Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have stated what be authorized me to state on that subject. Of course I personally do not undertake to state the fact one way or another. But enough, sir, on that subject of person alities. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the question involved in the amendment. I stated in the course of my remarks yesterday that the Qihlh which Congress required all officers under the Government of the U.S. to take, so long as that oath remained unrepealed by law, etfected all that is effected by this amendment. It excludes those who cannot take it from enterin jupon any office under the Government of the U.S. Ofcourse the oath does not refer to State officers. As to State officers, this proosed amendment goes further than that oath but as to all Federal officers, the oath required to be taken by them, that they have not.engaged in this rebellion against the Government of the U.S., is as effectual, so long as that law stands uhrepealed, asthis amendment would be. The Senfrom Illinois, in reply to this, says that it is a new doctrine in me to main him that members of Congress should obe the laws of the land and take the oaths which i are prescribed by law before they are entitled to admission; that I have conteuded that each House was to judge for itself of the qualifications, elections, and returns of its members; and that in that judgment each House was independent of the other. Mr. President, I have contended that each House is the judge, and the sole judge, the judge without appeal, the judge over whom neither the President nor the Supreme Court nor the other House has any rightful control whatever. But does the Senfrom Illinois suppose that I ever maintained that the HoRep or the Senate, in making u its judgment. should violate the laws of the land? such an idea never entered into my brain, I can assure the Senfrom Illinois. I supposed that the Senate of the U.S. would judge according to law. Has it come to this, that because I insist that the Senate of the U.S shall judge upon the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members, have any idca that the Senate will undertake to violate the laws of the land or repeal the laws of the land? I never heard such an idea suggested by any human being. I never thought that it could enterinto the mind of any human being. I have confidence in the judgment of the Senate, that the Senate will judge right, that the Senate will judge can tribuna authorized by the Constitution to judge, and to which is given the solcjudgment on that question. I think, therefore, that the remark of the Senfrom Illinois, that he was glad that I was i I now disposed to obey the laws, was a remark, which was not. called for by anything I have l ever uttered on this floor or elsewhere. I am just as much in favor of maintaining the laws and the Constitution as the Senfrom Illinois possibly can be, and I have always maintained the validity of this oath, underthe Constitution, which was required. As to the POTUS, his oath is specified in the Constitution; and as the VEEP, in the event of the resignation or death of the President, is to exercise the same office, the only doubt I have ever had was whether the VEEP ought not. to take the same oath as the President; whether we can prescribe to the VEEP a different oath from what the Constitution requires us to prescribe to the President. That is the only doubt I have ever had, and that is a question upon which I have doubts, for the reason I have stated, because the VEEP, in a certain contin ency, is to take the place of the President, an to act in his stead. But, sir, that is not a question arising here. I maintained, further, that this proposed amendment prescribes a new punishment for an offense which has already been committed. My honorable friend says that this is not. unisliment; that.that.idea must.be peculiar to HVis cousin; that to pass ulaw or the sentence ofu court or the decree of any tribunal which shall deprive a person of an office, or which shall disqualify him forever to hold on office is nota punishment. Sir, this idea is by no means pecu iur to Wisconsin. There is not a State in this Union where, in some of the criminal statutes, is not to be found, as:1 art. of the penalty attached to the crime which has been commit ted, a disqualification in certain cases to hold an oliicc; and in cases ofimpeaclimont. before this body, the highest tribunal known to the laws of the land, when the judgment of this body is pronounced, it is confined by the constitution to that very thing, removal from office and disqualification from ever holding office, after the judgment of the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment. The Constitution says: “Judment in casesof impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office u da disqual ifiention to hold and enjoy any otticcof onor. trust, or profit under the U.S.” In the State of Illinois, in the State of Wisconsin, and other States, there are criminal statutes, in which, on the commission of certain ofienses. a part of the punishment which is imposed b express statute is made the dep rivation of this right to hold an office, disquab ification forever to hold an office. It is part and parcel of the judgment. in a criminal case. It carries that effect with it. Many of the States provide that when a person has been convicted of an offense amounting to a felony he shall not only be deprived of the right to hold office, but the right to vote as a citizen; his citizenship is forfeited. Sir, this is a pen alty, anew penalty, on additional penalty imposed after the fact. has transpired, after the crime has been committed. Where a new punishment is provided by law for an offense which has already been committed, unless the law which provides for it expressly saves it, the old penalty is gone. such is the decision of all criminal courts in all States and countries. You cannot change the punishment of the offense without wiping out the old penalty, and here, sir, if you insert by way of a constitutional amendment this expostfacto provision, a bill of attainder, for it is nothing more nor less, it wipes out the old penalty and all the penalties which attach will be the penalties which attach under this provision, unless the provision itself provides for saving the old penalty. But, Mr. President, there is another objection to this proposed amendment as it. stands. This amendment applies equally to those who were forced into the rebel service as to those who went in voluntarily. I call the attention of Senators to the fact that the men who were conscripted into the rebel service, men who were carried into it at the point.of the bayonet, men who were hunted all over the States of the South by the myrmidons of this rebeliion to compel them to enter the service. are just as much subjected to penalties under this amendment as those who went into it of their own free will. Mr. President,has it. come to this, that in this high place and in this body, we can make no distinction between the inno cent and the uilty; no distinction in favor of those men who have been hunted like wild beasts from valley to valley all over the States of the South, and