Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

institutions. Without one cause on earth these men plunged the nation into civil war. The blood of hundreds of thousands of their countrymen is on their souls. No previous character, no certificates can remove from them the crime of rebellion against their country. Upon the heads of these leading men rests the responsibility of the blood and the crimes of the last seven years. Before the nations, before

God, these leaders of the rebellion are responsible for the sorrow and agony of the great civil war through which the nation has passed. In spite of their crimes against their country, which will blacken as the ages roll on, I shall be ready to pardon any one of them whenever he manifests a disposition to submit to the authority of the Government, and to use the influences that belong to him as a citizen of the United States to maintain the laws of the country. Whenever and wherever I see manifested a spirit of loyalty, a disposition to do justice to others, to accord to others what it asks for itself, I shall hasten to relieve political disabilities.

Sir, I understand that this bill applies to two or three States, and that the Judiciary Committee intend to report other measures of relief. As this is the first bill for the removal of political disabilities, I think we had better pass it as it came from the Judiciary Committee. We shall doubtless have at this session of Congress other bills in which these amendments may be incorporated by the committee after investigation. I have since the close of the rebellion been in favor of universal amnesty and universal suffrage. Had those under disabilities been willing to unite with us in according rights to others their own disabilities might have been removed ese this. But while these persons who were laboring under disabilities have demanded what they choose to call their rights, they have stren uously striven to withhold rights from others. Against their protest, against their active efforts, against the protests and efforts of their friends, Congress, after a two years' struggle, and the people of eight States lately in rebellion, have achieved civil and political rights for the millions lately held in bondage. Many of these men, laboring under political disabilities, are madly striving to undo what has been done, to overturn what has been established, and to take from their fellow-men rights they demand for themselves. Now, I am willing that these men, guilty of the war, who were criminally guilty during the war, and who are more bitterly disloyal now than they were before the war or during the war, should remain under political disabilities until the spirit of the rebellion shall manifest itself less fiercely in their acts than it now does, and until the hopes that led them into rebellion and now animate them in their struggles shall have disappeared forever. Men who ask for the mercy of their victorious country should at least deal justly with their countrymen whose rights are quite as sacred as their own.

The Senator from Indiana wishes to remove the disabilities of Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, formerly a member of the House of Representatives. It is true Mr. Jones opposed the movements tending to rebellion, but he bowed to the rebellion when it was inaugurated, and was a member of the rebel congress. Whenever he shall ask for the removal of political disabilites I shall be ready to comply with his wishes. I have not learned that he has asked for the removal of disabil ities, or that he has manifested a disposition to acquiesce without a further struggle in the policy of the Government, essential to secure the unity of the country and the liberties of the people. In voting to remove political disabilities I do not require that the person relieved shall be a believer in my political faith, or a supporter of my political principles. The Republican party had no traitors in its ranks. It never had any sympathy with treason or with traitors. It overthrew slavery, the inspiration of the rebellion, and has given to the emancipated bondmen the rights and privileges of American citizenship. To support

the ever-loyal Republican party, to sustain its wise and beneficent measures of reconstruction upon the basis of loyalty and liberty, affords to Congress and the world ample evidence of the abandonment of the fatal theories and policies of the rebellion, and of genuine repentance for the errors of the past. I am ready, and I am sure Congress will be ready, to remove the disabilities of such a rebel, and the loyal heart of the country will readily wel come the removal of such disabilities. I do not, however, ask that the rebel who does work for repentance shall act with the Republican party before I consent to relieve him. I have recommended, and I shall continue to recommend, the relief of gentlemen I believe to be fair-minded men; men who are ready to acquiesce in the results of the war, and to stand by their country in the future, although such persons have no political sympathy with me, or with the great party with which I act. Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, the Chair feels called upon to announce the fact that the unfinished business of yesterday is regularly before the Senate.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not wish by my amendment to delay this bill.

Mr. WILSON. I hope this bill will be passed.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to allowing the unfinished business to go over temporarily for a few minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the order of the day will be passed over informally. It is so ordered.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I served four years, in the House of Representatives with George W. Jones. I came to know and esteem him as an honest man, as a clear-headed and able legislator. No man in the House of Representatives, in my judgment, was more useful to the country; no man more contrib uted to save the public Treasury from thieves and plunderers than George W. Jones. Naturally an honest man, his nature was against all wrong upon the public Treasury. I esteemed him as one of the most useful of legislators; and it was a pleasure to me this morning to have the opportunity, as his friend, as one who esteemed him as an honest man, and as a useful citizen, to make this motion. But sir, from the Senate, from the Congress, I will not accept of his restoration to political rights grudgingly. If it is not given cheerfully,

because he has shown his devotion to his country, because for years he stood out firmly, fearlessly, in the midst of much opposition, against every movement in the southern States that tended to secession, let it not be given at all. It was because I knew this, because I knew that there ought not to be a moment of delay when you are restoring men for political considerations, to restore one man upon the consideration that he was an honest man and a faithful public servant that I offered this amendment. But sir, as it is contested, I shall not accept it as a thing granted grudgingly, and I withdraw the amendment. I was not written to by Mr. Jones, no appeal was made to me for him. I wanted to do it as his friend, as one that knew him to be a good man.

