Mr. JOHNson. I have not troubled the House much during this session on account of sickness, which has confined me to my room. But when the gentleman who comes here this session, and a or the war is over, while I have served here from the time of the commencement of the war to this hour, when he under takes to assert here that there was a democratic party on the floor of this House which steadily opposed the war during that time, I tell him to examine the record and he will find his statement to be false: When Congress met here on the 4th day of July, 1861, under the call of Mr. Lincoln, that gentleman ought to know that his own party cry was, “A trace to all parties.” He ought to know that the Democrats met here and made no nomination for any office of this House whatever. Not till last December did they attempt to indicate a party nomination. He ought to know, further, that while the Government, or the administration ifhe will, was carrying on the war in the field, it also carried on a war against the people. It knew no man for any office within its gift unless he voted for Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Hamlin in 1860. Go through your whole list of offices. Look at your foreign ministers; look at the men in the offices around here; look at the offices created by the very necessities of the war; look at the postoffices; look at the positions in the field. Where is the Democrat who was appointed to a single office, even a cross roads ost. Office? Yet the Gentfrom NewYork admits that, in furnishin material for the field, in furnishing money an men, the Democrats did their duty and their whole duty. I ask him, in God’s name, what was it that crashed the rebellion, if it was not men and money? We are talking now about crushing the rebellion. Yet the gentleman says now that the democratic party, in its dying agonies, declared that the war had failed to restore the Union. I ask him whether he says that the war has restored the Union today. Where is your restored Union? It is in the hands of your committee of reconstruction. Does the gentleman accept the word “reconstruction” for his platform? Does he notunderstand the difference between “reconstruction” and “restoration?” Had the war restored the Union on the 29th day of Au gust, 1864, when the Chicago convention sat? Has it restored it now? t has crashed the rebellion. The Army in the field has done its duty. The Commander in Chief of the Army and every subordinate under him have done their duty. They crushed the rebellion a car ago. But is there not a political party ere in Congress today that refuses to restore the Union, a party that seeks not its restoration? The Gentfrom NewYork plays between the two. He is opposed to reconstruction and does not stand by restoration. Now, sir, I say that iteomes with an ill grace from the gentleman, who knows so well what the history of this country has been during the war, to make this general and sweeping charge. I know it has been repeated from time to time. I will tell the gentleman where the line was drawn. As to all the party measures brought up in this House, the)cmocrats voted against them as they had a right to vote, even if they were not particularly conscientious about the matter, if they were party measures and nothing more. Upon those we divided. But. look at your approriation bills? Who were the men that vote avainst them? Who were the men that called the yeas&nays? Even Mr. Vallandigham never voted against the appropriation of a single man or a single donor. [Cries of “Oh! ” “Oh! ”] Gentlemen may say “ Ohl ” “Oh! " but