Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without a judge to hold a court, you cannot try one of these offenders. Not only a judge is necessary, but a jury is necessary; and here arises a practical difficulty, how can you obtain a jury? Sir, you know, everybody knows, that when you impanel a ury, by the decisions of very many of the courts, y the decisions of Chief Justice Marshall in the Burr trial, when you call a juror upon the stand, and the question is whether he can sit upon the jury or not, the question is raised whether he has formed any opinion based upon newspaperreports or information or history or rumor. If he has formed any opinion in the case he cannot sit on the jury. That is the ruling of several of the northern States, NewYork, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and others. Chief Justice Marshall, in the Burr trial, ruled in that same way. I believe those rulings are wrong; but at the same time they are the rulings of the courts upon that important question. Howfthen, can it be corrected? There is no way to correct it except by a law which shall declare that when jurors are called, the fact that a juror has formed an opinion based upon public rumor, based upon newspaperreports, based upon the history of the times, shall not exclude him from the jury box provided the judge is satisfied that notwithstan ng that bias of opinion he can still try the case and find a true verdict according to the evidence. For 6 months that bill, introduced by myself, has been in this body with a view to try to avoid a very practical difficulty, so that some of these men could be brought to trial. Wh, sir, let us take a practical case. suppose this, instead of being the Senate of the U.S., was a court and your honorwas the justice presiding, and we who are here present were all jurors summoned, and Jeff. avis were here, and put upon his trial, and the men here were summoned one after another to the jury box, and the counsel ofJeff. Davis should put the question to them, “ Have you formed or expressed any opinion upon the guilt or innocence of the accused?” what would they answer? Is there an honest man who would not be obliged to say that from the history of the times, from uewspa or reports, from his own information, he ha formed an opinion? Suppose the Senfrom Nevada were asked whether he had formed an opinion. He would be compelled to say he had. I see he is not now in his seat. Suppose the Senfrom Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] was called. He would be compelled, as an honest man, to say that from what he had heard about it he had formed an opinion that Jeff. Davis was guilty. What would the judge say under this ruling? “Stand aside, sir.” You would go on from one Senator or juror to another until the whole panel was exhausted, and you could not geta jury at all. There is no loyal man to be found thatyou could get.upon ajury who had not formed or expressed an opinion. Sir, you could not et ajury at all. Now, I ask the honorable Senator and those who stand with him, is it advisable for the POTUS to put Jeff. Davis on his trial, when you are sure you cannot et a jury; when, if you put him to his trial O will be acquitted? Which is the best policy? I wish to lave done with this eternal clamor and denunciation against the Executive for not bringing these men to trial. There is not, and there never was, and never can be conceived a charge so utterly groundless and without the sha ow of a foundation as this charge brought against the Administration for not bringing these men tojudgment. That is one point in the honorable Senators discourse of today to which I call attention. There is another point. He is denouncing the President for the exercise of the pardoning power. There are 1,000s and 1,000s of these men unpardoned. All the great leaders of the rebellion are still uupardoned not merely the 5 or 6 whom the Senator would bring to judgment, but 1,000s upon 1,000s. They are to be found everywhere throughout the South. If he can conceive a mode in which to bring them to trial, if he can aid in bringing them to trial, he will perform a better service, perhaps, than in denouncing the Executive for not endeavoring to do what is both impossible and absurd for him to undertake to do in the present state of the case. The responsibility rests not upon the Executive; nor do I rest under the responsi bility of this charge. I have done all that I could do to secure the enactment of a statute which alone will authorize any of these men to be put upon trial. It is sometimes charged that the men who were engaged in the military service, the officers of fire rebel army, General Lee and others, might have been tried by a court martial and executed. Who does not know that the very terms of surrender on which the rebel soldiers laid down their arms provided expressly that if they went to their homes and kept the peace and obeyed the laws and the Constitution of the country, they should not be disturbed by the military authorities? Who does not know that when an attempt was made to indict General Lee, and the question was referred to GenlGrant for decision, who made the negotiation with him, that GenlGrant 5 