Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no written s cech prepared to read to you this evening, an the remarks that I shall make will be brief, and of an extemporaneous character. I propose for a short time to investigate a subject rought to view in the message of the President, on the 11 & page, if I recollect right, where he speaks of treason against the Government having been committed, and of the necessity of trying traitors and punishing them, making the crime of treason infamous. I regard this as a very important question; and not withstanding I have heard many able speeches and many hours of debate on this floor, I have heard but little allusion to this subject. I have no doubt that this subject is to some extent unpopular, from false impressions that have been made by many, by efforts that have been made to stigmatize those that believe treason is a crime, and that it ought to be punished and to represent them as acting from motives of malice or hatred toward the South. Now, sir, I do not feel that I have any hatred to the South, or any disposition to take revenge upon any man. It was my fortune to be born in that portion of our country denominated the South. I spent more than 30years of my life in that art of the world. Twas born among slaveholers and was surrounded to some extent by slaves, and if I have prejudicesand I suppose I have, for it would be a very singular circumstance to find a man that was not to some extent under the influence of prejudicethose prejudices are in favor of the South and southern people. But, sir, I believe that the ha piness and the welfare of this great Republic emand that we shall have a Government, and that that Government shall be maintained inviolate. The object of government, Mr. Cliairman, I understand to be, not to confer rights and privileges upon men, but to secure to each and every in iabitant of the land the richts that God has bestowed upon him. GoodI government aims to secure, not the rights of a part of the citizens, but of each and every one; not. a part of the rights of each and every one, but the full, free, and untrammeled exercise and enjoyment of all those rights that God has bestowed upon human nature. This I understand to be the design of government and just in proportion as this enjoyment of all these rights is secured to the inhabitants of a country, just in that proportion are those inhabitants happy and pros perous and just in (proportion as these natural rights are invade and trampled upon, so do the people become wretched and miserable. Then, sir, it is not only necessary that we should have laws definin the duties of citizens to each other, but that those laws should have penalties annexed to them. Every man knows that laws without penlaties amount to the same as no lawsatall. t isadmitted thatlaws must 1866. 729 have just and adequate penalties to secure the rights and the welfare of the citizens and not only must there be just and ade uate penalties, but those penalties must be inflicted upon the transgressor. This fact is so clear that it admits of no controversy. That the penalty of laws must be inflicted has been acknowledged by all the nations of the earth from the earliest period of its history. In the case of Daniel, the prohet, who violated the law of the king of the li edes and Persians, the king became convinced that he had been led into errorin promulgating the law that he did, but the law having been promulgated, and his favorite minister having violated it, he studied until the going down of the sun in order to devise some plan by which he might release Daniel from the penalty that he had incurred. But when he was reminded that the time was drawing near when the penalty of the law must be inflicted, he reluctantly, but at the same time firmly, ordered that the penalty should be enforced upon the transgressor, showing the deepest regret that he hagl been placed in circumstances where it was necessary to do such a thing. But at the same time the welfare of the empire demanded that it should be done; the laws of the Modes and Persians changed not. I remember also reading the history of another king, whoissued a proclamation or enacted a law at a certain time, that anyone of his subjects who committed a certain crime should have both his eyes put out; and the story is that the son of that monarch was the 1st individual that was convicted of violating the law. The monarch, as a matter of course, felt great reluctance to put out the 2 eyes of his son, and at the same time he felt that he could not extend the pardoning power; and with a view of accomplishing the same end without violating the spirit of the law, he ordered that one of his pwn eyes should be put out and one of his son s. Mr. Chairman, the object of inflicting penalties upon transgressors is not to wreak vengeance or to ratify malice or anything of that description. but there is a rent end to be accomphshed by doing it. et us inquire for a moment what good arises from the fact of inflicting the penalties Of the law upon transgressors. hat good, for instance, will it do to inflict the penaIty of the law upon a man convicted of the crime of murder? Will it bring back the dead to life? No, sir. Then, if it will not bring the dead back to life, what benefitwill arise from executing the murderer? It maybe said by some that it will prevent him from committing a similar crime, but I say that there is no more certainty that he would commit the crime again than that any other man would commit it. and, men are not to be executed for fear they may commit crime. Under anfadministration of that kind none would be an e. But, sir, there are 2 nd objects to be secured by inflicting penaItriaesupon violators of the law. The 1st is to sustain the confidence of the lawabiding that the Government will be maintained. No country can prosper, and no people can be happy, unless they have confidence that their Government will be sustained. We have had an exhibition of the necessity of the exercise of this duty during the late rebellion. It has often been proposed to engage in cute rises and improvements in different parts of iiie U.S., but the objection was made, ” Wait till the rebellion is put down; we do not know what may be the result of this great rebellion.” I remember in my own immediate neighborhood there was a proposition