The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-02

sought relief so as TO be enabled to hold the Office
without claiming TO be Union man. Trumbnll
ssio mat each OF the persons named in the bill had
made written application for relief, in which he
had expressed his intention to obey the laws and
sustain the government. Mr.. Rogers had done
this and that was not consistent with the state.
ment of Mr.. Howard. Wiley was unable to give
any information about Mr.. Rogers action during
the war or his present attitude towards the
government, but be knew his reputation
before the war TO have been that of
gentleman Of high character and standing in the
community. Howard read a letter enclosing a
resolution of Grant and Colfax club of Rich.
mond, earnestly protesting against the removal 0f
the disabilities OF several Office holders ia Virginia
among them Rogers. Ferry hoped the name of
Rogers would not be stricken out. He had ence
said that whenever any man holding Office at the
South appealed for relief from his political dis
abilities, that there was always enough Of his
neighbors who wanted the Office for themselves to
get up remonstrsnce. Trumbull commented
of Richmond gave no reason against the re-
leving Mr.. Rogers, except that they
the club, earnestly protested against
it. He said: " If the United States Senate was to
be merely body TO register DEGREES of Grant and
Colfax clubs of Richmond and elsewhere in the
South. it was time that fact was known. This
Grant and Colfax club protest against relief of
certain oficehoders. was probably because they
wanted the Offices themselves"
Iipton-"They have right to them"
Trnmbull-"suppose the people don't want to
elect them, have they right to the oaices?"
Howard-"They have if the people are rebels"
Irumbull asked Upton whether he would like
to have the majority of the people in Nebraska
treated in that way?
Upton said nothing would please him better il
the majority of the people were rebels.
Conkling was not In favor of an indiscrminate
removal of disabilities, but thought that NJ.
Rogers, in consideration of his personal character
and personsl position, better entitled TO removal
OF his olssblhtles than many who had theirs re-
moved.
Sawyer said that the idea that no one in the
South should have bis disabilities removed unless
it was recommended by Republicans in his com
munlly, was narrow, short-sighted and radically
wrong; that whenever q man of good character
applied TO have his disabilities removed, it would
be the best policy of the government to remove
them and thereby win the support of the conserva.
tive and influential men of the South.
Nye said he had satisfactory information that
the opposition to the relief of Rogers arose out
of the fact that as auditor OF the State he stood
in the way of the governors scheme to sell to
outside parties the internal improvements of Vir.
ginia.
Frelinghuysen read papers in the case of Mr..
Rogers, showing that he had taken the oath of
allegiance and avowed his intention to support
the government, and that the removal of his disa-
billties had been recommended by Gen. Scho6eld,
Gen. Sionemau and leading members of the Re
publican party of Virginia.
Mr. Conness. in view of Mr.. Frelinghuysen's
statement. withdrew his motion to strike ont the
name Of Mr.. Rogers.
The morning hour having expired, the bill went
over.
Nothing will be done this session, but indica.
tons are strong that. unless something unto ward
occurs, political disabilities will be removed after
Inauguration as rapidly as applications are made.
Ihe spirit OF Congress points directly to this
policy.