Mr. BANKS. I think a very simple expla nation can be given of the dispatch communi cated to the papers in SCarolina in 1861. There was a doubt on the part of the southern people whether the North would fight them if they entered into an armed rebellion. It was the interest of the Administration to satisfy the southern people that if they did proceed against the authority and laws of the U.S. they would meet resistance from the Government with all its power. And I imagine that the dispatch of Mr. Harvey was sent to Charles ton in order to satisfy the leaders of the rebellion that if they did move against the authority of the U.S. they would have to encounter the whole power of the Government. In that view it was not a criminal act on the part of Mr. Harvey. If he information for himself whihchadhceohmamd uonbitcaainteedd from the Government, the knowledge of which information would have operated against us and in their favor, that certainly would have been a treasonable act. But I do not understand that dispatch to have been of that character. Nor I do understand that the provision inserted in the appropriation bill of last year was inserted in consequence of that affair at all. I understand the facts for striking the appropriation for the salary of Mr. Harvey from the appropriation bill to have been these: Mr. Harvey disagreed with Congress in regard to the course of the Government and was in favor of the policy of the President. But he was not content with simply exPressing his difference oof opinion. The letter which he wrote and was made public was interpreted to mean that the President would be justified in using force against Congress; that was the understanding. I do not know whether that letter will bear out that construction or not; but that o the interpretation generally given to the etter. Now it would be very proper, as the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. It AYMoND] suggests, that if we do not like Mr. Harvey we should remove him or abolish the law under which he was appointed. But there is another matter involved in the matter. We have now amicable and friendly relations with the Government of Portugal. To pass an act discontinuing diplomatic relations with that Government would be in the nature of an offensive act against the Government of Portugal which the government of the U.S. should not take without some cause growing out of the diplo matic relations between the 2 Governments. Yet no person should ask that we should retain as an officer of this Government a man who has published to the people of the U.S. a recommendation to one dept of the Government to proceed against another dept with force. No person would expect us to continue in office in such relations to the Government a man who had exPressed such opinions, and therefore Congress did the only thing that was left for it to do, it declared in the most solemn manner by a vote of the 2 Houses, followed by a vote of a conference of the 2 Houses, that the salary of this officer ought not to be paid and they instructed the executive dept under no circumstances to continue the payment of the salary, and I think that if this officer remains at his office in defiance of the legislation of last year some course should be pursued by Congress to remedy the evil unless some explanation is made.