Mr. BLAINE. I do not rise to discuss the proposition, but to ask of the honorable chair man of the committee aquestion, an answer to which, I am sure, will a 0rd gratification and satisfaction to me, and doubtless to other members of the House. It relates to the 3rd section of the proposed constitutional amendment, which is in these words: 8:0. 3. Until the4thday of July. in the year 1870. all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right. to vote for Representativesin congressand for electorsfor President and VEEP Now, the question in my mind, upon which I I respectfully ask for information, is whether this may not involve us in a position of bad faith. On the 17th of July, 1862, an act was approved, entitled “An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason, to seize and confis cate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, " of which the 13th section is in th"ese words: That the President is hereby authorized at any time hereafter.by proclamation, to exendto persons who may haveparticipated in the exising resilica, in any tats or part. thereof.pardon and amnesty, with such GXCOlODSand at such timesand on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare." Under and in pursuance of this act the late President Lincoln issued aproclamation granting a great number ofEpardons upon certain s ccified conditions. 100s and 1,000s of pardons were granted pbeyrhiiprs. Lincoln during the years 1863 and 1864. subsequently, an as late as the early summer of 1865, President Johnson issued his celebrated amnesty proclamation granting pardons and immunities to certain specific classes in the South that had partincipatd in the rebellion with a military rank uii er colonel, and exce iting certain classes from the benefits of is clemency. Now, I am perfectly aware that as matter of strict law the eprivation of the elective franchise may not be regarded as a punishment, and therefore no violation of the immunities conveyed by the pardon. But as a matter of factthese pardons have been given and accepted with the ull understanding that the recipients were thereby fully restored to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and do we not by the proposed action place ourselves in the attitude oftaking back by constitutional amendment that which has been given by not of Congross and by presidential (prodamation issued in pursuance of law? An will notthis course be justly subject to the charge of bad faith on the part of the Federal Government? ME. STEVENS. I will answer that question. I do not know if the gentleman isa lawyer, but I suppose hehas examined this question. A pardo, whether by the President having the power, or specially by not of Parliament or congress, extinguislics the crime. After that there is no such crime in the individual. A man steals; he is pardoned; he is not then a thief, and you cannot call him a thief, or if on do you are liable to an action for slander None of those who have been fully pardoned are affected by this revision.