Mr. SUM R. The Senfrom Maine has not stated the case too strongly. I do not know that I shall not be justified in speaking freely of what passed in the committee of conference considering the point that has been made. When we came together, the chairman 0n the part of the House made haste to let us know that unless we accepted the proposition from the House on this subject the committee might as well be dissolved without proceeding any further. We were therefore driven to consider that qution at the outset. It occurred to the commit e of the Senate that even if they could come into the views of the House at all, the form adopted by the House was not proper. After some conversation that form was amended to read according to the words at the desk, and as thus amended it was agreed to by the committee on the part of the Senate. It was agreed to on their art to save the bill, and in economy of time, fee in that they would not be justified in coming bac: to the Senate and reporting a disagreement, compelling both Houses to constitute new committees with the same question to be presented by another committee on the part of the House. You will bear in mind, sir, therefore, that this question was not originally presented by the Senate; it came from the House; and what you have now before you was the compromise reached by your committee after considerable discussion, and, all things considered, it was the best form in which, in the view of your committee, the nestion could be put. I do not know that I need say anything further; but I will make one remark in reply to the Senfrom Maryland. He dwells particularly on the character of this letter as not intended for publication. He will bear in mind, however, that it was addressed to the SecyState; that it was by him communicated to the President; and that at the suggestion of the President it was communicated to the public. It may not have been originally intend) d by the writer for publication; probably it was, as is commonly ca led, a private letter; but through the instrumentality of the President and of the SecyState it found its way before the public. Congress was thus arraigned by this public servant in a foreign country, and the Representatives of the people in the other House felt themselves justified in taking steps, so far as they could, to remove that function ary from the public service. They felt that the writer of such a letter as that ought not to be in the public service at this time, especially when that letter had found its way into print through the agency of the Presidentaud of the SecyState. I think, to a certain extent, they were justified in that conclusion. I do not say that ifl had had the honor of being a member of the other House I should have taken any steps to originate the proceedings which they adopted; but I must say that I do sympathize with them in thinking that the writer of such a letter, setting forth such sentiments, and thus hostile to those principles which we, the majority of the Congress of the U.S., regard as essential to the public welfare, ought notto hold office abroad. I do not wish any such man to speak for our country in a foreign land. But, sir, this whole discussion seems to me a good deal out of place. The question is on the report of the comconference, which involves a great many matters, of which this is only one, and involves the fate of the bill.