Mr. HALE. It is very evident that what I have said so far has been said to very little purpose, or has not been listened to by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, Mr. Bour WELL] Or he would not have as 'ed me the question he has. In the very beginning of my remarks today I disclaimed entirely any question of justification. I have argued the whole case upon the ground that it was merely a question for the discretion of this House, and uothig else. I have said nothing which would warrant the Gentfrom Massachusetts in the conclusion to which his question would seem to indicate he had demo in regard to my line of argument. If he will do me the honor to listen to me, I am sure that before I get through he will see that I claim nothing of the kind which he would seem to indicate that I claim. Now, sir, right here I will allude inci dentally to a single matter which is covered by the remarks of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Bou'rwuu., ] and that is the lapse of time that occurred between the assault made upon this floor, and the assault made upon the steps of the Capitol. It. has been alluded to repeatedly, out of this House if not in it, as taking this case out of the ordinary rule of action, under the heat of assion or aggravating circumstances, but with the facts in the case as they appear from the report of the committee, it seems to me such is not the case. It appears that an intimation was made, probably from an unauthorized source, to Kir. Rousseau that an apology would be made in the House by Mr. GRINNELL for th'l language; that in expectation of that apology he waited from day to day for 4 days, in order to give ample time for what he felt was due to him from his anta onist. In doin thatit seems to me that we oug t not. to say that he a gra vated any possible offense that he might lave committed, and that he took away the palliation of passion and anger. For I submit to any man, whether resting under such insults from day to day for 4 days, with the expectation and what he believed to be the assurance that an apology was to be made, it is not. to be presumed that his anger will necessarily continue to be inflamed the more from day to day, instead of cooling from day to day, by the persistent omission to apologize? Waiting for a deserved apdogy which fails to come, is not giving time for passion to cool, but for passion to become more and more inflamed. Now, sir, it is assumed, and the Gentfrom Massachusetts in his question to me assumes it, that the language used by Mr. GRINNELL toward Mr. Rousseau was language used in debate upon this floor. In a certain sense it doubtless was debate within the rules permittin this House to regulate the conduct of its mem ers, and to protect them from what may be uttered here, it was undoubtedly, in one sense, debate. But in the fair, legitimate, proper use of the word “ debate” I submit that the remarks of Mr. Gmxxuu. which have been read at the Clerk’s desk were not used in debate. He was not discussing any question before this House; he was not. discussing any measure of legislation or any subject that might properly occupy‘ the time of the House. He asked the leave of the House to make a “personal exlanation, ” an exlanation of somethinginvolvmg himself, with the purpose, as I understand it, of setting himself right before the public. Availing himself of that occasion, not.only outside the range of “debate” proper of the legislative action of this House, but outside the range, as I understand, of any right conferred by the favor of the House for a matter of “ personal explrration, ” ho utters this most. insulting language.