats; and then after mature deliberation. it may have been for weeks or months, each House would have determined what should be done. And should the two Houses not come to the same conclusion, and refuse to recognize an election, the President of the Senate, or in his absence the honorable Speaker of this House, would have administered the Government until another election could have been held. This would have been done by resolution of Congress within eighteen months from the 4th of March when the vacancy was found to exist. The Constitution is equal to every emergency, and what there is defective, if anything, the wisdom of the people wili supply. If then, as lately, a portion of the States had determined

to break up the Government, they would then have appealed to arms, and been beaten, in the providence of God, as now. Men in every crisis of our history have predicted the failure of our Government, but it has stood every storm thus far, and will last, I trust, till time is no more. There is less chance of difficulty from this cause than ever before.

It is said again, on the other hand, that there has been no successful example of this plan of organization of Government. Mr. Speaker, America presents new illustrations of history and of government. But we are not left entirely without light. It will be so to the end. She is the pioneer of Christian nations. If we were without a guide, it would not be unwise for us to say that the powers of the Government should be intrusted to its friends and not to its enemies. In a dark night, on a stormy sea, the humblest man on ship-board would know enough to advise that the helm should be put in the hands of a man who wanted to save the ship, and not in his whose purpose was to destroy it. We are not left without guidance. Switzerland, the wisest Government on the face of the earth, one that has encountered greater difficulties with a higher degree of success than any other, has given us a lesson which we ought not to disregard.

In 1848 she suffered from rebellion not dissimilar to ours. She met it as we did. The insurgents were conquered. The revolt was suppressed. She organized governments in the cantons, as Mr. Lincoln undertook to organize governments here. The friends of her Government, soldiers and civilians, marched into the insurgent cantons, outlawed those engaged in the rebellion, and they organized governments on such principles as were consistent with the safety of the governments. They proceeded from canton to canton until all were restored. Power was maintained in the hands of its friends. The disloyal inhabitants of the disloyal cantons were deprived of the rights they had forfeited by crime. As the result of that policy, Switzerland to-day is as sound and safe a Government as there is on the continent of Europe. In a little time she readmitted her recusant sons to their former privileges, and they now, through her liberality, enjoy, without endangering her institutions, the same rights which they enjoyed before the war. What wiser course could they have followed? What better example for us? If we need counsel, to what people can we turn with greater profit than to heroic Switzerland, that for centuries has nurtured republican principles in their purity and in triumph against the despotisms of Europe?

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ECKLEY. Mr. Speaker, any question affecting the fundamental law of the land demands careful and mature deliberation; and it is only when the necessity is great that such changes can be justified. That necessity is upon us, and we cannot, in view of the past and our duty to the present and the future, postpone it.

My colleague [Mr. FINCK] has signaled the alarm at the proposition. Those of us who were members of the last Congress heard.the same cry while the amendment was under consideration abolishing slavery, but we heeded it.not. The amendment was adopted and ratified, and every person now rejoices, except a small faction known as copperheads, and they lament it only because of the loss of political capital.

The old ship has outrode worse storms than he and his colleagues can invoke from the people of the South, and she will outride this; and we shall, I hope, all live to see the day when this proposition shall become a part of the Constitution, with the same acquiescence of its predecessor, that, like this one, was born amid the storms of southern rebels and northern copperheads.

The revolution in our affairs, caused by the gigantic struggle through which we have passed, renders such a change absolutely necessary.

Congress is the only organized power that can make it; and we should be craven in spirit if we shrunk from the responsibility. It is claimed that this presents questions entirely new in American politics. I do not think so. If we but follow the wise examples left us by our fathers we shall find in the footprints of the past a precedent for our action that will produce wise and salutary results.

I listened with pleasure to my honorable colleague as he described the terrific struggle through which the nation had passed; a struggle caused by these same rebels for whom he now pours out his sympathy; and I was really sorry that he stood so badly on the record during the time of that unnatural and wicked conflict. I was sorry that he and I did not stand side by side in resisting the attempts of these rebels on the nation's life, as we stood in former days when the Whig party was on earth, resisting the encroachments and demands of this same party. But, alas! how fickle is poor human nature at best. With what pleasure would I recur to the Journals of the ThirtyEighth Congress if I could find the name of my colleague recorded in favor of any of the measures necessary to levy men, raise money, provide means, or even to punish a guerrilla for shooting down a soldier or a citizen. But with what sadness must I turn over that silent scroll to find the name of my honorable colleague, upon every measure necessary to sustain the Government and resist the rebellion, just where I should have found the name of Jefferson Davis, General Lee, Jacob Thompson, or any other of the rebel leaders, had they been placed as members upon the rolls of this House.

