Mr. RAYMOND. I said nothing about the reasons which actuated the gentleman. I said that his argument was calculated to produce the idea that his colleague had said nothing to warrant any exression of disapprobation on the part of the house. I certainly heard nothing indicating the slightest disapprobation on his own part, nor do I find anything of the kind in his speech as reported this morning in the Globe. In the next place, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. S'rsvsss] now presents a reposition intended to accomplish the same 0 jcct by an adroit parliamentary may neuver, and that is to substitute for the 1st and 2nd resolutions reported by the committee expellinglthe Gentfrom Kentucky and censuring the member from Iowa, another resolution which merely reprimands the Gentfrom Kentucky and omits all mention of the Gentfrom Iowa. It says in effect that if nothing shall be said about the language used by the member from Iowa, the wrll be content with simply reprimanding Mr. Rous sssu. N ow, I object to that as a partial and one sided way of acting on the case. I hold that the House owes it to itself and, to the freedom and propriety of debate to express an opinion on both points of this case, upon the language of the Gentfrom Iowa as well as upon the act of the Gentfrom Kentucky. I have moved to substitute, for the 1st resolution reported by the committee, another providing for the reprimanding of Mr. Rousseau at the bar of the House. I have done it because I think his otfense, judged by the punishment awarded to the Gentfrom Iowa, merits no higher punishment than this. If the Gentfrom Iowa is to be sub'ccted, not even to the disapprobation of the house, then I say that the Gentfrom Kentucky doe not merit even the reprimand proposed by myself and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. I consider that the Constitution protects freedom of debate. I concede that for any speech or debate upon this floor no member can be questioned elsewhere. But I think that gentlemen in this discussion have given to that phrase a much wider latitude than it will bear, and I think the majority of the committee claim a degree of inviolability for the persons of members upon this floor that was not intended to be attached to them. They say: “The theory upon which parliamentaryassemblies are founded is that of the inviolability of the person of therepresentative. The existenceand authority of legislative assemblies depend upon the rec osmition of this fundamentallaw. This is due not lessto the dignity of the assembly and therightsofitsmem hersthan to the peopletheyrepresent;an act of violcuce againsta representative is an act of insurrection againstthe peopleherepresents." Members have discoursed here about the in violabilit of the persons of Representatives, as though that were all that is inviolable in the Representative, and as though nothing else is to be cared for. Why is not the character of a Representative as inviolable as his person? I have said that the person of the Representative is not to be assailed and I insist also that his character is not to be assailed. Some of the ablest commentators on the Constitution insist that that is a proper interpretation of the clause, that while a man for words spoken in debate upon the floor in pursuance of parlia mentary rules of order may not be questioned, he may be held responsible if he publishes those remar s to the world; and although a discrimi nation may be taken that he publishes them by order of the House, you will find the decisions in England to be that though such publications may be made under the order of the House, and for the use of the House, they cannot be published otherwise for the public at lar c without subjecting the person to the rules 0 law. In Massachusetts a case was decided where a member of the HoRep was fined $2, 500 for slandering another member upon the floor of the House. But I do not propose to go into a discussion of the mat,ter in this way. I do not propose to the act of the Gentfrom Kentuc juys.tificoncur with the majority of the committee in the opinion that it cannot be justified; that it is without justification and I beg the Gentfrom own, [Mr. I 11503, ] who spoke on this subject yesterday, to understand from this thatI do not allow him to confound an attempt to show that an act has excuses with the position that an act is justifiable. He remarked upon the language of my colleague, [Mr. Hana] wm s oke upon this subject yesterday, that while e [Mr. HALE] pretended not to justif the act of the Gentfrom Kentucky, all his remarks did actually tend to justify it. I say again that I cannot, and do not, and will not attempt to justify that act; but I do say there were many things connected with this matter, with the unjustifiable assault which he committed, which ought, in all fairness, to afford extenuation for it in the judgment of those who are to pronounce upon it. Why, sir, you never hear a case in