Mr. KELLEY. With the permission of the Gentfrom Ohio, I will make a brief statement of the circumstances in question. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be more painful to the orentemun from Connecticut or any other gentleman to be involved in apersonal controversy or to be under the necessity of making a personal explanation than it is to myself. such things are always disagreeable. I have my own very distinct recollection of all this matter. I never considered the substitute which has today been proposed by the Gentfrom Connecticut. I never saw it in its present form. The proposition was at no time submitted to me. Iread it for the 1st time this morning, when I obtained it from the Clerk’s desk after the gentleman’s personal allusion to me. It does not contain the provisoes or lead to the result contemplated b the substitute, to the consideration of which was invited, and to which, under false information, I was constrained to assent. On the 3d of March last, as the organ of the ComNavAffrs, Ire orted a bill which had been mnturely considered by the committee. That is the bill now under discussion. That, without any, the slightest modification, is the bill on which I have spoken today. It stands precisely as it came from the hands of the committee. After the gentleman had returned from Connecticut (for, as he has stated, he was not present at that time) it was suggested to me that he had asubstitute which referred the question to a scientific or naval commission, and made the finding of that commission absolute in so far that it would be the duty of the SecyNavy to accept the site indicated by the commission. I dissented from it. I desired to stand on the action of the committee. I had n doubt that a fair commission examining all tesites would report in favor of League Island, but inasmuch as the committee had reported a specific bill I preferred to stand upon it. I was then informed, Mr. Speaker, that without consultation with me several members of the Naval Committee had changed their of inion. I ask for the ear of the Gentfrbm Connecticut. I was then informed that several members of the committee had changed their opinions on the question, and instead of sustaining the bill which I as their organ was to report, or had, I believe, reported to the House would sustain his substitute. It was suggested by the chairman of the committee that by my accepting it under the circumstances a contest might be avoided. He also suggested other considerations which I will not in route but will say they did not relate to me, my personal comforts, or my sensibilities. I did not yield, but being assured by the Gentfrom conmodem that gentlemen upon whose support of the bill I relied because they had been ear nest for it in committee were against it thus assured, Iyiclded; oud havin done so. Iwaited on the 2 members of the L oval Committee on this side of the House, the Gentfrom Wisconsin and the Gentfrom Ohio, to know whether, if the bill were abandoned, they would accept and sustain the substitute. I was surprised, and [am pained to state it, that when, after all this, I waited on the gentlemen of the committee, of whose change of opinion Iwas thus positively assured, who I had been distinctly told were against the bill and for the substitute, I found them for the bill and against the substitute. I hastened at once to my colleagues of the committee, to whom I had expressed a reluctant assent to accept the substitute, and retracted it. One was the member of the committee from Maine, [Mia Prus] whom I now see in a neighbor’s seat, and the other was the member from NewYork, Mr. Dnnuno] unhappily not now in his seat. When I found the members of the committee were not determined, as I had been informed they were, to abandon the bill and accept the substitute, I hastened, I say, to such members of the committee as I could see, and let them know that I had been deceived; the deception having doubtless been practiced through mistake, of course, which was unintentional. U nderthese circumstances only did I consent to support the substitute. If the substitute now pending were accepted by any member of the committee, as the Gentfrom Wisconsin and the Gentfrom Ohio seem to suppose, I beg to assure them that it is not known to me. It is not like the substitute brought to my notice by the chairman of the ComNavAffrs, which provided fora commission to examine certain sites and make a report which should be final, and the SecyNavy should be bound to accept the site so selected. I resisted it because I was not willing to put the power of Congress in the hands of a commission, and especially after having seen how an able, honorable, and honest commission could, by adopting a false rule of procedure, be practiced upon by a corrupt and designing man as in the case of the 1st commission by the civil engineer. So there never was an agreement obtained from me to assent to this substitute. There never was an agreement obtained from me to assent to the substitute exhibited by the Gentfrom Connecticut to the members of the committee, except that obtained fraudulently. Of course I use the word fraudulently, as we do conspiring, confederating, and agreeing when preparing a bill in equity. I do not charge the gentleman with moral fraud, but I think his enthusiasm for a poor cause so far carried him away that he misapprcliended the remarks of the Gentfrom NewYork and the Gentfrom Maine, as he may those of other members of the committee.