Mr. HENDRICKS. President, I should regret very much to see this report ado ted. I inlr that Congress, in the adoption 0 this report, cannot stand before the country upon any sound principle. I have heard these state ments made over and over again, that the fate of a bill depends in on concurring in a report of a committee. “db have yet 4 days of this session, and I have seen very many appropriation hills paused within the last 2 days of a session and become laws. There is no danger such as is suggested. But suppose the Senate does not in sentiment agree with the report, are we therefore to concur in it because there is danger to the bill? Is this objectionable system of legislating through the means of a committee of conference to force upon the country propositions that are not agreeable to the Senate, upon the assurance that the fate of the bill depends upon it? What have we here as a justification for cut ting off from a foreign minister his salary? Simply a prosition that he has written aprivate letter which has become public without his knowledge or request. Suppose this were a public letter addressed to one of the journals of the country by himself, would it be a justificaion to us in refusing to pay him his salary? The Senfrom Michigan says that it is written in the spirit of partissnism. I am surprised to hear that objection come from him. a he not a party man? Does he not make it a test of confirmation to office that men shall be party men? Has he a eed that the offices of this country shall be led by none except those who are not party men? No, sir; the objection of the Senator is not that the writer of the letter is a party man, or that the letter iswritten in a spirit of partisunism, but his objection is that it is not written in the spirit of his partisanism. He expects the office holders of the countryto agree with him in his political views; it is all right when a man writes in the spirit of his own partisanism, but if he writes in the spirit of the policy of the President then he is to be condemned and not to be pui in an office! I was very much surprised that the Senfrom Maine should concur in this report. He has set his face, so far, as far asI have observed, against anything that is revolutionary in its tendency, and this certainly is of that character. If we can say that because a man does not a so with us, we cannot turn him out, the Constitution does not allow that, but we will go as far in that direction as we can, and we will comel him to leave his office