Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I did not intend to say another word on the bill now before the Senate, but as the Senfrom Maine made quite a direct allusion to a portion of the argument which I felt it to be my duty to present, I will very briefly reply. I do not, in the 1st place intend to reply at any length to that portion of his speech which was political. Of course he knows that he differs from the minority here upon the question upon which he has expressed an opinion, and that was, that the Democratic party was reslponsible for the late war. My views are simply these: this was a Government, aconfederation of equal States, each State secure, under the constitution, in the control of its domestic af fairs. Its domestic institutions were not at all to be controlled by the Federal Government. In respect to one of the institutions of aportion of the States, there was a constitution a guarantee of its protection, and all the States were pledged in good faith to stand by that guarantee as by every other provision of the constitution. I thought that any disregard of the obligations of the constitution, any attack upon the provisions of the constitution, any refusal to obey any portion of the constitution, was revolution my in its character and tended to disruption, and I did think, for a number of years, some of the States in the North, and many of the people of the North, under the sentiment thatt ere was a higher law than the constitution, had refused that sort of respect to a portion of the constitution which was necessary for the eace and quiet of the country. On the other and, I think that there were men in the southern States, known as firecaters disturbers of the peace, that took advantage of what was a partial sentiment of the North, to excite have violent prejudice on the part of the people of o South toward the people of the North. then believed, and I yet believe, that it was the agitation by a portion of the men of the North and the agitation by a portion of the men of the South that got the people of the North and the people of the South to hate each other, and thence came war. That was my opinion then, and that is my o iuion now. I o not admit the force of the Senatorsar gument that in the South the Democratic party was particularly strou, and because the revolution broke out in the South, therefore the Democratic party, as a party, are responsible for it. When the men of the South went off into revolution they so arated their connection with the Democrac of the North. Then the Democracy of the forth stood alone upon its fealty and its allegiance to the constitution of the Union. Sir, is it fair to say that because a portion of the Democratic party was found in the South, and that a portion of those men were guilty of wrong, therefore it attaches to the whole party? Does the Senator ignorethat mighty party at the North? Is he not aware of the fact that Indiana and Illinois alniost continuousl were Democratic States? Does he ignore tic fact that in the great empire State of Ohio the Democratic party for ha f the time had maintained an ascendency? Does he dispute the fact that in the great State of Pennsylvania the Democratic party for many years controlled its affairs? Does he not know that in the Empire State of NewYork the Democratic party prior to and up to the present time has been and is a mighty power? Then, sir, strong here, strong in the orth alone, giving the great vote that the Senfrom Kentucky referred to yesterday, a mighty party within the northern States alone, it did not cease to be a part because the southern Democracy went off from it and went into revolution. If the Senator can satisfy himself that to deny constitutional obligation, and to set up above that the conscience of the citizen against the Constitmtion to a itate those questions which the constitution as settled, is not revolutionary in its tendencies, that it does not tend to disrupt and break up the Union, then the Senator can sat isfy himself that his portion of the people are not at all resonsible. Nor, sir, oIundertake to discuss the further question which he understands very much better than I do, who has a special right to the confidence of the POTUS I did not help to elect him, the Senator did. I hope the President will confine his patronage to the men who helpedeto elect him. That is my feeling upon that subject, and if that is at all a disturbing question with the Senator, I hope that he will not in future be disturbed by it. The Senator says, not addressing us particularly, but as a sort of fricudlylecture to his own party and therefore I am not required to an swer it at lengththat there is no danger of disruption in his own party, that men may make themselves perfectly easy on that subject. I have not been disturbed upon that question, and I have not heard of any Democrat saying he was disturbed about it. Who has been disturbed? It must be on his own side, it is not here; none of us have said a word about it. The Senfrom Wisconsin the other day alluded to it, and he seemed to be afraid that somebody was goin to take the President away from him. I hope e will be entirely satisfied by the assurance ven to him this morning by the Senfrom Iaine. Sir, if the Republican party was a little different party from that which it is, I should think there might be some danger of disorganization. I know e fact, because I have heard it here in debate, that the Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowm] and the Senfrom Connecti cut [Mr. Dixos] do not agree with the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] and the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. VADE] I have seen their animated and an y debates here upon questions of policy. T know, because have observed it in debate, that there is this difference of opinion among the gentlemen of the majority; but perhaps the Senfrom Maine is right in saying that no differences of principle, no differences upon questions of policy are dangerous to the organization of the republican party. There was said to be a stronger and than principle and policy, and that was “the cohesive power of public plunder.” It may be that the Senfrom Maine has more condeuce in the power that may possess over the union of his party than the cohesive power of principle. He understands this question better than do.