The New York herald., 1876-01-14
The Amnesty Debate-Mr. Blaine's
Second Speech.

Mr.. Blaine has not succeeded in clearing
himself of the charge of having needlessly
and wantonly stirred up the most disagree
able and irritating topics connected with the
civil war and reviving bitter memories which
patriot should wish to leave undisturbed.
This whole discussion about the treatment
of prisoners is ill-timed, purely mischievous,
and nobody can acqnit Mr. Blaine of having
opened its sluices.
His defence is as weak in logic as anything
we have ever seen from so able man. He
says he has no wish to punish jefferson
Davis, but only resists an attempt to con-
fer on him an "honor." This is a refine
ment entirely beyond the realm of COM
mon sense. The "honor" that would be
bestowed on Mr. Davis by including him in
an act of amnesty would be precisely neither
greater nor less than the ''honor" which was
conferred on every male negro in the South
by the amendments to the constitution.
Did Mr.. Blaine or any other advocate of the
amendments ever contend that their purpose
was to confer upon the blacks high honor?
Was it not rather the very pith and sub
stance of their arguments that they were
lifting the negro race from degradation and
giving them their mere rights as men? 1t
would have sounded oddly, indeed, if the
republicans of that day had declaimed in
the strain in which Mr.. Blaine began his
speech yesterday, about the 'honor" which
was to be conferred on the ignorant planta-
ton negroes by lifting them to political
equality with the ''mean whites" of the South.
An act of amnesty would only place Jefferson
Davis in the same political condition as his
fellow citizens the plantation hands and
negro whitewashers of the State of Missis-
sippi Mr. Blaine is hard pressed for argu-
ments when he is driven to rest his defence
on so ridiculous ground
If the political disabilities pronounced on
The late rebels are not in the nature of a
punishment why were they inflicted? Was
not the sentence pronounced on General
Fitz John Porter intended to be punish
ment, and is he not enduring that punish
ment to this day? General Porter was rem
dered by his sentence incapable Of holding
any Office or position of trust under the
OHlJeu OIdleSs anu we hllOW HOb Wudb MI
Blaine's sense of penal suffering may be if
he does not look upon that as a
punishment Would it be comforting an
''honor" on General Porter to relieve him
from that sentence? Section third Of the
fourteenth amendment shows on its face
that it has the force Of a penal statute. 1t
declares that Congress may by a vote of two
thirds of each house remove such disability"
This is the section under which Congress is
now debating and the question does not re-
late to comforting an honor, but to the
removal of disability" In all trials of
impeachment under the constitution it is
ordained that the punishment shall not ex-
tend beyond the same kind of disqualified
ton under which Jefferson Davis is now suf-
fering. Would relief from such sentence
be regarded by any sane man as an 'honor?'
When culprit is pardoned out of State
prison and restored to his civil rights, does
the State Executive confer on him an
"honor?" Such logic is too futile and pre-
posterous for man of the pretensions of
Mr. Blaine