Mr. FINCK. I dislike to interrupt my colleague; but I desire to state what he ought to know very well, that during the Thirty-Eighth Congress I voted for every bill making appropriations to pay our men in the field.

Mr. ECKLEY. I desire my colleague to state whether he voted for the proposition to punish guerrillas.

Mr. FINCK. I will explain that.

Mr. ECKLEY. I trust the gentleman will not take too much of my time. I would like him to answer "yes" or "no."

Mr. FINCK. I will state the facts. There was upon the statute-book a law to punish guerrillas. The bill to which my friend refers was to amend that law and to take away from the President the power to revise the findings of the military courts. I voted against that bill; but I was in favor of punishing guerrillas. Mr. ECKLEY. That is sufficient. The gentleman voted against the bill.

Sir, we must all bow to the decrees of fate, and I must grieve the loss of an early political associate; but with what indignation must I regard that party by whose winning smiles and lascivious caresses he has been seduced from the paths of virtue. What cup contains bitterness enough to pour upon their heads? What judgment is severe enough to be pronounced against them? Why, sir, in my State they would be prosecuted, under an act entitled "An act for the support and maintenance of illegitimate

children."

I agree with my honorable colleague, that we have passed through a fearful ordeal; that we have made untold sacrifices, and that our flag in triumph floats over every inch of territory. I join with him in complimenting the gallant men by whose valor the nation was saved, and to whom we are indebted for victory and the peace we enjoy. To the God of battles and the God of peace do we make our acknowledgments and return our thanks. To our gallant Army in the field, to the Union party that sustained it there, will the present and future generations accord as the human agencies that saved the country from destruction against the combined attack of organized, armed rebels and organized, unarmed copperheads, each in their place in the role performing their part in the plan for the nation's overthrow. But to my colleague and the copperhead party no credit

is due. They may exhibit their fantastic tricks and play their political games for a little while, but their days are numbered, and the faithful chronicler of these sad events should consign them to the grave of oblivion,

"Unwept, unhonored, and unsung."

Peace, we are told, reigns throughout our borders. I wish I could believe that. But admitting its truth, are we not bound by every consideration to secure to the people, as well South as North, such safe grounds as will for ever prevent its being broken? But what securities shall we demand; and in what manner shall they be obtained? By following the precedents of our past history will we find the path of safety.

his

The second occurred some years afterward, and was claimed to have covered a wider field. A prominent Democrat of the State of New York, who had been elevated to the second office in the gift of the people, was charged with having set on foot an armed expedition for the purpose of dismembering the Union. Burr crossed the mountains to the Ohio river, fitted out his flotilla of boats, and floated down the Mississippi. The key-note of alarm was sounded, the President issued his proclamation, the officers of justice were quick upon track; he was arrested, indicted, and tried. The trial, the most important of any in this country, was conducted on both sides with almost superhuman ability. Nothing on either side was left undone. It is the only case in the history of the Government in which the Presi dent left his seat to personally superintend the trial. For want of evidence, under the ruling of that profound jurist and pure patriot, Chief Justice Marshall, Burr was acquitted, and with his acquittal fell all the indictments against those charged as accessory only in his guilt. No one ever doubted that if Burr had been legally convicted he would have made atonement to an outraged country with his life.

What Burr's real design was remains a mystery; and many innocent persons were doubtless implicated with him; some, perhaps, not so innocent. His expedition was fitted out, in part, in my own State; and among those induced to join him was John Smith, then a Senator in Congress from the State of Ohio. Smith was never tried by a civil tribunal, but, for his participation in the so-called conspiracy, was expelled from the Senate.

From these two incidents in history I deduce two things: first, the determination on the part of the Government to vindicate its authority and dignity by inflicting punishment upon such as have violated the law; and second, to expel from its councils such as have participated in treasonable designs. From these we learn the

duty of the Government generally and of Congress in particular; for these things have passed into history, and are not influenced by the opinions or prejudices of the present day; and it receives great force from the fact that both the justice and propriety have been approved by the American people for three quarters of a century. Placing ourselves upon these precedents, and relying upon the justice and wisdom of the past, we are not endangered by unexplored paths or the experiments of new advent

ures.