to erect a woollen factory. It was believed that it would be an important enterprise and a profitable investment; but the uncertain condition of the country was such as to forbid men investing capital, and they would not do it. Who would build a house or plant an orchard, or plow his fields and sew his grain, if he had no assurance that he would be permitted to partake of the fruits of his industry? Who would engage in industrial pursuits if he had no confidence in the stability of the Government? Strike down the confidence of the people in the stability of their Government, and progress and improvement will come to an end; in a word, the Governmentwillcome to an end, and wreck and ruin would be the result. Now, there is no one thing that can be done for the welfare of the American people that will more thoroughly promote enterprise, improvements, and industry, than to convince the great mass of the people that the Government will be maintained, and that every hand lifted against the Government shall be palsied or stricken down. Make this impression deep and lasting, and no one thing, in my judment, will be better calculated to romote the general prosperity and general we fare of the nation. This I understand, then, to be the 1st grand object ofinflicting the penalties of the law upon transgressors: to sustain the confidence of the loyal and lawabiding. In the next place, the object is to give warning to the refractory. When the penalty of the law is inflicted on a transgressor, when a mur derer, for instance, is executed, a voice goes out to all throughout the country, telling them that if they violate the law they shall suffer in like manner. These I understand to be the great objects of inflicting penalties upon those who transgress the laws of our country. I said. a few moments ago, that I did not understand it to be necessary for the whole letter of the law to be inflicted in ever instance} hold punishment to be an evil; that all punishment is an evil; and whenever it can be dispensed with without injury to the public it ought to be dispensed with. Whenever the Executive of the U.S., or the Executive of any State in the Union, can extend the pardoning power without injury to the general welfare, then he ought to do so. I hold it to be the Universal rule, that whenit can be done, and no in jury inflicted upon the community or upon the country, then the pardoning power oug tto be exercised. Those that arein prison, if they can be liberated without injury to society, ought to be liberated. Where no good can be secured by retaining them in prison, it will be an evil to keep them there; and where the evil of their punishment would be overhalanced by the evil resulting to the community from their escape, then the punishment should be inflicted. Now, t 10 impression upon my mind is that there should be a sufficient number of leading rebels from each of the States lately in rebellion against the U.S. Government arraigned for their treason, tried as the president suggests, and if found guilty the should suffer the penalty of the law. I would not say that all who have been in rebellion should thus suffer. No good could result from such acourse, because of the fact that a few of the leaders in each State suffering the penalty of the law would secure the very same good to the people of the U.S. that the execution of all who had been in rebellion would secure to them. Suppose that every one of those who have been engaged in this rebellion should be tried and the full penalty of the law inflicted upon them, what good would result from that? It would simply sa that the Government will be maintained, an the confidence of the law abiding portion of the people as a matter of course would be strengthened by such a course and it is true the refractory throu bout the country would be warned, those who adadisosition to rebel against the Government would be warned of the fate that would await them should they thus act. These are the great ends to be obtained. But I understand that the trial and condemnation and execution of a few of the leaders in each of these States would secure the very same end, would have the very same tend ency to strengthen the general confidence in the Government. We all know that if there are no leaders there would be no rebellion, there can be no rebellion without leaders. I know the people of the South say that Mr. Davis, for instance. was only their servant; and that other individuals were simply carrying out their will; and that those men are no more responsible than they are. Now I deny the truth of that assertion. I say that those men have been agitating this question for the last ten, 15, or 20 years. The have been threatening to dissolve the Union an to rebel against the Government for at least 15 or 20 years and they are the guilty ones; they are the leaders; they are the rims movers. Had it not been for perhaps a ozen men that might be selected from among those who were leadin rebels, there would have been no rebellion. presume we all know this to be the fact. Select some ten or 15, perhaps not so many, perhaps a few more, from the various States lately in rebellion, and there would have been no rebellion and if it is understood by the people of this Union that the leaders of a rebellion shall die, there never will be another rebellion. Just let that fact be fixed in the minds of the people, that all who lead in such an enter rise as this shall suffer, shall die for it, an rebellions would become very scarce throughout this country. But if all those who have been engaged in rebellion against the Government are to be pardoned, if the entire number of the rebels are to be released from the penalty of the law, and are to be permitted to enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens again, what would that proclaim to those who are to come in the future? Vhat truth would it proclaim to those who are to come after us? ould it not be saying to them, “You may engage in a rebellion; you may try the experiment; ifyou fail you will be pardoned, and be permitted to enjoy all the rights of citizenship again; you will only incur the difficulty and expense of trying the exeriment, and if you fail, it will be only a faiiiire but will produce no great harm to yourselves. