punishment of any kind. To exclude him, by reason of that offence, from continuing in the enjoyment of a previously acquired right, is to enforce a punishment for that offence notwithstanding the pardon. If this can be done, the pardon may be avoided and that accomplished indirectly which cannot be reached by direct legislation!

We do not think we can make it plainer by any additional words. Yet the majority of the committee claim, in the face of this decision, that a man who was fully pardoned on the 21st of June, 1865, had all his disabilities removed, was restored to all his rights of person and property, to vote and hold office, and was in the actual enjoyment of them all, could be, and was, deprived of the right to vote and hold office by an act of Congress, passed on the 2d day of March, 1867, for the same offence which had already been pardoned! In other words that Congress could pass an ex post facto law, by which all the beneficial effects of the pardon should be nullified, and pains and penalties inflicted, although the Supreme Court expressly declares that "this power of the President (to pardon) is not subject to legislative control," that "Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders," and that it cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions." The court says that Congress cannot control this question in advance; the committee say it can do it afterwards!

The majority go into a long disquisition upon the question, whether we were conquered rebels or conquered belligerents, and whether the Government had the right to treat us as either, and come to the strange conclusion, apparently not knowing which horn of the dilemma to take, that it was justified in treating us as both! Such a conclusion will be found wholly unsupported by any writer on public or international law, and is so clearly at war with every principle of justice and right that we think it unnecessary to argue it.

The true question, however, and, indeed, the only question in this connection, is not what the Government had the right to do, or claimed to have the right to do. but what did it do? It has made its own election, and by that election, voluntarily made, it must stand. It cannot adopt one line of action and policy to-day and another to-morrow. The Southern people, as the conquered party, have a right to demand consistency of conduct and the observance of public faith. The executive department elected to treat them as conquered rebels, and as such has granted them amnesty and pardon. The judicial department of the Government. the arbiter of the other departments, has declared this amnesty and pardon valid and effective for all purposes, and that the effects and consequences of the same are beyond any legislative control which Congress may seek to exercise over the subject.

We have already shown the recognition of the government of Virginia, as an existing, valid government, by Congress, and the necessary result of that recognition, and need not repeat. We submit, therefore, most respectfully, as the conclusion of these views, the following resolution for adoption by the Convention, viz :

Resolved, That Fayette Mauzy is eligible to, and entitled to hold his seat in this Convention.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

MOSES WALTON.
ADOLPHUS W, HARRIS,

RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MR. PORTER,

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed, whose duty it shall be to draft for the proposed Constitution, in such form and language as they shall deem most fit and advisable, and report the same to the Convention, an article which shall entitle every householder or head of a family, in addition to the articles now exempt by law from distress or levy, to hold exempt from levy, seizure or sale, under any execution or other process issued on any demand for any debt heretofore or hereafter contracted, his real and personal property, or either, whether heretofore or hereafter acquired, to the value of not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500): Provided, that such exemption shall not extend to any execution or other process issued on any demand in the following cases :

1. For the purchase price of said property, or any part thereof.

2. For services rendered by a laboring person, or a mechanic.

3. For a lawful claim for any taxes, assessments or other public charges accruing since the 2d day of April, 1865.

4. For rent accruing after the 2d day of April, 1865.

5. For liabilities incurred by any public officer, or officer of a court, or any fiduciary, or any Attorney at Law for money collected.

6. For Sheriffs', Sergeants' and Clerks' fees accruing since the 2d day of April, 1865.

7. Nor shall such exemption apply where a lien has been acquired on said property, or any part thereof, by a judgment rendered for a debt contracted since the 2d day of April, 1865: Provided, such exempt property shall not be subject to any lien by reason of any judgment heretofore rendered for a debt contracted prior to the 2d day of April, 1865, or which may hereafter be rendered; or execution or other process issued for a debt contracted after the 2d day of April, 1865, except as herein otherwise provided.

And it shall be the further duty of said committee to so frame the article in question as to preclude any construction thereof that would interfere with the sale of said property, or any part thereof, by virtue of any mortgage, deed of trust, pledge or other security thereon, or with sales made under the judgments or decrees of courts in cases where the collection of debts is not the object of such sales.

It shall be the further duty of said committee to report a provision prohibiting the General Assembly from passing any law staying the collection of debts, commonly known as "stay laws," further than may be necessary to fully carry out the provisions of this article.

It shall be the further duty of said committee to report a provision requiring the General Assembly to prescribe in what manner and on what conditions said householder or head of a family shall set apart and hold for himself and family, out of any real estate which he may have, a homestead to the value of not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), which shall be included in the property herein exempted.

And finally, it shall be the duty of said committee to report a clause to the effect that the provisions of the article in question shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.

CHARLES H. PORTER.

REPORT

OF THE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

UPON THE

PETITION OF THOMAS BARTON

AND OTHER CITIZENS OF THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, ASKING RELIEF FROM THEIR PRESENT PECUNIARY EMBARRASSMENTS, &c.

The committee has considered the subject, and arrived at conclusions which I am instructed to submit to the Convention.

The main object which the petitioners seek to obtain, is the exemption of lands and other property from the payment of their debts, which were liable therefor when the same were contracted. The debtor applies for and obtains credit upon the faith of the property he holds, which, by the law then in force, may be subjected to the payment of his debts. The creditor looked to the resources of his debtor, and lent him money or sold him property upon time, which he never would have done had he believed that he would, by subsequent legislation, be deprived of the means of making his debt, which the law gave him at the time it was contracted. Any such legislation is but repudiation in disguise, and being ex post facto in its character, is expressly prohibited by the 10th section of the 1st article of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, the committee is of opinion that this Convention has no power to exempt any property from the payment of debts, which were liable therefor at the time they were contracted.

Whilst the committee entertains the opinions expressed as to existing obligations, it has no doubt of the authority of the Convention to increase the exemptions as to debts hereafter made, and being desirous to extend relief in all cases where it is competent to do so, and to provide a homestead which will secure a home to our citizens and their families against all future liabilities, the committee recommend that the following provisions be inserted in the Constitution of the State :

PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM DEBT.

1. There shall be exempt from levy, seizure or sale, for all debts contracted and liabilities incurred after the ratification of this Constitution, in favor of housekeepers and heads of families, a homestead, not exceeding twelve hundred dollars in value, which shall be designated, held, enjoyed and alienated in the mode prescribed by law.