Mr. SHERMAN. Before the Senator withdraws his amendment I desire to say a word. Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly, I will let it stand for that purpose.

Mr.

Mr. SHERMAN. I served with Mr. Jones six years in the House of Representatives. He was one of the oldest members in consecutive service. Mr. Houston and Mr. Jones were, I think, the oldest members of the House in consecutive service while I was there. Jones was undoubtedly what the Senator from Indiana says, a thoroughly honest, reliable man; one of the most useful legislators from any section of the country we had in the House of Representatives; and I have no doubt that the Judiciary Committee would have proposed to relieve him from all political disabilities if his case had been brought to them. He was a

Union man up to the breaking out of the war, and was dragged by mistake into secession. What part he took in the war I do not know. I know, however, that he remonstrated against the vile conduct of the representatives from the seceding States, but I have no doubt he has come within the disabilities of the law, because I understand he was for a time at least a member of the rebel congress. Mr. Jones has been here since, and I have no doubt desires the reconstruction of the southern States. He lives in a State which has long been in harmony with the Union, the State of Tennessee. I agree, however, that in this bill we ought to include no case which has not been examined by the Judiciary Committee. I am very glad the Senator from Indiana proposes to withdraw his amendment, and the Judiciary Committee will no doubt consider this as sufficient notice, and will inscribe the name of George W. Jones, of Tennessee, in the next roll of persons to be relieved from disabilities.

Mr. CONNESS. I was just about to say that there was no indorsement which could be made of the character of a man that I would sooner receive than that made by the honor. able Senator from Indiana; and after hearing him the second time, so far as I was concerned, I was about to withdraw all opposition that [ had made to the amendment he proposed; and if he shall see fit to allow it to remain I shall so withdraw all opposition.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope, then, it will be allowed to go upon the bill.

Mr. CONNESS. I withdraw all opposition, but with the understanding that the safe mode is, as suggested by the Senator from Ohio, that these cases be regularly examined by the committee.

Mr. HENDRICKS. What the Senator from California says is most agreeable to me; it is very gratifying to me, indeed, and unless there be further objection I will leave my amendment to stand.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I hope the amendment will be adopted. I knew Mr. Jones in the House of Representatives, and as the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Ohio have said he was one of the most useful men there in relation to the subject of claims against the Goverment that I ever knew, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr. Giddings. He through in spite of that, an honest man. was a bitter partisan; but he was, through and He

is now an old man, and I trust there will be no opposition to the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

The amendment to the amendment was

agreed to.

Mr. STEWART. I move to amend the amendment by inserting at the end of the fourth section a name which has been accidently omitted, the name of Thomas J. Mackey, of South Carolina, an excellent man, very well known to gentlemen here.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VICKERS. I offer this amendment as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That all legal and political disabilities imposed by the United States upon all citizens of the eleven southern States which were in rebellion in consequence of participation in the recent rebellion be, and the same are hereby, removed: Provided. That each of said persons shall first take an oath before a judge of a court, or before the clerk or prothonotary of the county where he may reside, that he will support the Constitution of the United States. And that this section shall not apply to any one who may be under indictment for a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The amendment of Mr. STEWART, as amended, was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate, and the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was concurred in. The amendment was ordered

to be engrossed, and the bill to be read the third time. The bill was read the third time.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to say a word before the bill is passed. I understand that opposition to it would be entirely fruitless; and I shall content myself with a vote against it without asking for a formal call of the yeas and nays.

1 object to the system of legislation of which this bill is an illustration, in the first place, because this is a sort of exercise of pardoning power by Congress. I consider it a very bad and pernicious system in itself. In the next place, I object to it because it must necessarily be partial and unfair. I am told that there are about four hundred names in this bill. Out of that whole number I know only two upon one side of politics. There may be more, but the number is scarcely worth counting. Nearly the entire number of the four hundred are selected with reference to party objects. A convention to form a constitution meets in North Carolina, and the political majority in the convention pass around the State, pick out their prominent, active, useful political friends, and they recommend them in a body here to Congress. They desire these men to take the offices of the State, wield the political influence of the State, and to be useful to the party organization in the future; and these names, under that general recommendation, are reported as a matter of course from the Judiciary Committee, who know nothing about the individuals, and they are passed here upon the ground that the convention has recommended them.

Then we are told that some names have been added by the committee, on the recommendation of whom? Of these political gentlemen from the South who have been chosen to offices or expect to hold offices under the new constitutions, and who are in political accord with the majority of Congress. A few of those names are added. One name I believe was added in committee upon the other side, and one has been added by a vote of the Senate just taken. I consider those additions of a few names to be quite politic, as it gives a sort of odor of fairness, though in an infinitely small degree, to the proceeding. But substantially this kind of legislation must be purely partisan in its character. It can be nothing else. I am not complaining of gentlemen of the majority who make up bills in this way and pass bills of this character. If we are to enter upon the system at all it is in human nature, it is inevitable, that the system should be such as I have described it.