Guarded by the wisdom and example of many Administrations, we but mete out to those of the present day the well-established law that in former times was administered to others for similar offenses, but of lesser magnitude.

How to secure the fruits of that victory and obtain a permanent peace is the question for solution. To admit such members of Congress as they would elect from the States lately in rebellion would secure neither, but lose us both, and we should permit them to gain everything, through congressional action, that they sought to accomplish by arms.

It is claimed that we have no right to exclude their Representatives. I think we have. We do not want another war, and we would be faithless if we did not secure such guarantees as would last through all time. If they have given up the idea of rebellion, they can assure us such guarantees as will secure them in their right of representation and the country in harmony forever. We should exact nothing of them unjust or inconsistent with reason but we should insist upon that wellrecognized principle that maintains in every civilized country, that the highwayman, burglar, and pirate are not fit to sit as administrators of the law.

a

Those who engaged in the rebellion and strove to overthrow the Government, of their own volition withdrew their allegiance, are not fit, without bringing fruits meet for repentance, to administer its affairs. The foreigner who comes to our shores because he loves our institutions and admires our form of Government, who never, by word or act, evinced hostility to it, is put upon five years' probation before we admit him to citizenship. The reasons that exclude him from citizenship are strengthened in excluding open and avowed traitors. Decency would demand from them at least modesty. They have committed crime that in any other country they could expiate only with their lives; they ought now to rejoice that by five years of fasting and prayer they could regain the rights of citizenship. From the instances I have given no one who had done an act hostile to the Government ever after participated in its affairs, and no one who was suspected was permitted to hold any position under it until they had cleared themselves of all imputations, and proved their allegiance by a renewal of the covenant of their faith. Even Burr, one of the most ambitious of his day, lived and died in obscurity, declining all marks of distinction, and avoiding all political notoriety. And the instiga tor of the whisky insurrection chose to be an exile in the land of strangers, and never sought position under a Government against which he had made war. But that kind of delicacy is not a characteristic of the rebels of this day. Their acts of treason, of cruelty, and barbarity are urged as qualifications for political positions. Already the most prominent places in the rebel States are filled with the most virulent traitors. And scarcely had the smoke of battle cleared away, and the shout of victory died out on the air, before the vice president of the confederacy is demanding a seat in the United States Senate. Such impudence is without a parallel among men, and can only find a precedent in the temptations of the devil

to the Son of Man.

That the rebels are conquered, is an admitted fact. That they have any loyalty, any love, for the peace of the country and permanency of the Government, is not manifested by anything they have done. It is true they say they

accepted the situation, so does the culprit. They say they laid down their arms. But their arms were forced from them. They say they disbanded their armies, but their armies were captured or scattered by the Union forces. Then what have they done to prove their submission to the law? They have neglected to pay their portion of taxes; they have expelled loyal citizens from the South; they have treated with brutality the freedmen, and enacted laws disgraceful to a Christian age or a Christian people. Those who engaged in the rebellion are as disloyal to-day as they were at any time during the war. Will any one pretend that they have changed? Will any one with truthfulness assert that they have any love for the Government of the United States, and would they not at any time rebel if there was a prospect of success?

In my judgment three things are necessary to be done before we can with safety restore them to their former relations with the Government:

1. Equal and just representation.

2. Security of life, liberty, and property to all the citizens of all the States.

3. To reject all debts or obligations incurred in aid of the rebellion.

The ratification of the constitutional amendment changed the condition of representation and rendered an amendment to the Constitution necessary in order to equalize the just basis of representation. Under the Constitution as it now stands they would count the entire population in the southern States. Before the Constitution was amended, they counted the entire free population and three fifths of the slaves; but there being now no slaves they would count all. In none of those States do they confer the right of suffrage on the colored population. This presents the anomaly of allowing five million white rebels to represent four million loyal blacks, and makes two white persons-rebels at that-in South Carolina equal to five white loyalists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New York. To this unjust demand I cannot and will not yield. If all other objections were removed, that one would be a justification for rejecting their Representatives. I could not return to my own gallant State and say to her loyal people and to the three hundred thousand gallant sons she sent to the field that by my vote I had reduced their political power until it required five of these scarred veterans to equal two of the rebels against whom they fought.

