Mr. RAYMOND. I was not. in this House at that time; and as the gentleman was he ought to know its history better than myself. But, if the votes of members as they stand on the record, with which record I was at the time somewhat familiar, indicated anything they indicated apurpose to maintain that organization, and to vote against the Government at every point where they could do so without being old to a rigid and troublesome respon sibility by the country. I certainly did not know that that party disbanded as a party. I was under the impression that, in the different congressional districts, it ran candidates against the Administration party; that in the different States it ran candidates for Governor against the Administration party. I know that this was so in my own State; and I know the rounds which that party took in that State. t took ground against the Administration, against the conduct of the war, and against the principles of the war, on which the war was wage. I know that the Democratic Governor in our State proclaimed that the real enemy of the liberties of the country was the Adminis tration which was carrying on the war; that its overthrow was even more important than the defeat of the rebels in the ficl; that certainly led me to believe then, as I believe now, that the Democratic party maintained its organization throughout the count all through the war, and that, as a part, while many individual members of it acted otherwise, it resisted the Administration, opposed its measures. denounced its policy, and threw the whole weight. of its action and influence against the elforts it was making to quell the rebellion. I think the ' country regards this as having been the attitude of that party through the war, though I am glad to know the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is not now by any means the only member of that part who would disavow and escape the responsibility of its action. The gentleman asks me if the Union was restored when the Chicago convention met. Certainly not; but that convention pronounced against the only means by which its restoration was possible the quelling of the rebellion by force. It demanded a cessation of hostilities and the abandonment of the war. Suppose the Dem ocratic party had succeeded in that demand, would the restoration of the Union have been as near as it is now? The gentleman asks mo if the Union is restored to ay. I am sorry to say it is not; but it is certainly nearer a just and safe restoration than it would have been if the Democratic party had succeeded in the last election. It is in the hands of those who will restore it, as I trust and believe, on just principles and on the basis of the Constitution. I beg gentlemen not to misunderstand me. I do not enounce the mass, the individual members of the Democratic party as disloyal or as having opposed the war. While I render full trib ute to the mass of that party and acknowledge the aid they gave the war, I must still insist that the action of the party as an organisation was not.in support of the Government or maiding the prosecution of the war. It complained then, as the gentleman complains now, that it did not got its share of patronaec and of office. Yet it had 2 members of the Cabinet; it had, I believe, a major it of the officers of highest grades in the fielt, and a far greater share of other official places than under ordinary circumstances is ever given by any administration to its opponents.