the crim inal courts even, where certain thin s are not allowed to extenuate the offense, alt ough not held to justify it. AsI have said, I consider an assault upon character as serious a matter as an assault upon the person. This may be a matter of taste; it is certainly a matter of opinion to a certain extent; it is a matter of tern perament, and a matter of natural sensibility. There is a difference in men in this respect. Some are quick to present personal injuries; others will not present any injuries at all. “"e all know that temperaments differ, and that some of the most eminent and noble qualities of the human character lie so close to its faults and vices that sometimes the 2 are confounded. We all know that firmness in adhering to principle is oftentimes mistaken for obstinac. The unlity which leads some men to loo at all sides of a question before ro nouncing judgment upon it is often mista enfor vacillation and a lack of decision. We often see that an excess of charity and kindness ofheart is mistaken for pusillunimity. And we still more often see that that uick sensibility to insult, that high sense of honor which resents a wrong, whether done to the person or to the character, is closely allied to some of the noblest qualities which can dignify hu manity and especially to that enthusiastic, impulsive tern r which I makes heroes of men, and enables t cm to render transcendent service to their country and their age. Now, I do not think it just to confound all distinctions of character and of temperament in this case, or in any other. I can well understand how the Gentfrom Kentucky, with his peculiar temernment, with his education, with the tone 0 feeling of the community in which he had lived all his life, might feel a degree of sensibility to the rema s of the member from Iowa, that others on tlfifloor cannot understand and still less sympathize with. I feel bound to make allowance for that, not as justifying the act which he has “commits ted, but as extenuating the decree of his criminality, when it is before the House for judgment. One of the celebrated characters in one of Mr. Bulwer’s fictions, I think it was the re nowned Mr. McGrowlcr, remarks that in his experience of life he had found that “there was a great deal of human nature in men” n vcry profound remark, and one which I think is substantially true. I think there are very few of us on this floor who could listen with entire equanimit to the remarks made by the Gentfrom own. Very few, sir, are there ere whom such remarks would not move to resentment. But why, it is asked, did not the Gentfrom Kentucky present them on the spot? Because he chose, of 2 offcnses, to commit the least. If he had presented it on the spot, in presence of the House and in open contempt of its authority and dignity, I take it there would have been no hesitation here in visiting hpon him immediate and condign punishment. The Gentfrom Iowa. [Mr. WILSON] yesterday represented that we were entering upon a ncw era of parliamentary dignity. He opened his remarks by saying that there had beena time when the dignity of the House wasregarded as worthy of protection; but that that time had now gone forever. Sir, he must have forgotten the past history of this House and of the country. He evidently has forgot ten the time long years ago when Matthew Lyon, a member of the House from the State of Vermont, spit in the face of Mr. Griswold, a member of this House from the State of Connecticut, when Mr. Griswold presented the indignity and assailed Mr. Lyon upon the 5 0t, and The SPEAKER of the House descended fibm the chair and, instead of arresting the disonler, remonstrated with the member who was trying to separate the combatants, saying that it was not he way to stop a fight to take a man by the legs. [Laughter He must.have forgot ten the time when ouston, of Texas, belabored a member of the HoRep on the avenue and left him, as it were, dying, unable to stir, or even to call aloud. The Gentfrom Iowa must.have forgot ten the long list of “serimmages” that have taken place in this House from that day almost. to the present time. A former member of this House now in this city handed me today a little list of the contests he had witnessed on this floor during the short time he was a member of this House. Among them was the scrim maoe between Mr. Clingmnn and Mr. Stanley, of NCarolina, which resulted in some scratches and blows. Another was one between Mr. Wilcox and Governor Brown, of Mississippi, which he stateswas a “ much prettier fiht than the NCarolina one, and looks morelikebusiness.” AnotherwasaTennessec fight. Mr. Churchwell, of Tennessee, drewa pistol on his colleague, General Cullom. General Cullom “went for him, " bounding over a desk, and denouncing him in a clear ringing voice, which could be heard in the remotest part of the galleries, as a coward and an assassin. Mr. Keitt, of SCarolina, and Mr. Grow, says the same authority, “opened their batteries