If South Carolina persists in withholding the ballot from the colored man, then let her take the alternative we offer, of confining her to the white basis of representation, and instead of the seven hundred thousand, her entire population, let her accept the two hundred and ninety thousand white population as the basis of her representation. For my purpose this sufficiently illustrates the operation of the rule, and the only practicable remedy is in an amendment to the Constitution changing the basis to the voting population, and making that a conditionprecedent to the admission of Representatives from the insurgent States. But it is said we should admit their Representatives, and if they are not loyal, turn them out. I hope we shall not be deceived by such a trick as that. Some of us have had experience in expelling a member. If Georgia was to send her Toombs here as a Representative, or Kentucky her Breckinridge, both gory with the blood of our murdered soldiers, both ardent supporters of the rebellion in every stage, supporting in every way, and when conquered, and its failure no longer a question, they would not risk their safety in this country, but sought refuge in Europe, not one vote on the other side could be had for their expulsion.

But how are members admitted here? By producing a certificate of election to the Clerk, who makes up the roll, calls it himself, and prepares them for qualifying. Much, then, depends upon the Clerk in the organization of the House. He could exclude them if he desired so to do. The experience of Congress

has taught us to beware of dangers from Clerks of their own selection. I heard of a Clerk once who decided that a certificate, setting forth that a person was duly elected a Representative, did not prove that he was elected according to law. As an apology for his fine-spun theory it was said he had partially lost his reason; but I think he had suffered, if possible, a worse calamity than that. He had united his fortunes with the disunionists, enough certainly to drive any man mad. When the Clerk makes up his roll, calls the members, they take the oath, how are you to get them out of their seats but by expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote.

Let us look at this matter in its practical operation. Suppose we admit the Representatives from the rebel States, and the bloody General Forrest should be returned a member, who produced his certificate of election, was placed on the roll, answered to the call, and took the oath; could you expel him on account of his treason? Certainly not; unless you could expel all the rest from the insurgent States, and that you could not do. And it would be the merest folly to attempt it. It would then become a political question. The Democratic party would then all be here—the open rebels of the South, the three hundred thousand Knights of the Golden Circle, the sympathizers of the North; the prisons would be emptied, the gallows cheated, the Canadian refugees would be called home, and if that was not enough, they would resurrect the conspirators and call from the tomb of infamy the murderers of the Andersonville prisoners. Then they would have a Democratic party strong enough in this Hall to prevent the expulsion of one of their number. As to the provision disfranchising those who have participated in the rebellion, it is objected to, first, for want of power, and second, on the ground of expediency. Neither, in my judgment, are sound. As to the first, I have no doubt of the power under the Constitution as it is. Such is and has been its interpretation from the foundation of the Government. Under a congressional act persons convicted of a crime against the laws of the United States, the penalty for which is imprisonment in the penitentiary, are now and always have been disfranchised, and a pardon did not restore them unless the warrant of pardon so provided.

The second is equally unsound. It was formerly doubted whether it was expedient to restore the elective franchise to those who had been convicted of a crime. The objection rests upon the ground that the number to be disfranchised are so numerous. This is greatly exaggerated if we take as true what is said by southern men, for it is seldom you can find one who has not been opposed to secession and in favor of the Union all the time. Whether this be true or not it should be no argument against it. The reason for it proceeded upon the ground of self-preservation, by protecting the elective franchise and keeping it pure. Others may desire to make up a party, or to strengthen one already made, by incorporating in it the worst kind of criminals; but it will destroy the object and purpose of the principle referred to. I have no desire, and should take no pride in any such political association. And the country certainly derives no security from such political organizations. But suppose the mass of the people of a State are pirates, counterfeiters, or other criminals, would gentlemen be willing to repeal the laws now in force in order to give them an opportunity to land their piratical crafts and come on shore to assist in the election of a President or members of Congress because they are numerous? And let it be borne in mind that these latter offenses are only crimes committed against property; that of treason is against the nation, against the whole people-the highest known to the law.

The only objection I have to the proposition is that it does not go far enough. I would disfranchise them forever. They have no right, founded in justice, to participate in the administration of the Government or exercise political power. If they receive protection in their

persons and property, are permitted to share in the nation's bounties, and live in security under the broad ægis of the nation's flag, it is far more than the nation owes them.

If

Looking at the desolated fields of the South, the beggarly condition of the people, the army of maimed and helpless rebels, and the demoralized state of society, they must be the most stupid people in the world or they would ask to have them disfranchised themselves, and every loyal southern man does that. Nay, they should place them under such disabilities that they never could exercise political power again. The whole North is full of loyal refugees who do not dare return to their former homes. they happen to have property there it is destroyed by those persons you propose to continue in power. Reject the amendment disfranchising rebels and you must widen the asylum in the North for those southern people who have sympathy with the Government. Let us have the courage to follow the example of the loyal people of Tennessee and Missouri, and exclude them from the ballot-box. the gallant men of Tennessee what security they would have if the provision disfranchising rebels was repealed. They would tell you they would be overrun by rebels, and that the forty thousand gallant men who battled for the Union would be prostrated at the mercy of these disarmed traitors.

Ask

Let us now turn to the North and ask the million of gallant men who for four years stood like the mailed hosts of old between the nation and its destruction, and vanquished and drove back these hirelings of crime, and they will answer you, no rewards for treason. Ask the maimed and disabled soldier, and he will tell you that he did not think he was giving his leg or his arm to a Government whose representatives would vote away his political rights. Ask the widow, and in tears she will turn to her children and tell you that she was widowed, they were orphaned, they inherited poverty, she struggled in want, but she did not suppose that all this was to confer the power of the Government upon the murderer of husband and father. Ask the whole loyal people of the North, and you will receive for answer that you endanger the peace of the country by trusting the ballot in the hands of the traitor.

Mr. Speaker, I have not time to trace this subject further. I hope the report of the committee will be adopted; and in conclusion let me say to the one hundred and forty thousand people I have the honor to represent, that if they desire to have the rebels admitted into this House and the ballot placed in the hand of the traitor, they must select some other agent than me, for, so help me God, I will never vote to admit unconditionally a rebel Representative to a seat in this Hall or to place the ballot unrestricted in the hands of the traitor. In that way I shall contribute in rendering treason odious."

66

Mr. LONGYEAR. Mr. Speaker, the questions before the House are not so much whether the rebellious States are in or out of the Union; or whether the Government has or has not the right to impose conditions upon their return to working relations with it. Those questions have already been settled by the uniform action and declarations of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government.

The Supreme Court, as long ago as 1862, declared, in the decision of the prize cases, (2 Black's Reports, 636, 667,) that "the present civil war between the United States and the so-called confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war;" and, quoting Vattel for authority, the court further declared that "a civil war breaks the bands of society and Government, or at least suspends their force and effect."

The Thirty-Eighth Congress, at its first session, and while the war was still flagrant, by solemn enactment declared the State governments in those States subverted and overthrown, and imposed conditions upon their reconstruc

tion. This enactment most unfortunately did not receive the signature of the President, although he approved of all its provisions in the proclamation which he issued soon after its passage. The same thing has been assumed and acted upon by Congress and by each House in numerous other enactments and resolutions since that time, many of which received the sanction of the late President Lincoln.

The present incumbent of the presidential chair, while he remained the Andrew Johnson of Tennessee for whom the great loyal masses of the nation gave their suffrages for Vice President of the nation in 1864, both before and since his elevation to that position, ay, and since by the hand of treason he became elevated to be the chief Executive of the nation, has declared that all government in those States and in each of them had ceased to exist; and not only that, but that the right to regulate suffrage and to impose conditions in the efforts of those who had been in rebellion to reconstruct State governments existed in the national Government. I will only quote a single but oft-repeated declaration of President Johnson upon this point. In each of his famous proclamations appointing provisional governors for the several States in rebellion, occurs this remarkable passage:

"Whereas the rebellion which has been waged by a portion of the people of the United States against the properly constituted authorities of the Government thereof, in the most violent and revolting form, but whose organized and armed forces have now been almost entirely overcome, has in its revolutionary process deprived the people of the State of [North Carolina, &c.] of all civil government."

The President in each of those proclamations also assumed to regulate suffrage and eligibility to office, as follows:

"Provided, That at any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates to any State convention, as aforesaid, no person shall be qualified as an elector, or shall be eligible as a member of such convention, unless he shall previously have taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, 1865, and is a voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State of [North Carolina, &c..] in force immediately before the 20th day of May, 1861, [or otherwise as the case was,] the date of the so-called ordinance of secession."

These declarations and acts of the present Executive were made and done, too, after active hostilities had ceased, and the armed force of the rebellion had surrendered to or been broken and dispersed by the superior force of the national Government, events upon the happening of which it is contended by the advocates of State rights here and elsewhere the States in rebellion at once resumed all their rights as States of the Union, including, of course, the right of representation in Congress and the right to regulate suffrage and office in their own

way.

Without stopping, then, to discuss these questions upon principle, I assume, as proven by authority of all the coördinate branches of the national Government, the following propositions:

1. That as a result of the rebellion, all civil government was destroyed in those States which were engaged in it.

2. That the people of those States can erect new State governments only by virtue of the authority and consent of the national Government, and upon such terms and conditions as the latter may prescribe.

3. And in this connection the national Government may regulate suffrage and eligibility to office, and make and establish such other regulations as may be necessary for its future security and perpetuity.

4. And it makes no difference in this respect whether such regulations are established by statute or by constitutional amendment. The loyal people who, by their Representatives and Senators constituting the Congress for the time being, have the power to propose constitutional amendments and enact laws for the common welfare, have equal power through their Legislatures or conventions to ratify and make effectual such constitutional amendments.

He who attempts to argue against these propositions does so against the uniform current

and logic of the swift-passing events of the last five years and their inevitable sequences, and will find all his high-sounding rhetoric return to him empty, like echo from adamantine cliff in a desolate forest.

I do not propose to discuss the question here whether the power to prescribe such regulations and conditions is in the Executive or in the Congress. I believe it is in Congress. The people believe it is in Congress, and the great masses of the loyal people both North and South are looking to Congress to-day for protection and security; and for one, I intend to do my duty toward them in that respect to the best of my ability.

The only question really open for discussion is, what regulations and conditions are necessary; and what shall be imposed to insure the future domestic tranquillity of the people and the security and perpetuity of our national existence?

The amendments and bills reported by the committee on reconstruction fall far short of the expectations of the people, and I may say are short of what I may have desired. The fact is the people are always ahead of their legisla tors in all matters of reform. But so far as the report goes it is in the right direction, and I will not reject it for the sole reason that it does not go far enough. The constitutional amendment proposed by the committee, with a single objection, meets my hearty approval. That objection is to the third section, and it is not that it does not go far enough, nor that it goes too far, but that it comes too late. I would disfranchise every voluntary rebel in the

land, and place him where the late Andrew

Johnson of Tennessee, at a time when the patriotic predominated over the sinister elements of his nature, said he should be placed, "on the back seats" in the great work of restoring the body-politic to health and vigor. But that same Andrew Johnson, acting as President of the United States, and under authority, too, of an act of Congress has, in my opinion, placed it beyond our power to do this without a violation of the faith of the Government in the eyes of the whole world.

What is the case presented? Section three reads as follows:

Until the 4th day of July, 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for members of Congress and for electors of President and Vice President of the United States.

"All persons who voluntarily adhered," &c. Let us see what persons are included in this expression. It would seem that the word "all" is sufficiently comprehensive and can admit of no exceptions; but let us see if its use here is not delusive under the circumstances now surrounding the question. By authority of law, full pardon and amnesty have been granted

1. To all rebels below a certain rank who should take a certain oath, &c.

2. To all below the rank of colonel who were worth less than $20,000 at the commencement of the rebellion. This included, of course, the great mass of the southern people.

3. Nearly all of the classes above excepted have since received special pardons, and what remain are being pardoned now day by day, and before the proposed amendment can become part and parcel of the Constitution there will probably not be left a single unpardoned rebel in the whole land, from the highest to the lowest.

In the light of the events of the past five years, and of the fiendish barbarism practiced by these rebels during hostilities, and of the devilish hate still rankling in the bosoms of the great mass of them toward the Union and toward loyal men, these are humiliating facts; but still they are facts, and we must face them and not stultify ourselves in the eyes of the world by ignoring them.

Amnesty and pardon, although not strictly synonymous terms, have been used as such in this connection. Amnesty has the effect "to efface the crime and cause it to be forgotten."