Now, sir, nothing can be clearer than that the power to remove disabilities incurred by crime is a function which pertains to the President of the United States under the Constitution. This legislation is in the nature-I will not assert that it is absolutely so-but it is in the nature of a usurpation of executive power. In the first place, under a general law, you impose penal consequences upon past conduct by an ex post facto law. Whether you administer that system through the courts, or administer it directly through political agencies, is immaterial. The nature of the thing is to punish men for their conduct, and punish them for crimes which they have committed; and then Congress reserves to itself a dispensing power, which is in its nature a pardoning power; and you are exercising that by this legislation.

On principle, therefore, this whole system is, in my judgment, open to the strongest, clearest, most powerful objections; and besides that, when you come to look at it practically you discover what it is and what it must be in its very nature, an unfair, partial, and partisan system. You can make nothing else of it. It does not make any difference who administers it, what class of men in Congress vote these bills through; such must be its character everlastingly and always. Aud herein, in this very fact, we have a proof of the wisdom of those constitutional arrangements in the Federal Government, and in the several Il

States, and in other countries having civilized institutions, by which clemency, pardon, the dispensing with laws is everywhere lodged with the executive power of the Government. It cannot be exercised by a numerous body. If it is lodged with them it must become a thing odious and unjust; it must be partial and unfair; it must be partisan and partisan only; and if any persons are included or brought within the scope of a system of irregular benevolence of this kind who do not belong to the political party in power, it must be simply to give an odor of apparent fairness to a system which is essentially unjust.

I do not, as I said, choose to protract debate on this subject. I have simply said so much to indicate the vote which I shall give on this and on all other similar bills short of a general bill which shall remove disabilities. I would vote for a bill which removed disabilities as a general rule, leaving some particular exceptions, because, in substance, that would be repealing your former laws. I am willing to vote for anything which is in the nature of a repealing statute, or substantially a repealing statute, but for no bill which is in its nature a dispensing statute, a statute dispensing with the existing law.

Mr. HOWARD. If the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, will answer me one short query, I shall be obliged to him. If I understand him correctly, he holds, or seems to hold, that the rebels incurred no disabilities whatever which Congress can recognize. Did I misunderstand the gentleman?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I did not say so. Mr. HOWARD. I understood him so to intimate; and I think that his argument when properly analyzed will come to exactly that result. Now, sir, I dissent entirely from such a view of the subject. I hold that by waging war upon the Government of the United States and committing treason, as they did by wholesale, the persons thus acting became enemies of the United States. They have been so considered by the whole community. They have been so treated by the authorities of the United States, civil and military. They have been so regarded by our courts of justice, and adjudged to be enemies of the United States.

Now, how has it come to pass that in a war, although it is characterized sometimes as a civil war, and properly, perhaps, the prevailing party has no authority to impose terms upon the opposite party when they are to be received again into fellowship and admitted to the enjoyment of political rights? I hold, sir, that by waging war upon the Government of the United States these people were public enemies. They so denominated themselves. They claimed to be the enemies of the United States. They boasted of it. It was with them a matter of exultation and pride.

Now, the war having closed, that is, the actual fighting having closed, while we are in process of settling the controversy and effectually suppressing the rebellion and reëstablishing peace upon a secure and permanent basis, may we not declare that such and such persons, once enemies of the United States, shall be and remain permanently or temporarily, if we say so, under disabilities; and may we not properly whenever we see fit, as the law-making power, the prevailing party, relieve those persons from those disabilities? And may we not do this without incurring the charge which is perpetually hurled against a majority of this Senate of indulging in partisan legislation? Sir, there is no partisanship in it.

A few days ago the honorable Senator from Indiana, [Mr. HENDRICKS,] in commenting upon the bill for the extension of the Freedmen's Bureau, saw fit to characterize that great and beneficent measure as another partisan measure. It seems that we can do nothing, we can devise no measure that does not attract these odious epithets from our opponents on the other side of the Chamber. Whatever we do, be it this thing or the other, is sure to be stigmatized as a partisan measure by them.

Mr. CONNESS. Who are not party men! Mr. HOWARD. They are not partisan men, of course; they are entirely above all party considerations! It is very true that every mother's son of them during the recent impeachment trial, not as a party measure, of course, [laughter,] voted for the acquittal of the accused. It was their consciences, undoubtedly, that led them to that conclusion. I find no fault with it. But let them remember that the country may look upon that unanimity, so singular among so many lawyers of this body, as a little suspicious, especially when they boast of their conscientious convictions and denounce us for indulging in partisan measures!

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senator will allow me a single question. It is this

Mr. SHERMAN. This debate is going on by unanimous consent, and I hope it will not be protracted.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I merely wish to ask a question.

Mr. HOWARD. If the honorable Senator wishes merely to put a question to me, I have no objection to yield.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My question is simply this: whether the honorable Senator does not think that his question to the Senator from Pennsylvania is a pretty long one? [Laughter.]

