Mr. TRUMBULL.Mr. President, I presume the Senfrom Maryland and every Senator is quite familiar with the constitutional provision which confers upon the President authority to grant reprieves and pardons. Of course, the repeal of this section of the act of 1862 will not repeal the Constitution, and I suppose no one denies the authority of the President to grant pardons under the Constitution. The only effect of the passage of the bill under consideration is to repeal the 13th section of the act of July 17, 1862. It is possible, as has been suggested by the Senfrom Maryland, from the haste with which this bill was hurried through the other branch of Congress, and the anxiety manifested in this body by some of its members to press it to an immediate vote without the usual reference to a committee, that an impression has gone out to the country that by the repeal of this 13th section the power of the President to grant pardons and restore to rebels their property would be taken away. such, however, will not be its effect in my opinion. The president's power to grant pardons and restore property will be just as complete after the passage of this bill repealing the 13th section of the act of 1862 as before. The Constitution confers on the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment.” It is not in the power of Congress to deprive him of this prerogative. A pardon is a remission of the crime or offense, and not of the conviction, and may be granted as well before as after conviction; and it also may be either absolute or conditional. All these questions were settled by decisions of the AttyGens and of the SCOTUS years ago. Mr. Wirt, who was AttyGen under Mr. Monroe, gave an opinion, I think in 1820, that the President had authority to grant pardons before conviction. He iod it upon the ground that a pardon was of the offense and not of the conviction for the offense; that the conviction was only evidence of the crime or offense which had been committed. Subsequent AttyGens have given the same opinion, and the practice of the Government, I believe, has conformed to that opinion. The SCOTUS in the case of exparte Wells, which is reported in 18 Howard, page 311, and which I have before me, quoted with approbation this passage from Lord Coke: “A pardon is said by Lord Coke to be a work of mercy, whereby the king, either before attainder, sentence, or conviction, or after, forgiveth any crime, offense, punishment, execution, right, title. debt, or duty, temporal or ecclesiastical.” 3 Inst., 233. The same court, in a case reported in 7 peters, in which the opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, decided that a pardon may be either absolute or conditional. They quote in that opinion also from common law writers on the subject of pardon and its effect, and say: liv“eAry piasredsosnenistiaal, and to the validity of which deois notowithout acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered: and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” U.S. vs. Wilson, 7 Peters, page 161. The point in that case was the authority of the President to impose a condition in granting a pardon, and the Supreme Court held that that authority existed in the President, and they laid down the rule in both these cases that the power of the President “to grant reprieves and pardons” is to "be construed as those words were understood at the time they were incorporated into the Constitution of the U.S. The President's power to restore property seized under the confiscation act to its former rebel owners will not be affected by the repeal of the 13th section of the act of 1862, as the section is silent on that subject, It is certainly within the power of the President to refuse to restore property to pardoned rebels by making it a condition when he grants the pardon that they shall not claim the property which has been seized by the Government. The President, however, has not generally done this, and by granting absolute pardons has given an order in fact for the restoration of property. It will be seen by the report of GenlHoward, made to Congress at the last session, that the President did direct property to be restored to a person who had been pardoned, and under the rule adopted in that case GenlHoward states that he proceeded to restore to pardoned rebels more than 400,000 acres of land which had been seized under the confiscation act. I will not under take to say whether the President has authority to restore this property. He certainly has no such authority where the rights of 3rd parties have intervened. When ever the property has been condemned under the confiscation act his right to take away the title of an individual who had acquired any interest in the property and restore it to the former owners would doubtless be gone. Whether, he could before, after the mere seizure of the property, is another question; but it is not affected in my opinion by the repeal of the section under consideration. If the President has this power under the Constitution, it may be."why then repeal this 13th section; what harm does it do? I answer that this 13th section is broader than the Constitution; it authorized the President by proclamation to grant pardon and amnesty. The difference, as I understand, betweena pardon and an amnesty is this: a pardon is an act of mercy extended to an individual; it must be by deed; it must be pleaded Chief Justice Marshall says it is essential to its validity that it must be delivered an amnesty is a general pardon proclaimed by proclamation. This statute undertakes to confer upon the POTUS authority by general proclamation to grant pardon and amnesty to everybody who has been engaged in the rebellion. The President has already issued general proclamations of amnesty and pardon; there can be no occasion for the exercise of that power hereafter, and therefore there is appropriety in repealing the section of the statute which confers this power upon the President. Let him have such powers as the constitution gives him; of course Congress cannot take from him those powers; butlet us not be a party to conferring any additional powers or any additional facility upon the President to grant pardons to persons engaged in this rebellion who have shown themselves after obtaining pardon so undeserving of the mercy which has been extended to them., Let us repeal that clause which authorized the issuing of proclamations of amnesty. This will at least be an expression of opinion on the part of Congress that general pardons and restoration of property should not be continued; and if the President does continue to pardon rebels and restore their property by individual acts under the Constitution, let him do so without having the sanction of Congress for his act. Therefore, sir, the committee recommended the passage of this bill, believing that the expression of such an opinion on the part of Congress was but carrying out the expressions of the people of this country, and that we should withhold any encouragement on our part to the granting of general pardons and restorations of property for the future until we can see a better spirit manifested on the part of those who are their recipients.