18

eral as well as State, the possession of the power itself. They
shall not pass any ex post facto law; or in other words they
shall not inflict a punishment for any act which was innocent
at the time it wag committed, nor increase the degree of pun-
ishment previously denounced for any specific offence."

Justice Patterson said, "The historic page abundantly
evinces that the power of passing such laws should be with-
held from Legislators; as it is a dangerous instrument in the
hands of bold, unprincipled, aspiring and party men, and
has been too often used to effect the most detestable pur-
poses."

It has been already seen that the reconstruction Committee
base their proposed act of proscription upon the same grounds
of safety to the State and punishment of treason, which the
British Parliament, some centuries ago, alleged in justifica-
tion of similar acts.

Your Committee would not revive the dead issues of the
past. But truth and justice require that they shall not evade
the responsibilities of the present crisis. This question of
proscription involves the consideration of the nature and
character of the offence which is thus proposed to be punish-
ed. The Reconstruction Committee denounced it as a crime
of unmitigated rebellion and treason. In all questions of
criminality, the motives and purposes of the act fix its legal
and moral character. The same act may be wilful and pre-
meditated murder, or manslaughter, or excusable or justifiable
homicide, according to the motive which shall appear to have
actuated the party. Are not the persons proposed to be pro-
scribed, and all who acted with them in the great war of se-
cession entitled to be judged by the same elementary rule in
the administration of justice? The question then is, were
the people of the States which attempted secession, honest
and sincere in their avowal of their belief in the right of se-
cession and of the reasons for its exercise ? By their public
documents co'emporaneous with their action, they put them-
selves on trial before the country and the world for the truth
and sincerity of their avowals. "The wager of battle" de-
cided against their right of secession. That question was
thus finally settled : "banished to the realms of speculative
abstractions." But in considering the question of damages,
is there anything in mitigation ? Was their act an unpar-
donable crime ? or wag it a pardonable mistake ?

In addition to their public, solemn, cotemporaneous decla-
tions at the time of secession, and before and during the war,
the Reconstruction Committee, after the close of the war,
summoned before them Alexander H Stevens, who had been
Vice President of the Confederate States. They examined
him on oath and report the following questions and answers :

Question. "In what particular did the people believe their
constitutional liberties were assailed or endangered from the
Union?"