urned the idea that under the stipulations of t iat treaty General Lee was to be disturbed as long as be obeyed the conditions of the stipulation? I say again, banish from this Senate, bfinish from every assemblage of honorable men this clamor against the Administration for not trying and executing the men who have been engaged in this rebellion. But the honorable Senator I wish he were here says and repeats it, “ Where is Clement C. Clay? Paroled; permitted to go to his home in Alabama.” I could turn him to the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Watson] to an swer where is Clement C. Clay, and why he was aroled. I have here the recently publishe letter of that Senator. Ibring no charge against the Senfrom Massachusetts for writing this letter which I am about to read, for he has become a convert to the new theory of reconstruction invented by the other Senfrom Nevada, [Mr. Srswasr] to wit, that of universal amnesty. “ U.S. Senate CHAMBER.” Yes, sir from this very Chamber, within a few feet of where stood the Senator who at the top of his voice asked “ Where is Clement C. Clay, ” went forth the letter of appeal from the Senfrom Massachusetts for his release: Urn WASHINGTON a, una Cuannz March 3, 1866. Sm: Mrs. Clay. the wife of Clement C. Clay is now in the city and has requestedInc to obtain permission for her husband to go to his home on parole. His father is said to be at the point of death, his mother recently deceased.and, if there he no objections or reasons unbeknown to mewhy the request of Mrs. Clay should bedenied. I have no hesitation in recommendingits favorable consideration, if only from motives of humanity. as I have no doubt Mr. Clay will be fortheoming when his presence is again relljuired by the Government. have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant. IL WILSON To the Parsinnsr or THE U.S. There is an answer to the question. The chairman of the ComMilAffrs of this body, in the humanity of his nature, for which I do not reroach him, made this powerful apeal to the POTUS that C ay should be released upon arole, and pledged, so far as he could pledge himself for the honor of Mr. Clay, that he would return whenever the exigencies or the demands of the Government required it. I say, then, away with this denunciation against the Executive because he has permitted this man, from hu manitys sake, to go upon his parole to the State of Alabama. Mr. President, there seems to be a strange division in the opposition to the Republican Administration arising here in Congress; and I presume gentlemen will take no offense if I should classify this division that seems to spring u. 1st and foremost in congress is that distinguished and veteran old lea er, a Representative from Pennsylvania, who leads one branch of this distracted opposition now making war upon the Republican party. I refer to Hon. Tnsnunus Srsvns. He is the leader and chieftain of what I will denominate the universal confiscation party. In this body stands the acknowledged leader of another wing of the opposition to the Republican party in the ersou of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER] which may be denominated the universal negro suffrage party. Then there is still another branch of this distracted opposition, of which I may say the honorable Senfrom Nevada who as just taken his seat is the leader and chieflain the hanging party and last, but not least, comes that new party which, so far as I know, has yet obtained in this body but one recruit the party which is led by the other Senfrom Nevada [Mia sw.nr] the universal amnesty and universal suffrage party. We see these parties distracted, arrayed against each other in opposicion to the “fame Republican party which Mr. Joponlsicoyn inherited from the Administration that went before him. “ Black spirits and white, R edspirits and gray; Mingle. mingle, mingle, You that mingle may." Now, Mr. President, I will turn to another point. The Senfrom Nevada denounces me, as Well as the honorable gentleman who sits beside me, [Mr. Cow.m] hocause we sustain here what are denominated State rights. Sir, I do stand here to defend State rights not State wrongs, but the rights which do belong to the States under the Constitution; not a right to secede from the Union, not a right to break up the Government, not a right to overthrow the authority of the Government and form a new Government; but the rights which the Constitution does secure are just as sacred to me as any other right for which my heart ever aspired or my voice has ever pleaded. Rell you, sir and that, in myjudgmeut, is the great mistake of the men who are continually straining every nerve to centralize all power here in the Federal Government I tell you, if it were the last word I ever uttered, that unless we can defend the rights of the States, it is in vain to be e that we can defend the rights of any individual citizen who resides within the States. For the root mass of human rights, the rights which lime in my family, in my wife, in my children, in my home, in all my surroundings, in my reutation, in my person, in all the great rights which I hold dear, I find my protection in the power and inde cadence of the State