New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-04-28

court as had been suggested by the President and
suggesting trial by military commission.
Mr.. Shellabarger desired to make a statement ID
that connection. He said that within few days
past the attorney general of the United states
stated to him and another gentleman, not IN conn.
dence or privately, that the position taken oy w
chief justice was proper, as the condiuoh Vi s s
country was such as to make judicial tfial' unae,
the circumstances nought else than mere
moCkery. o
Mr.. Ritter next addressed the House on the ques,,
ton chiefly of the relative value OF save Iano, s "r
free labor, contending that slave iaboI was iaut
profitable to State and comparing tne pEotu0sS ,,s
and property statistics of Ohio and hehluIhy 'n
Illinois and Alabama. He subsequensy trntat;
however, in response to MI Ne sssessed value of
the slaves He appealed to Congress II IL dia nov
des;re tine Reputation of the Federal deot 10 stop
in its mad career and to cease lts eofss W i9Lee
it's peculiar views on the peopie u VIC i"'o si''e
Mr sbellabarger addressed the House at great
tenuth expressing satisfaction that the attention
of the members was turned 10 tne atteauon ol lor
direct his remarks to that great question. In the
| breach between the President and Congress,
touching the method of restoring the States in the
recent revolt to controlling power in the Union,
and in the causes for that breach, most men found
occasion for alarm. If, however, any faith could
be placed in the most solemn utterances of Con-
gress and of the President, then they did not
differ, but did mostly precisely agree upon one, at
for the restoration of those States to power. He
solemnly averred his belief that if the Presiden,
and Congress had the constitutional right to en-
ploy the means to which we all look for the resto
ration of the States, and if they would in good
faith unite to apply and put in force the principle
which both professed to hold the work of restora
ton would be, if not easy at least ultimately Ger
tain, and at once secure. That principle was
that in all those States truly loyal people shoult
alone have the power of governing, either b.
holding or by the exercise of the electiv'
franchise, and that conscious and re
sponsible leaders of the rebellion shoul'
| be tried, convicted and executed. If the loya
people of those States had full control of thei
| government he saw no reason why each OF thos
States should not be welcomed to-day to the EN-
brace of the parent government with an ACCLAIM
of Joy almost like that which angels gave at Beth
lehem. The avowal by the President of hi
desire for the exclusion OF the rebels from al
powers of government, and for their condlgn pun
ishment, has been so frequent, so recent and eS
plicit, that to doubt their sincerity would be t
attribute to the President treachery to his profes
sions and infdelity to all instances of honor an
manhood. 1t would be to attribute to him pun
poses and conduct which would be disgracetnl t
the most vulgar political harlequin, but which
the ruler of great and generous people, who ha
! SO honored and trusted him, would be utterl
disgusting and infamous. Congress had alread
indicated its belief in the same thing 1t wa
) obvious, therefore, that the President and Cor
f, gress agreed that dislOya men should be sternl
excluded by severe ordeals from the goVernmen
until they bring forth fruits meet for repentance
He then proceeded to discuss the right of Cor
gress to exclude from citizenship all who had vo
tarily renounced it, sustaining his position on il
ternational law and precedents established an
practiced by foreign governments and followe
, by the American government, IN the case OF pei
sons who had been engaged in rebellion, in mass
Considerable discussion ensued between Messr:
Hale and Shelabarger on the law and preceder
invoved-the former claiming that the act of a
!, tainder clause protected citizenship.
Mr.. Shellabargar replied that the provision {
the Constitution he was discussing related to th
punishment of crime as SUCH and to the forfeitur
of rights in punishment of crime. Whathe was col
sidering was an exercise of national sovereignty
not in the punishment of crime, but simply depri'
ing men, who by acts of disloyalty, had voluI
tarily renounced their allegiance to their own GOV
ernment of the right to resume their politics
powers.
Mr.. Hale concluded by paying high compl
ment to Mr.. Shelabarger's speech, and said b
would take the first opportunity to answer til
disputed points.
The House then adjourned.