Mr. JOHNson did stand out in favor of the cause. of the nation? Is it not true that he did stand out under circumstances of great embarrassment and danger and inconvenience and discomfort to himself? Is it not true that he risked more in his devotion to the Union than any Senator upon this floor? That is the argument of the etter. The next point made by the letter is that the policy of Congress is not right. The question is simply, has he a right to say that? he Senfrom Michigan thinks not. Because he holds an office he is not allowed to speak! When did the Senfrom Michigan 1st an nounce that doctrine? I think for the 1st time today. I never heard that he complained that gentlemen of his own political faith availed themselves of their position and their commanding influence be are the country to influence public opinion. Is it true that because a man holds an office, either at home or abroad he ceases to be a citizen, ceasesto be interested in the pros crity of the country, and ceases to have a right to express his views upon important questions. For uwhile it was attempted to be disiised that there was a difference between the resi dent and Congress. I recollect to have heard an able argument from the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Suuiiius'] to prove that there was but very little difference. I did not believe in the argument then; I do not now. There was then, there is now, a marked difference between the views ef the ma'ori of Congress and those of the Presidento the U.S. We all know that; we know it as well as we know anything. The President believes, in re rd to the southern States, that a certain po icy ought to be adopted, and the majority of Congress believes that another policy ought to be adopted. Now, I ask Senators if that difference between the executive Tdept of the Government and the legislative dept of the Government is not a proper subject of criticism and remark by any citizen, whether in or out of office. Has a man aright to discuss what Congress does or not? on say a man shall not have his galary because he criticises what Congress is dom. Is that upon the principle that you are afrai to have it discussed? No; Senators will not admit that. Why is it, then, that a man has not a right to discuss the position of Congress upon a great question of the country? Congress says these States shall not now come back; the President as s that the ought to come back in all their relations to the Federal Government at once the gravest question, perhaps, that ever was presented. ow, is this minister abroad to be lamed because he participates in the discussion of a grave question, and because he differs with Congress on that question, and because he illustrates his views by istorical references, by force of argument, by earnest appeal? That is what this writer has done; and if we agree to this report of the committee of conference, it is saying in other words that no man shall receive his salary in an office if he differs with Congress and he chooses to criticise Congress. In other words, Congress takes one step to close the mouth of every man who differs with the majority of Congress, and will not allow its course and policy to be criticised. I think we cannot quite afford to take that step. I think the majority cannot very well afford it. On that, however, they will judge for themselves. I should regret to see this report agreed to. The bill need not be lost. I think a majorit of this body cannot agree‘toihis report. this not right, it is not politic, it is not just. Let us see what will become the fate of this bill by another committee. We have plenty of time for that yet.