Mr. HENDERSON. I said nothing about opposing them nor accepting them. The question raised by the Senator was one of comparative merit between the plans. The plans might have been substantially the same, and yet the results be essentially different. As vegetation is varied by climate, so are the consequences of human action varied by surrounding circumstances. Congress was not obliged to accept Mr. Lincolns plan. It could accept or reject. It has the same discretion with Mr. Johnson plan. If accepting the organizations would tend to restore Union and harmony they ought to be accepted. If those organizations are in rebel han s their recognition must complicate our troubles. The men who presented themselves here at the last session of Congress, under the Lincoln plan, were elected by nion men in their re spective States. Do we not know perfectly well that no confederate soldier took part in the reorganization of the State governments of Louisiana and Arkansas? Do we not know that rebel soldiers would have broken up those organizations if they could 7 Do we not know that almost every man in those States who seg regated himself from the rebel army because ofliis Unionism did participate in their reorganization? Mr. Lincoln, it is true, prescribed an oath as a condition of the amnesty which he offered; Mr. Johnson prescribed a similar oath; but look at the change of circunistauces. When was Louisiana reorganized 7 During the pendency of hostilities. When was Arkansas reo anized? In the midst of rebellion, when rebels had the highest hopes of success. Those men who were secessionists were opposed to the re. organization, and constituted the party of opposition. Those who advocated restoration were men tried in the fires of war and the persecutions of political hatred. But last siring the confederate armies surrendered. up the war was over. Lees army surrendered in the early part ofApril, just before Lincolns death; John stonsarmy surrendered about the 19th ofApril, and Kirby Smiths armysome time uearthe mid dle of May. On the 29th of May Mr. Johnson issued his proclamation ofitmnesty. I will read a portion of that roclalnatiori in order to show exactly what condition of Milan, legally and in fact, followed its issuance. The Presidents object, of course, was to begin the work of restoration. He sought a basistobegin on and honestly, no doubt, sought a loyal basis. He so sails in his late message. He evidently designed that all men receiving the benefit of his pardon might, if they chose, participate in reorganizing the respective State governments. He thoughtthey would be loyal. 11 other words, they wh0 were pardoned, re gardless of their former crimes in the great rama of rebellion and re rdless of their pres, ent feelings toward the general Government, g were to become participants in the work of re creating loyal State governments. The President says: “To the end. therefore. that the authority of the Government of the U.S. maybe restored, art] that cace. order, and freedommaybe established. I. AndrewJohnson, POTUS do proclaim and declare that I herebygrant to all persons who have.directly or indirectly. participatedin the existing rebellion. exec t asherein after exccpted amnesty and pardon.wit restoration of all rights of property exceptasto slaves andexcept in cases where legal proceedingsunder the lawsof the U.S. providin for the confiscation of propertyof persons sugar: in rebellion have been instituted; but upon the condition never the least.hat every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath. (ornflirmation) and thence forward keep and maintain said oath inviolnte: and which oat shall be registered for permanent preservation. an shall be of the tenor and effectfollowing. to wit:. o solemnly swear. (oraflirm.)in i esence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth aith full support.protect and defend the Constitutionof the U.S and the Union of the States there under; that I will in like mannerabideby lpd faithfully eup on all laws and proclamations Ill leh have beenmr e during the existing rebellion vnth referenceto the emancipation of slaves. Sohelp meGod." It will be observed that the oath is entirely prospective. It did not propose to purge the conscience on the subject of voluntary and premeditated treason, to draw a line of distinction between the rebel officer and the unWilling conscript soldier. It asked Ionly future obedience to the Constitution, which stern necessity had already enforced. It asked only a recognition of freedom to the slave, a fact alrea y established without the aid of rebel oaths. Senators will remember that there were vari ous exceptions, numbering 14 different classes, named in this proclamation. lhe constitution of the U.S. gives to the President the power to grant repiieves and but it may be considered, submit, by geanrdaetonrss, who are familiur with the common law on the subject of pardon, and I presume all are, whether the POTUS would have had any authority to issue thisgeneral amnesty or general pardon except by virtue of an act of Congress. I do not deny that in any Single case, by virtue alone of the constitutional provision, the President may giant