Mr. SCHENCK. I am very sorry that this bill has assumed its present shape. I do not wish to be considered as having done injustice to anyone in the remarks which I made before in the discussion of the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoR RiLL, when I undertook to draw a distinction between those who had served in the Army or Navy of the U.S. during the recent war to put down the rebellion, and those who have sought and obtained those places, often, at least, to the exclusion of better men than themselves. I know the difficulty which surrounds this whole subject. I know that it is hard to adapt the law to the condition of things so as to make its operation equitable. I know it is hard to adapt a law so as to have operation upon particular classes of individuals only. Certainly we cannot do it as to individuals. But in the remarks which I made I did not mean to object to men on account of their political views. I believe that if the amendment of the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] had been adopted, it would have prevented what will now be the effect of this bill if it pass a reward given to any and every one who within the last year or 2 has been a party to this miserable prostitution to which I referred. did not call it political prostitution, because I do not recognize the men of whom I spoke as having any political status: they are not Democrats, they are not Republicans. Some of them profess to have affinities with the one side or the other. But if they have a platform at all, it is but a platform resting upon the advocacy of whatever will give them “bread and butter.” Now, sir, the only way of reaching such men is to strike at the “bread and butter;” the only principle of action which they could be supposed to be at all sensitive about. And it is for us, as far as we may, to reach toward that which they have regarded as the holiest and above all things. In doing this I admit there is difficulty. We may without meaning it strike some good man. But in not doing so we permit to escape a whole class of men who I think are unworthy of the support and unworthy of the generous action of Congress in their behalf. Now, sir, in order to show what sort of people these are for whom we are legislating indis. criminately, I propose to lay before the House the proceedings which took place some short time ago, as far as they have reached the public, of what is called the Johnson Deptal Club. These resolutions have been heretofore the subject of coininent elsewhere, and the club have replied to the comments made upon them in the Senate of the U.S. It needs no further remark to illustrate the temper of these persons and their line of conduct than to read what they said. These men, for whom we are asked this indiscriminately and loosely to legislate, adopted the resolutions which I am about to read. And mark you, this goes back a whole year and a half; it goes back so as to reach that time at which my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD says there had been no demonstration of this miserable, subservient spirit by which office was to be obtained from the Executive. I read the preamble to their resolutions: “Whereas the present crisis of this country calls for a fall and honest expression of political sentinents and a firm adhesion to the Constitution of our land and the cardinal principles of government as entin ciated and established by our fathers; and whereas the present Congress of. U.S., in usurping the judicial and executive functions of the goverronent, in overriding all the State authority and jurisdiction, in defying the manifest sentiments and wishes of a vast inajority of the people of the country, is rapidly changing our reptiblican system of government into a despotism as unmitigated as ever was that of Austria; and whereaswe are uncompromisingly opposed to all such inroads upon the estab ilnisghleyd principles of the Government, and as unwaver indorse and support the pastand administrative policy of President AndrewJohnson, particularly that of the readjustment of the late rebellious States; and whereas, as honorable men, holding office under his Administration, feel it incumbent upon us either to sustain him in his noble efforts to preserve the Constitution and the liberties of the people against the infractions of Congress or, if resign opposing him. to our positions for those who do sustain him” And so on to the end of the chapter. This is signed by “Robert Wright, president, ” and by “Ferdinand L. Sarmiento, secretary, ” of the Johnson Deptal Club. I do not know who Robert Wright is: I have not the honor of an acquaintance with Ferdinand L. Sarmiento; nor do I know Richard H. Jack son, who moves the publication of this mani festo in the public press. But I know that Jackson and Wright and Sarmiento, in all human probability, are poor devils, [laughter] unworthy of any help from this Congress or from any authority of the Government. They are political eunuchs, who, if Jeff. Davis were in power, would pass just such a resolution tomorrow for him; who, if our friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevess] were elected President tomorrow, would as humbly bend to him. That is just what I know of them without a personal acquaintance with them, and what everybody must know of them and of all such fellows. There came to my notice yesterday the case of a clerk who was dismissed from one of the bureaus in a Dept for having spoken, it was said, disrespectfully of the President and in favor of Congress; for having “slandered the President.” And I believe the miserable spy and Pio who gave the information got his place. That is perfectly characteristic of what all such fellows are; about what they would do. But let us go on a little further with these Johnson Deptal Club resolutions. I have not time, rich as this sort of literature is, to read to the end the long resolution of which I have given a sample. The 2nd resolution, and that resolution fixes the date of publication, is one in which this club cordially indorses the speeches of certain political secretaries, made when they were serenaded in order to bring them out and see whether they were fit to be the constitutional advisers of the POTUS Then, after the high eulogy in the 2nd resolution upon the SecyTreasury and others, in the 3rd resolution their respects are bestowed upon 2 members of the Cab inet, who did not come up to their standard: “Resolved, That the replies of Secretary Harlaf; and AttyGen Speed were characteristoited y leave no room to doubt, as long generally belie So it seems they had suspected them for a great while. “but what they are opposed to the President's readjustment policy; that they are but clogs in the machinery of the Government; obstaclesin the way oefquthaellyetahrelysurcecsetossr of the President isona;dmpirnei jsutdraictiionng caenrds, the welfare of the country; that as Cabinet offi hostile to the avowed policy of the President, they manifestly retain their positions in bad faith, for sinister and ulterior purposes and to embarrass as far as they can his attempts to heal the wounds of the country. Being at least, opposed to his policy, they are incapable of rendering him that assistance mnd earnestoessential to his complete success, and should give place to others more worthy and competent who can: that justice to the people and to the Government and the necessities and welfare of the country alike demand their immediate resignation or removal.” I believe they did resign soon afterward.