forced, conscripted, comclled to 0 into the service against their will, at that he are to stand upon precisely the same groun with the men w in were guilty of this offense from the beginning? Sir, public judgment revolts against the proposition, and the conscience and the humanity of the American people will stamp this proposition as being in violation of every principle of justicc an against the humanity of the age. t is beyOIid belief that the Senate of the U.S. preposes to treat these men who have been nnted, conscripted, and forced at the point of the bayonet to go into the rebellion, as if they were equally guilty with the leaders of the rebellion. Mr. President, I speak of the injustice of the proposition in this respect. What hope is there that a proposition like that will receive the sanction of the American people? None whatever. It ought not to receive their sanction, for it is founded in injustice, that, injus tice which anuiliilates the distinctions between innocence and guilt, between the men who have suffered, and suffered more than the men of the North have suffered; who have been conscripted, forced iuto the rebellion, and comelled at the point of the bayonet to do its biding, and the men who went into it of their own free will. Sir, it is perhaps predestined that this resolution must pass in this form. It: has perhaps passed through one of those consultations where results are arrived at that no considerations can change. Nothing can mod ify it. It. must be, like the decrees of fate, accomplished. But, sir, it does seem to me that this Senate ought to pause before they abolish all distinction in the southern States between those who were forced into the rebel arrliliy and those who went in of their own free wr. But. sir, there is another objection to this amendment as it stands. It proposes to annul in some cases the pardons an umnesties which have already been granted under the laws of Congress, and the proclamations of the President issued in pursuance thereof. Are we prepared to do that? Can this Congress stand before this country and the civilized world and say, “ We authorized the POTUS by proclamations to declare full amnesty and pardon upon certain terms and conditions; that amnesty and pardon has been extended; the oaths of allegiance have been taken; these men have in good faith accepted the conditions of the pardon and amnesty and yet Congress proposes by a constitutional amendment to annul those pardons and wipe out that amnesty?” On what kind of principle can we stand before the civilized world and do that? That I may make no mistake I desire to read the section of the statute which authorized both President Lincoln and President Johnson to grant pardon and amnesty to those who had taken part in the rebellion. On the 17th of July, 1662, Congress enacted in these words:. "That the President is herebyauthorized.at any time hereafter "No limitation as to time “by procluniation. to extend to personswho may have participated in the existing Tf‘bfflllflli‘ln any Stateor part thereof.pardon andamnesty.wilh such exceptionsand at.suchtime and on such condition: a! he may deem expedienttur the public wvlfurc. Now, Mr. President, independent of that authority which the Constitution confers upon the President as the chief Executive to issue pardons to persons who are guilty of offenses against the laws of the U.S., here 18 an express provision enacted by Congress, MI “T c p authorizing the President, as he should dean expedient for the public welfare, to grant ain nesty and pardon to those who had been engaged in this rebellion. In pursuance of this statute, Mr. Lincoln, POTUS, in December following the passage‘ofrthis law did issue, a proclamation ranting pardon and amnesty to persons who find been engaged in this rebellion, upon the terms and conditions therein specified. I read from that proclamation: " Whereasin and by the Constitution of the U.S. it is provided that the President shall have paogwaienrstto grant TOgTIGVOaSnd pardons for oifenses the U.S. exc epint ensespt'im eachment;' and whereas arebellion now existsw ereby the loyal State governmentsof several States have for a longtime been subverted and many persons hav cgoinmitted.andarenowguiltyof. treasonagainst the U.S.; and whereas with reference to said rebellion and treason.laws iave been enacted by Congress, doclarmg forfcitures and confiscation o reperty and liberation of slaves, all upon terms an conditions therein stated and alsodeclaringthat the President was thereby authorized at any time thereafter, by proclamation.toextendtopersonswho may have participated in the OXlrllflK rebellion. in any State or part thereof. pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedientfor the public welfare; and whereas the cunizressionaldeclaration for limited and conditional pardon accordswith well established iudicial exposition of the pardoning power; and whercus.With referenceto said rebellion. the POTUS has issued several proclamations.With provisions in reizardto the liberation of slaves: and whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged n said rebellion to resumetheir allegianceto the U.S and to reinaugnrathe loyal State governments within andfor their respective.5 “ tea: Therct'qrc. Abraham Lincoln. POTUS do proclaim. declste and make known to all persons who have.directly or by implication. participated in the existing rebellion. Except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is herebygrantedtothem and each of them.With restoration of all rights of property. exceptas to slaves." The conditions were the taking of a certain oath which is hereinmentioned, and which it is not necessary that I should read. Now, the persons who were excepted from the benefits of this pardon and amnesty granted by President Lincohi, were as follows: The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are or shall have been. civil or diplomatic officersor agentsof the socalled confederate government: all who have left.'udicial stations undertheU.S.to aid there ellion: all who are or shall have been. military or naval otTi ccrsof said socalled confederategovprnment above the rank of colonel in thoariny‘or.oflieutenant in the navy: nllwlio lcft seatsin the U.S.‘ Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissionsin the Army or Navy of the U.S and after yvardsaided the rebellion; andall who haveengaged in any wayin treating colored persons or white persons in charge of such. otherwise than lawfully as risonersofwar and which persons may have been moeunn, d in the U.S. service as soldiers.sen or in any other capacity." All these classes of persons were excepted from this pardon and amnesty; but the constitutional amendment now proposed to be inserted includes very many of those persons to whom pardon and amnesty were extended under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. by President Lincoln. Now, I ask, by what right do you undertake to annul that amnesty and take away that pardon? Is it upon the ground that might gives right, and thatif by an proceeding the ‘onstitution of the U.S. can be amended so as in effect to work an expostfacto attainder of men to whom pardon and amnesty have been extended, you will do it?