The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-01-20
THE AMNESTY DEBATE.

Ihe proceedings or congress were en-
,livened last week by an animated and
acrimonious debate upon extending uni
yersal amnesty to the citizens of the late
insurrectionary States. This was the
proposition as it was originally made, but
the opportunity for making political cap
ital was too easily discerned for such
men as Ex-Speaker Blaine to allow it to
pass unchallenged. We give the final
proceedings in another column, regret
ting that we have not space for fuller re-
ports of the proceedings.
. The amnesty bill was defeated last
winter by the United States Senate, and
the Democratic House of Representa-
tires proposed to give another chance for
that body to put itself upon record
against extending full and free pardon
to all ex. x.Confederates in this centennial
period, when all parties are prating of
reconciliation between the sections. We
suspec. that the Democrats failed to
study the question in all Its aspects, for
when MIR. Blaine proposed to make an
exception in the case of Mr.. Jefferson
Davis, and to exclude that gentleman
from the benefits of the amnesty privi-
lege, it showed at once that this was not
calculated upon by their opponents.
Blaine is shrewd, cunning and adroit in
debate, apd is the recognized leader Of
the Republicans in the House. His
knowledge Of parliamentary tactics giyes
him an immense advantage, and while
he is apparently fair in his dealings with
questions, there is subtle trickery in
his actions which make him danger
GUS foe to the Democratic majority.
This recent debate proves the truthful
ness of this assertion, for it was his
adroitness that brought into play much
of the bitterness which characterized the
discussion on both sides. Such was ex-
actly suited to his aims and purposes,
and the Democratic members were Civ
ing him an advantage when they were
betrayed into such q wide range of dis
cussion. This is especially true in re-
gard to Southern members, and applies
with singular force to prominent rep
resentative of an adjoining State.
We allude here to Hon. B. 81. Hill, Of
Georgia, whose speech was brilliant, pow
erful, eloquent and logical, and yet we
are constrained to say it was an egregious
blundsr. The time and the circumstan-
ces were not opportune for Mr.. Hill to
make speech, and as it was his maiden
effort in the halls of the United States
Congress, we regret for his own sake, not
to speak of the interests of his section,
that he did not refrain from giving utter
ance to such a lengthy argument, inter
larded as it was with expressions easily
misconstrued and misapplied by unscru-
pulous opponents. His facts and figures
in relation to the mortality of war Pris-
oners in Northern and Southern prisons,
showing the greater per centage Of deaths
in the Northern prisons, are simply in
controyertible, for the reason that his
remarks were based upon the report OF
Surgeon General Barnes, of the United
States Army. But these facts and hg-
ures have been spread before the coun-
try in the newspaper press long ago, and
are not likely to be forgotten by the fu-
ture historian. So, too, We may regard
the statements of Mr.. Hill in relation to
the respon >ibility of the United States
authorities for refusing to exchange pris-
| oners-these are well known to the coun-
try, and needed not the endorsement OF
q Congressional speech to give them life
and vigor. Mr.. Hills rhetorical -four
ishes we're so much additional and un-
necessary timber in this respect, and his