in which live. It is llgse oiisin which defends my wife, my children, my homestead, all those near and dear liberties that cluster around and make life on earth desirable. The Federal Government defends Wisconsin from aggressions from abroad. The Federal Government defends Wisconsin in the enjoyment of free and unrestricted commerce and liberty with the other States of the Union. But, sir, when it comes home to the liberties of the individual citizen, I tell you that State rights, and State rights alone, are their protection; and the man who overlooks it does not understand the very foundation on which our liberties rest. Sir, while I would giva to this Government Ievery power which the Constitution gives, while am willing to sacrifice all that I have and all that I am to maintain its supremacy, I tellyon with just as much earnestness that I am for defending the rights of the States under the Constitution from being aggressed and encroached upon by the insidious legislation of Congress. Let no man, therefore, stand up to charge me with believing in the doctrine of secession. The right to secede is not one of the rights of the States; but it is one of the rights of the Slflbed to defend and control their own domestic institutions. I say to gentlemen here who are pressing every nerve to concen trate all power in this vernment that the are sleeping on a political volcano of which they form no conception a volcano that will sweep them and the party that they sustain out of power, if they connuo to trespass upon the rights of the States, with as much certainty, and consign them to as much condemnation as the old Federal party of 1800 ever received at the hands of the American people. Sir, to defend the rights of the States is our great duty now. We have fun ht the battle for the Union. We have crushe all opposition to its so remacy. We have compelled every armed re)el to ground his arms and submit to its authority. All the war forces and war enginery of this great Government are waked up and are in full play. The train is made up, the engines are in motion, and all the danger is that now that the war which waked up these forces O engage in it have censed, now that peace has come, We must still keep the war engines f on the track, and the war powers in 1 operation. I In my judgment, that is the great mistake Which the honorable Senfrom Nevada makes. He does not realize that the war has ceased. He is still making war on the South. He is still denouncing them as rebels. He is still firing the northern heart and treating them as if they were still in arms against the Govornment. Sir, that is not the duty of this hair. I know very Well that when we werein the midst of this great War that with whatever fIorce of language or of sentiment or of thought have been endowedI have urged upon the people when the war was pending to wake up all these tremendous powers. I remember on one occasion tohave used this language, on th"e 9th of February, 1864: War and not peaceis our real situation. Whnt evermayhave producedthis state of things. w a irs upon usWith:11its necessities.With all its realities, with all itsstern duties. and we mustfight it through. At this hour. whateverwill give strengthto our ar miesin the field and bring revenueto support the demands the 1st consideration of conremand rdlf every Dept of this Government. f lctt to me I would 1.1 eakbut oneword. Fillupthe ranks. iress on the co umns. To spare lhcunnce cssuryshodding of“ blood; tosave thercseurccsof the country: to solve a lfinancial questions, and putnur credit upon a basis so strong as to command the"10110of the world. I would speak no other word but lFill up the ranks. presson the columns. T secure liborty and Union: to securepeacewith all the other ntions bing themwith respect, ins )ir and to put a not on to t conspiracy founded at against on slavery. which makes war us. I would still say. as the most radical and at the same time the most certain of all measures, Fi ll up the ranks. presson the columns." Thu t, sir, was the language of myself as a humble member of this bod when we were in the midst of the wariwhen blows were to be struck and victories to be won or all to be lost. That was the language when I could feel in in; soul that the very life of this country depende upon the many arms of her sons; whether the country was to live or die de ended on whether we could crush the military orcc of the rebellion. Sir, we have crushed it, in the blessing of God, we have broken it down, it has surrendered; and now what is our condition? Peace. What are our victories now to be won? Moral victories. Then it was military victories, the war of forces; now it is a war of mind with mind, heart with heart, judgment withjudgment, sentimentwith sentiment prejudices to be overcome, hearts to be warmed into ailbetion to the Government; and the man who does not know that in a moral warfare magnanimity is more powerful than denunciation, that love is more attractive and powerful than hatred, knows nothing of the human heart. He has not read history, he has not studied statesmanship, he knows nothing of Chris tin pity or of its divine teachin, w 10 does not know that a fallen, stricken