Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I do not in tend to occupy any time in the general discussion of this question. I have nothing to say in regard to the character either of the Gentfrom Iowa, with whom I am well acquainted, or the Gentfrom Kentucky, of whom I know nothing; and even were it otherwise, it is best that I should say nothing of the latter gentleman lest what I might say should be considered as provoked by some unkind remarks which he is reported to have made with regard to me, which under such circumstances I never answer. But, sir, I cannot help thinking that there is some irregularity in the trial of the Gentfrom Iowa which is now going on; for I consider it nothing else than a trial of that entle man a trial upon charges never mat c and never referred to the committee. This proceeding has given occasion here and there for eulogy n on the distinguished and gallant Gentfrom Kentuck. anyone istening to many arts of this debate might suppose that this whiole matter had been gotten up for the purpose of glorifying the mlllifl? career and genius of that gentleman, which have no disosition to question. After the cloguent. high fiown eulogics of the chairman oft ie committee [Mr. SPAIDING] and the amiable Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. H.Li:, ] I won d as soon think of doubting the military history of Marl borough or Bonaparte or Washington or Grant as to doubt the distinguished inilitarr position of the Gentfrom Kentucky. Whatevei‘ may be the action of this House, history will award him a full compensation in the glory which he will have acquired with pos terity. Future generations will overlook the fact that the issue now before the House grew out of a ruffianly attack by that gentleman, with 3 ruffian associates, upon an unarmed man, eu gaged at the time in the discharge of his duty shall not touch these things nor say one word about them. What I rose for was to sustain my resolution, my substitute, and I do it for the purpose of urifying the record of this House of what I comto be a greater in fringement of the privileges of this iody than even the assault o the Gentfrom Kentucky. Imean the report of the committee. Now, sir, what was referred to that commit tee? The preamble is in these words: “Whereas it is‘ alleged in the public press that Ben. Lovsu. H. Rousseau, a memberoft is House gain the state of Heutucky, did. on the eveningof hursday, the 14thinstant, commit an ult upon the person of Hon. B. GRINNELL.amember of his House from Iowa, becauseof words spoken in debate in this House by the latter' and where’s said assault, ifcommitted, wasa breae of the privileges of this Houseand of the memberassaulted." Undoubtedly, as the distinguished Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Boc'rwsu]. has well said, there is no more power in this filouse to o be'ond that preample than to br ng in a ill 0 indictment against any member of this House for words spoken last year, and every act beyond the investiation of that charge was extra official, from which this House should urge itself if ever it means to take care of its own‘privileges and guard its members in future from the reports of majorities that may be passed upon them. After that preamble comes the resolution: “Resolved, That asclect committee of 5 be appointed by The SPEAKER to investigate the subjectand to report the facts.” What subject? The subject referred to and recited. There is no other subject and no other fact referred to the committee upon which they could, within the fair discharge of their duty, have reported to this House. Otherwise such a committee may travel over the conduct of every member of this body and every person outside of the House, select men at discretion and bring them to the bar of the House for punishment. Sir, I look at this as a most alarming state of things. I make these remarks knowing the high legal and moral character of the gentlemen that compose the committee, and the honesty with which I know they have made this report. M friendfrom Iowa, [Mr. Winsoir, ] very irregufhrly, as I think, brought this matter to the decision of the Chair. I think the Chair has nothing to do with it, although I know there are precedents of that kind. If there had been a resolution offered in this House to investigate the conduct of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] for words spoken 2 weeks ago, then the question of order would have been raised 81']! properly submitted to the Chair and decided by him. But that time was past. The resolution contained no such order, so that there is nothing for The SPEAKER to decide. I will now, therefore, proceed as though this had not been decided by theingenious Speaker, and I will discuss for a few minutes the propositions which I have stated for the purpose of enforcing the necessity of adopting my amendment, to exunge everything but the single question with regard to the Gentfrom Kentucky, in or or that the record may not stand to future Houses as aprecedent for their action. The 6th section of the Constitution, as already cited, speaking of the privileges of the HoRep, says that for any speech or deate in either House members shall not be questioned in any other place. That seems to be very explicit. To be sure there have been veryingenious suggestions that knocking a man down or stabbing him is not questioning him, and that all this constitutiona provision means is, that if you meet a man out of doors who has made a speech here you shall not ask him the question whether he made it, but you may cut his throat or do anything oTthat kind. I do not look upon this argument as worth answering. It is clear that whatever is spoken in this House must be ‘answered in this House and nowhere else. Otherwise the constitutional provision is not worth a straw. The only question then is as to the time in which a member shall be questioned for words spoken in debate. Now, sir, the 61st rule of this House, passed long ago, is in these words: “If any member, in speaking or otherwise, transgressthe rules of the house, theSpeakershall or any membermay.call to order: in which casethe member socalled to order shall immediatelysit down. unlesspermittedto explain; and the llouse shall if appealedm, decide on the case, but without debate: it there beno appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be submitted to. If the decision be in fanor of the membercalled to order, heshall be at liberty to proceed: if olherwsaeh, eshall notbepermittedtoproceed, in me anymemberobject, without[coneof the House, and if the easerequire it, he shall be liable to the censureof the House." As the rule then stood it was loose. It was decided that it rerauired no takin down or verifying of the wor s in writing, an there was no limit as to the time when the member mli’ili. be censured, and it was to correct that evil that the 62nd rule was adopted in these wor s: " If a memberbe called to order for whrds spoken in debate.the person calling him to or or shall repeat the wordsexec ted to and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk’s table: and no member shall be held to answer, or be subjectto the censure of the House, for words spokenin (it'llllll), if any other member has spoken or officrhnsiness has intervened, after the wordsspoken and before exception to them shall have beentaken." Now, sir, if there be anything in the English langua c which is explicit to remedy the evil to which I have referred it is that. Calling to order does not mean getting up and saying “1 object.” Calling to order legitimately involves the taking down of the words at the desk and recording them. And then it is followed by a most explicit declaration that unless that be done, and unless the words he then excepted to, nothing is plaiiier in the English language than that never afterward shall those words be called in question or the member censured therefor. Now, theingenious argument is, that that rule consists of 2 parts. Why, every lawyer knows that when there is a entence in part' materia, all on one subject, it is all to be taken and construed together as one sentence. I do not care about your colons and semicolons. Statutes are all printed in solid line without marks of punctuation. These are mere questions of the printer. It is clear, then, as the sun in heaven that unless an exception be taken at the time no censure shall ever be inflicted upon the member. And let it not be said by any well trained man that what you mean there by “ exception” can be words heard and gathered by the ear or in any loose manner. The law fixes it that they must be words taken down at the desk. Whoever attempts to censure a member for words spoken in debate, if they are not taken down at the desk at the time you proceed to judgment, if anything else is done, has mistaken the privileges of this House and the great rights which are guarantied by the careful rules of this body. [Here the hammer fell.]