Mr. HALE. I shall not attempt, Mr. Speaker, to discuss to any extent the constitutional questions involved in this bill. While I have no sympathy with any feeling that prompts members upon this floor to attack the Supreme Court as guilty of corrupt or improper action, I have, on the other hand, no disposition to support any legislation which would tend to do away with the test oath, so far as it can be constitutionally upheld, and so far as it is applicable to what are considered, in popular estimation, offices. But I have long been of opinion that the test oath act covers a class of nominal offices, like the offices of attorneys and counselors in courts, in regard to which it would be the part of wisdom to repeal the requirement of the oath, even if it were held to be within the constitutional power of this Congress to impose it. I ask gentlemen whether there is any o reason as a matter of policy why we should insist on applying this exclusion as for past acts to those offices which are such only nominally, while they are in fact the exercise of a profession or employment as completely as the practice of any other of the learned professions or any of the mechanic arts. It seems to me that for us now to pursue the course contemplated by this bill, and to exclude for an indefinite time I do not think any member of this House is inclined to hold that the exclusion should be adhered to perpetually to exclude for an indefinite period attorneys and counselors on account of past acts, whether pardoned or unpardoned, from the practice of their profession is not the part of wisdom, and does not comport, with the judicious .which Congress ought to pursue toward those lately engaged in rebellion. Now, I concede, for the purpose of argument, that attorneys, and counselors of courts may be considered in one sense officers of the government, though independently of my argu.ment I might perhaps question that. They are undoubtedly officers of the courts. They may perhaps be considered officers of the Government; but it is purely in a technical sense that they are officers. They are considered officers to enable the court to control them; to exer. cise summary jurisdiction over them as they do over other officers of the court. In reality it is a o by which a man gets his living, by which he earns his bread; and is it the part of wisdom, is it a policy such as shall commend itself tous, we shall now go back and say, notwithstanding any circumstances which may surround the case, notwithstanding any pardon, notwithstanding any repentance, notwithstanding anything which should commend the man to our favorable consideration, we shall show no mercy; and because a man has once sinned we will say he has sinned away the day of grace, and the bread shall be taken from his own and his children's mouths? It seems to me we will be better engaged in pursuing another policy; and great as is my respect for the Gentfrom Massachusetts Mr. Boutwell and the ComJudiciary, from which this bill is reported, I am constrained to differ on this question of policy. There are other questions involved of greater importance than this; questions of unconstitutional power, which I do not assume to discuss, and which cannot be discussed in this brief time. I trust the House will not, under the pressure of the previous question, pass this bill, but take some action that will give an opportunity for discussion and consideration.