oe, surrendering to your power, is better governed by magna nimity than by vengeance, y love than by hate. But, so these gentlemen, the President is abusing the power to pardon. I have in in hand one of the forms of this instrument which is executed as the pardon. It is executed upon conditions, and the conditions which are imposed have commanded the judment and the admiration of the world. Sir r orton Pete if my honorable friendfrom Massachusetts will allow me to quote a titled authority Sir Mor ton Peto, when he returned from this country to Europe, spoke of the conditions which were contained in this instrument of pardon upon which the rebels renewed or declared their renewal of allegiance to the Government as a thin which would challenge the admiration of man nd. One would think. standing here and listening to the arguments of gentlemen like the Senfrom Nevada, that we were in the court of StPetershurg dealing with Poland, or that we were in the court of some of the tyrannical kings of England dealin with Ireland. “ confiscation l” Hangingl Infernal rebels ive them no terms and no quarter!” “ Eey are no longer to be regarded as worthy of the name of an American citizen, " though they have surrendered, taken the oath of allegiance, laid down their arms, and for months and months, and for a whole car or more have shoWn by their acts and by their conduct that they are determined to live at peace and in subjection to the laws of the U.S.; and so Well have they behaved that even the Senator himself, with all the vengeance to which he could give utterance. declares here, when I put the question to him and brought him to the point, that he himself would not try but 5 or 6. I Wlll.Jnst refer to one or 2 of the conditions. which are contained in the pardon. The Presuient grants to an individual “ Full pardqnvandamnestyfor all objenseaby him cpolimedm. iintted.arising from participation. director im the said rebellion. conditioned as follows: B“; fihespgrgpn tgtlfieof negrac; uptil A SD G 00 DIGSE H 0tion of the HI 100 President. dated May 5), 18?!) am and, sir what is that oath? It is an bath by which the party solemnly swears"In presenceof Almighty God that I forth faithfully will hum support.protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S and the Union of the States thereunder and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during ntchipoaettioisntin o slaves. So help me God." Every man who accepts this pardon takes it upon condition that he will sulpport the emancipation proclamation of the POTUS and all the laws of congress passed in relation to the emancipation of the slaves. This binds them by the express condition of the pardon itself. If they violate it, if they refuse to obey those laws, if for any reason they shall violate this oath, not only the crime of moral perjury rests upon them, but the pardon itself becomes absolutely void. What further, Mr. President? This pardon contains another condition, that it is “ to be void and of no effect if the said A B shall hereafter at any time acquire any property whatever in slaves or make use of slave labor." The great majority of these pardons were issued before the constitutional amendment had been adopted by a number of States sufficient to ratify it. ear in mind that the great object, one of the very greatest objects in view in the closing up of this rebellion was the utter extirpation of slavery; and every man who book a pardon bound himself to favor the proclamation of emancipation and bound himselfnevor to own any slave labor or to buy or sell a slave. This was binding them in advance of the possage of the constitutional amendment. [under take to say that no wiser, more oiitic, or more efficient instrumentality could be used in the southern States than to bind the men who sought pardon to favor emancipation and the emancipation proclamations an the extinction of slaver. Sir, to whom were these pardons given I generally to those men who have property. Ifa man living in a State where slaVery existed is not permitted himself to own slaves, does he desire that the institution of slavery should exist around him I Not at.all. It makes it his interest, his policy, as well as his sworn duty, 1:0do all in is power to extirpate slu very, what we were trying so do. Men are denouncin the POTUS for doing a very thing for which we had been snuggling in this contest, denouncing the pardons given by the President when they were the greatest instrumentality to influence that people and operate upon the minds of that people to bring them to favor the emancipation of the slaves and the adoption of this very constitutioual amendment. I say, then, let us hear no more of this dennn ciation here because the Executive in the exercise of that high power with which the Constitution has clothed him, has used his power in the most potent way possible to destroy the institution of slavery, at. the same moment that he was binding them by oath, by interest, and by duty to support the Government of the U.S. Every pardon was accepted by the person receiving it upon these errpress conditions. have before me the form of acceptance addressed to the SecyState: Hon. VILLLUI 11.Srwum, SecyState. Sm: I have