This also received but ten votes.
In further discussion of the extent to which the pardon of the President goes, Mr.Reverdy Johnson cited a case which had just been argued by himself and others but was not yet decided, in the Supreme Court of the United States, as to whether an attorney in that court could be bound to take the ironclad oath as prescribed by Act of Congress, January 24, 1865.

He had no doubt, he said, that the operation of the pardon was to clear the party pardoned from the obligation to take that oath.

The case referred to was that since so widely known as _ex parte_ Garland, and decided by the Supreme Court adversely to the Constitutionality of the statute.

Mr.Howe of Wisconsin interrupted the senator from Maryland and asked him whether he knew "of any authority which has gone to the extent of declaring that either an amnesty or a pardon can impose any limitation whatever upon the power of the people of the United States, through an amendment to their Constitution, to fix the qualifications of officers." Mr.Johnson replied, "That is not the question to which I spoke.

It is quite another inquiry.