Mr. HOWARD. The Senator from Pennsylvania had taken his seat.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You asked him to give way for a question.

Mr. HOWARD. He had taken his seat, and I took the floor properly.

Mr. President, the gentlemen who fling this charge out so flippantly and constantly may as well take it for granted from this day forth that, as Republican Senators, we shall not be very swift to readmit into a participation in the affairs of this Government rebels who have always been their friends, whether they are the friends of rebels now or not. We shall not be very ready to admit back into Congress and into a participation in the affairs of the Government and the country those red-handed rebels who have given us heretofore so much trouble, and are still virulent and unrepentant. They may well take it for granted that we intend to have some security for the future against the recurrence of the bloody war which their southern friends and protegés have waged against us. For one, sir, I am bound, if I cannot have indemnity for the past, to have at least permanent security for the future; and I will knowingly relieve no one of them from his disabilities who still harbors in his heart the spirit of rebellion.

Sir, I think we had better make a little something out of the victories we have achieved, and not fling them away, as the honorable Senators on the other side of the Chamber wish us to do. I believe in no such doctrine. In making a bargain I will see to it that I get the best of it if I honestly can.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] is very anxious to get up his bill, which is the regular order. I am, therefore, precluded from answering the Senator from Michigan. I will, however, make one remark. His speech about rebels and against rebellion, a speech which he always makes with such force, with such exactness of language and warmth of manner, is misapplied upon this bill. This is a bill to relieve rebels. That is its very object; and therefore declamation against rebels and the enormity of their offense is quite out of place, at least from the mouth of a gentleman who proposes to vote for this bill. All that is between the Senator from Michigan and myself, is the point of thus selecting one kind of rebels in preference to another kind. The Senator from Michigan would prefer to select for his clemency those red-handed and horrible rebels who are likely to vote for him, possibly to give him success in the elections of the present year. While he is selecting rebels, "red-handed rebels," for congressional clemency, I would

choose that he should select a little from both sides, so that there should not be any disturb. ance in the effect on our national politics.

I am not asking him to emancipate anybody at present; I am proposing no bill; I am simply criticising this bill for the emancipation of rebels from the horrible condition of political inferiority in which they are plunged by congressional legislation, and I am suggesting, simply as a matter of criticism, a sort of political speculation of and concerning this legislation, that when you come to pick rebels by special delegation in congressional bills you will be very apt to pick those who will vote with you, who will assist you to hold office and to maintain predominance in authority in the Government of the United States; and hence the inconvenience of this system. I grant the Senator from Michigan that if my political friends were in power and were administering a system of this kind they would do precisely the same thing. They would follow the law of their own interests, and in emancipating red-handed rebels, bloody from the terrible scenes of the late war, they would select men who would give them political influence in the Government and maintain their authority.

The Senator does not perceive that my re ⚫ marks, made only in vindication of the vote I propose to give, were directed to this general system, and were not intended to criticise or to complain particularly of his action, because I know that rests in human nature. We are so

fallible, so imperfectly constituted, that we follow our own interests; and when we act as party men we follow our party interests. It is the system that is wrong, a system which cannot be administered fairly and justly and equally; which will always be perverted to the interests of the party to whose hands it is committed. I am endeavoring to call attention to this subject, so that at an early day-not at this moment we shall return to sound principles. Of course this bill is going to pass, and the brain of the Senator from Nevada is doubtless teeming with other bills, which will doubtless be introduced by him into this Chamber, and which, possibly, we shall pass before we adjourn. I am calling attention to the subject, so that when the sober second thought" comes after a little, when the pinch of the political emergency has passed, we shall return to sound principles with reference to this sort of legislation, and when we come to deal with red-handed rebels" we shall attempt to deal with them equally and justly upon principles of public policy, instead of party expediency.

Mr. HOWARD and Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President

Mr. STEWART. I hope we shall have a

vote.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the regular order of business.

Mr. HOWARD. Just one word. I wish to make a single remark.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the regular order of business, and I hope the Senate will proceed with it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. STEWART. I call for a division on that motion.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the unfinished business comes up as a matter of course when called for. It is not necessary to take a vote. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is true. It was informally passed over. Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the regular order.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I believe I had the floor when the honorable Senator from Ohio called for the regular order of business; but if the regular order is up

Mr. SHERMAN. It is up.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then I have nothing to say.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Before pro

ceeding with the regular order, the Chair desires to lay before the Senate certain bills. Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to make one remark. I am very much averse to cutting off the Senator from Michigan from any response, and I hope the Senate will let him have the floor.

Several SENATORS. Let us pass this bill. Mr. SHERMAN. Debate is not in order on that. I am perfectly willing to take a vote on the passage of the bill, but

Mr. HOWARD. But you are not willing to hear a word from the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SHERMAN. When the friends of the bill are not willing to allow a vote to be taken upon it, when debate will evidently delay action upon it, I certainly have a right to object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order of the day is before the Senate.

Mr. STEWART. I move that it be temporarily laid aside; and let us try to get a vote on this bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. You have tried it once.

