Mr. RAYMOND. In regard to the original appointment of Mr. Harvey by Mr. Lincoln, which was confirmed by the Senate, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania now says that Mr. Lincoln was requested, as he believes, by a majority of the Senate to remove Mr. Harvey for certain reasons which they assigned. The President did not see fit to remove him. The gentleman thinks it was because he had not nerve because he was too kind hearted. Sir, I never knew an instance during my acquaintance with President Lincoln when i. had not the nerve to do justice to his country by the removal of any public officer whose case called for such interposition, especially anyone who had been guilty of treasonable practices such as are charged upon Mr. Harvey. I know that at that time many things which he did were complained of by members of Congress and others, but I ii.the judgment of the country then sustained him rather than those who made complaint, and that it has reaffirmed that judgment since. I believe if Mr. Lincoln had known Mr. Harvey to have been guilty of the acts c.h.ar.gied.upon him and with the motives now to him he would have been promptly removed. But that is not, as the gentleman says, the reason for striking out his salary. He now assigns as the reason, not that Mr. Harvey exPressed opinions different from those held by Congress, but because he did it in a coarse and abusive style that he was guilty of vulgar abuse of Congress and “acted like a black guard.” Now, sir, that is to a certain extent a matter of taste. The gentleman's tastes are more refined and more fastidious in that respect probably than my own or those of other members of the House; but I submit that he ought to be careful in applying so stringent a rule on points of taste to persons holding official positions in the Government. It is barely possible that a large number of the office holders throughout the land might not come up to his high requirements in matters of taste in the use of language. I submit that he should make the matter of taste of more general application and not restrict it to Mr. Harvey or to any single man. Why, sir. I can produce 100, yes 1000other men holding office who have exPressed their opinions of Congress in a great deal stronger and more flagrant terms than any used by Mr. Harvey in the letter now in question. Why not apply the same rule to en? Why not, if all men are to be brought to this rigid rule and inade to conform to the fastidious taste of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania in the use of language, why not introduce a section in the appropriation bill that such a postmaster at such a place, that such a naval officer in such a city, that such a revenue collector in such a port, having been detected in exPressing their opinions of Congress in terms which strike the Gentfrom Pennsylvania as vulgar and indecent, shall receive no salaries during the remainder of their official terms. I submit that this is no ground upon which we can act with due regard to our self respect. If we want these men out of office let us make a law to get them out. Let us make rePresentation in the proper quarter, and get them out by the proper means. Let us do it, if we do it at all, in a straightforward manner one which we can persuade ourselves at least is consistent with our sense of justice and fair dealing if we cannot vindicate it before the people. I do not believe the people of this country desire that any man should be thrust out of office by simply starving him out, by depriving him of the salary which the law awards him as long as he holds his place and does its duties. I have no special interest in this case. It is a matter of not the slightest consequence to me whether Mr. Harvey receives his salary or not. But it is of some consequence to us all to pursue a course in this matter which will meet the approbation of our sober judgment when the excitement of party and personal resentment has passed away.