Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator assigns me a position, the least defensible he can find, and then makes his attack. I try to explain, but he will not accept the explanation. have not disputed, and for purposes of the argument I will not dispute, that the pardon of the President relieves these parties of the penalties of their crimes provided the conditions of the pardon have been kept; but this is a separate and distinct question. I asked the Senator, even had there been no rebellion, if it is within the jurisdiction of Congress to pass an not de claring that any portion of the inhabitants of the U.S. are no longer citizens of the U.S.? Is this a political power that the body politic enjoy for their own protection and for their own purposes I That is the question. If the State of Indiana has the perfect right to enfranchise or disfranchise any portion O its population, is it not within the jurisdiction and competency of Congress to declare that certain parties are no longer citizens of the U.S., even if there never had been an rebellion 7 The honorable Senfrom Indiana, instead of answerin the question as put both by myself and by teSenfrom hew Hampshire, refers with apparent pleasure to the fact that the pardon having been exercised by the President, the rebels are made new men, that not only penalties are removed, but privileges, if ever lost, are fully restored. I am not disposed to be technical in the premises, but if I were, it strikes me that the conduct of the President toward these organizations, since their establilshment, furnishes strong evidence of the existence of afact at the time of granting the pardon which would render it void. At the common law, to render a pardon valid, it must express with accuracy the crime intended to be forgiven. Hence, in the case of the U.S. as. Steller, decided in the U.S. circuit court at Philadelphia, the court say that general pardons are not anted by the Crown but by Parliament, and tfiiit though our constitution may possibly confer the right, yet the right, if it exists, has never been exercised. In that case, the defendanthad been indicted for “mom terfeiting and uttering counterfeit coin ” and there was a general verdict of guilty. In the Presidents certificate of pardon it was recited that the defendant had been convicted of counterfeiting, and the ke upon a full and nn conditional pardon was ranted. The court refused to extend the pardo beyond its express terms, and hence the party was left subject to the disabilities imposed by the conviction and sentence. Another principle necessarily resulting from this was, that whenever it may be reasonably supposed that the King, when he grants a pardon, is notfully apprised of the heine nsness or wickedness of the crime, or that he has been imposed upon by concealment or false representations of the party to be benefited, the pardon is void. But a more familiar principlo still is the one previously alluded to, thati a pardon be granted on conditions and the consitions be not complied with the pardon is void. It may be that the President was fully of the character and extent of the crimes O rebels when he issued his proclamation. It may be that no imposition was practiced on him to secure the amnesty, but if it be so, it surely cannot be that they have kept the conditions of the ardon, at least the President cannot think so. he pardon was general, and included the entire community with certain exceptions. Those exceptions could not participate in reorganization. The community pardoned did participate. In ascertainin whether there has been a compliance with tie conditions, we must not, we cannot, look to isolated or individual cases. We must look to the community, the body politic, and hold all responsible for the action of that pardoned community. The condition was that the pardoned, thatis, the masses, with certain nained exceptions, should “faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves." Nobody doubts nowthat freedom islegally secured to the negro, and nobody doubts that full civil rights attach to that.condition, yet Missis sippi has passed a law denying the right of the negro to hold real or personal property. The same is true, I believe, of SCarolina, and hence the order of GenlSickles, to which I have referred. The President himself, through the order of General Terry, his agent at Ric mend, proclaims to the world that the pardoned or reconstructed rebels of Virginia are not “ supporting faithfully” the constitutional amcu mentor Mr. Lincolns proclamation of freedom, but on the contrary are attempting to sell the negroes back again into slavery and so, Mr. President, I might go on with the entire list of these States, and show that the President was originally deceived, imposed upon, in his nt of pardon originally, or else the conditions have been so badly kept, as to forfeit the benefits of the pardon, and thereby let in the power of Congress over the entire subject matter. But admitting the validity of the pardon to the extent claimed by the Senfrom Indiana and others, does it follow that the President possessed the exclusive power to appoint provisional governors, prescribe the qualifications of voters, and revive the suspended functions of these States, without the aid of the legislative power or even the counsel of the Senate in the appointment of the necessary agents. Mr. President, I beg pardon of the Senate for occupying so much of valuable time Without coming more immediately to the discussion of the several proposed amendments to the federal Constitution. Senators who have so frequently interrupted me with questions or otherwise, are more or less responsible. I propose now to examine the amendments [At this point the honorable Senator yielded the floor, at the request of gentlemen, and the Senate went into executive session.] Wsmzsnkr, February 14, 1866. The Senate, asin Committee oftho Whole. resumed the consideration of the jtResolution (H.R.No. 51)proposing an amendmentto the Constitution of the U.S.