Mr. STEWART. I know we have tried it once, but I think we can succeed this time. Mr. SHERMAN. You can get a vote in the morning without any trouble.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think there will be any further debate. I make the motion for this reason

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reg ular order can be passed over by common

consent.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is utterly idle to do it. I object.

Mr. STEWART. Give us five minutes. Mr. SHERMAN. Five minutes would not be enough, nor twenty.

Mr. TRUMBULL, (to Mr. SHERMAN.) Give us until two o'clock, and if we do not pass it by that time we will take up your bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am perfectly willing to agree to that if that is the understanding.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the regular order be postponed until two o'clock, with a view of taking a vote on this

bill.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HOWARD. I have but a word to say.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood I had the floor when the Senator from Ohio called for the order of the day.

Mr. SHERMAN. You can divide the time between you.

Mr. HOWARD. The difference between the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania and | myself appears to be this, when expressed briefly and clearly: he would pass a bill removing all disabilities from rebels, making it of universal application, thus readmitting to their political rights every person who is already under political disabilities, while I would simply follow out the policy of this bill and readmit to political rights only such rebels as have brought forth fruits meet for repentance. That is the simple difference between the Senator from Pennsylvania and myself.

Now, sir, I take it for granted that the committee who have had this bill under consideration have investigated the merits of every person whose name is inserted in the bill, so far as it has been practicable for them to do so, and that they have learned that they have become repentant; that they are willing again to cooperate in the Government of the United States, and to abandon the rebelism which has made them insane heretofore. Whenever such a case shall present itself to me hereafter; whenever I find a person who has once been a rebel, who has heartily, cordially, and honestly abandoned his rebel sentiments, and is willing to return to his ancient allegiance, I will vote to relieve him of his disabilities; but I will not vote for a bill such as the Senator from Pennsylvania seems to suggest, relieving at one grand sweep from disability every rebel within the limits of the United States. There is where we differ,

and there, I believe, is the point of difference between the party to which he belongs and the party to which I belong.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, this bill assumes that the fourteenth amendment proposed to the Constitution has already been adopted, and that these persons are in fact under disability; that, although as citizens of the United States they have been convicted of no crime whatever, they are under political disabilities and made incapable of holding office. I dissent from that assumption altogether.

Mr. CONKLING. How does it do it any more than the reconstruction act?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. In relation to the reconstruction acts imposing disabilities I never believed that an act of Congress could impose a disability.

Mr. CONKLING. No; but how does this assume anything more than that?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Perhaps it assumes nothing more than that; but, sir, an act of Congress can no more put a man under disabilities until he be tried and convicted of some offense against the Government than an act of Congress could direct a guillotine to be erected and drag a man to it and take his head off. The whole attempt to do it is utterly unconstitutional and void. But if the constitutional amendment known as the fourteenth article is adopted, then it becomes a part of the constitutional law of the land, and could impose disabilities. I supposed that this bill must assume, as a matter of course, that that article had been adopted, or it could not assume to relieve disabilities. In my judg ment there is no such power. As a matter of course other gentlemen who believe that they have the power to impose disabilities by law will take the opposite ground.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator will allow me, the bill was purposely framed so as to avoid deciding the question. If you will look at the wording of it, you will see that it declares "all legal and political disabilities imposed" are relieved. If there are any, then the intention is to remove them; if there are none, the bill will do no harm.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not care to dwell on this point. The principal difficulty is this: it is impossible for the Judiciary Committee to try the fifty or one hundred or two hundred thousand cases of persons at the South resting under disability. The doctrine contended for here is that the case of every individual must go to the committee and be examined, and the committee must have good reasons for reporting in any particular case, where a man is tried, in favor of relieving him from his disabilities. It is practically impossible to do justice to these persons in that way. It is impossible in the very nature of things. Therefore I insist that Congress should provide some general law by which these persons who are to be freed from the disabilities existing upon them can be tried by some tribunal, as it is impossible for the question to be tried here in Congress.

As to the number of persons resting under disabilities, some persons estimate that fifty thousand will cover the number. Why, sir, there are twenty-five thousand in Alabama alone, as the facts go to show. Under the first law that Congress ever passed on this subject every man who ever held any State office, executive, judicial, or legislative, who was required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, was put under disabilities. The estimate which gentlemen make of there being only fifty thousand of these men is utterly without foundation.

Now, in relation to this bill, and simply to show how unjust these proceedings must necessarily be, I have before me papers from North Carolina which show how these recommendations came here to the committee that the disabilities should be removed from these two hundred persons. It is a party recommendation of their party friends.

Mr. NYE. Let me inquire of the honorable Senator if that explanation is from Austin,

from the same person from whom he presented a memorial the other day?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, sir; it is not from Austin. Some two hundred or more names were sent forward here by party friends in North Carolina, certifying that they ought to have their disabilities removed. The Judiciary Committee could practically know nothing about them. They took this certificate; the names of those persons were put in the bill; and it is to be passed through. Of necessity, you do no justice in the case. It is simply a recommendation to us based upon the recommendation of party friends in North Carolina; and it must be so. I do not blame the committee, because they cannot examine the cases and try two hundred men before the committee. They cannot try fifty thousand men and determine this question. We have got to determine it by some general law. There is no other way in which justice can be attained.

