Mr. ROUSSEAU. I am perfectly aware of that, Mr. Speaker; and it is not my fault that he is not here. I was not here when he indulged in that denunciation of AndrewJohnson and his friends. I must take this 0 por tunity to reply to those remarks; andIwill say to the gentleman‘s colleague that, if the gentleman is not here now, I suppose he will e back some day; and I will account to him for whatever I may now say in his absence. I only wish, Mr. Speaker, to allude. in all fairness and courtesy to the course of that gentleman. I shall do it in such terms as seem to me appropriate. If the gentleman were here, I should be glad, because I might then use terms different from those which I employ now. Let me read a part of what the gentleman chose to say on the occcsion to which I have referred: “ Sir, let AndrewJohnson rememberthat the very peoplewho aresustaining him to dny.the very men who are callin upon 1 a country to support the President's policy, are the same menwho so vehemently denounced him and hounded him a few months ago. They are the men who were against him and all otherswhowerefighting for the Government during the bloodyyears of war. None of his old friends support him now, except it maybe some parasite. some lickspittlp, who wants some contemptible officewithin his gift." Now, sir that assertion of the Gentfrom Illinois is false, to begin with. It is unjust to the President and his friends; and it is more unjust to the gentleman himself than to anybody concerned. I ask him, sir, who are Grant and Sherman and Thomas? Are not they supporters of the President? And will the gentleman tell them that they are lick spittles? Who are the 100s of 1,000s of honest and loyal men who fought in the war for the Union and who agree with the President? Will the gentleman call them “lick spittles?” Yes, sir; he denounces them all as lickspittles, and men who are seeking some contemptible office! The gentleman did not tell the House what caused all that ebullition of passion and rage. It was the removal of one of his friends from a contemptible office in Peoria; an editor of a newspaper, who was only excelled by the gentleman hiinsel in his abuse of the President and his friends; a man who ought not to have the influence of an office to aid him in his purposes of detraction. That man was removed, and hence all this vile abuse of the President and his friends; hence this unworthy deportment of a member of Congress, assuilin, in these times of doubt and distrust, the big wet official in the nation. Sir, is that the way in which to restore peace to the country? It is at least the only way in which that gentleman, and others like himself, attempt to do it. But, sir, as I was remarking, this House, from the beginning of the session, has held restoration in the alm of its hand. A half hour’s work would have been sufficient to accomplish it at any moment. If the Lincoln Johnson policy had been adhered to by this House; if legally elected members from the southern States, lo oi as any here, had been admitted upon this oor, restoration would have been accomplished. But, asks the Gentfrom Illinois. what has AndrewJohnson done? I ask you, sir, what has been done in reference to this whole matter that AndrewJohnson has not done? And I ask again, what has been done by him that any man on this fl00r wishes to have undone? What man dare say that he would repudiate the past action of AndrewJohnson, the steps toward restoration which he has taken? Who would shut up the customhouses in the South and suspend the collection of customs?. Who would recall the assessors and collectors of taxes in the southern States? Who would close the courts there? Who would recall the postmasters, and suspend the operations of the postoffices throughout that portion of the Union? Who would repudiate the President’s action in all these respects? And, sir, what have we done here? Sir, it is said that on a certain occasion Queen Elizabeth, as was the custom of the monarchsof that realm, asked the Speaker of the House of Comm“ ons, “What have you passed, sir?” He said, 7 weeks, your Royal Highness.” In like manner you could answer, “ 7 months.” If we have passed anything else, except a Freedmen’s ureau bill, and a few other such measures, I should like to know what it is. And yet, sir, this day we might have been at our homes and the country in the recess of healing. We might have had loya members from southern States who were legally elected on this floor. We might have thus completed the work of Andrew ohnson, and rejoiced in a restored and happy country. Instead of that we have spent all our time in the denunciation of rebels and in prevoking sectional strife. I wish to say Mr. Speaker, that I have no love for rebels, but that, on the contrary, if I hate anybody I hate those who have brought this trouble upon the nation. I have no excuses to offer for those who were the ringleaders in the commission of this great and terrible crime. I am of the opinion that the should be arrested and tried, and if convicte of trea son they should hang for it, if the interest of the country should demand it. Mr. Speaker, as to rendering some of the classes of persons named in this bill ineligible to hold any federal office, if it were legally proper, I should not say a word. I believe those who committed this great crime and brought this desolation upon tenation, should suffer for it. I have no hesitation in saying that the nation itself should look to them. at let us punish men according to the laws which fixed the punishment at the time the crime was commit ted. I would not take the vilest miscreant on the face of the earth, evenif I had the power and punish him against the law. We have had enough of that during the troublous times which, thank God, are passed. I objected to very little that was done by those who administered the Government which was necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. The war, however, is now over, and I think we have had unconstitutional action enough. It seems now we will never get back to the old land marks; that we will never get baek to a constitutional basis, and that men have really forgot ten what the Constitution provides for and what it demands. I said awhile ago, Mr. Speaker, that the Lincoln Johnson policy had been departed from. I wish to call the attention of the house for one moment to a single instance in which that was done. In 1861 Mr. Maynard, from East Tennessee, was elected to Congress, came to this city, took his seat, and filled out his term. He was elected in August, 1861. He was elected after the ordinance of secession was adopted by Tennessee after the battle of Bull Run was fought, and in the midst of a mighty war, the end of which no man living could foresee. He came here representing a district in Tennessee, while his eoleagues were not able to get here being prevented by the rebels. But we were then told that this war was prosecuted for the preservation of the Union, and for that purpose only. Mr. Maynard after the war is over is again elected to Congress from the same district. He comes to this city to take his seat, but strange to relate is refused admission. Why, sir? I wish any gentleman upon this floor would tell me what ifference there is between Mr. Maynard of to day and Mr. Maynard of 1861. I will yield to any gentleman for an answer. He is the same man. He comes here representing the same constituency. The only difference, sir, is that the war is now over, and we were then in the midst of it. Taylor comes here. His predecessor elected in that year was also admitted. Stokes comes here. His predecessor was also admitted, not in that car but afterward. He could not get here for the rebels. Gentlemen say, however, they cannot receive Representatives from isolated districts, but must receive the whole State. Put your finger upon a disloyal man claiming a seat here from that State. Put your linger upon an illegally elected man claiming a seat from that State. Do you know, sir, what their constituency was? I wish to calfthe attention of the House to that fact.