Mr. PINCK. Mr. Speaker, having some weeks since introduced into this House a bill which has for its purpose to prescribe the oath of office, so as to make it conform to the requirements of the Constitution of the U.S., and to repeal the act of July 2, 1862, commonly known as the test oath, I desire to submit a few considerations to the House wb, in my judment, the actot July 2, 1862, should be repeal It is as follows:. “ I, A 13, do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I have never voluntarily home arins ainst the U.S. since I have been a citizen t crcof; that I have voluntarily givenno aid, countenance, counsel or encouragementto personsengagedin armed hoeeility, “01 attemptedto exercise the functions of any O cewhat ever under any authority or pretended authority in hostilityt the U.S.: that I havenotyiclded avolun ry supportto any pretended government authority; power or constitution within the U.S., hostile or inimieal thereto and I do further swear(or affirm) that. to the best of my knowledge and ability. I will supportanddefend the constitution of the U.S. against allencmies. foreign and domestic; that I will icnr true faith and allegiance to the some; that I take this obligation freely. without anymental reservationor purposcof evasion, and thatI will well and faithfully dischargethe duties of the officeon which I am about to enter.” kc. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this oath, at least so far as it relates to Sens&Reps in Congress, is unconstitutional. Section 2, article 1, of the Constitution declares: “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the ageof 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the U.S., and who shall not, when clccled be an inhabitantol that State in which he shall be chosen." and in relation to Senators, it is provided that "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the a of 30 years, and beennine years acitison of the U.S. and whoshall not. when elected.be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Article 6 provides that “The Sens&Reps beforementioned, and the membersot the several State Legislatures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the U ited States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or aflirmation to support this Constitution." Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, speaking of the HoRep, section 624, says: "It would seembut fair reasoningupon the plain est principles of interpretation, that when the constitution established certain qualifications itsnecessary for office, it meant to exclude all others. From the very nature of such a provision the aflirmation of these qualifications would seem to imply a snor rivn or ALL oriisns." Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, commenting on the same subject, says: "The (qualifications of the elected beinglesscare fully an properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the sometime more susceptible of Uniformity, ave been very proxcrly coMidrmj and repulnled by the (, bnoention. Representative of the U.S. mustbeof the age of 25 years must have been 7 years n citigen o States; must at the timc of liis election he atnhe nited and of the State he inhabit is to represent and during the time of his servicemustbein no officennder the U.S. Unilrr (hue reasonable limnlntione the door of this part of the Federal Government is open to merit of every description. whether native or adoptive, whether young or old and Withoutregardto pov erty or wenlt, or to any particular profession or proligions fnith.” Federalut.No. 52. But, Mr. Speaker, if Congress had authority to prescribet is test oath of 1862, it has the power to add other and different qualifications for Sens&Reps than those provided in the Constitution, and thus change the organic law by legislative enactment; an we have hardl advanced far enough Yet for such a claim of power as that. The 1st act of the 1st Congiiess was to prescribe the oath of office, and which was as follows: “ That the oath oraffirmation rsquired by the 6th article of the Constitution of the U. S shall be administered in the following form. to wit: I A B. do solemnly swear or ufiirm (as the case maybatx tslgzulypill support the Constitution of the U.S. I do not pretend to say that the Constitution will require the oath to be in these precise words. Congress may very properly require the party to swear that he wrll aithfully discharge the duties of the office on which he is about to enter, but I do say that the oathprovided for in the Constitution cannot be so substantially and may terially changed as to operate to add NEW and erase qualifications for holding the office than those provided for in the instrument itself. If it can e, and the taking of such oath required as an essential prerequisite to the exercise of, the Office, then, indeed, Congress can most effectuall defeat the purposes of the Constitution an the rights of the people. Sir, the main to hold a seat on this floor is defined and provided for under the Constitution, and does not do end so much upon the determination of this House, as it does upon the legal voters of the properdistricts and the qualifications clearly efined by the constitution. But the exclusive right to judge “ of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, ” has been expressly conferred upon this House, and it would be false to itself and to the count if it should neglect the fair and constitutions exercise of this high and necessary power in every case where it is called upon to act. It would, however, be a most wiced and monstrous perversion of this power should a party majority