Mr.Trumbull thought the repeal would be a "valuable expression of opinion on the part of Congress that general pardons and restoration of property will not be continued, and if they President continues to pardon rebels and restore their property by individual acts under the Constitution, let him do so without having the sanction of Congress for his act." Mr.Reverdy Johnson took issue with Mr.Trumbull.

He maintained that the President's powers to grant pardons, as conferred by the Constitution, had not been affected by the provision of law whose repeal was now urged.

He declared that the power of the President "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" was as broad, as general, as unrestricted as language could make it.

He could find no logical ground for the distinction made by Mr.Trumbull between individual pardons and general amnesties by proclamation--in illustration of which he said President Washington had by proclamation pardoned the offenders engaged in the Whiskey Insurrection.

The enactment of the provision had not, in Mr.Johnson's opinion, enlarged the President's pardoning power, and its repeal would not restrict it.
It was thought that a majority of the Senate concurred in Mr.Johnson's interpretation of the Constitution, but they passed the bill as a rebuke to the scandalous sale of pardons which Mr.Chandler had brought to the attention of the Senate.