a certificate of ardon. I do.not doubt that he can grant it before conviction, as well as after conviction. He cannot give a license or indulgence to commit crime; but after a crime is committed, all he has to do in his certificate is to specify particularly the crime that has been committed and for which the pardon is granted. But it may well be denied that but for the act of congress of July 17, 1862, of which my friendfrom. NewHampshire before me [Mr. CLARK] was perhaps the chief draughtsman, the President would have any authority to grant a general pardon or amnesty. I must admit that that act is quite full. Let me refer to it. The 13th section is in these words: “SEC. IS. Abife:. That the President is herebyauthorized.at any time hereafter.by proclamation. to extend to personswho can have participated in the existingrebellion in any late or part thereof.pardon and amnesty with such exceptions and at such timeand on we conditions as he may deem expedientfor the public welfare." It will not be disuted that by virtue of that authority the President had power to issue his proclamation of general amnesty. But disputes may arise on other questions connected with this proclamation. What was the condition upon which the pardon was to inure to the benefit of the party pardoned? It was 1st that he should file the oath named and in the manner to be prescribed. But this is not of itselfeufficient. here is something more necessary that the benefits of the pardon should inure. According to the common law, and when we undertake to construe our Constitution we must construe it with reference to that law which existed among us at the time and with which our forefathers were perfectly familiar, perhaps the best system of law devised for the administration of justice among men, it is not only necessary that the party shall have filed this oath, but it is necessary that he shall have kept the oath. The President provides, in the close of the proclamation, that “ the SecyState will establish rules and regulations for administering and recording ssi amnesty oath, so as to insure its benefit to the people and guard the Government against fraud." believe the SecyState provided these rules and regulations under which parties who intended to. take the benefit of this amnesty could take it. The taking of the oath is the technical acceptance of the pardon. The actual performance of the things, sworn to be done, is the condition of the pardon. If the condition be broken the pardon is void. The oath is that the party taking it will henceforward “faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S and the Union of the States there under.” and that he will “in like manner abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves.” 1st, then, if one has failed to take the oath prescribed, and in the manner prescribed, the pardon does not attach, and 2nd, although he may have taken the oath, unless he has complied with it, that is, unless he has faithfully supported “all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, ” the pardon as to him is voi and its benefits are forfeited. I have looked to some of the authorities on the subject of pardon, and refer to this point for the purpose of obtaining. ifpossible, a legal solution of existing difliculties. Those difficulties are great. but the powers of the Government must e large enoug i to secure its own existence, to perpetuate the principles of liberty which lie at its foundation, as well as to vouchsafe the happiness of the people. The Union may be restored in truth and in fact, without violatin a principle of that instrument, and indeed without rejecting the unwritten traditions of the fathers. I propose, in a moment, to examine the condition of the people in the seceded States the character of the organizations before us, an what the powers and duties of Congress are. It will then be proper to inquire, how far this act of amnesty by the President relieved these parties in the seceding States? What rights it egally conferred? What the President undertook to relieve them of? How far he was advised of the precise character of their offenses? Whether he iad any power independent of the act of Congress already cited to pardon generally? If not, then the extent of that general pardon under said act? How far it has been accepted and to what extent its benefits have been forfeited? and lastly, as I have said, the powers of Congress in the premises? I do not propose to elaborate these points, but them for the solution of ab er men, whsouglgaveest more immediate charge of reconstruction. The President says. "I herebygrant to all personswho have.direptly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion. exceptashereinafterexcepted.amnesty and pardon. with restoration of all rightsof property.exceptnsto slaves, and except in caseswhere Iiiga proceedings underthe lawsof the U.S. providing for the confiscationof propertyof personsengagedin rebellion have beeninstituted.” Of what does he relieve them? Of anything except the penalty prescribed in the act of July 17, 1862? xl)oes the pardon restore the person accepting it to full rights of citizenshi? In other words, did the voluntary