ever be found so corrupt as to use it for the purpose of maintaining its as cendency, by de priving the people of any of the districts in the nion from being represented on this floor, through members constitutionally elected and possessing the requisite qualifications. Sir, consideriu the present condition of af fairs, I do not believe the people of the South will send men here who would be wanting in fidelity to the Constitution. It will be their interest to send only such Representatives as are determined to support an defend the Constitution and preserve the Union. These peoplewillneveragainattempttobreak up the nion. Their interest and prosperity in the future are only to be advanced in maintaining the Constitution and the Union against all those who would seek their overthrow. The dangerof the hour is not now secession; that has been met and overcome, but it is a danger in a dlfferent direction. It is, sir, the danger of the centralization of power in the Federal Government. Certainly, sir, no man who is not fixed and determined in his purpose to support and defend the Constitution and maintain the Union ought to be sent here; and I trust no man who is not thus sincere and patriotic in his purposes, whether he comes om the North ort e South, will ever occupy a seat in these Halls and here allow me to read an extract from a very able and patriotic address made a few weeks since by the President, in reply to a committee from the Legislature of the State of Virginia: “ 0n the cardinal principle of representation to which you refer. I wifl make a single remark. That principle is inherent; itconstitutes one of the fundamenta elementsof this Government. The RepretsheentativesofthoStates and of the peopleshould have the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution of U.S and thosequalifications mostun anestionahly implyjoyalty. He who comes as nv representative. avm the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution to t him to take itsentin either of the deliberative bodieswhich constitute the national Legislature, mustnecessarily.according to the iinntgendment of the Constitution. be a loyal man.will to abide by antlbe devotedto the Union and the constitution of the btates. He cannot belur the constitution. he caniiot be for the Union. he cannot acknowledge obedience to all the laws, unless he is loyal. hen the peoplesendsuchmenin goodfaith, they are entitled to representationthrong them." But suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I am mistaken as to the constitutionality of the test oath, there are other reasons which I desireto state very briefly to the House, why, in my judgment, it should be repealed. Test oaths have never been favored. They are inconsistent with the legislation and spirit of a free people. This act of 1862 was one of the measures which grew out of the war, and should pass away with the war which has ended. The effect of the oath is to exclude almost an entire population of alarge section of the country from holding any Office whatever under the General Government. I submit with great confidence that the continuance of this oath cannot result in any good to the country. The rebellion has ended, and the people of the late insurgent States are hereafter to be associated with us as citizensof the same Government. It seems to me that every consideration of duty and patriotism unite in urging us to so shape our legislation as to harmonize the country and restore kind and fraternal relations between the 2 sections. Certainly no man can entertain any well grounded apprehensions that there Wlll ever occur a repetition of the attcm t to break 11 the Union by secession; and i there shoul, test oaths would have but little influence in preventin it. Sir, theiest possible security we have against any further attempt at secession consists in this one great fact. the utter and completefailure of the late rebellion. Mr. Speaker, you never will, nor will our children who come after us, ever hear of another attempt at secession made by the people of the South. Sir, the sad lessons of the last 4 years will be our firinest bulwark against its repetition. It has been settled by the war more firmly than constitutional amendments or test oaths piled mountains high could settle it, that a State has no right to withdraw from this Union, and this decision will not and cannot be reversed. It has been settled beyond any question, that we are to be one people, having one Federal Government and one ag. Now, what is our dot to the people of the South? Is it to crush them, an while we impose upon them the burdens of Government exclude them from its benefits? Is it, sir, to seek by our legislation to degrade them and make them outlaws? We have determined that they shall remain withns, citizens of the same common Government. Shall they remain with us as our equals or not? Sir, I rejoice that the rebellion has been crushed, and that these people have returned to their full and complete allegiance to the constitution; but I want them to return, not as an inferior or degraded people, but in their true manhood, as the equa s of the people of every other State. We must have condence in them. They and their children are destined to live with us and our children for generations to come. It is best, sir, in my judgment, thatwc should live together on terms of friendship and equality. Sir, a wise and patriotic President, risin above the miserable and petty passions an prejudices of the hour, has, With a generous clemency and magiianimity which become the exalted station that he occupies, set us an example which it would be well for us notto for get. On the 29th day of May last he issued his proclamation grantin pardon and amnesty, with a few exceptional cases, to the entire people of the late insurgent States who had been on god in the rebellion. here can be no controversy about the power in the President to grant such pardon and am nesty. The Constitution, article 2, section 2, declares that“ he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment.” This power thus granted by the constitution is placed beyond the control or reach of Congress. It is absolute and unqualified, except as to cases of impeachment, an may be exercised either before trial or after conviction. But Congress did by the act approved July 17, 1862, fully recognize this wise and just power, and did in the act “to suppress insurrection, ” 1., by the 13th section, provide as follows: “ SIP o1. 