on each other, and the engagement soon became retty general alon the whole line; Barksda e of Mississippi, ash burne of Illinois, Ruilin of NCarolina, Covode of Pennsylvania, Reuben Davis of mississippi, Potter of Wisconsin, and others, char ging and retiring alternately.” I will not. enumerate any more of these contests. I will simply say that the last one alluded to must be fresh in the minds of all the members of this House although they may not have witnessed it. They certainly cannot for t the picture of it given tons a few days ago y the istinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvmia, [Mr. STEVEKS] With his usual parlia mentary adroitness, he brought it into his argument to aid in carrying a bill which was in some danger of being lost. He drew a picture of that contest which exceeded in grap ic fidelity any description in the histories of our recent wars thus far within my knowledge. Certainly its effect upon the House was something startlin. All the members gathered around him and listened in the most respectful silence amlicucre omnes; and if gentlemen will pardon the false prosody, I will complete the quotation 11s applicable now as it was in the olden time com falm'bus hesunt,: State runt came. I am sure, sir, our hair stood on and under the narration, and I think that of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [ML STEVENS] himself would have done so but for circumstances over which he probably had no control. [Laughter] I never knew why that dist.inguished gentleman should have been so much more terrified with that particular contest than with any of the others that have taken place in his time on this floor until I saw the result of it. recorded in the personal diary of the gentleman who handed me this record, in these brief and graphic words: “ Poor Barksdale’s wig bein captured in the row.” [Renewed laughter] That is a sad result unquestionably, but it was not attended with as much carnage as it might have been. I believe, indeed, the wig was captured without the least effusion of blood. Buteven in‘that great contest, attended with such results, the House passed no resolution of expulsion; no one was panished even for seizing Barksdale’s wig; the House passed no reprimand upon anybody; no, it did not even censure anyone, nor express its disapproval of the row in any way whatever. Indeed, you may examine the histo of this House from its beginning to the present time, and you will not find a single one of nll the men on gaged in these personal collisions, even when they occurred right on the floor in the presence of The SPEAKER, when pistols and home knives were drawn and when blood was shed, who has been expelled. Matthew Lyon was notexielled. Preston S. Brooks, even, was not expelled for his murderous out on Senator Stussii. This is to be the 1st instance of expulsion, if you excl the Gentfrom Kentucky, for any collison of this kind. New, sir, is there anything in the circumstances of this case which calls for expulsion by way of distin uishing it from all the others? As I said, I believe there is much to extenuate in. I know the Gentfrom Iowa claims that the gentlemaii from Kentucky had insulted him. have cited the only passage in the remarks of the Gentfrom Kentucky which I think was fairly open to the charge of being in violation of parlia menta propriety. The Gentfrom Iowa claime before the committee that he had received other offenses in the closing speech of the Gentfrom Kentucky. He claims that General Rousssav called him “a thing" in the passage of his speech where he said that “ last and least of all things he would refer to the Gentfrom Iowa.” Now, sir, I do not now precisely what was intended by that exi‘esson of the Gentfrom Kentucky. The anguage is not perfectly clear and it may give rise to commentaries in the future as volumi nous as those in the past upon doubtful phrases in Homer and Herodotus. But it is not the 1st instance in which a “ person who was called “ a thing" has presented it. The hostess of the Boar’s Head” in Eastcheap was called a thing by Sir John Falstaff, who comlained bitterly that his pocket had been picke in her establishment. It could not. he expected that this ornament of her sexcould tamely submit to such an imputation upon her character. Like a woman of spirit as she was she demanded to know “what thing” Sir John meant to call her. Nor was she as much a peased as, perhaps. she should have been whcn the gallant Sir John responded, “a thingto thank God upon;” and though she exclaimed she was no such thin and called on all who knew her to bear her Witness, still, if the Gentfrom Iowa had made a similar demand on his accu ser, hemight have received the response in a more kindly spirit. But I do not think the offense in his case, any more than in that of the virtuous Dame Quickley, quite so serious as both seem to have deemed it. Now, sir, I say further, it is to be regarded as an extenuation of his offense that.the