Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I beg leave to state to the Chair, that I did not intend this as a criticism upon the ruling of the Chair; and the Chair will remark that the point which I am now making was not specifically made on that occasion, because I did not discover the necessity of the point until after the decision had been made. I supposed that the other reasons assigned were sufficient. I am not presenting this for the purpose now of redis cussing the propriety of the decision of the Chair. I am presenting it, not as a question of order, but as involving the privileges of m collea e as a member of this House; and am asing the House to protect him in the enjoyment of his privileges, the report of the committee to the contrary notwithstanding. I think this question is so important that a ittle discussion of it can do no harm. As to the 1st part of the rule, it will be observed that the mischievous semicolou which figured here the other day does not occur in any part of the sentence relative to the excepting to and taking down of words. That part of the sentence is divided merely by commas. It. reads as follows: " If a memberbe called to order for wordsspoken in debate, the person calling him to order shall repeatthe wordsexceited to, and they shall be taken down in writing at e Clerk’s table." Now, this constitutes a complete division of the sentence, that if a member be called to order for words spoken in debate, the person calling him to order shall repeat the words excepted to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk s desk. For what purpose? Well, the reason for that rule was stated the other day in the ruling of the Chair. It was to prevent members of this House being called to account for words used, after other business had transpired, and when the memories of persons hearin them might. not present the language exaety as it was used. It was to get rid of “impressions.'7 Injustice might otherwise arise, for if members could be questioned the next day, they might be questioned the next week; if the could be questioned the next week they could be questioned the next month, and if they could be questioned the next month they could be questioned at the next session of the same Congress. To prevent that and to avoid its attendant danger this rule was adopted. And under it the exception is not perfect unless the words are repeated and taken down at the Clerk’s desk. ow, I ask the House to consider, before they vote to adopt the 2nd resolution reported by the committee, whether it is not an infringement of the privileges belongingto my colleague as a member of this House, and which must be protected in his person, in order that they may be secured for the enjoyment of every other member of this body. Sir. I new submit this case, so far as I am concerned, to this House; and in conclusion I ask members not to lightly regard the solemnity and 'gravity of the question involved.