Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-05-09

yes n ObnFress and for electors for President and
" yife n PfSSiaeRt S., q The United States II appears
20 that large cas Of eopS 4" tbe Sop Ts
Eithin the, terms Of the amnesty proclamation OF
rfesdent 2hnsop, and who are tier by restored 10
Az Iseir elyll rigbts Ie asked Mr. Stevens for an
explanation % that point .I
hr. STEVENS nfniitt0d that the pardon extih-
Smo in the the % ndydus Tbo who md 70 SSSh
doned did not come within the operation Of the third
| section. lII u
Pennsyyania to say that those who come within tie
terms Of the pyOelanati of amnesty would not he
considered as naYiDg voluntarily adhered to the late
Mr.. STEVENS assimilated their condition to that
Of peon convicted Of felony, and thereby rendered
testimony challenged, could produce his pardon
thsreby showing his competency. =.
Mr.. BLAlN suggested that ii that was the proper
construction TO be given the section II should be so
amended that there could he no question about its
construction, and be should at the proper time
move al amendment 10 that effect.
The point made by Mr. BaiD, and virtually admit
ted by Mr. Stevens 70 be well TAKEN seemed 10 create
cons sderabIc stir in the Republican ranks, 'em-
bers drew near aud listened to the colloguy with
great interest. NJ II recognizing the possibly fatal
chr racter Of The objection.
Mr.. FlNCk, of D., spoke in opposition to the
Mr.. GARFIELD stated that he was pleased with
almost everything in the proposed amendment. lie
regretted that the situation Of the country ha not
been found such rs to Justify the presentation of a
plain, unanswerable proposition thai every adult
crime, should have the right Of suffrage; for he be-
ieyed that tho right o. vote If not one of the
natural rights Of all men, was necessary for the
protection OF those natural rights. The whole
scheme was revolutionary and shallow preteDse iOr
excl udng the votes of eleven Southern States In the
next Presidential eectivn. He hoped the people IF
those States wonld rally around the wise and just
policy Of ndrew johnson. This measure was dan
gerous to tho safety of the Union IL would pro-
tract an unfortunate contest without promsit any
beneficial result 20 harmony. lie was in favor Of the
first, second and fourth sectiOns Of the proposed
amendment, but not fully satisfied with the third
section, which the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Bain) ha1 shown to be at least susceptible Of misun
Mr.. STEVENS explained that whereas pardon
wiped out crime and its punishment, there was IL
difference between punishment for crime and with
holding privilege. Pardon conferred no other adj
vantage than relief from punishment.
Mr. GARFIELD, without going into that point,
ressed his opinion that the third section the
only proposition in the amendment not bottomed
clearly and plainly upon principle. IL those who
had participated in the rebellion were unfit 10 be al
lowed TO vote the lst Of Jan. 1870, would they he
it 10 vote in July followingp There was no sufIi-
cieaJ reason for that and it would be said that il
was purely piece Of political management inrofer-
ence 70 the Presidential election. There also
practi a. objections 10 IL. If 7l0 of the people
carried out only by hAYiDg military forces
of the United States at evefS poll in eleven States
in the UnOnP Ho did not think ii. therefore, wise
prudent both for practical and for constitutional
reasOUs, rs suggested by Mr.. Blan. that the third
section should ,tand part Of the amendment, and
be should move to amend by striking out the third.
section, l...- H.. liz