Gentfrom Kentucky was forced to submit to a most serious and insulting impeachment of his military character and his personal cour age upon this floor, in hearing of the House and to go upon the permanent record of our debates. In my judgement it makes no difference whether the Gentfrom Iowa said he did not “know” or did not “care” on which side the Gentfrom Kentucky had fought. I hold it as much an offense against propriety, against all just feeling, for him to say that he did not. care, as that he did not know, whether he was on the rebel or on the Union side. I say that the attack upon the military character of mr. Rousseau was an unpardonable out rage perpetrated on the floor upon the character and history of one whom no gentleman in this House or elsewhere had any right to depreciate or any excuse in depreciating in any such connection. The Gentfrom Iowa win WILSON] said yesterday that it seemed as though the character of no man was of any consequence here unless he had been in the Army. I beg to know of how much consequence would be the character of any man in the Army if it is to be assailed as the Gentfrom lowa as sailed that of the Gentfrom Kentucky, with entire and complete impunity. Sir, we owe it to ourselves, to our self respect, to our country and to posterity, to cherish as the apple of our eye, or the very core of our hearts, the reputation of those who have led our armies in this great fight, and won for us as well as for themselves distinguished honor on the battle field. And when I see so many of these gentlemen around me, new members of this House, who have, on the field of battle, as well as in this council chamber, stood firm and fast to the Union of the States, who have risked life and everything dear to them for the sake of the nation and whose deeds are so certain to pass into the riceless treasures of our country’s history, feel like pardoning almost anything they may say or do, and like holding every man my foe, who assails their fair fame and traduces their character or their reputation ior political differences or for differences of any in. The military character and career of the Gentfrom rly Kentucky are so well knQWn that neither the Gentfrom Iowa nor any other gentleman on this floor is excusable for over ooking or disparaging them. When violent hands were 1st raised against the Government and the Constitution and Kentucky attempted to stand neutral, be planted himself almost alone against the efforts of those who would hold her back from the full support of the Union and the Constitution. Almost alone in the Senate of that State he denounced all sympathy with secession as treason and rebellion. He denounced the attempt of the Governor to hold a special session in order to hear a secession commissioner from Alabama. Hc denounced the Senate for attempting to sit in secret session for the purpose of giving them audience, not only as a breach of parliamentary propriety, but as a crime against t ic people, and told the senate, probub y in violation of order and of the Senate's privileges, that if they did close the doors during that debate, he would break them open with his own arm, and he defied them to stop him if they dared. And when the war broke out, where was he found? From the 1st moment until the closing gun was fired in the fore front of the rent encounter. The reports of his c'ommaning officers, from the highest to the lowest, bear such testimony to his valor, his good disposition of his troops, his determination always and everywhere to fight. the foes of his country and to save the nation or perish in her defense as should forever silence the thought that would do him insult or injury. I will not go over that history. I say that what he has done for the country entitles him to impunity from assault on his character or person iu this place, or elsewhere; in the 2nd place, it entitles him to protection at the hands of this House from assaults upon him here; and in the 3rd place, all such protection failing him, it entitles him to the most charitable construction upon any act he may have performed in the vindication of his character against insult and nspersion. That. was one of the reasons assigned by the minority of the committee for qualifing the motion to expel and what I have saidyhas been in support of that recommendation. The committee report in connection with this transaction, and giving to it what I decm not quite a fair construction, that 3 persons were present who were friends of General Itocssnw and were armed. The report of the majority of the committee says: " 3 persons were present as friends of Mr. Rnussmu: the 1st on accountof information received from Mr. Rousssnu that a personal assault. waspossible, ifnot probable: the 2nd on account ofu suggestion or a call from the 1st: and the 3rd followed Mr. Roussnw to the portico on account ot'his excitedappearanceand manner when passing throush the rotunda." The Gentfrom Iowa [ML WILsOiv] yesterday