the honor to acknowledge the recoipl of the Presidents warrant of pardon hearing date. 1843 in, d hereby sifnify my acceptance of the same, with all the condit oustherein specified. There is one other point in the Senators speech to which I wish to call attention. Ho repeated here time and time again during his discourse that the purpose on ourpart who sustain the policy of the Administration is to bring unmet iately into the Halls of Congress unwashed, bloody handed rebels, with their shirts yet smoking with the blood of our sons. Mr. President, I hurl back the charge as utterly unfounded. There is no man here sustaining the policy of the Administration that has ever avowed any such doctrine as that. The immediate admission of unwashed rebelsl No, sir, no! It has been charged again and again, the newspaperpress has been loaded dowu with these infamous falsehoods, for infamous they are, in charging upon the President or his supporters that it was their purpose to bring into Congress rebels to rule the Government. It is utterly false. But what have they contended for 1 They have contended that Congress should judge, the Senate for itself, the HoRep for itself, upon the admission of its members. My frien upon the right [Mr. Susixnu] smiles asI refer to this argument. Itjn an argument which he never has met and never can meet. I say that the Senate of the U.S. under the Constitution is made the sole judge when a person coming to its doors shall enter or shall not. I say that the POTUS has no more to do with that question than the judges of the Supreme Court, and I would spurn any attempt by either President or court to overrule the Senate in its judgment on that question. Sir, I put a case not long O in reference to the State of Maine; I willca l itagain to the attention of the Senate. It is necessary some times that things be repeated and reeated again and again. What was the case it put? A State may be interrupted by civilWar or foreign war. If we were engaged with a war with England, her forces might come down the river StJohn, perhaps, advance into the State of Maine, and capture a portion of the State, as she once did in the war of 1812. Suppose she should cature one of the congressional districts, could that district elect a member to the HoRep? No, sir. Suppose she should capture 2, could these districts elect members to the HoRep? Notat all. Maine has 5 congressional districts. If GreatBritain should capture all but one, could that one elect a member to the House “Representatives? Although foreign war had overrun 4/5ths of the State, 4 of the live congressional districts, still that one district would be entitled to its representation in the Congress of the U.S. How would it be with the Senate? If the enemy should capture one district or 2 districts, Maine could still elect a Legislature but suppose she was to capture 4 of the 5 districts of Maine, could Maine elect a Legislature? No, sir, Maine could not. elect aLegislatnre. If she could not elect a Legislature, she could not elect a Senator. Could not the Senate judgiof the fact whether Maine was in a condition to elect a Legislature, whether there was a Legislature to elect a Senator, as well as judge whether the Senator had been elected according to the forms of law? So, in such a case as that Maine might be entitled to a Rep resentutive in the HoRep when she would not be entitled to a Senator in this body. Itisjustso with ncivil commotion or civilWar. A civilWar may disturb one district in a State so that it cannot elect a Representative, and yet the other districts may. When they had a rebellion in Massachusetts long ago, and one of their congressional districts was overrun, perhaps it was so disturbed that they could not elect a member of Congress at that election, while all the other districts might. So if a whole State should be overrun by a civil commotion, it might not be in a condition to elect a Legislature at all. Could not the Senate judge of that? The Senate has the right to judge whether there is a Legislature to clect a Senator, and the supreme judgment is given to this bodg and it does not belong to the other. House audit duos not belong to the President and itdoes not belong to the Supreme Court; and I would no more regard the Sergeant at Arms of the House than I would regard the marshal of the Supreme Court or than I would regard the private secretary of the President if the should come here to tell us whom we should admit or whom we should exclude. No, sir, we by the Constitution are made the supreme judges of the fact whether Senators are elected, whether there is a Legislature to elect them. Mr. President, gentlemen have supposed that on one occasion here they found the senate voting that Congress must join in some act before members could be elected. True, sir; and when was it? We were in the midst of the war, and the question came up whether we should allow them to elect presidential electors to take part in the decision of the question of the Presideuc. There was a bill pendin here to organize all the southern States as crritories, the bill had passed the other House under the lead of Mr. Davis, and in this body was urged by the Senfrom Ohio, Mr. wADE.]