Mr. SPALDING. The ntleman says the House failed to protect tfi: Gentfrom Kentucky when he appealed to the House. I do not think he will insist upon his statement when he reflects that the Speaker did imme diately call the member to order when appealed tolliy memberS.R.RAYMOND. I will give attention to that part of the subject more fully hereafter, provzded the Gentfrom Ohio will also remember that although called to order for a violation of the rules by The SPEAKER, the Gentfrom Iowa was allowed to proceed and to continue in the same strain. The House certainly did fail to protect the Gentfrom Kentucky. But, sir, as to the facts of the assault. there is neither difficulty nor doubt of any kind. The Gentfrom Kentucky came before the committee, and said he had no concealmentin the matter at all; he wished the whole thin to be understood precisely as it occurred. e admitted that he made the assault; he admitted that he did it with premeditation; that he did it for words spoken in debate, and he declared that his purpose was to disgrace the Gentfrom Iowa by blows, as the Gentfrom Iowa had attempted to disgrace him on the floor. The testimony was of course to the same point. These are the leading facts in the case, and they are fully admitted, as I understand, by the Gentfrom Kentucky. it is proposed by the majority of the committee to expel the Gentfrom Kentucky for that assault, and to censure the Gentfrom Iowa, or rather to disapprove of the language used by him in debate. Now, sir, great exception has been taken to this report, and an atteln t has been made upon this floor to give a wholly onc sided aspect to the transaction. In the 1st place, the gentleman’s colleague from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON] whom I do not now see in his seat, entered a point of order claiming that under the rules of the House the House had no right to cen sure the member from Iowa for the language used by him. He attempted in the 1st place to screen his collea e from any censure or punishment under the technical rules of the house. And in the next place, the Gentfrom Iowa, arguing for hiscolleague, attempted to show that his colleague had done noting worthy of censure or disapprobation.