dwelt still more strongly upon this point and impressed upon the House the idea that it was a most remarkable thing that these 3 men, the friends of General ROUSSEAU, all armed, should have been present on that occasion. Now, it is very hard to argue against innuendo, and this is nothing but innuendo. There may be circumstances which, in the ab sence of other facts, might give color to the in sinuation that these men were present on in vitation of General Rousssan for the purpose of aidin him in the assault; but I so mit to the gentlemau from Iowa that in view of the circumstances of the case there is no possible excuse for his putting it in that light. Colonel Pennybaker, it is admitted, had been told by General Rousseau of the probable as sault. The testimony shows precisely what he was told. Colonel Pennybaker, I may say, here, was an old personal friend of General Rots sssu, and had known him from boyhood. He was in the Senate of Kentucky at the same time with General Rocssmv, an was almost the only member of that body who supported him in his 0 position to secession. fie testifies that on the mornin of the day the assault was committed Genera Rousseau told him that GRINNELL had used language toward him which he could not submit to, an that unless he had an apology he should probably chastise him. Th"e evidence then goes on as follows: Question.Did he say he was going to chastise him, to flog him or what? “Answer. I do not remember what pressionhe used. It isniy recollection goin uto usea.rattan. particular ex0saidhe was cation.At what time was this? innoqr.Aboutlinlfpast 11 in the morninir. "Xucalion. “ Where was it the generaltoldyouthis? imwr. It was in the ymd below here between here and the Capitol gate, cominiztoward the Cupi to‘l between 11 and 12 o‘clock. queRHIHID. did he not tell you on the way whenor wherehedesignedto do it?. “An QIL‘CNI'.o, sir. I rather inferred from his talk th"at hecontemplatedit that evening. youOsRtaCyHbIyDd“.ulnr incgonthseaqtuaof tne crono of othna?t information did “Answer. I returned and went up to the House in consequence of that information that evening. Question. Did you no at the requestof General RO“UASmSeEAr.U?. quost No: the general did not make any re at all. He nske metocomeup in the evening and I arnved there not morethan ten minutes before the House adiourned." Now, Pennybaker was informed by RorssEsU of the probable assault, but there is nothing whatever to show that he was invited there for the purpose of taking any part in the affair or in any other capacity than as a witness of the assault. Colonel Pennybaker has been in the Army and was in the habit of carrying arms, and he testifies that on hearing of this contemplated assault he went to his room and took a pistol and came with it up to the House. With the exception of that single incident there is not a shadow of suspicion that anybody was informed by General ROUSSEAU of his intended assault upon the member from Iowa. Colone Grigsby, who was the 2nd party present who is named here, testifies in answer to"General Rousssiio’s questions as follows: Question.I ask youif anythin had overpecurred between you and myself whichl you.to believethat this thing wasto take laoo. c it“yAnasdwaeyr.oNrothingw atovor. I only arrived in the 2 cforc. I had not seen General Roussssu unti lI saw him at the Capitol since1862, when we werein the Army together and I only was 311th him 3 minutes beforewe went out at the oo1' Question. Did I evenknow you were present on the portico until (you came up to me? nswer.I ha no reason to supposeyou did at all. I was following Coloncl Pennybakor. I supposed you were running to get into agar. Incver earnedof anything of the sort occurring.” I read further from his testimony: "By Mr.BAinrs: “QM/56410"D.o you over carry arms upon your person? “Answer. Yes. sir.: slion. Were you armedon this occasion? kfltdw‘ZT. I had a small Deringer pistol in my no 0. 2? section. How long had you had that? Miner. I had carried it ever since I left ihcArmy. Hnodno post.annvoseit hasbeenoutofmy necketin 12 u “By Mr.ROUSSEHJ': partQicllueloatrwn You did not have it With you for this occasion? ilIl l “Amer. No, sir for I did npt know of any such occasion. The condition of societyhas beensuch in our town that it would not besafeto be unarmed. It is rather the exception than the rule for gentlemen not tocarry arms, especially one who has beenin the Federal Armg. V you Question k.nouwndleedrgsteaonrdinyotiumtaotiso any dthisattinaentlyyththinagt of this sort wasto occur? “Amwrr. Not the slightest. I wasvery much surprisedwhen I saw you raiseyour hand and I had no idea who you Werestrikinz.’ But it is said that Colonel Peunybaker told Colonel Grigsby of this affair, and that in consequence the latter was there. That, sir, is negatived distinctly by the declaration of colonel Grigsby himself, in reply to a question by Mr. Wilson. "Question. You? stated that Colonel Pennybnker cameup With you “Answer. Yes. Colonel Pennybsker went over to aboutmatters and said he mustgoto the House, told him I would go with him it he had no obJeeAnd in a subsequent part of the testimony he states that what he came forums to see Mr and that he simply went out with Peunybaker because be supposed he was geing. there armed testifies in equally strong language that he never hear anything of the “quentin".Did anyone else ever intimate to after that time that probably he would assault "Amine ". No. sir; I never heard anything of the case until the day it occurred. the otundathatday wasit with the expectation of any such occurrence‘1ing and I followed him out more to know what was the matter. out you had no thoughtof a collision? “Arvin f. No, sir; none at all. " QHPRIUHID. did you Pennybaker that evenhianvgeoarnthinattodravyie Ww itwhitrhoCIaorloonnceol “AMMI'. Not until afterward." Again: might be somepersonal difficulty, and was that the reasonfor your following? I followed him. I followed him for the expresspurpose of knowingwhetherhewasgoingtoNewYork." Colonel Penny baker was told that there might be a colhsioqlland came up.‘ As to the other my room to take a drink with inc. He was talkintions.’ HARDING, of Illinois, a member of the House, Colonel McGrcw, the other person who was affair from anybody at any time. {pra. Grumman? “ amnion. When you followedMr. Roussmn from AYMIDPI‘H. e seemedto passmewithout answer " Qualrun.Then when you followed Mr. Roussnu “By the Cnumlsn: to this transaction‘I “ QuraTTon.Did it strike you at the moment there “Arman. No; it wasnot for that reasonat all that That is all there is about those 3 men. 2 parties, e testimony of every witnessuncontradicted, undoubted, not a shadow of suspicion thrown upon it tends to show that they were there accidentally. Why, then, it may be asked, were they armed? Simply, as they have already explained, because it was their custom to be armed. Bnt wh, it may be asked, was nobody else armed? fany one will tell me what reason he has for supposing that nobody else was armed, then I may think it worth while to answer that question. It must be recollected that out of t ie 15 or 20 persons who, according to the testimony, were present, these 3 and no others were singled out and examined on that point. But I think gentlemen understand pretty well that it has become quite fashionableuite too fashionable a fashion much “more onored in the breach than in the observance, ” to carry arms on the person. These 3 men did it, and were detected. How many more did it and were not detected it is not for me to say. But I submit that, whatever may be the disposition by the House of these gentlemen themselves, whatever view the house may take of their conduct, there is nothing whatever in this evidence to show that they were there by re curement of General Rousseau nothing whiat ever to show that they knew might of his purposes; that he had lifted a finger or done a thing to have them there at that particular time; and the coincidence which the gentle; man ffom Iowa referred to yesterday is simply a coincidence, and nothing more. Now, sir, I do not care to say anything further on the general question. I should be glad I to have the House decide by a distinct vote between the proposition for expulsion and the i prosition fora re rimand. I think that is a fair issue; but I desire to repeat again that I do not think it fair to punish General RofsSEAU, one of the parties in this case, for his violation of the privileges of the House, without at the same time inflicting some censure or at least disapprobation upon the Gentfrom Iowa, by whom that violation was prevoked. Freedom of debate, sir, must be protected. It ought to be protected. The dignity of debate must be protected. It is due to ourselves, it is due to the proprieties of our proceeding, it is due to the attainment of the end for which we are here that it should be thoroughly and effectivel protected. But I submit to this House whether the waryto pretect it is to allow one member to assail another in the grossest and most insulting terms without doing anything to protect him, and then to inflict punishment u n him for attempting to protect himself. submit, sir, that if we are to protect the freedom and dignity of debate we must check its abuses, and thus give no man either revocation or excuse for assailing it. As etwecn members, entitled to equal privileges and equal protection, the protection must be equal and impartiaL Here let me refer to a point mentioned in the report of the minority as another reason in extenuation; and thatis, that General Rous seau failed to receive the protection of the House. He appealed for it twice distinctl, saying each time that unless the House won 0. protect him he must protect himself. The Gentfrom Iowa was, it is true, called to order by The SPEAKER; but, sir, he was not, as the rules require, compelled to take his seat and await the decision of the House whether he should