In the Senate on Monday Insi. Senator ! r:' t " :i qucstion of privil His i'x( nul grievtince was m article, oxIginal vitii the New York ÏViiisbui . piu.l int'i uthcr joarnals, mnk&g hini tho of ïuanyi ; i i muuU Teaoru: among tho:a chronic oppositiou to ltopubliean ■■. Li latos; diJmaRding exorbitant' p iinp speeches in the caln).iin oi' 18 !'): w tnting ;i GeDeral'a commigsion from Likcoln', and getting Lisbaull upand tiiroatoiiing if nol :;von ; yvitli bohig an original Ridioalóf K.uliCftls in Missouri, ; conspinvtor ag liust Sjiiotor Hesdbesojí, a rovolutionist in the Ciiicafto Qjuvjiiüoh of is -is, a bore ot' t!ie President, and last of all a slandeiei of tii.it digaitary, who, aooording to tho Timet, Btand heud and shoulders abovo criticisra, and should bo protootod by anothèr old-fashioned alien and affdition law. llavi ïg sucoossfully traverse 1 tlio several couuts in tho Timen' indictiucnt to tho last, aiul mniii onc, that of " slandering t'io President, Mr. SciIURZ said : " Whiit do tlxiy cali tlandntng tho Presi lont? Let us see whivt l did say - kt it can bu construed as a ílander. I did say that tho general order business of Now York was a gruat abuso and a systoni of plunder. I was borne out in that statement bj the official ceport of tho Betrenohment Commrttee. Was fchia i Blander on the Président ? I did stuto that tho luorchunts in New York had protestod against it as au outrageous law, wbich is a matter of record also. Was fhat a slandcr against the President? I (lid state that the Socrotary of the Troasury sont a oomiuission to New York to invcstigate the matter: that this eominissiun reported against ir, which is a matter of record. Was that a slander on the President? I did state that tho Retrenoh( 'ommitt-re investigated tho matter and Found it to bo a groat abuse, and re! in favor of its abolition, which is a uiitter of record. Is that a slander on the President? I did state that the Sec[utary of tho Trea&ury had written thu Collector of New York t'.vo letten, urging against the abuse and that it. be donu away witti. This is a mattei of reoord. Ts that a slander on the President 'i Then I drewthecotwlusioB: lask whether there is any member of this body wlo will say that it was most natural - nay, most imperative - that if, spito of the remonstrancc of tho merchante of Now York, in spite of the recorxls of the investigation eommittec, in spito of the letter and pronounoed oppositicm of tlie Seeretary of tho Treasuiy that abuso was stil] kopt up - then there must bo a power stronger than decent respect tor public opinión, strongtir than the Seoretary of the Treasury, to sustain lt, for if that power was not stronger than a respect for publio opinión the abuso would havo succumbncl to the remonstrancos of the mercantilo coramimity oí' New York, lt' the power had not boen stronger tbtui the Hucrotary of the Treasury the abuso would havo succuuibod tho adverse opinión of that officer. I aaked the question. who, where, is that stronger power ? I ftskod the quostion. I did not answn it. I respoctfully subinit that thu gontleinon wlio indulge in tho business of vilifying tho Sonator from Illinois and myso'lf for asking it, have not by their sL;nders furnished an answer to it that will be satisfaetory to the country. I believe, wkoii nothing elso caá he brought up again8t those who denounce tho ofReors of the g.ivernment tl.au piisonal villifaction tho country will understand the re3s'jn.