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, that all the men concerned in the late rebellion should be the objects of the pardoning power of the chief Executive; then, if in the course of a few years, other dissatisfied men should undertake a 2nd rebellion against the Government, with what face could t e. Government attempt to inflict. the penalty of the law upon such conspirators or rebels? If the Government should, in this aggravated case, this monstrous instance, set an example that the leaders in rebellion and treason sha l go unpunished, how could the Government, with any degree of propriety, inflict punishment upon new transgressors of the same class? If the participants in tie recent terrible war upon the Government be exempted from all responsibility for their crimes, future traitors, meeting with similar failure in their efforts, could with great propriety say to the Government, “Former criminals, whose guilt was more aggravated than ours, suffered the infliction of no penalty, and we expected, as a matter of course, that the Government would extend to us the same lenity.” But, sir, let the penalty of the lawbe inflicted, and confidence in the administration of justice will be strengthened, subordination to law will be fostered, and prosperity will bless our nation from ocean to ocean. It is sometimes said, Mr. Chairman, that Christianity requires that the guilty shall be pardoned or forgiven. In the newspapera that advocate the pardon of all these men some times see it urged that the Almighty forgives the vilest of the vile; that He pardos all; but the man who offers this argument overlooks or forgets one important fact: the God of the universe would not, and I will say could not, pardon one sinner till a rent sacrifice, a vast atonement, had been me e. The Son of God suffered and died upon the cross so as to render it possible for the great Ruler of the universe to forgive those who had rebelled against His government. I affirm that God would not and could not pardon one rebel against His government without this great atonement. It is true that the penalty was not inflicted in accordance with the Iotter of the law; but the spirit of the law was fulfilled, securing the same ends that would have been attained by inflicting literally the penalty of the law. So, I affirm, when the Government of the U.S. has carried out in spirit the law for the punishment of treason by inflicting the penalty upon a sufficient number of the leading traitors and I will not pretend to determine how many would constitute a sutiicient number then the Executive of the U.S. can consistently extend his pardon to the less cons icuous and active criminals. In this manner the confidence of the law abiding will be sustained, while the refractory will be warned; and in this manner pardon ma, without inurious consequences, be extende to those o enders whose guilt is less aggravated. In the commencement of my remarks I said that it was not on account of hatred to the South that I urged that the penalty of the law should be inflicted. I know that it is a very common thing to impute to us hatred of the South. Now, sir where is the man in this assembly or in this country. who hates the South? Why should we hate its pleasant climate, its fertile valleys, and flowery plains? No, sir we do not hate the South. But they say it is the institutions of the Shuth; they have used these words for the last 20 years. We have been opposed, we have been told, to the institutions of the South; and the word has always been used in the plural. As one, I do not hate the institutions of the South. Sir, I frankly say that I have from my boy hood hated one institution from the South, if it can be called an institution, and that is the institution of slavery which prevailed there. I have no feeling of hatred to southern men. There are many good and loyal men in the South. I honor and respect them, and desire their welfare and happiness. I have no doubts great many in the southern States were led into rebellion by the influence of other s; they were deceived, and led by deception to do that which they would not otherwise have done. I have no feelings of enmityto them. The leaders in this great crime have not my hatred. They have m compassion and my pity. I hold the good of the nation demands they should suffer, and I think I express this sentiment with the same feeling a judge has upon the bench when he pronounces sentence of the law against a transgressor. He does not do it because he takes pleasure in the death of the transgressor, but from a conviction that the welfare of man kind demands it. On this ground we demand this penalty shall be imposed upon these transgressors, not from hatred to them, but from a ove to the nation; not that we love them less, but the country more. I acknowled e I have afeeling of hatred for an institution that authorizes one man to make a slave of another man; that authorizes him to rob him of everything that makes life dear; of the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the right to wife an children. I hate that institution be it found where it may. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with a southern man who has been raise under that institution; but for a man raised in the northern States, the free States, who has been permitted to read and study and investigate, who indorses the institution of slavery, I have a feeling of hatred. I know it is said by some to be wrong to hate a man. I find in reading the good Book that God hated the Nicolaitans. I say in a certain sense I hate the man who had an opportunity of havinglightin his athway, and deliberately indorses the right o one man to enslave his fellowman. ItI hate any man, I hate him. I recall the remark of one of our statesmen, made many years ago in this Capitol. When a northern man got up in his place and a ologized for the institution of slavery, Mr. I and ol h, pointing his finger at him, said he envied neither is head nor his heart. I say the same thing; if a man from the North, who has had the privileges of freedom, rises and apologizes for slavery, I envy neither his head nor his heart. There is another branch of the subset Iwill refer to and then close. It is said these men claim the right of revolution. An honorable gentleman some time back said upon this floor they were to some extent justified on the eternal principle of revolution. He did not say