Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-02-18
Forty-First Congress Second Session.
WASHINGTON, D. c., Feb. II.
SENATE

SENATE.
Mr.. Howe, rising to a personal explanation,
replied to an article in the New York Sun, enti'
| tied: cred River Cotton Claims" and defended
| the action of the committee on claims, of which
| he was chairman, from the charges in the arti-
| Gle of fraud and attempt TO commit an outrage
Mr.. Pratt and Mr. Sprague also explained
| and defended the course of the committee.
| Mr.. Nye, by way of correcting an uninten.
| tional injustice likely to follow from his state.
ment on the Geographic cable bill, that false re.
| ports of cables breaking were originated as a
preteXt for raising the price of messages
| had read letter from Moses Taylor and Cyrus
| w. Field which denied, so far as the Atlantic
cable was concerned, that there was any ground
for the statement, or that the company ever cir
| culated false reports, and asserting that when
ever interruption occurred, the fact was at once
| published.
| @AIr. Wilson, from the committee on military
affairs, reported, without amendment, the house
bill TO protect national cemeteries and for other
purposes.
The legislative, executive and judicial appro-
priation bill was then proceeded with.
Mr.. Sawyer moved an amendment, repeating
the provisions inserted in the Legislative appro-
priaton bill last year. On motion of Senator
Drake, which prohibited admission, as evidence
in the court Of claims, of presidential pardon.
Mr. Sawycl'S amendment authorizes the admis-
sion, as evidence in that court in any suit under
the act of March u, 1868, any pardon or
rebellion under the proclamation of the prcsi-
dent issued in pursuance Of The confscation act
and before the restoration of the rights of
prope ty, where conditions in said acts and
procamations have been faithfully complied
with, and oaths of amnesty allegiance maintain
ed inViOlate.
MIR. Sawyer said the provision proposed to be
repealed was passed in the dark hours of night,
and he believed it, as he thought the country
believed it, great wrong, and violation OF the
plighted faith of the nation. His amendment
did not touch the disputed question of the par
doning power of the president, but simply re-
cognized the constitutional right of congress,
which, by its act of July, 1852, authorized the
president to grant amnesty, and the restoration
OF their rights to such of the rebels as laid down
their arms. abJured the rebellion and give evil
dence of their good intentions. 1t was only this
class of claims that he proposed to rcacl-those
of men included in the proclamation of Pres-
dent Lincoln. These men were already in the
court of claims, hut were estopped from pressing
their claims by the provision now sought TO be
repealed. The aggregate of the expense OF these
claims was less than ten millions and half.
Mr.. Trumbull said that, while the war ragged,
he was for making it terrible TO the enemy, but,
under conditions, he would repudiate the
implied pledges in the shape OF inducements
held out by the government to southern people
to return to their allegiance. He, therefore, fa-
vored the amendment.
Mr.. Howe inquired whether, under the amend
ment, Andrew JohnsOn's pardons would be eff
fective, and whether the rebels who surrendered
April, 1865, would be allowed to go into the
court of claims.
Mr. Trumbull said certainly not. If he
thought the amendment had any such effect he
would not favor it. 1t was only, as he under
stood it, designed to apply to men who volun-
tarily ceased their resistance under the procla-
nations of President Lincoln.
Mr. Sawyers amendment was rejected.
Mr. Trumbul reviewed a portion of the
amendment, and moved to repeal the proviso in
the law proposed to be repeated by Mr.. Sawyer
which makes pardon conclusive evidence in
in the court of claims that a person who pre-
sents it is guilty OF the offense recited in the
pardon, unless, upon its reception, he enters
written protest to the contrary.
Mr. Conkling opposed the amendment, as too
general and including class of claimants
whom it would be safer for the government to
exclude.
MIR. Carpenter doubted the right of congress
to invaldate the legal effect of pardon issued
by the president.
Mr. Blair argued that the allegiance of cit
i2en was only due when the protection of the
government insured it to him. Through the de-
ance of the Union men at the south, at the be-
ginning of the war, the dis-Unionists were
suffered to establish de fdcto government, and
compel the obedience of all Union men within
their borders.
When Alexander II. Stephens made his elo-
quent speech in behalf of che Union in the Geor-
gia convention, the only reply made to him was
the reading, by Mr.. Toombs, of paragraph
from the New York Tribune, to the effect that,
if the southern states wanted TO secede they had
as much right to leave the Union as had our