3.Abife:.That the President is hereby authorized. at any time hereafter, by proclamation. to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion in any State or part thereof. pardon and amnesty.with such excetions and atsuch time and on such conditions. an O may deemexpedient for the public welfare." Thus we see how fully and completely the President was and is clothed with the power to grant pardon and amnesty to all “who may have participated in the” late “rebellion;" and Congress, by the section already quoted, has solemnly committed itself in favor of the existence and exercise of the power. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me inquire what was the effect of s proclamation of the 29th of Ma, 1865? lyhe rebellion having been completely suppressed, the President with a wise and gener ous clemenc which Will live in history to his honor for a time to come, said to almost an entire people, You have wandered from the path of duty; in a fatal hour you have sought to break up the Union of our fathers; but you have acknowledged your great error, and seek ain to return to the protection of that flag which has been planted in the capital of ever State of this Union. We receive you back, an the offenses committed by you in attempting to withdraw from the Union, are now blotted out and pardoned, on the condition that you shall renew your allegiance to the Constitution; show the sincerity of your return by our fidelity to that Constitution and Union in the future. The effect was to remove entirely and completely before the law, the crime which was included in the pardon. with all its legal consequence s; and I be to call the attention of the House to a few aut orities on this question. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of the U.S. vs. Wilson, 7 Peters, 162, s eaking on this subject of pardons in Englan, said: “As the power hasbeenexercised from time imme morial by the Executive of that nation whose language is our language and to whosejudicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance.we adopt their principlesrcspectin the operationandeffect of apar (lon and look into t cir books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to housedby the penson who would avail himselfot it." In 7 Bacons Abridgment, page 416, it is said: “ It was formerly doubted whether a pardon could do more thaii take away the punishment.leaving the crime and its disabling couse ucuces unrciuovad. Butit is now settled that a pardo. whether by the king or by act of Parliament. removesnot only the punishment but all thelegalduabtltttclconsequenotn the crime." The doctrine is thus stated in 1 Bishop on Criminal Law, 713: "The effect of a full pardon is to absolvethe party from all the legal conscquericcsof his crime and of his conviction direct and collateral. including the pun – ishment whother of imprisonment. pecuniarypenalty or whatever elsethe law provided.” Also in 5 Bacons Abridgment it is laid do“wn: It seemsagreedthat a pardonof treasonor felony. evenafter an uttninder. so far clears the party from the infamy and nll other consequencesthereof. that he may have an action against any who shall afterward call him a traitor or felon, for the pardon makes him as it were a saw nan.". Blackstone says: "A pardon may he pleaded in bar it! at once destroying the end and purpose of the indictment. by remitting the punishment which the prosecution is calculated to inflict." Also: “ The effect of such a pardon by the king isto make the offenderanew man; to acquit him of alien ral punishment and forfeitures annexed to that o ones or which he obtains his pardon." In Lillys Abridgment the doctrine is thus laid down: “ A pardon doth discharge not only the punishment which wastohave beenin ictedupon the [CISORIhat did commit the offense pardoned, but also the guilt of the oticnseitself. It pardonscu/pase clearly that in the eyeof the law the olfender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense.” The same doctrine is substantially recognized and approved in the case of Co e vs. The commonwealth, 28 Pennsylvania State Reports. Authorities might be multiplied, but I will not detain the House by further citations on this pOint. Notwithstanding the effect of the pardon and amnesty of the President was to completely and absolutely wipe out the offense pa oned, yet this oath of 1862 forever prohibits all those who were included in this amnesty from holding any office whatever under the General Government, even the most insignificant postoffice at the most insignificant cross roads within the republic. sit intended by the majority on this floor that the people of an entire section of this country, comprising 11 States of this Union, and over 7 millions of our own race, shall be excluded from all participation in the administration of