I have no purpose to speak with a view to delay the action of the Senate. I have never, I believe, spoken before the Senate for the purpose of occupying time. I simply desire to present these points which force themselves upon my mind. I desire that the Judiciary Committee should bring forward some general proposition requiring a man to give bonds, or that he take oaths of allegiance, or something, so that it can be applied generally, and not applied simply to partisans on one side; that if a man believes in certain political doctrines we will remove his disabilities.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 35, nays 6, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry, Fessenden, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-35.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Fowler, McCreery, Vickers, and Wade-6.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Conkling, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Freiinghuysen. Grimes, Hendricks, Norton, Ramsey, Saulsbury, and Tipton-13.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the yeas are 35 and the nays 6. Two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the bill is passed.

On motion of Mr. STEWART, the title of the bill was amended so as to read: A bill to relieve disability of certain persons engaged in the late rebellion.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. No. 1218) appropriating money to sustain the Indian commission and carry out treaties made thereby, in which it requested the concurrence

of the Senate.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 870) to remove political disabilities from Roderick R. Butler, of Ten

nessee.

The message further announced that the House requested the return of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 291) giving additional com

I have papers before me referring to several of the persons named in this bill, showing that they were among the most active among the secessionists of North Carolina, stating partic-pensation to certain employés in the civil

ularly what part they took in the rebellion; but I do not desire to mention them by name, nor to go into the details or the particulars. It would take up time to do it; but among the list contained in the bill are men who were the most active of all the secessionists of North Carolina-men who were members of the convention, who signed the ordinance of secession, persons who administered the laws in relation to conscription, persons who administered the laws in relation to the shooting of deserters by hundreds, men who were the bloodiest kind of rebels, if we are to judge from the part they took in the rebellion. But, sir, I do not care to go into the details or the particulars. I simply desire to protest that this is not the true mode in which to reach this evil. The Judiciary Committee should provide some general legislation, so that if a man brings himself within certain rules to be established he shall be entitled to amnesty.

service of the Government at Washington, yesterday transmitted to the Senate for con

currence.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the President pro tempore:

A bill (S. No. 584) relating to contested elections in the city of Washington, District of Columbia; and

A bill (H. R. No. 870) to remove political disabilities from Roderick R. Butler, of Ten

nessee.

RETURN OF A JOINT RESOLUTION. Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the joint resolution (H. R. No. 291) giving additional compensation to certain employés in the civil service of the Government at Washington be returned to the House of Representatives in accordance with the request they have just sent

to us.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War, communicating, in obedience to law, a statement of contracts made by the quartermaster's department during the month of May, 1868; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be

Mr. FOWLER. I suppose that the clause in the constitutional amendment which this bill is intended to provide against was inserted for the reason that these persons in the southern States were not deemed safe persons to exercise the right of suffrage and hold office. If that was true at the time that clause was inserted in the constitutional amendment, it is true to-day, in my judgment. I do not think a sufficient length of time has elapsed to enable us to determine whether these persons are yet competent to exercise the right of fran-printed. chise. If it had, I see no good reason why the bill might not be made general and applied to all. A great many of the persons included in this bill are not much better than the others. In my opinion, it would be better to postpone this subject until the whole country is satisfied that these persons ought to be admitted to their privileges as citizens of the United States, and then a general bill could be passed by the Congress of the United States for the relief of these men. I shall, therefore, vote against this bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. STEWART. On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question will be taken by yeas and nays, it being necessary that two thirds should vote for the bill to pass it.

RECEPTION OF THE CHINESE EMBASSY. Mr. JOHNSON. The Chair did me the honor, yesterday, to appoint me one of the committee to provide for the reception of the Chinese Embassy in the Senate Chamber. I am called away by other duties, and shall not be able to discharge this particular function. I therefore ask to be excused, and that my place may be supplied by the Chair.

The question being put, Mr. JOHNSON was excused.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will appoint Mr. HENDRICKS in place of Mr. JOHNSON on that committee.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 1218) appropriating money to sustain the Indian commission and carry out treaties made thereby was read twice by its title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, if there be no objection.

Mr. SHERMAN. As that is a matter of pressing necessity, I think it should go to the Committee on Appropriations. It came from the Committee on Appropriations in the House. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. POMEROY submitted an amendment, to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

NATIONAL BANKS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The special order is now before the Senate.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 440) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof," approved June 3, 1864, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. DAVIS to the amendment proposed by the Committee on Finance as the fifth section of the bill. amendment of the committee is in these words:

The

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That section twenty-two of the act aforesaid be so amended that the maximum limit of national circulation, fixed by said act, is hereby increased the sum of $20,000,000, which amount shall be issued only to banking associations organized in States and Territories having a less circulation than five dollars per each inhabitant, and so as to equalize the circulation in such States and Territories in proportion to population.

