Mr. Wilson Nearer, there was a time in the history of this Government when a breach of the privileges of the HoRep by an assault upon one of its members for words spoken in debate would have been considered a very grave offense. But, sir, jmlging from the remarks which have been made upon the case we are now considering, one would be justified in concluding that that time.has passed. Around the members of this body the Constitution has thrown its special protection; but that does not seem to be regarded as of any consequence now. One might conclude from the run of the debate upon this occasion that my colleague is upon trial rather than the member from Kentuc y. Now, sir, I wish to examine for a few minutes the character of the offense of which the Gentfrom Kentucky is guilty. The constitution of the U.S., in the 4th section of the 1st article, provides as follows: "The Sens&Reps shall receive a.compensationfor their services, to be ascertained by law and paid out of the Treasury of the U.S. They shall in all cases, except treason.fel ony, and hrcach of thodpeacc, be privileged from arrestduring their utten onceat the session of their respectiveI ours and in going to or returningfrom the same; and for any speech or debate in either houso they shall not be questioned in any other place." That is the language of the Constitution of the U.S. The Gentfrom Kentucky, when he at the beginning of the session presented himself as a member of this body, was required by the law and the Constitution to take at the Clerk’s desk, in the presence of the House and the country, an oath to support that Constitution. His outh covered as much the section I have read as any other section of the Constitution. He therefore is guilty of a higher offense than would be indolved in an act of like character committed by a person not a member of this body. If a person not a member of this House should commit an assault upon a member for words s oken in debate, it though guilty of a rent 0 ensc, he would not have restin upon is conscience a violation of that obligation which requires every member of this body to observe the Constitution of the U.S. Therefore I say that the offense which the Gentfrom Kentucky has committed is the gravest which can be committed against the privileges of this House and its members. That, sir, is the character of his offense, a violation of the Constitution which his solemn oath requires him to observe, respect, and maintain. This being the character of the offense, the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HALE] who last addressed the House on this case, might well have said that he would not claim that the Gentfrom Kentucky was justified, by any circumstances attendin this case, in making the assault; that he would not discuss the question of justification; that he would put that altogether aside. And I was amazed that a gentleman ofhis intelligence should, while thus in sisting upon the absence of justification, make a speech which, in spirit, was, throughout its length and breadth, a justification of the assault committed on the person of my colleague. And why? Because my colleague, in a debate upon this floor or, if the Gentfrom NewYork says that it was not in “debate, ” Iwill say in a speech upon this floor used language which was distasteful to the member from Kentucky language of such grossly insulting character, as insisted by the Gentfrom NewYork, that, the member from Kentucky could not resist that natural impulse which required at his hands a castigation of the member utterin such language. Now, I propose to see whnether there is not another side to this case. I propose to see whether the Gentfrom Kentucky, whose conduct is sought to be palliated, if not justified, has so governed his utterances in this House as to keep himself entirely from the charge of having furnished provocation to the Gentfrom Iowa to retort in the manner he did. The dificulty between the Gentfrom Kentucky and my colleague had its origin in the month of It‘ebruar. During that month the Gentfrom Kyentucky made a speech on the freedmen’s Bureau bill: In that speech he made use of language to which my colleague excepted; and in some remarks which he made on the 5th of February I find the following: “ Mr. Gnrnxunp. History repeats itself. I carenot whether the gentlemanwasfour years in the war on the Union side or 4 your son the other aide;but I O saythat be degradedhis State and uttered unentT meatI thought unworthyofnn American officerwhen hesaid that he.woulddosuchan act on the complaint of a negro against him." The allegation by the Gentfrom Kon tucky was that he would shoor a negro who would cause his arrest by an officer of the Freedmen’s Bureau.