the General Government? Is it intended, sir, that the great fundamental principle on which our system of government is based, that taxation and representation are insepara ble, shall be deliberately ignored? There is no warrant for it in the Constitution. It is subversive of the true purposes of the Union, and is, in my judgment, revolutionary in its tendency. What right, sir, have gentlemen who are in the majority on this floor, and who control the action of this House. to saytothe people of Tennessee and NCarolina, or of any other Statewithin this Union, (for, sir, all the States are in the Union as equal members) that they shall not be represented here if they send members who have been duly elected, and who possess the qualifications required by the Constitution? Sir, 100s and him reds of 1,000s who are deprived under the terms of this test oath of July, 1862, from holding office under the General Government, because they have been engaged either in the civil or military service of the late insurgent States are men who have acted under the onest and sincere belief that their States had the right to secede; an opinion most unwarrantable in m judment, yet it is known to every man on this oor, that there always existed. prior to the termination of the late struggle, a large bod of men in the southern States who believed that a State had a right to Secede when in her judgment her rights or interests demanded it; a most fatal heresy, I admit, and one which I have always opposed. But, however erroneous this opinion was, and it was, in my judgment, the gravest of errors, still it existed from an early period of the government, and was, I believe, honestly entertained by many of the people of the southern States; and it would be dilhcult to account for the fact that almost an entire section of this country united in the attempt to break up the Union on any other theo. But, sir, leadin and idduential journals and statesmen of the orth encouraged these people In the beliefthat they might aceably sece e. Senator Want), in a speech de ivered in the senate, 3rd session of the 34th Congress Congressional Globe, page 25, referring to the speeches of southern men about the dissolution of the Union, said: “If they do not feel interested ip upholding this Union, if it really trenches ou their rights. If it endangers their institutions to such an extent that theycan not fccl securcunder it, if their intercstsnre violently aiuailed by meansoflhis Union, I amiiotone of those who expect they will longcontinue underit. I amnot one of those who would ask them to continue in such a Union. It would bedoing violence to the platform of the partytp which I belong. We have adopted the old DeclarIndep as the basis of our political movement, which declares that any people when their Governmentceasesto protect their rights, when it is sosubverted from the truupur usesof government asto oppreas them have the rightto recurto fundamental principles and ifneed be to destroy the Government under which they live and to erect on its “rIuins another more conducive totheir welfare. hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercisinglit wheneverthey think the contingenc has come shall certainly be the advucate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Goverument have become so oppressive to the section to which I belon that a free people ought notion er to endureit. eou will not find me backward incing the advocateof disunion: but the contingency hayin never come, I have never yet opened my mouth in opposition to this Union. But, for heavens sake.act. not talk. I am tired of this eternal din of dissolution of the Union" which is brought up on all occasions and l thrust into our facesas though woof the North had J loine peculiar reasons for maintaining the Union that I the southern Stateshave not. I hope the Union will cIontinue forever. I believe it may continue forever see nothing at presentwhich I think should dissolve it; but if the gentlemen soc it. I say again. that they hmayvJeutdhgemseonmte. itnhtaetrewsetionfmthaeinNtaoinrtihnghtahvise.UnIifont.heiny think they have not, be it so. You cannotforcibly hold mm "I (hi0 Union.for the attempt to do so. it seemsto me.would subvert the 1st principles of the Government under which we live." Here we have the explicit and unqualified declaration that “you cannot forcibly hold men in this Union.", But further, we find in the NewYork Tribune, February 23, 1861, the following: “ Whenever it shall be clear that the greatbody of the southern people have become conclusively alien ated from the Union and anxious to escape it, we will do our bestto forward their views." Again, the same paper, of date March 2, 18tll, we have this clear statement on the same ponit: “ We have repeated said, Midwe once more insist that the great princip is embodied by Jefferson in the DeclarIndep that governments derive their Just powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and Just: and that if the slave States, the cotton States, or the Gulf States only, choose to {orgian independeut nation, they have a moral right O 0 so. But while we were in the midst of the war, Mr. Greeley, in the Tribune, on the 21st Feb ruary, 1863, said: "I was willing in the winter of 1866 to let the cotton States so if they reallydesired it. I was not only then willing that the Union should in good faith may of them the odor. but [now nasru anoasr that it was not made and actedon." Lieutenant Governor Stanton, in a speech delivered on this floor on the 15th of January, 1861, used the following language, which IWlll ask the Clerk to read from the Globe which I send to the desk.