Mr. COWAN. I have only a war to say, and it is rather general than particular. It has been the custom here recent y to assail members of the Cabinet for derelictions of duty, and to base charges against them upon anonymous letters. Sir, I think that is not fair to gentlemen holding the resonsible positions that the PostMGenl and the SecyTreasury hold to this country. I think it is exceedingly unfair that their influence and the confidence the country has in them should be attempted to be weakened and destroyed in this wa. Here we have letters read this morning which assail the action of the PostMGenl. Have the writers of those letters, if I they are respectable men and perhaps the legal presumption, if all legal presumptions are not now to)e traversed, is in favor of the fact that they are respectablehave they informed these officers of the means by which these difficultiescan be avoided? and if they have not in formed them, by what warrant are they to come here, in the 1st and the hi best council of the country, to assail them? he writer of one of these letters says there is no difficulty about this matter the PostMGenl is entirely derelict in his duty, or he is mistaken as to the means which he has within his reach to perform that duty. He says he could fill all the offices in the South ten times over with loyal men, with Union soldiers, if you please. Why has he not ven the proper officer that information? by does he wait until that officer comes here and asks for power to avoid the difficulty before he discloses that there was a legitimate and lawful means of performing it within the reach of the officer? Mr. President, I have no disposition to become either the counsel, the advocate, or the friend of these Officers; but I do dislike, in an assembly of this kind, where these men have no opportunity to be heard in reply, that these insinuations should be cast upon them, and that the count should be led to believe that somehow or ot er, covertly, they are trying to do something which is inconsistent with the duty they owe to their country and their sworn obedience to the law. This is o enly charged here as being in violation of the aw. It either is, or is not. If it is in violation of the law, I would be more inclined to believe the officer, that the obstacle in his way was insurmountable, and that he violated the law only because there was a paramount obligation resting upon him to carry out a higher and a paramount law.