Mr. SMITH. I have always felt that when a crime has been committed, an absolute violation of law, upon a proor arraignment and trial and conviction of the party, justice and right and law compel the execution of the sentence. I entertain that opinion now and shall continue to exress it. I therefore disagree with the gentlhman who has just preceded me, [Mr. SeusNeK] and the committee upon reconstruction who have reported this JtResolution, that those who have been what are usually denominated “ red handed traitors, " who have attempted to destro this Government and those who have defened it, should be forgiven at this time or even in 1870. I know there me feeling prevalent in this House and in the country that we must submit to this proposition because there is a sentiment of reconciliation in the words and manner in which it is gotten up and proposed. But. for one, I must dissent, and my name must go upon the record in opposition to those men who have heretofore claimed a higher position for punishing those who have attempted to destroy this Government. I am surprised, and Imust express my surprise, that men who have stood by the Government, who have voted men and money to sustain it, who have seen their country overrun, who have seen their armies defeated, who have seen their brothers slain, who have seen large battle fields rendered gory, should at this time come forward and say that in 1870 the doors should be opened to these rebels and that there should be a general amnesty. You are radical; I am not. You are for general amnesty with universal suffrage; I am not. I stand here as a Union man, and as a conservative man, desirous to restore the governmeut, to secure the peace and happiness of the people, the unity of the States, and the supremacy of the Constitution. If you ask my consent to the pardon of the leaders of this rebellion, I say “No.” But there are men upon this floor who say, “Confiscate their property and let them go.” I say “ No.” In the 38th Congress I voted for the confiscation of the property of the leading rebels, and I made a speech in advocacy of that position. I stand by that doctrine today. but where are the men who advocated the doctrine then, and said, “Not only confiscate their property, but hang them all 2” Those men now say, “Pardon them all, and restore them in 1870 to all the rights and privileges of citizenshi.” The do not even propose to wait unti 1870. lhey say, “Confiscate their property and let them go.” They would apply this doctrine to men who are guilty of rebellion against the GOvernment, of treason against the Constitution, and war upon all our institutions. They say of such as lement C. Clay, “Let them depart in peace.” They would so of Jeff. Davis, “Confiscate his Iproperty an let him return to his home.” ll this may suit on; it does not suit me. You are radical; am conservative. You say “Hang every body, ” but you will not hang anybody. You say “ Prose cute everybody, ” but you will not prosecute anybody. You say “Execute the ljaws, ” but you do not do it. Not long since the question was asked upon this floor whether you would execute these men through the in strumentality of the President. the answer was “No;” and the reason of that answer was that it was feared that the President would receive a little too much credit for his action in seeing that the laws were executed. I say let these men he tried; if guilty, let them be convicted; and then see whether the President will pardon them when thus convicted. Sir, this will never be done if we trust to these men who are all the time urging their radical schemes, who have forgot ten the intercsts of the country, who seek not the salvation of the Union, but the salvation of party, and the interest of theirgiartienlar ilk. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Seuszv ex] said a few minutes ago that he would not admit that these States were out of the Union; that they had been in the Union and were parts of the bed politic. Well, if that is the fact, how and under what circumstances are they to be otten out? How are they to be destroyed? The gentleman, in speakin of this subject, adopted a simile, and said that when a child has offended the father whi 5 him, and thus by correction brings him bac to obedience to the law. Now, I submit the question whether there was ever on the face of the earth a father who, though he chastised his child because of disobedience, refused that child, even after the chastisement, bread and clothing and a place in his house. The father whips techild from love, remembering all the time that he is “ bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.” He chastises him because he loves him. Now, sir, the honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Sensxos] has chastised these men. He was a general in the Arm, and he helped to chastise them. He did it because he loved them, because they were a part of the family. But now, when he has whipped them into obe dience, and they ask to resume their place in the family circle, under the shelter of the great household of the nation, he says, “No, you cannot come in.” This is unnatural. It is in violation of every principle that should govern the action of the other toward an errmg or rebellious child. It is in violation of those eat principles of affection which God. has implanted in the human breast, and the disre gard of which stamps a man as unWQrthy the name of man. N ow, sir, these States are in the Union. There is, so far as I know, only one man in this House who says that they are not; and he is the member from the Lancaster district of Pennsylvania, Mr. Srsvsxs.] I desi unto him simply by c appellation of “mem or." 21121. May 87. congressssmmiremsn; But the distinguished men upon this floor on that side say these States are in the Union; and I must call to my support a in a distinguished gentleman, a personal friend, one I like, one I may appeal to, but who will not say anything to me just now the Gentfrom Ohio who sits across there; I mean Mr. BrnoHnl.