Year: 1876

it should be closed closed


in good faith and with good feeling.


We deeply regretted that the at


tempt was made tv cut US off from


deliberation and amendment, and


we therefore threw ourselves back


upon on our rights; and it is by vir-


tue of those rights that we debate


this question to-day.


The gentleman from Maine Mr..


BLAINE offered criticism on the


BILL He sugge ;ted that there were


two points in which the bill ought


to be changed. One was that the


seven hundred and fifty persons who


are still forbidden to hold Office uu-


der the Constitution should have


free and absolute amnesty whenev-


er they declare by taking the oath


of allegiance in open court that they


want it; that, like Gods mercy and


perfect pardon, amnesty should be


granted by asking for it. 1t was


suggested that we should follow the


rule that we have followed hereto


fore in all cases similarly situated.


That was the first point.


Another point was suggested,


that there was one person, and only


one, who ought to be excepted from


the operation of the proposed law.


Now that may have been wise or it


may have been unwise, as a matter


of craftsmanship, but it was a ques-


tion deserving debate, deliberatiOn,


and answer.


The proposition of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania Mr.. RANDALL


is an affirmative one, and should be
supported by affirmative reasons.


If we allege any reason against, we
ought to be answered. Two allega-
tions have been made: first, that
there ought to be an oath of allegi-
ance before a court; and, second,
that one man ought to be excepted.
How have these propositions been
met? How have these suggestions
been answered ? The first response
was a speech full of brilliant wit
and personalities. 1t was like joke
ing at funeral to joke on such an
occasion. They have been answer
ed, in the second place, by the speech
of yesterday, which arraigns not the
republican party alone, but arraigns
twenty-five million of people,
arraigns the history of the Republic
for fifteen years, arraigns every
thing that is glorious in its record |
and high and worthy in its achieve
ment. l was deeply panied that
such an arraignment should have
been made on such subject. If |
the gentleman had confined himself |
to a reply to the argument which
had been offered to show why such
exception should be made, it would
lave been a response pertinent to
the subject matter in controversy.


While Ioccupy the attention of the
House, l shall endeavor to confne
myself to the question and to the
speech of the gentleman from Geor-
gia Mr.. Hill


Let me say in the outset that, so
far as / am personally concerned, 1
have never voted against any pro-
position to grant amnesty to any hu-
man being who has asked for it, at
the bar of the House. Furthermore,
appeal to the gentlemen on the
other side, who have been with me
in this Hall many years, whether at
any time they have found me trucu-
lent in spirit, unkind in tone or feel
ing toward those who fought against
Us in the late war; Twelve years ago
this very month, standing in this
place, said this: 81 belieYe-a truce
could be struck to-day between the
rank and file of the hostile armies
now in the field. 1 believe they
could meet and shake hands togeth-
er, joyful over returning peace, each
better able to live in amity than be-
fore the war;"


1 am glad to repeat word for word
what said that day. For the pur-
poses of this speech will not even
claim the whole ground which the
assumed toward the
ate rebellion. For the sake of the |
present argument l will view the po-
ition of those who took up arms
against the Government in the light
east offensive to them. Leaving out {
# sight for the moment the ques- I
ion of slavery, which evoked so
much passion, and which was the
Producing cause of the late war, {
here were still two opposing politi-
al theories which met in conflict (
Host of the Southern statesmen be-
ieYed that their first obedience was !
Iue to their State. We believed that
he allegiance Of an American citi
en- was due to the National Govern
nent. not by way of a State capital,
'ut in direct line from his own
cart to the Government of the Un-
On. Now that question was sub
nitted to the dreadful arbitrament
f war, to the court of last resort-a S
ourt from which there is no appeal,
nd to which all other powers must !
ow. To that dread court the great a
uestion was carried, and there the I
light of State to secede was put to a
est for ever. For the sake of peace :
nd union, I am willing to treat our b
lte antagonists as / would treat lit n
yants in other courts, who, when v
hey have made>their appeal and the "
nal judgment is rendered, pay the /,
easonable costs and bow to its man. o
ates. But our question to-day is fl
OF that, but is closely connected a
nth it. When we have made our
rgument and the .conrt has rendered 4,
S judgment, it may be that in the y
curse of its proceedings the court r,
as used its discretion to disbar some c
it's counsellors for malpractice, n
,r unprofessional conduct. In such !
case motion may be made to re- q,
,ore the disbarred members. Ap- G
lying this illustration to the present q
ase, there are seven hundred and y
fly people who are yet disbarred e,
efore the highest authority of the o.
Constitution itself. 70
he proposition is to offer again the q,
rivilege of official station to these q
eople; and we are all agreed as to Al


L e tba,,, eoxyo ono =.