SENATOR DAWES saw fit to deny the statements of Mary Clemmer, correspondent of the Independent, concerning the drunkenness of senators on the night of the passage of the Silver Bill. No one doubts the word of the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts, but the fact that he did not see the scenes alluded to is not proof sufficient to outweigh the testimony of another who from a more favorable position in the gallery looked down upon the floor. —The lady returns pluckily to her charge as follows: “By what mental reservation, by what esprit de corps, by what ignorance of the facts, he [Mr. Dawes] asserts that ‘no part of the statement is true of any one senator, much less sixteen,’ I suppose the God who has charge of him knows. Perhaps he was asleep; perhaps his eyes were shut; perhaps his ears were filled with wax, like the hosts of Ulysses; it matters not what was the material or spiritual condition of Mr. Dawes through all that hot and tiresome night—all the same in the Senate Chamber, where he sat, there were at least six senators positively drunk, and at least sixteen or twenty senators who showed unmistakable evidence of having drunk more liquor than was good for them. I not only know that six senators were drunk, but I know who these senators were. I refrain from giving their names now, as in my former letter, solely on account of the women who care for them and who bear those names. Pray don’t for a moment think that any regard for the men themselves would keep me from telling who they are. That senator of the United States who will come drunk into the Senate Chamber has no more claim on my toleration than he has on my respect. “The special sentence (not mine) which Mr. Dawes quotes to contradict is: ‘Sixteen senators were beastly drunk, and when one of them rose to make a motion he had to be braced up on either side while he spoke his piece.’ Mr. Dawes’s ‘mental reservation’ must have come in on the ‘beastly.’ There were not sixteen senators ‘beastly’ drunk. But when Mr. Dawes adds, ‘No part of the above statement is true of any one senator, much less of sixteen,’ however unintentionally, he writes what is not true. At least ‘one’ senator was ‘beastly’ drunk,—the one who vomited on every beautiful sofa that he fell over. And it is equally true that there was a senator who had to stand ‘braced up’ by his friends on either side, while he incoherently muttered forth his drunken ‘amendments.’”—Chris. Statesman.