Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not hear all that the Senator said the other day on this subject, but I had understood him riot to dispute the power. Perhaps, I stated his position too strongly. I think it cannot well be questioned, as one of law, that the President does possess the power to pardon classes of citizens byP. lamation. o that be conceded and I will not undertake to add to the argument of the Senfrom Maryland on that subject then why repeal this section? The repeal of the section will not take from the Preside nt any power which he possesses under the Constitution. His power under the Constitution we cannot in any way impair. Then the only effect of the repeal will be an expression, as it may be understood by the country, of the will of congress against the policy that is pursued by the 2xecutive. I think that policy is the wise one, and therefore I shall regret to have any expression made by Congress against that policy, or any expression which may be so construed. A singular subject has been introduced into the debate, Mr. President: the responsibility for the failure to bring Mr. JeffersonDavis to trial. I am not able to see exactly how it connects itself with this bill. The POTUS has not pardoned him. I understand the Senfrom Michigan, who addressed the Senate a few minutes ago, [Mr. HowARD, to lay any responsibility there may be upon that subject to the charge of the POTUS I am notable to seein what way the POTUS can control the action of the courts. The Senator suggested that he had undertaken at a former time to prove that Mr. JeffersonDavis could be tried in any of the States into which the war was carried. I do not propose to discuss that question now. I understand that the late AttyGen of the U.S., Mr. Speed, gave an opinion adverse to that view. But, sir, suppose that Mr. JeffersonDavis could be tried in the State of Pennsylvania because of the invasion of that State by one of the southern armies, is it within the power of the POTUS to bring him to trial within the State of Pennsylvania? If in fact he can be tried there, how, and what power of the Government is to bring him to that trial? Has the grand jury of either of the districts in Pennsylvania preferred an indictment against him? Is there a pending case in Pennsylvania which would justify the POTUS in sending him into that State for trial? Although the position of the Senator were conceded, how does that show any fault as against the Executive on this question? If the judiciary in Pennsylvania have taken no steps to bring him to trial, how can the Executive bring him to trial in that State? As I understand, an indictment has been found against him in but one court, and that is in the circuit court of the U.S. for the district of Virginia. The Chief Justice of the U.S. presides in that court. Ishe responsible for the failure to bring Mr. Davis to trial? I do not choose to discuss that. The Chief Justice has giv.en to the country the reasons which have him in not bringing him to trial in ichmond. I think, his reason a year ago or more was that martial law prevailed in the State of Virginia, and therefore he would not under take to hold a civil court where the power was divided between the military and the civil authorities; that he would not be justified in trying him in a civil court while the military courts had any authority in the State. Whether that was a sufficient reason or not I do not choose to Idiscuss. That was the reason assigned by him. do not understand that the Chief Justice said that the fault was with the Presidentor that there was any fault about it, but simply that at that time martial law prevailed in W and it was not proper for him to hold a court there. I do not know authoritatively from himself what reason governs him now. There is no pretext that martial law divides the sway with the civil o in that State. For months past the civil authority has been supreme in the State of Virginia. Why is JeffersonDavis not brought to trial upon an indictment the finding of which is known to all the country? I understand, as has been suggested by the Senfrom Maryland, the last reason assigned is that under the adjustment of the districts and circuits by the law of the last session the judges cannot hold their courts in the circuits.