Mr. HENDRICKS. Then, Mr. President, I think with the Present explanation of the Senator, his language yesterday and this morning was very unfortunate. In his criticism upon the SecyState, in writing to Mr. Motle upon information from an obscure person, think that his language was unfortunate. If the SecyState got this information, to whom ought he to communicate it? He made no public unatter of it; he did not publish it to the country; but he says to Mr. Motley: “Sir; a man has written to the President that you have used this language; did you usoit or not?” He gives him an opportunity to explain it, and it never comes before the world until the Senfrom Massachusetts brings it out. There was no effort on the part of the SecyState to prejudice Mr. Motley or anybody else before the American people; but a letter was addressed to Mr. Motley for explanation in regard to information that has been communicated to the President, information that the President could not shut his ears to, whether it came from an eminent or obscure person. Yesterday the Senator felt himself authorized to say: “I havethe honor to be a friend of Mr. Motley, and therefore it is that I have introduced the resolution. I am also a Senator of the U.S., and I deem it important to the public interest that we should know on what authority the SecyState has undertaken to address one of as he has. our foreign ministers I received a letter identical in language, so far as I can judge, with that which secns to be set forth by the SecyState in his letter, and it was addressed to mefrom Europe, as chairman of the Senate ComForRel; but it was from a person so entirely obscurethat I regarded the letter as nothing but anonymous, and I threw it into the fire. The SecyState has made it the basis of inquiries addressed to Mr. Motley, which I here characterize.” will not “Which I will not here characterize.” What is there, sir, to characterize? The SecyState says to Mr. Motley: “Certain information has come to the President; what explanation have you to make of it? Did you denounce the American democracy? Did you say that the President was an object of disgust? Did you say that the SecyState was hope lessly degraded?” Whom should he have addressed except Mr. Motley? He addressed him, gave him this information, and allowed him to make an explanation. Is not Mr. Motley's explanation sufficient? Is it not satisfactory? Does the Senator on this information expect to make a more satisfactory explanation for Mr. Motley than he has made himself? Or does he want to find some obscure man in Paris, a citizen of this country, and attack him? What is the purpose of all this? What does it mean? What does the Senator want it for?. This was not made public by the SecyState; it is made public by the Senfrom Massachusetts. It has not been used by the SecyState to the prejudice of Mr. j; but Mr. Motley has been allowed an opportunity to explain, and the correspondence laid among the files of the Dept until called for by the Senator. Now, what is wrong about this?. Should not Mr. Motley be allowed to make his explanation when such charges are Presented? If any man makes a charge against me I shall be obliged to the friend who will allow me an opportunity to explain, and shall not say that it is a “not to be characterized, “ to be denounced. I shall not say that, and Mr. Motley cannot say it. If he is asked for an explanation, and he makes it, he must stand there, and, as his friend, the Senfrom Massachusetts, cannot say that the SecyState did wrong in. Mr. Motley an opportunity to explain in regard to so grave a: This is all I have to say.