The amendment of Mr. DAVIS is to strike out all of the section after the enacting clause and to insert:

That there shall be withdrawn by the Comptroller of the Currency from the banks of any State or Territory that may have an excess of circulation notes upon the principles of their distribution as regulated by law and the rules established by the Treasury Department, and the circulation notes so withdrawn shall be distributed by the Comptroller of the Currency among the national banks of such States and Territories as may have less than their proper proportion of circulation notes.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Mr. President, I wish to submit a few remarks in reference to the section now under consideration-the fifth section of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. I am disposed to vote for the section as it stands in the bill, if it can be so passed, although I think it proper for me to declare my dissent from some of the principles which it contains. I accept it as a good deal less than half a loaf when we cannot get the whole. I think something further should be done in reference to the want that this section

[ocr errors]

proposes to remedy. I object particularly to the last clause of the section, although I do not know that its remaining in the section can do any harm. The words are, “And so to equalize the circulation of such States and Territories in proportion to population.' Population is so manifestly an improper means of estimating the fair share of circulation which should go to each State and Territory, that I presume I need not discuss it at any length. If the distribution of circulation now was confined to population, especially at the rate here fixed, at five dollars per head, I should like to ask my friend from Rhode Island [Mr. ANTHONY] what would become of his State? and I might ask the same question of the Senators from Massachusetts where the population is small compared with the extent of their busi

ness.

I am desirous also to make these remarks, because a sub-committee consisting of two members of the Finance Committee, the Senator from New York, [Mr. MORGAN,] and our late associate, Mr. Guthrie, and myself, prepared and submitted to the Senate a bill on this subject of the equalization of the circulation throughout the Union, which was referred to the Finance Committee. As that measure

received no action at the previous session I again prepared the bill, with some slight modifications, and submitted it to the Senate and had it referred to the Finance Committee at this session. I am thus, I may say, pledged, as it were, to the increase of the circulation, and upon principles which appear to me much more just and equitable than the section that is now before us. However, as I have said, I will accept that section as a part of this bill, supposing I can get nothing better, because I know that the want of additional bank capital is great, and that plain justice, to say nothing of the business of the country, demands that some such provision should be extended.

In the bill of which I have spoken the subcommittee endeavored to ascertain some fair ratio upon which this equalization could be based. The previous legislation on the subject had established the rule that one half of the circulation was to be distributed according to population, and the other half according to the business, banking capital, &c., of the State, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treas ury, or of the Comptroller of the Currency. By some means, when the new banking law was passed this section was left out, and afterward, after an interval of a year or more, the section was again inserted; so that that now stands as the rule for equalizing the circulation, and the only rule.

I ask the pardon of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] for forgetting that his proposition is under consideration at the present time; but my remarks have as much reference to his amendment as they have to the measure before us.

It was under these circumstances that the New England States obtained an excess of the circulation; and I am happy to say that, in my opinion, it was by no means their fault. It was not in consequence of any grasping disposition on their part, or any desire to obtain for them. selves what they were not willing to allow to others. On the contrary, when this banking law was first passed, when the system was first put in operation, the banks and the people of New England and of every other portion of the country were strongly solicited to embark in it in order that the system might be started.

Again, when it was found that it was impossible that the national circulation and the circulation of the then remaining State banks could exist together, or could circulate together without disadvantage, at least to the national circulation, they were strongly urged to convert their remaining State banks into national banks, which they generally did; and, in fact, an amendment was passed to the law at that time by which the preference was given to the remaining State banks. They availed themselves of this, and the result is that they have now an excess of the circulation.

There is another consideration connected with it. On the plan that I proposed the excess would not be so great as it now seems; and from some calculations that were made at the time by myself and the gentlemen associated with me in the sub-committee I am persuaded, although our data were considerably vague, that the State of New York, for instance, has not to-day any excess of circulation.

I will, with the permission of the Senate, state some of the features of that plan. By it population was an element in ascertaining the ratio of circulation, but it was not the only element. It was compounded with the productions, mineral, manufacturing, and agricultural, of each State; that is to say, the amount to be given to each State was ascertained by a compounded ratio of its population and production. Although I should not, if that bill was before the Senate, insist upon precisely that mode of ascertaining it, I am satisfied it is the best that could possibly be adopted. Under the law as it stands, it is not even a combined ratio of population and production or capital or business or whatever they call it. It is simply dividing one half according to the population-a very unfair and untrue basis and dividing the other half ac

cording to the opinion of some officer of the business, &c., of the States. That plan proposed to reduce to certainty what can be reduced to certainty and ought to be reduced to certainty. It proposed to resort to the census, the decennial enumeration of the business and persons of the United States; and taking that as the basis to ascertain what is the population and what is the production of every State, and by compounding those ascertain the ratio. As I said before, I am satisfied that that is the fairest and most equitable way by which this could be done; but I was not wedded precisely to that plan if a better one,|| or one apparently better, could have been suggested.