This is the language of the authorities, and this the effect that has always been given to it by all civilized nations. It not only exempts the party from punishment, but remits him to all his former rights, natural, civil, and political, with simply two exceptions: first, where rights of third persons have intervened; and second, where the disability has been created by statute, and existed at the time of pardon. I concede that if the disability now proposed to be created had existed by the Constitution or by statute at the time of amnesty granted, it would remain until removed by the same formalities; but who ever heard of any civilized nation affixing to an offense a punishment or even a disability after the crime itself had been effaced, wiped out, obliterated by an amnesty or a pardon?

The eminent gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee on the part of the House, who reported this amendment, taking the same view of the law of the case as I do, tells us in effect that the disability is not intended to apply to such as have received pardon and amnesty. He tells us that if the amendment is adopted and becomes part of the Constitution, and one of the amnestied rebels comes to the polls and offers his vote for member of Congress, &c., and shows his pardon, then he has not adhered, &c., and is not included in the expression, "all persons who have adhered," &c. This is no doubt correct; but let me tell the gentleman that in this view of the case the amendment is meaningless, yes, worse than meaningless, it is cause of discord among the friends of the balance of the amendment, where the utmost harmony should be cultivated. If adopted, it would not stand in the way of a single rebel ballot. Long before it can be adopted, every one of the few unpardoned rebels now remaining will have received the extreme unction of pardon by his Excellency the President of the United States, and will have become a voter by the side of the most loyal, notwithstanding the prohibition. || It would be a dead letter.

The provision would also be so easily evaded by appointing electors of President and Vice President through their Legislatures, as South Carolina has always done.

Let us then reject this dead weight, and not load down good provisions, absolutely essential provisions, by this, which, however good in and of itself, cannot be enforced.

I regard this provision, if adopted, both worthless and harmless, and therefore I shall vote for the proposed amendment as a whole, whether this be rejected or retained. I am heartily in favor of the whole amendment, except this section three, and should be in favor of that if I thought it could be given any effect; and I have said this much because of my anxiety that the main provisions of the amend ment should prevail, and not be jeopardized by the retention of a worthless provision.

Rebels must be taken care of here in the Halls of Congress; and so long as the loyal people of the country remain true to themselves and the Government, traitors will be taken care of here. The sword of justice will continue to hang over the portals of these Halls, and no traitor will be allowed to pass their thresholds.

Mr. BEAMAN. Mr. Speaker, to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the plan for the reconstruction of the rebel States reported by the committee is probably to utter the sentiment of nearly every member of the House, including the members of that committee. It is most likely, also, that the expectation of the country will be somewhat disappointed. Mindful of the terrible struggle through which we have just passed, with all its sad incidents, the people are naturally earnest, anxious, and watchful. Impressed with the former teaching of your Chief Magistrate, they have come to believe that treason is crime, and ought to be punished; and that in any plan adopted for admitting the people of the rebel States to a participation in the government of the country, ample safeguards will be provided for future security.

Sir, I feel compelled to say that I do not think the report of the committee quite meets their just expectations. Nevertheless, so various are the views of gentlemen of the House, as well as of the individual members of the committee, perhaps it is as nearly satisfactory as any system that could have been agreed on with any well-founded hope of adoption. I am inclined, therefore, to support the joint resolution, though I hope it may be amended. I have serious objections to the third section, and I shall experience regret if, through the inflexibility of parliamentary rules, I am compelled to vote upon the original resolution without an attempt to amend it. It seems to me that the third section will be found useless in its results and impracticable in its operation, while it is calculated to foster irritation and bad blood among the people of the South. It makes a show on the face of it of accomplishing what it is impotent to perform; that is to say, it assumes until the 4th day of July, 1870, to "exclude all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort," from the right to vote "for electors for President and Vice President of the United States," yet we very well know that such a provision would be entirely inoperative, because electors for President and Vice President can be appointed by the Legislatures according to a practice that has always obtained in South Carolina. The provision does not extend to the election of Senators, and consequently it can operate only to affect the election of members of this House, and that only for a period of four years.

