Year: 1866

Mr. SMITH asked If that so, whether II wond not DC
equally farce ard mockery for Commission TO be IN
stuted try these men. The position assumed by Con-
gress TO the Chief Justice and other men, aud 10
throw the whole Of complaint on the President was
unfair snd pnus and would be TO ree0il on those
who assumed IT, He referred TO the resolution offered by
Mr. Stevens in 1862, declaring that If any person should


propose TO make peace upon any other basis than the IN
tegrity and union of the United States he would be
guilty of high crime. He bir. SanrH) adopted that
principle and he held that if it applied now TO the
gentleman who offered the resolution he would be con-
yicted Of high crimes.


Mr. RITTER next addressed the House on the question,
chiefly Of the relative value of slave labor and free labor
contending that slave labor was more profitable to State
and 1SmIg & ne SdnEI % ns PCPeSy M o
quently admitted, however, III response to Mr. ks ley
that the statistics he had cited embraced the assessed aus
Of the slaves He appealed to Congress, If 1t oid no.
desire the reputation Of the Federal Dobt TO stoI It's
mad career and TO its efforts TO force its pee mar
views the people of the late slave States They should
initiate tho noble example of the President ara open me
doors of Congress 10 the representatives dny elected
Each State should be lc TO control its own internal affairs
subject TO the Constitution ana laws Of the United States
This the only way in which they could have restored
Union.


Mr.. sHELLABARoER next addressed the House. He re-
minded it that weeks ago LIE had introduced eso-
luton requesting the Judiciary Committee TO inquire to
whe lher IL competent under the American Constitution
for Congress to declare forfeiture Of citizenship, by act
Of law where that citizenship had been voluntarily aband
oped by acts dsoyaty Since that resolution had been
adopted he glad ind that distinguished gentle
who had occupied the chair Of the House had been
rejecting this great question 10 the same direction to
which that resolution pointed. One of the most distin.
gushe lawyers of the House had also introduced set Of
resolutions bearing the same idea and expressing with
dstinctness plan for putting in Application that
power Of the Government He was glad, therefore, to


lind these and other evidences that the mind Of the country
being directed toward the important practical
question: Of the which may be resoed 10 for
the purpose OF relieving the Government hom those qes-


ons of terrible embarrassment by which was surrounded
lie desired direct his remarks TO that great question
in the breach between the President and Congress touching
revolt, 10 controlling power in the Union, and in
the causes for that breach most men found the
occasion for alarm. IT, however any faith could
be placed the solemn uttcrances Of Congress and
of the President then they did not differ but did not pre-
csey agree upon one at least OF one OF the most import
and decisive principles and means for tic restoration
Of those States in power He solemny ayened his belief
that the President and Congress had the constitutional
right TO employ the TO which he alluded for the
restoration OF the States, and If they would in good faith
unite TO apply and put in force the principle which both
proessed TO hold the work Of restoration would be- II not
easy least ultimately certain and at once secured That
principle that in all those States truly loyal people
should alone have power Of Government either by the
holding by the exercise Of the elective franchise and
that the conscious and responsible leaders OF the Re-
beon, should be tried, convicted and executed the
loyal people 0f those States had full control Of their Gov
ernment, he no reason why each of those States
should not be welcomed to-day TO the embrace Of the
with Ss syos Sy sS s
President Of his desire for the exclusion OF
Rebels from all powers Of government and for
their eoDdgn punishment, had been so frequent, so
recent and explicit that 10 doubt their sincerity would be
10 attribute to the President treachey TO his professions
and nfdelity 10 oil instances Of honor and manhood IL
would be attribute to him purposes and conduct which
would be dsgacefal TO the mort vulgar political harlequin
but which the ruler of great and generous people who
had honorcd and trusted him. would be utterly disgust


ing aud infamous. Congress had already indicated its be-


lief in the thing II obvious therefore, that the
President aud Congress agers tht the disoyal should be
sterny excluded BY osleS from Government until
they bring forth fruits meet for repentance pro-
edcd Ia n n
cize,ship oil Who bad voluntarily renopneod IT, snsair-
ing his position on the Ccnsftnson an international law
and on pertasais established rad I.G<leed by foreign
Governments, and followed vy tbe American Government
In the Of persons who had been engaged IL Stay re-
bcllon IN Massachusetts.


