Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, Icalled for the reading of the report of the select committee for the reason that it is as good an argument as can be made in this case. It presents in very small compass the testimony which governs the case and the law which governs the facts. As I highly appreciate that report, I feel bound to give credit to the author of it. Although I had the honor of introducing it, the report was drawn up 1) the able and exerienced member from assachnsetts, Mr. suns] I feel thankful to him, as Itink the House will, for the manner in which he discharged the duty of making this report. I have never before found myself associated and I never expect to find myself associated with gentlemen who will come to the investigation of a subject with more impartiality than the g‘entlemen with me on this select committee. e only desired. if possible, to discharge our duty to the HoRep and to the people of this Union. We considered it to be a duty of the last importance to the country to inquire whether the liighest privileges of the peop e could be violated with up unity within the walls of this Capitol in deance of the Constitution of the land and in defiance of the parliamentary law which has governed legislative bodies for more than 300 years. Yes, sir, 300 years‘is a limited time, because 300 years ago the House of Commons of GreatBritain was 1st known as a distinct legislative body; and from that time the parliamentar law has been well defined on this subject. at, sir, I think we could go away back of that, even into the 6th and 7th centuries, and find in the council of the witenagemote this protection for members of legislative bodies which we now ask. I have read in the books, and other gentlemen have done the same, in regard to breaches of privilege committed in Congress, both upon the floor of the House and in the corridors of this Capitol, since our Constitution was ado ted. And we can 0 further back; we can go ack to the Confe erate Congress, an we find members of that congress punished r breaches of a lesser degree than t is. We can go into the State Legislatures, as well before the adoption of their constitutions as since, and find these breaches of privilege punished, on many occasions even to the extent of imprisonment during the whole of their respective sessions. We have all these before us as precedents. Then we have the constitutional provision, that no man shall be questioned in another place for words spoken in debate in these assemblies. Here seems to rest much of the difficulty in the minds otmcmbers of this House, as well as in the minds of those who have preceded us. because I have noticed that the argument made against the exercise of the power of punishing an oifcnding member is, that the Constitution means simply to provide that no man shall be sued for damages in one of the States, or in the DistCol, if you please, by reason of “words spoken in debate." Now, sir, the only rational interpretation to be iven to this language of the Constitution is tiis: that no member shall be called to an accouht for language used in debate. That embraces everything. He cannot be called, to an account in an action for libel or slander; neither can he be called to account by men of superior physical ability, holding a rawhide or a rattan over his shoulders. That is the meaning of the Constitution. No man is to be questioned “for words spoken in debate.” Now, if I am right in this interpretation of the language of the Constitution, I ask you, where can a better defined case be presented than the one which we have to deal with here now? A member of this House uses words in debate which rovoke the ire of another member of the bo y. 4 long days intervene, and upon the morning of the 4th day the offended member proclaims that he intends to have satisfaction for the language thus uttered in debate 4 days before.