Mr. HENDRICKS. When this bill was 1st brought to the attention of the Senate the Senfrom Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER) demanded its passage upon a charge which he made against the executive dept of selling o in this city, and he expressed himself very strongly indeed upon that subject. He said: “Mr. President, it is a notorious fact, as notorious as the records of a court, that pardons have been for sale around this town, for sale by women, and more than one woman. The records of your court in the DistCol show this.” And he then went on to say that he spoke upon the authority of one of the judges of the court in this District. After that statement had been so deliberately made by him the Senfrom Connecticut [Mr. Dixon] gave it a very emphatic and square denial. The Senfrom Michigan stated that it. was ne to repeal the section in order to take away from the President the power of pardon, and thus to remove a reproach from our government. I could not see in the law the reason for his position. I could not see, after the denial of the statement made by him and on the question of his authority that the facts justified him. But certainly he owed it to himself, he owed it to the judges of the court, to say precisely upon what authority he made the statement, for it was a very grave one. This section only authorized a pardon by proclamation. Now, I think, when the Senator reflects a moment, he will not assume that any pardon by proclamation has been procured by any improper means. I suppose he referred to individual pardons, and meant to suggest that persons had received compensation for their services in procuring the pardon of individuals. I hardly suppose that the Senator intended to be understood as charging that any proclamation had been procured by bribery. never heard anything of the sort intimated, and I never heard that any question of the kind was before any court in the DistCol. If any such question was before the court, then, sir, I think we ought to know in what case, upon what record, upon what evidence it is stated that the POTUS, under this 13th section, ever is sued a proclamation upon improper and corrupt considerations. This section simply provides for pardon by proclamation, with a view to the adjustment of the troubles in the country, so as to hold out to the southern people an inducement to return to their allegiance to the Government and their obedience to the laws, certainly a very proper purpose, justifying the action of Congress in its enactment; but what bribery can be charged as having been committed under this section? I think it is due to the other judges of the court that we should know what judge has undertaken to make such a charge against the executive dept of the Government. But, sir, I am not going to discuss that at length. I had supposed the senator would have produced the evidence, and I think it would fail I cannot but believe it would fail to establish that under this section of the law any improper motive had ever governed. the POTUS I object to the repeal of this section for but one reason. It will be understood in the country as an expression by Congress against a conciliatory course toward the southern States. It will be understood as an expression by congress of its opinion that there ought not to be pardon extended to the people of the South, and that the policy which was understood to have been adopted by Mr. Lincoln before his death, and the policy which was subsequently pursued by Mr. JOHNson as POTUS in extending pardons was an improper P. I do not wish to have it understood that Congress shall express any such opinion. My judgment is, that amnesty is the proper course and policy to be pursued with a view to the permanent restoration of the Union and of the relation of the States to the Union. What is accomplished by repealing this section? Nothing in law. The Senfrom Illinois, able as he is, has been unable to show that in law anything is accomplished by the repeal of this section, for the simple reason that the section does not enlarge the powers of the President. As has been so elaborately and so ably shown by the Senfrom Maryland, the President possesses the power generally, and can exercise this power by such means as to him may seem proper, not inconsistent with the other provisions of the Constitution. He has the power to pardon generally, whether by a special grant to an individual, or by proclamation, if, in his judgment, the circumstances of the country shall require such a proclamation. I do not understand the Senfrom Illinois to question now the power of the President to pardon by roclamation; and is it not the better way? Is it not better that the President shall pardon by classes rather than that the executive office shall be besieged by individuals who seek special pardons?