Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly not; but. Isay that, according to the rules of proceeding in this House, anyone of the 182 members is authorized to call the disorderly member to order; and the failure of all the members to do it is an indication thatatho House is pleased to allow him to procee. v My colle c [Mr. Srannnvo] said yesterday that his high chilled in his veins ywhen he heard the language used by the Gentfrom Iowa toward the Gentfrom Kentucky. Why did he not then use his privilege as a member to stop it by simply raising the point of order and requiring the Speaker to decide it? After the Gentfrom Iowa had gone to a certain length in his personalities he was ealled to order. He was stopped 1st by the Gentfrom Illinois, [ML Huming, ] and again by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKSE and the point of order was promptly sustains by The SPEAKER. After the Gentfrom Iowa had thus been twice called to order, The SPEAKER announced his determination to call him to order himself, if he should again violate the rules by personal ities; and subsequently, in pursuance of that notification, The SPEAKER did call him to order. Now, I say that in the 3 instances named the Gentfrom Kentucky was protected by the House. But, it is said, the Gentfrom Iowa. was not required to take his seat, and the offensive words were not taken down. Whose fault was it? 'Wh, the Gentfrom Kentucky himself eoul have demanded it. He had is remedy. anyone of his friends could have demanded it. They all had their remedy. They saw fit to go no further than simply to call the Gentfrom Iowa to order; and the call was promptl res onded to by The SPEAKER. I say, then, that the Gentfrom Kentucky had all the protection that the Gentfrom Illinois asked for him, all that the Gentfrom Massachusetts asked for him, all that The SPEAKER asked for him, and all thathe asked forhimself. If he desired any more protection, he ought to have asked for more. officertainly has no ground of complaint against The SPEAKER, who ruled in his favor on every appeal, notwithstanding the gentleman had, in violation of parliamentary law, alluded to The SPEAKER by name 17 times in the 1st ten minutes of his speech of June 11, and had made‘ 2 offensive and uncalled for flings at The SPEAKER's visit to Utah and the Mormons.