rebel for eit any! political right by his rebellion? He forfeited his life and property under the act named. The Presidents pardo did not assume to d more than restore to him his life and property. Is there not a political question behin this, that belongs to congress and which does!v not come within the power of the President either under the clause of the Constitution or the law named? But assuming that the force of the pardon was sufficient to restore both civil and political rights forfeited. then has the condition of the pardon been kept? On the subject of conditional pardons, the case of Wells exparte, 18 Howards Reports, where the whole question of pardon was discussed ably and learnedly, may be referred to. Wells was convicted of murder in the DistCol, and President Fillmore ardoned him, on the condition, however, that e should take, in lieu of ca ital punishment, imprisonment in the penitentiary of the DistCol for and during his life. On the next day, I believe, he applied for a writ of habeascorpus, his counsel taking the ground that the condition was void, because no man could sell his liberty, and that the pardon attached and was and complete. The Supreme Court (peecrifdeeedt that the condition might be legally attached, and that the party instead of sellin himself into slavery, reserved his life, which was already forfeite to the law in consequence of his crime, that be had no body which was his to sell into slavery, and that really be saved his life by the acceptance. This subject of conditional pardons, the extent of executive authority, and the forfeiture of the benefits arising from pardon, have received consideration in numerous cases. See Catheart vs. Robinson, 5 Pet. R., 264 280; 8Watts and Ser. 197; 7 Pet., 150; I Bailey S. C., 283; NewYork Legal Observer, 177. I believe in the State of m distinguished friendfrom New, York [Mr. sums] it was decided that where a pardon had been granted upon condition that the party should permanently leave the country and he failed to go, or having gone, returned, he could be remanded into custody for the execution of the judgment and sentence of the court. Then ift ere be a political forfeiture in the crime of rebellion which has not been pardoned, the jurisdiction of Congress may properly attach and new organizations provided for, in which the rebel element may be excluded. But even if the Presidents pardon be valid to make the of fender a new man, civilly and politically, yet if he has violated the condition of the pardon the pardon becomes ine perative, and if a majority in the seceding States have violated it, are the rebel States not legally asthey were before the attempted restoration? I have no feeling of malice whatever against the people of the southern States. I was born in the oath myself, and ask nothing but what I think would be best for them and the entire country. My friendfrom Illinois [Mr. Taois BULL] seemed to think the other day thatI was actuated by some new zeal, having been once a slaveholder. I said that Iwas a slaveholder at the beginning of this war. I am glad that the Senator is in his seat now. I was a slaveholder partly by inheritance. That I could not help, an more than the Senfrom Illinois can help is disosition eternally to criticise me. [Laughter] He got his disposition by inherit ance, and I received a slave by inheritance. I forgive him: will he forgive me? [Mr. Taois BULL. Certainly.] I got them partly by ur chase, not for purposes of to t, but at t. eir. own request, to keep them from being sold to others. I never got a dollar of their whes froml the day I purchased them until the a theyj were emancipated. I paid from my bar earnings the money for their purchase and turned. them loose, and they have received from that, do to this the rewards of their own toil. know that it is very easy to an, “ You have been a slaveholder, and theretbre a wicked man.” Slaveholding is now. of course, unpopular. We must look to mens surroundings in order to judge fairly of their acts. I on ht not to s eak of myself in connection with many who have been slaveholders, butimust be allowed to speak now, in my own de fense, the simple truths of history. George Washington was a slaveholder, James Madison was a slaveliolder, James Monroe was a slave holder, Thomas Jefferson, the apostle of free. dom and the advocate at all times of emancipation, the man who looked down the long vista of the then future and saw with prophetic ken the war of the last 4 years, was a slave holder up to the day of his death. I do not know but I have sinned in being a slave owner. If so, better menthan I have sinned not better than the Senfrom Illinois, but better men than I have sinned, all over the South. The Senfrom Illinois cannot realize the fact, perhaps, that if he had been in aslavo State when slavery existed, he might have become a slaveholder himself, even a inst his will. A negro for whom he might have had regard, one who had been kind to him, is put upon the block for sale; a purchaser is present to whom the slave is unwil in to be so d; the slave begs him to buy. Won (1 he not become a slaveholder under these circumstances if he had money enough to do i7t