n woe as others. I have long since wished that
capital punishment were abolished. But I never dreamed that all
punishment could be dispensed with in human society. Anarchy, treason
and violence would reign triumphant. The punishment now prescribed
is the mildest ever inflicted upon traitors. I might not consent
to the extreme severity pronounced upon them by a provisional
Governor of Tennessee--I mean the late lamented Andrew Johnson of
blessed memory--but I would have increased the severity in this
section. . . . In my judgment we do not sufficiently protect the loyal
men in the rebel States from the vindictive persecutions of their
rebel neighbors."

Mr. Blaine of Maine called the attention of Mr. Stevens to the fact
that on the 17th of July, 1862, Congress had passed an Act of which the
following was one section: "That the President is hereby authorized,
at any time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may
have participated in the existing rebellion in any State or part
thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions, at such times and
on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare."
"Under and in pursuance of this Act," said Mr. Blaine, "the late
President Lincoln issued a proclamation granting a great number of
pardons upon certain specified conditions, and subsequently President
Johnson issued his celebrated amnesty proclamation granting pardons to
certain specified classes in the South that had participated in the
Rebellion. . . . Do we not by the proposed action place ourselves in
the attitude of taking back by Constitutional amendment that which has
been given by Act of Congress, and by Presidential proclamation issued
in pursuance of the law? and will not this be justly subjected to the
charge of bad faith on the part of the Federal Government?"

Mr. Stevens replied that a pardon, whether by the President having the
power or specifically by Act of Parliament or Congress, extinguishes
the crime. "After that," said he, "there is no such crime in the
individual. A man steals and he is pardoned. He is not then a thief
and you cannot call him a thief, or if you do you are liable to an
action for slander. None of those who have been fully pardoned are
affected by this provision."

Mr. Blaine replied that the Constitutional amendment would be held to
override the President's proclamation, being organic in its nature and
therefore supreme. "That," said Mr. Blaine, "is