Mr. THAYER. I 0 not object, I have no right to object to any opinions which my colleague inay choose to hold upon that so iject. It may be that the committee have transcended their jurisdiction. I do not profess to be as clear sighted, and I certainly have had none of the vast experience of my colleague. I only undertake to justify the action of the committee according to my own views of the case, and to vindicate myself, as a member of that committee, from the language which is applied to their report by my colleague from the Lancaster district, [Mhx S'ruvsxsj My colleague also finds great fault with the committee for having ventured to propose the 3rd of this series of resolutions. On former obeasions Hiave heard much from my colleague of the brutality which characterized a certain period of the parliamentary history of this country. I have heard him speak of “ Barksdale’s gleaming blade, ” and of many other things described in similarly well rounded and as tounding periods by my colleague. And it is Wltll some astonishment, allow me to say to my colleague, that I find him, on the very 1st occasion when it is within his power to put the strong hand of the law upon the violence which I have heard him so often denounce. now deny int;s the very jurisdiction of the House over 0 nders who have aided and abetted in a rsonal assault upon a member of this House or words spoken in debate. Why, sir, this is dwindling I say it with great respect to this Houst this is dwindling into a most insignificant farce. Either the privileges of this House have been violated, or they have not. If they have been violated, you are bound out of respect fory0ur own dignity, and for the preservation of the privileges of the body to which you temporari y belong, to punish that violation of its privileges. If those privileges have not been violate. then you have no right to impose any punishment upon anybody. But to propose, as is now proposed, that in view of an attempted violation of the most aggravated character, in view of an assault upon the person of a member of this House,0 blows given and blood drawn I say to propose to the HoRep of the Congress of the U.S., that they are to vindicate the privileges of this House by simply saying to the member who has committed that breach of privilege, “ Sir, pray consider yourself reprimanded, ” is to say that which the ple of the country will laugh at. So for m maintaining the self respect of the HoRep, so far from vindicating its outraged privileges, I maintain that by such a vote as that you would but encourage disorder and brutality. But before I say anything more upon that subject, let me make a single remark upon the action of the committee in regard to the member from Iowa. Iatn sort that this question ahould have been discusse as if it were acase of cross actions between individuals, in which both parties were claiming to recoVer damages from each other. Sir, I supposed that this question was to be discussed and treated as a question of privilegc; and I did suppose that members, in discussi and voting upon questions of privileve, would dismiss from view all personal considerations, all personal friendships, and do what justice and their own self respect might demand. But, air, this subject had hardly been mooted before an objection was raised in the nature of a plea of the statute of limitations, put in by the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. Wiisox] in behal of his colleague. It was said that the House had llipped its time, and that, although the House mi t consider it its duty to put upon the rec 0 its disapproval of the language used by the Gentfrom Iowa, [ Mr. GRIXNELL, and its disapproval of the personal reflections cast by him upon the Gentfrom Kentucky, the House is estopped from doing it by efllux of time. That paint was deliberately made; it was deliberately decided upon by The SPEAKER, in perfect accordance, I am quite sat isfied. with t itsprinciples of law and With every consideration of propriety which belongs to this subject. But, sir, this point, once overruled, has been revived and vain discussed. Now, permit me to say that I tiink it would have been, perhaps, a little fairer to this House, as I know it would have been fairer to its Presiding Officer, if, in stead of rearguin this small question of the statute of limitations, gentlemen had simply taken the trouble to appeal from the decision of The SPEAKER at the time it was made. We should then have had the judment of the House upon that decision, an, I doubt not, it would have been sustained. Why, sir, not to advert at all to the several and'satisfactory reasons which were given by the S aker for his judgment upon that question, et me say to the gentleman making the oint that this committee was appoiute and its instructions given by a unanimous vote of this House. Now, even under the rules, 2/3rds of the House may at pleasure suspend any of the rules. But, according to this doctrine, a unanimous vote of this House, instructing this committee to inquire into all the circumstances and facts of the case and to report what action they demanded, is not to take effect because of the phraseology of the rule which has been cited. Thus gentlemen place themselves in the predicament of maintaining that, although 2/3rds of this House may suspend every rule embraced in the Digest, the whole House cannot suspend a single rule of order. Before leaving this subject I wish simply to say that, with regard to the Gentfrom Iowa, the committee found in the course of its investigations that the assault which was committed was committed for words spoken in debate. It was so admitted by the honorable Gentfrom Kentucky himself. Nobody alleged or presumed that it was committed for any other cause. Then, sir, when the committee found that the assault was committed for words s when in debate when the committee found that the provoking cause of the assault was embraced in the personal reflections made by the Gentfrom Iowii. upon the Gentfrom Kentucky, were the mouths of the committee to be closed and were the to be forbidden to report to this House that in their judgment the immediate cause of the assault, which Was a violation of the privileges of this House, was the language of the Gentfrom Iowa, and were they, while recommending a certain punishment for the higher breach of privilege by the Gentfrom Kentucky, to pass by in utter silence and without any disapproval the unjustifiable reflections which occasioned the assault? Here the hammer fell.]