boldl they werejastifiedin rebellion, but houndertool: to excuse rebellion upon the ground that men have the right to revolution. Iadmitthe right of revolution undercertain circumstances. here are circumstances which will justify men in risingin rebellion against the Government. The circumstance which I suppose would justify men in engaging in revolution is this: when their natural rights are invaded, and when they cannotrcgain possession of them by civil means. But, sir, did any of these circumstances exist in the case of those States that engaged in rebellion avainst the Government of the U.S.? "were their natural rights invaded? Had they no opportunity to recover their rights by civil means? I am not informed that any man has ever claimed that the U. S. had ever trampled upon one of their natural rights; not one, sir. I have not met the 1st man that claims that the rights of the citizens of those southern States were invaded by the General Government. Again, it is sometimes said that our fathers rebelled against the Government of Great Brit ain; and thatis cited to justify the rebels in revolting or rebelling against the Government of the U.S.; but is there any similarit existing betweeu the circumstancesunder which the States rebelled against this Government and those under which our fathers rebelled against the Government of GreatBritain? Our fathers had no representation in the government that was exercised over them. They had no voice in that Government. They had petitioned time and again, but in vain; it won d procure no alleviation of their sufferings. So there was no alternative but rebellion. Now, the southern States had representation in this Government. They not onlyhad a large representation, but a much larger representation than justice would have ven them. But not only that, but the South lad control of at least 2 Depts of the Federal Government at the time they rebelled. They had a majority of the ir friends at least in each House of Congress; and not only that, but they had a majorit of the judges of the Supreme Court on their side; so that they might have controlled this Government for an indefinite time, if they had not attempted to revolutionize. The only real ground that has been assigned, as I understand it, upon which the rebellion was inaugurated, was the fact that an antislavery man had been elected POTUS That was the ostensible and real ground upon which the rebellion was redicated and justihed. But that was not a sufficient jus tification. We could not for a moment yield the right of a minority to rebel because the majority would not suffer them to rule. Calling themselves Democrats, the great Democratic party of the U.S., they rebelled against the Government because the majority would not permit a minority to role! But it is said. as an apology for this act of rebellion, that they were sincere they believed that they were doing right when they engaged in rebellion. Now, sir, that thei norant portion of the people in the States that engaged in rebellion may have thought that they were right I will not pretend to dispute. But for men that called themselves statesmen, that professed to understand the principles of governmentfor such men to seriously maintain that they had a constitutional right to secede from the General Government is just a little more than I can believe. The very idea of States having a right to secede is too absurd to be entertained by statesmen. If a man takes the ground that one State has a right to secede from the Federal Government, then it follows that another State may do the same, and a 3rd and a 4th, and so on until all secede and if all have the right to secede at pleasure, of course there is no Government that is stable or permanentnone upon which we may rely and ifa State has a right to secede, whynot a county, and a town? find thus the principle might be carried out until you come down to an individual, who might claim that he had the right to withdraw from the Government and stand independent and alone and if I remember correctly, this was the ground taken by one John A. Murrcl some years ago, when he asked no favor of the Government, but demanded to be let alone and to be allowed to take care of himself, claiming that the strong had a right to triumph over the weak. Hence, if a man takes the ground that one State has a right to secede, I see no stoppingplace until every man has a right to do the same; and then all government is gone, society is destroyed, and anarchy rules. Therefore, I repeat that I cannot believe that anyintelligent man ever believed that the States had a right under the constitution of the U.S. thus to secede and disintegrate the Government of the nation. But, sir, suppose that these men were sincereadmit for tesake of the argumentshould they be screened from punishment on that account? If you take the and that every man who believes he has a rightto violate the law of the land may do so, you will have every violator of law comlng up to our courts of justice and boldly proclaiming that he believed he had a right to do just what he did, that he had a right. to kill, or to rob or to commit whatever crime he committed. If men are to be excused upon that round, there will be no security. Old John rown, I presume, was just as sincere in what he did as any man in the rebel States, and as honest, too, and yet I hold that he was executed rightfully. know this sentiment will come in conflict with the sentiments of many whom I love and respect, but I cannot help it. John Brown struck a blow at the very foundations of civil societ, and if he could be permitted to strike such a blow, every other man would be allowed to do the same thing. But sir, the blow that John Brown struck was aimed at slavery, and therefore, in in opinion, his crime was comparatively light. the blow struck by those who rebelled againstthe Government was infinitely heavier than the blow struck by John Brown, and that blow was aimed, not at slavery, but aimed at freedom and in defense of slavery. It was, therefore, an infinitely greater crime than John Browns was; and i John Brown died righteously, how can these men escape who have committed a much greater crime? Again, let me inquire how many of John Browns associates were pardoned. I confess that I am not certainly informed whether anyone of them was pardoned or not.