As a further provision, when this ratio had been ascertained, $300,000,000 were to be apportioned among the several States. Three hundred million dollars was the limit of the circulation of these banks. Every State was to be assigned its portion under that $300,000,000, and States that had not their fair share now were to have it after. That would still leave some States in excess to a greater or less degree. The increase is not so great as it would at first appear, as I provided that the circulation of the banks in States having an excess should be reduced ten per cent. of their capital; that is, those now circulating ninety percent. of their capital should circulate eighty per cent.; but this reduction was not to take place except as the bills were returned to the Treasury to be destroyed, and in case of a bank failing, or anything of that kind, of course it would lose the benefit of that circulation afterward.

My calculation was-and I must again apologize for a calculation that is made upon such vague data, but I made it the best way I could and after considerable reflection-that that would add not to exceed $40,000,000 to the circulation of the whole country; and it is done in this way: the excess that is now talked of, for instance, in the State of Massachusetts, is not as great as it is represented; that is, it is represented as much greater than it would be on a fair and equitable distribution of the circulation. I had provided, also, that the first benefits of this increased circulation should be given to State banks for six months from the passage of the act, taking that feature from the amendatory law which was introduced here, and to which I have already referred. I then had a further provision similar to that offered to this section by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] yesterday, namely, that if the circulation at any time exceeded $300,000,000, a number of greenbacks equal in amount to the excess should be withdrawn from circulation and permanently destroyed.

I think this plan provided, perhaps, for any case that was likely to occur, and ought not, I think, to be obnoxious to the objections that have been made on this floor on both sides. In the first place, it had the grand merit, or purported to have, and was designed to have, the grand merit of being equal and just to all the States and Territories. In the second place, the increase, if any, would have been very slow and gradual, because banks cannot be established in a day, and if there was any excess of the amount designed as circulation for the national banks it would be got rid of by redeeming as many greenbacks. I think that the one circulation, for all practical purposes, especially with the resumption of specie payments, would be as good as the other. I do not see that any injury would have been effected in any way, while the general interests would, perhaps, have been benefited.

I should like to call the attention of my western and northwestern friends, and perhaps others, to this consideration. We are plunged every year into a time of shortness of money and high exchanges. High prices must be paid for money whenever the crops come to be moved. We have not banking capital enough. This plan would give to Ohio, and to every western State beyond it, perhaps, an increase of banking circulation. If it was not sufficient to enable them to move the crops by means of

[ocr errors]

their circulation, it would still lighten the difficulty a great deal, and it would cost them far less.

It may be said that this capital would have to be supplied from the East. Grant it; it would only be making a permanent loan to the West, a sufficiency, perhaps, for the removal of the crops, and it would not be thrown periodically almost into convulsions by the high prices of money.

As I have already stated, I am disposed to vote for this amendment of the committee, as we can get no better; but I thought it due to myself, and those who were associated with me, to say that we had prepared a different plan, which would have been submitted to the Senate if it had met the approbation in full or the committee. I have stated my own views and reasons, and I doubt not those of the gentlemen who were associated with me. But as I cannot get that plan, or cannot get a proper distribution of this circulation, as I am sure those whom this amendment will relieve are entitled to this additional circulation, I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I frankly confess that I am not well informed on the subject of finance, bank circulation especially. I admit the defect of my information generally in relation to those subjects. The amendment that I have offered is simply to attract the attention of Senators to the matter that they may consult together and make propositions, and in the future adopt the wisest and most just that can be made. That is all the purpose I have in relation to this matter.

Mr. President, we have a most extraordinary system of banking in the United States. The States may incorporate banks, but those banks can issue no paper for circulation. The entire circulation of the banks of the United States is furnished by the Government of the United States, and according to the report of the Comptroller of the Currency the aggregate amount is about three hundred and three or three hundred and four million dollars. I think the honorable Senator from West Virginia was about right, that the aggregate amount of circulation, according to the Comptroller of the Currency, is about three hundred and three or three hundred and four million dollars.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. A little less. Three hundred million dollars is the limit.

Mr. DAVIS. This report says about three hundred and three million dollars.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. There must be a deduction there for bills returned.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, a little less than $300,000,000; that is the limit. Now, sir, how is this circulation distributed among the States? Maine has $7,519,386; New Hampshire, $4,223,355; Vermont, $5,722,780; Massachusetts, $57,429,205; Rhode Island, $12,508,670; and Connecticut, $17,550,685; making an aggregrate to the six New England States of $104,954,081; a sum considerably in excess above one third of the whole amount of the entire circulating notes of the United States. New York has $72,558,865; New Jersey, $9,150, 165; Pennsylvania, $39,330,070. The aggregate of the circulation notes distributed to these three States, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, amounts to $121,039,000. So that the New England States have an excess of several millions over one third of the whole circulation; and the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania having an excess of $21,000,000 above one third of the whole amount of the circulation.

Ohio has $18,454,280 of circulation, and Indiana has $11,042,240 of circulation. I suppose that these two States have something about their just proportion of the circulation notes of the United States; but there is a great excess over this just proportions given to the New England States, and also to the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The six New England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, have a circulation in the aggregate of $255,470,000, leaving to all the residue of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »