Mr. HENDRICKS. I move to amend the amendment by inserting ailerthe word “shall” in the 37th line the words “ during the term of his office." I presume Iuuderstan the idea. upon which this section rests. It is, I suppose, that men who held office, and upon assuming the office took the oath prescribed by the Constitution, became obligated by that oath to stand by the Constitution and the oath, and that gain into the rebellion was not only a breach of their allegiance, but a breach of their oath. I presume that is the theory of it; and that persons who have violated the oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. ought not to be allowed to hold any office. If it does not rest upon that proposition, then I am not able to see why these men should be excluded more than others who have violated their allegiance. Now, sir, what is the obligation prescribed in the 6th article of the Constitution? “The Sens&Reps before mentioned and the membersof the severalState legislntures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the U.S and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or nflirmation to supportthis constitution.”. I resume that that oath means that in the discharge of the duties of the office the party will support the Constitution of the U.S. I have not examined any authorities upon this subject, and have seen no Opinion expressed upon it, but I presume that is the meaning an force of the oath. Wieu a senator of the U.S. takes the oath to sn port the Constitution of the U.S., it means that, as a Senator, in the discharge of his official duty, he will obey the Constitution, and in no respect violate its provisions. If a member of a State Legislature takes that oath, Ipresume it means that as a legislator for the State he will respect and obey the Constitution, and when his term of office has expired I suppose the oath ceases to be oblig atory upon him, or, rather, that the oath has done its work. If he has obeyed the oath while he held the oifice, I presume his obe dience to it is no longer required by virtue of the oath itself. Everybody, by virtue of his allegiance, is bound to obey the Constitution of the U.S., to stand by the Union. But this oath of itself is an oath of olIicc binding upon him as an officer, else why is it that if a Senator taking this oath, serves 6 years and is reelected, he is sworn again? For the simple reason that he is entering upon another term of service, and for that term of service he must take this official oath to obey the Constitution of the U.S. I presume this oath means as if it read, “Sens&Reps and all other officers in the U.S and in the States shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the U.S. in their of fices.” I know of no other purpose that there can be to require a special oath from an officer. If this be the proper construction of the oath and I do not express an opinion upon the subject with a great deal of confidence then the amendment which I propose to this section ought to be adopted, because after the term of service has expired in any particular office the official oath is satisfied, an the party becomes one of the mass of the community, and if he went into the rebellion he went into it violatin his allegiance, like any and all other citizens who with him went into the rebellion. It is for that reason that I propose the amendment.