Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the day, and at this late period of the discussion, I re ret to occupy the time of the House at all. '1 ere have, however, been afew points made during the progress of this discussion, which, at the request of some of the gentlemen who. have this subject in charge, I will notice. I wishto say at the outset that both the gentlemen concerned in this assault are person' ally known tolme; both are my personal ffiends, and I am theirs. I trust, therefore, that notabing that I shall say will be construed as arising in any do ree from personal feeling against either of them. The difficulty between these 2 members began in a war of words, waged at 2 distinct periods. The 1st was in Febru ary last, beginningwith the 3d and endingwith the 8th of that month, the history of which is substantially as follows: 1. Saturday, February 3, 1863, (Mr. GRINNELLin the chair.) In a speech on the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, Mr. Rousseau, after relating a case of arrestin his own town, reports himself as saying to the officer of the Freedmen’s Bu re“au as follows: Now. sir, I told the agentof thatburcuuvthenjust what I thought and felt in referenceto this matter. I said to him. 'lfyou want to protectthe freedmen of this community, IamWithyou heart and soul. I will stand by you in all just measures; but if you intend to arrestwhite peopleon the expane state mentsof negrocs, and hold themtosuityour convenience for trial and line and imprison them, then I say that I oppposeyou: and if you should so arrest laibnedrptyu;nish me {would kill you whenyou setmeat and I think that you would do the same to a man who would treat you in that way. if you are the man I think you are, and the man you ought to be to fill your position here! " 2. On Monday, February ii, in the course of a general speech on the same subject, Mr. Gnuvzwm. said: "The honorable Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. Rousseau] declaredonSaturday.as I caughthislan guage, that if he werearrested on the complaint of n negroand broughtbeforeoneof the cutsof this bureau, whcnhe 0(‘(111frle'3ehewould s not him. Is that civilization? It is the spirit of barbarism that has toolong dweltin our land.thespirit of infernal regionsthat brought on the rebellion and this war. 'Mr. Sun". I wish to saythat mycollccgue[Mr. Rthoeusesnsitule] mdaonefsrnoomt bIeolwoan, gto that class of  menthat 5 eaks of. Ilcsorved in the nion causefour cars during the war. “MLGRisiinLL. I historyrepeatsitself. Icarenot whetherthe gentlemanwasfour yearsin the war on the Union sideor foiirycurs on the other side: but I say that liede railedhis State and uttered a sentiment I thong t unworthy of an American officer when hesaid that he would do such an act on the complaint of a negro against him.” 3. On Tuesday, February 6, Mr. Rousseau denied having used the language, and said: “ Mr. Speaker. I did not usethelanguageimputed to me by the memberfrom Iowa. [Mr. GniNsiztn] And I pronounce the assertionthat has just been read, that I have degraded my State and uttereda sentiment unworthy an Americanoliicer.to be false. a vile slander, and unworthy to be uttered by any gentleman upon this floor." 4. On Thursday, February 8, Mr. GRINKELL produced the Globe containing Mr. ltocsssiiu’s speech of February 8, and claimed he had quoted him correctly. He then said: “I give the member the full benefitof an explanation of his declaration that he would kill a white douflt'yu, iiifn' etingilnder oath llllll in the dischargeof his that is a less unworthy notthan to shoot an American citine n of African descent. That may not have been degrading to his State, and whether it as was. I said. language unbecoming an American officer is a questionwhich I shall referto the giillant soldiers of the state of Iowa who never fought, thank God! but on one side and it may properly be decidedby the code of the 1st of American generals, and referred to the greatest of American captains, the Lieutenant General of the U.S." 5. same day, and immediately, Mr. Rous sssu responded as follows: “Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the gentleman to becomedefender of the troops from the free States. I simply wish to say that I have made no reflection uponthesoldiers of the variousStates. I have fought With them, sir, and I only wish that the Gentfrom Iowa had been willing to be present to seehow bravel and allantly the troops rem his own State and a! the rec States deported themselves in time ot'battle.” This concluded the February personalities, in which many unpleasant and severe things were said offensive to good taste and the courtesy due from one member to another, but not so disorderly or unparliamentary as to have led any member to call either of the parties to order. It was such a colliswu as we have frequently witnessed in this Hall, which we all regret, but which, as the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] has said, was not in clear and palpable violation of parliamentary privilege. The conclnSion of that whole debate of February seemed to be this, that each party was satisfied with his share in the discussion. The Gentfrom Iowa intimated that he might iave done the Gentfrom Kentucky is wrong, and that if so he was Willing to apologize; and the Gentfrom Kentucky expressed himself as entirely satisfied Wit his share in the debate. I supposed thatnbalance sheet had been struck, and that their friends would decide which of the 2 gentlemen “had come out best” in that Februar ren contrc. I take it, therefore, that for all purposes of this investigation, the February matter is out of the case. In the month of June, 4 months later the subject was reopened by the Gentfrom Kentucky, in a speech delivered by him in NewYork, in which, referring to an onslaught made on him in the House, he s oke contemptuously of the Gentfrom own as “a pitiable politic hip from Iowa one GnixxnLL.’ That is the 1st incident in the 2nd act. of this rama. On the 11th day of June, during a speech in this House, the Gentfrom Kentucky, of his own accord, reopened the case, and reviewed the old discussion between himself and the Gentfrom Iowa, as follows: “I said, sir, awhile ago. that dingshad been constantly madeat my nativeState, in mybearing, upon this floor; and last and leastof all things andevery body.let us givea moment‘s attention to themember SfrhoomrtIloywaaft, cMr. GRINNELL, who 1st assailed her here. conICESassembledlie assailedmyState and myself: be charged that I had degraded my oative State by saying that I would defend my family againstthe agentsof the Freedmen‘s Bureau. That member was pleasedto say on the floor. in answerto a suggestion of m colleague. [Mr. Snrrn] that he did not know whet crl hadfoughttfouryearson the rebel sideor on the Federal side in the late war. "I had under my commandand fighting under me from that member'sStatesomeof the bravesttroops from any State inthe Union. I wasin the war from the beginningof it until the end. In the Northwest I wasknown to have beenin the Federnl Army; but that membersaid he did not know whether I was on the rebel or the Federal side. I do not suppone s incilnber in the House believedone word of wht he Sil“lt. “