Mr. STEVENS. What I am speaking of is this proposed step toward universal amnesty and universal Andy Johnsonism. to: If this Congress so decides, it will give me great pleasure to join in the io triumphe of the Gentfrom Ohio in leading this House, possibly by forbidden paths, into the sheepfold or the goatfold of the President. Now, sir, what do we propose by this bill? We propose simply to protect them, and if any gentleman chooses to introduce tomorrow a JtResolution based on the bill of the Gentfrom Ohio, the NewOrleans bill, and making it applicable to all these States, I have no doubt that it will be passed through this House in a few hours and will become law. If the other can become a law, so could it. But why tie us up by this pledge in advance to the constitutional amendment? I do not like to say anything against that amendment, sir, although I have no respect for it. why But touch it? There is a difference of opinion; why distract the party, unless it is for the benefit of others in other quarters? Mr. Speaker, I feel quite unwilling to discuss questions of this kind after seeing the foregone conclusion of the House, but I am so clearly imPressed with the importance of this bill that I have thought proper, unwell as I am, to say this much. If, sir, I might Presume upon my age, without claiming any of the wisdom of Nestor, I would suggest to the young gentlemen around me, that the deeds of this burning crisis, of this solemn day, of this thrilling moment, will cast their shadows far into the future and will make their imPress upon the annals of our history, and that we shall appear upon the bright pages of that history, just in so far as we cordially, without guile, without bickering, without small criticisms, lend our aid to promote the great cause of humanity and universal liberty. I know that the gentlemen upon the other side of the House believe that this is a harsh measure; and so does the Gentfrom Ohio on this side, who today, and the other day, made beautiful appeals to our sense of humanity, and depicted the glory of a great nation forgiving great criminals foro crimes. I am aware that gentlemen, here and elsewhere, have seemed to be ambitious to enun ciate principles of forgiveness, benevolence, and mercy still more starth ng and saintly than those of the Athenian or the Galilean sage. Sir, generosity and benevolence are the noblest qualities of our nature; but when you squander them upon vagabonds and thieves you do that which can command no respect from any quarter. The sublime, I might almost say divine, doctrines or religion promulgated by Socrates, and so much more nobly and divinely exPressed in the Sermon on the Mount, seem to require acts of self restraint almost beyond the reach of man. And yet in urging forgiveness they refer simply to private offenses, to personal transgressions, where men can well forgive their enemies and smother their feelings of revenge without injury to anybody. But what has that to do with municipal punishment? What has that to do with political sanction of political crimes? When public tribunals, municipalities, nations pass sentence for crimes committed and decree confiscation for crimes unrepented, there is no question of malignity., When the judge sentences the convict he has no animosity. When the hang man executes the culprit he rather pities than hates him. These acts have no faculty of cruelty in them. Cruelty does not belong to their vocabulary. These officers of the law are but carrying out what the law decrees. The law commands, the law executes; but the law is unimpassioned. The law has no feeling of malignity, no feeling of vengeance. Gentlemen mistake, therefore, when they make these appeals to us in the name of humanity. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say what perhaps had better not be said, that gentlemen who are thus, either by direction or indirection, defending the cause or palliating the conduct of these rebel traitors are making for themselves no good record with posterity. They, sir, who while preaching this doctrine are hugging and caressing those whose hands are red and whose garments are dripping with the blood of our and their murdered kindred, are covering themselves with indelible stains, which all the waters of the Nile cannot wash out. Mr. Speaker, a single word as to the number of amendments. There are 7 of them; and I am satisfied that anyone of them, ifingrafted upon this bill will be sure to kill it. This bill proposes to do certain things. If there is anything further desired, let it be accomplished in some other way. The bill of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AsHLEY] may be a good bill, but it has no business here, it is not pertinent to this question. Of the amendment of the other Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] I have already spoken. The amendment of his colleague [Mr. LAwkENCE] shows great care and wisdom; but I implore that gentleman not to thrust it upon this bill to its utter destruction. Just so with the amendment of the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. TRIMBLE] The bill of the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNCH] is a very desirable one and more effective than that of his colleague from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE] and could I vote for either, did I not know that either would be ruine us to this bill, I would accept that in preference to any other. The amendment of the distinguished and allant Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ANKs] . undoubtedly much talent in it. It applies, however, only to a single State