Mr. HALE inquired whether in the precedeDts cited from
the Of foreign Govenments the persons whose
rights forfeited had been first tried and found
guilty by court of competent jurisdiction


Mr. SHEILABARGER replied that the forfeiture took effect
by the act Of the Sovereign on the law-makng power
without the interposition OF judicial power.


Mr. HALE also inquired whether in the case Of Shay S
rebellion forfeiture Of civil rights did not apply excus
iyely TO those who had been tired and convicted


Mr. SHEILABARGER replied in the negative.


Mr. Hale wanted 10 know then how the fact that the
persons had been engaged i'll rebellion had been aseer-
tainod.


Mr. SHELLABARoERs answer failed to throw much light
or .ha, point but he continued his argument.


Mr. HALE interrupted him to ask another question. The
drift of the gentcmans argument, he said, 20 show
that Congress might lawfully enact forfeiture Of citizen
ship as penalty for having been engaged in rebellion





there was not another difficulty in the case
namely: that by an express provision Of the
Constitution, which the gentleman had failed to no.
tice the imposition OF penalty for any crime whatever
committed before the passage of the act expressly and
directly within the definition of post taco law and
whether il not thereby forbidden by the Constitution
ust as efeeuay as bills Of aitander Congress might
by legislation enact the penalty Of forfeiture of citizen
ship for rebellion dsoyay, might it not, by the
rule any other different penalty for an oense COM
mited before the passage of the act


Mr. Constr
tuition had application TO the matter nc discussing
That provision related TO the punishment OF crime ms SUCH
and TO the forfeiture OF rights IN punishment Of crime.
What he considering was an exercise of national sover
eighty not in punishment Of crime but simply in deprvDg
who, by acts of dsoyaty had voluntarily renouneed
their allegiance TO their Government of The right
resume their political powers. he would not have what
he said pushed any other consequence than the
sequence which he pushed his Argument namely that
the right Of citizenship being OF national donation,
of national definition and Of national control was
matter the deprivation Of which as consequence Of
voluntary surrender Of the obligations Of citizenship was
not like naieton Of punishment for crime but was
simply declamtion of the sovereign that they had
surrendered their political franchises they should not con-
tnue to exercise them. Ho sustained his position also
BY reference to provision In the Army Appropriation bill
OF 1864 declaring that desereis from the army forfeited
all the rights Of citizenship aud were forever incapable OF
holding any Office Of trust profit under the United states
or Of exercising any right of citizenship; and he asked
whether deseron was gher ofense than three four
years of war against the national existence The passage
of such law as he suggested would stand practical
assertion OF the exercise ana uppNeaicN Ol ts nauonui
powers of sclfpreservation for which be contended


Mr. SHELLABARGER spoke for an hour and half, and
was listened TO with marked interest and attention.


AT the close of his speech Mr.. HALE and said he
did not wish to put himself in the position of the gentle
man whom Goldsmith alluded TO, who thought of con-
vincng while Others thought Of dinng'-but he would
take the privilege of calling the attention of the gentle
who had just made an argument which for elaborate.
ness learning and fairness he had seldom heard equalod
in the House, 10 one or two points IN H. In regard TO
the suggestion which he Hale had made, that this
in the Of an post fdeo law he submitted that


il was not to simply that that section had
atty ftr ;ivss1l end REBELLION tat invse should by
the legislation OF Congress at this day be deprived of
certain rights. That by all legal definition an post
fncLo law and nothing else He hubmitted that the acts