proceed or not. In the 1st instance, when he was called to order, The SPEAKER said very procrly that his remarks were out of order. but he Went on. Again he wascalled to order, and then The SPEAKER said: “The Chair sustainsthe point. The Gentfrom Iowa is out of order in this poursoof remark and as the gentleman has beentwice calli dtoorder ltqlhe (, Ghairwill check him if he again violata the e. That is not protection, sir. And when the Gentfrom Iowa did again violate the rule and the Speaker said, “The Chair thinks that the remar sof the gentleman are out oforder, " the gentleman replied, “ I have nothing further to say." He was allowed from the beginning to the end to go through the whole of his tirade and to say all he wished to say Without being once called to order by the House and silenced. That was not protection to the gentleman as sailed. It was simply protection to his assail ant. The Gentfrom Iowa enjoyed complete impunit throu bout the who c of his remarks for whatever e chose to say. Now, sir, I wish to say in the 1st place that I think The SPEAKER acted upon his own conviction of the propricties of his position in allowing members to call to order when any violation of order was commited in the course of apersonal explanation. The reason which he gave for his opinion the other day, namely, that he alone of all the members of the House is not asked for his consent, I should say, asau abstract proposition, is not a sound reason, simply because The SPEAKER of this House is also a member of this House; and he loses none of his rights as a member of this House by the fact that additional rights and powers have been placed in his hands by virtue of his position as Speaker. I think it is just as competent for The SPEAKER to object in such a case as it is for any other member. A sense of ro priety or a sense of courtesy may restrain imfrom the exercise ofit. But, as to the right, I do not know of any positive rule which denies it to The SPEAKER; and in the absence of any such rule I should say that the right exists. In the limited experienceI have ha as apre siding officer in the State Legislature I have always acted on the assumption that I still possessed all the rights of a member, and never hesitated to exercise those rights in case of necessity. House failed to silence the member from Iowa while he was insulting the member from Kentucky. Now, sir, that is a reason why the House should be lenient in dealing with the Gentfrom Kentucky in passing judgment upon hiln. I urge it as such a reason, and in no other way. I say that when the House of its own free motion failed to protect I But that is not here a material point. The iil the gentleman, every member sitting still in his seat and for bearing to exercise the right belonging to him, notwrthStanding a direct apgal twice repeated from the Gentfrom Kentucky to exercise that right and screen him from insult. it is not just for the House thus acting to visit with undue severity the gentleman who seeks for. himself the protec Ition which the House refuses to give him. As I have already remarked, freedom of debate must be protected; but I submit that this mode and manner of protection must be g‘trwerned by the reason or the protection. by should we protect freedom of debate7l Why do we have ebnte at all? In order that in the discussion of all questions Of public interest. both great and small, the utmost freedom of discussion may be allowed. This is the right of every one, and should not in the least be violated or infringed. But I say that no member should be allowed to take advantage of this freedom of debate thus secured to assail the personal character of another member. Possibly he may have the abstract right under the rules to do it. It may be his right, clear and undoubted, to sayjust what he pleases in regard to anyone whom he may select for the object of his assault. That, sir, is not in question now. The question is, suppose he! avails himself of that right, is he entitled to i undue exceptional leniency at the hands of the l House if he abuses the right which it thus allows him to exercise? It seems to me he is I not. I think we owe it to ourselves to reform f the evils and abuses that exist in this respect. We owe it to the dignity of this House and to the proprieties of our debates to restrain intem perate personal abuse, wanton assaults upon rsonal character assaults which throw no ight upon the subjects discussed and only arouse the passions and just resentments of those upon whom they are made; and if there be any defect in our rules in this regard; if there be any luck of power in The SPEAKER’s hands to check these evils and prevent abuses of the freedom of debate which will, unless checked. inevitably lead to personal collisions and assaults, I shall take great pleasure in attempting. with the concurrence and aid of others, to devise a remedy. Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BOYl JR obtained the floor.