The State governments, the inspectors of election, the rejection or reception and canvassing of votes, the returns and certificates, in short the whole machinery of the elections will be in the hands and under the control of the very men whom you propose to disfranchise, and the difficulties that will arise in an attempt to execute the law are too obvious to require particular specification. This section looks as though it was intended for ornament rather than for use. Perhaps I should say it has the appearance of having been introduced to multiply the conditions of restoration, thereby rendering the scheme somewhat more imposing. It was doubtless the offspring of compromise, the result of a contest of adverse opinions, in which each one of the progenitors gave up so much of his paternity that the bantling is a mere shadow. It is, however, a shade too thin to blind the eye, and it might as well be removed altogether. The people are not likely to be blinded by so thin a veil, and it is folly to undertake to deceive ourselves. The people do not stand on punctilio. They want no expedient adopted in order to gratify their vanity, or to save a point of honor. They desire the adoption of no measure whose sole object is to assert their power over the rebels; that has already been established in the clash of arms. They want protection and security for the future, and to that end they believe it indispensable that the Government should be administered by loyal hands.

I do not know as there will be an opportunity to offer amendments to this joint resolution; but if permitted, I shall move to strike out the third section and insert in lieu thereof a section which I have taken in substance from the bill introduced from the committee by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The provision which I would have inserted is, as follows:

SEC. 3, No person shall hereafter be eligible to any office under the Government of the United States who is included in any of the following classes namely: 1. The president and vice president of the confederate States of America so called, and the heads of departments thereof.

2. Those who in other countries acted as agents of the confederate States of America so called.

3. Heads of Departments of the United States, officers of the Army and Navy of the United States, and all persons educated at the Military or Naval Academy of the United States, judges of the courts of the United States, and members of either House of the

Thirty-Sixth Congress of the United States who gave

aid and comfort to the late rebellion.

The disability proposed by this amendment is quite inconsiderable, if we have regard to the magnitude and consequences of the late rebel

lion, and I have no doubt it falls short of the public expectation. But inconsiderable as it is, it would at least prevent the intrusion of the arch traitor Jefferson Davis into the Senate of the United States, and would exclude permanently from this Hall the rebels who left it in 1861 for the field of blood. Nor could such a measure be deemed objectionable by any candid mind, whether it be regarded as a question of security for the future or as a punishment for past offenses. What other nation on the face of the earth would be so merciful, so forgiving? These men, by their flagitious crimes, have created a mortgage of billions upon the property of posterity that is to be. They have murdered hundreds of thousands of their fellow-men, and endangered our national existence. They have forfeited citizenship, property, life, which justice refuses to restore. But we forget justice, and remember only mercy. We give them back life, property, citizenship. And is not this enough? Shall we restore them to power, and make them our rulers? Such a determination should be preceded by another amendment to the Constitution. The word treason should be expunged from our organic law.

Mr. Speaker, I have little more to say. My views in regard to the great subject of reconstruction have been expressed in this Chamber more than once, and I do not wish to repeat them. But I desire to say that in my judgment the remainder of the joint resolution has great merit and ought to be adopted. I did look for more thorough and reliable protection for the loyal men in the rebel States than we are likely to secure. I did hope to see the rights of the freedmen completely established. I did believe that we should not ignore the services of the brave colored men who heroically bled in the defense of their country-a country from which thus far they have received injuries rather than blessings-and I did hope, that a just, if not a grateful country, would insist that the preservers of liberty should enjoy some share of its fruits; that we should have the manhood and magnanimity to declare that men who have wielded the sword in defense of their country are fit to be intrusted with the ballot. But I am convinced that my expectations, hitherto fondly cherished, are doomed to some disappointment.

Yet I take this occasion to place on record the assertion, that if this generation shall fail fully to perform the duty that Providence seems to have imposed upon it, the blame will not rest wholly upon the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Every measure adopted for the security of the people against rebels must be carried by a two-thirds vote of each House. Against an antagonistic Executive a majority of Congress alone cannot adopt legislation needful to the condition of the country.

But I will not on this account abandon all. I will accept of the best arrangement available. I will vote for the substitute I propose, if I have an opportunity. I will vote simply to strike out the third section, if I can do no more; and failing in that, I will vote for the joint resolution as it stands.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments made by the honorable gentlemen upon the other side; and out of five or six to whom I have attentively listened, only one has treated the minority on this side of the House with common courtesy or common respect. I am sorry that a grave and important question like this cannot be discussed by the representatives of the people of this country without indulging in vile vituperation of those who happen to disagree with the majority. Sir, I honor the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] for the manner in which he has always treated us on this side, and for the ability with which he has discussed the questions which have come before this House for consideration. Sir, I think it is belittling the character of this House for a gentleman of such high standing and of so much intellect as the honorable gentleman from the Lancaster district of Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] to commence his argu