The Speaker. The Chair prefers to make his decision, after which any gentleman may take an appeal. The point raised by the gentleman involves in the 1st place the rules of debate and the manner of calling to order, and 2ndly the authority of the committee under instruction of the House. The 61st rule, 1st read by the gentleman, was adopted, except that part in‘italics, by the 1st Congress under the Constitution, April 27, 1789. The 62nd rule, upon which be mainly relies, is in the precise words in which it was originally introduced by John Q. Adams. The history of the 62nd rule may perhaps show the reason for its intro duction. In 1832, Andrew Stevenson being Speaker, Mr. Stanberry, of Ohio, in the course of debate, deiiounced the Speaker for his political course in severe language. The chair was then occupied temporarily by James K. Polk, who was afterward Speaker. No notice was taken by the Speaker protempore or by any member of that enunciation until after the speech of Mr. Stanberry had been concluded. when exceptions were taken to it. The next day a motion was made to censure the member for denoun cing the Speaker, which was regarded as contempt of the House. After a long debate that motion prevailed by a large majority. But in the course of the debate there was a question raised as to what were the exact words used by the member in debate. There was then no Congressional Globe, nothing but Gales 8'. Sea ton’s Register of the debates, which was not a verbatim report. To settle the question. however, Mr. Stanberry repeated and reaffirmed the language. The next day John Quincy Adams offered this rule, which was immediately laid on the table. 5 years afterward it was taken up and adopted, and has since formed a part of our parliamentary law. There are 2 ways to call to order. 1st, for irrelevant debate. That simply draws the member back to the subject. 2nd, for disorderly languagc, transgression of the rules of the House, or indecorum of an kind. The 62nd rule applies precisely to that. The Chair will read it. Before that, however, the Chair will read the 61st rule: "Ifariy member, in speakingorotherwise.transgress the rules of the House. The Speaker shall or any mcinber may.call to order: in which casothe member socalled to order shall immediately sit clown. Unless permittedto explain." Under this, the oldest, rule, the primary responsibility of calling to order seemed to be devolved upon the Speaker, but under the 62nd rule, and this has been the usage since its adoption, the primary responsibility of callin to order devolves upon the members of the case, as will be seen: " If a meniberbecalledtq orderforwordsspokenin debate, the permncalling himtoordershall re cat. the wordnsg exceptedto, and theyshall betaken own in at the Clerk’s table, andno momben shall be held to answer or be subject to the censureof the House, forwordsspokeniiidebate. if anyother member has spoken or other businesshas intervened, after the wordsspoken and before exception to them shall have been taken.". The inference is plain that some member callsto order, and the Speakerthen rules upon the point. In “ persona ” explanations, which ever Speaker dislikes, out of which grow so much oi the trouble, discord, and strife there is in Congress, the Speaker is the only meni ber who is not asked to give his consent to it. It is the unanimous consent of the other members of the House that is required. It is generally understood that the member who asks this consent intends to make some “personal” remarks in review of remarks made in congress, in the press, or elsewhere, in which he claims to have been misrepresented. And the uniform usage of Speakers has been, with scarcely a single exception, searching for back in our parliamentary history, that when the House grants unanimous consent for a member to make “a personal explanation, ” the Speaker, who does not give his consent, whose consent is not asked, waits until some member rises to a question of order, when he promptly decides it. There have been very few exceptions, which, indeed, only prove the general rule. One was by the present occupant of the chair, upon the occasion involved in this report, who, after the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] had been twice called to order by members on the floor, and the oints had been sustained, stated that if this iine of remark was continued, he should himself check him, and did so. This 62nd rule is divided in the mid dle by a semicolon, and the Chair asks the attention of the gentlemen from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] to the anguage of that rule, as it settles the whole question: “62. Ha member be calledtoorderforwordsspokon in debate, the personcalling him toordershall repeat the words excepted lo" That is, the “calling to order” is “excepting” to words spoken in debate“ and thoy shall betakendownin writing at the clerk’s table; and no membershall beheld to answer or be sub'cctto the censure of the House.for wordsspoken in chute.if any other memberhasspoken or other business hasintervened.after the wordsspoken and beforeexceptionto themshall have beentaken." The 1st part of this rule declares that “ call in to order” is “ exceptingto words spoken in deate.” The 2nd part of the rule declares. that a member shall not be held subject to censure for words spoken in debate if other business has intervened after the words have been spoken and before “exception " to them has been taken. Exception to the words of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] was taken by the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. HARDING] the Gentfrom Massachusetts, Mr. Bssxsd the Gentfrom Kentucky, EhMr. Roussssu] and also by the Speaker of the House, as the records of the Congressional Globe will show. The distinction is obvious between the 2 parts of the rule. In the 1st part it speaks of a member excepting to Ian uage oi another and havinelthe words taken own; In the last part of e rule it says he shall not be censured thereafter unless exception to his words were taken; but it omits to add as an essential condition that the words must also have been taken down. The substantial point, indeed the only point, required in the latter part of the rule is, that excetion to the objectionable words must have been taken. These rules, the 61st and 62nd, are not always carried out to their full extent; it is not always re iiired that the words excepted to shall be taken own in writing at the Clerk’s desk, as we have the Congressional Globe in which are printed all the words spoken as taken down by the reporters in full. Sometimes, in deed quite often, the Chair rules upon the question of order as soon as it is raised, without the words excepted to being required by anyone to be taken down in writing and read. Sometimes, as today, in the debate upon the bridgeqnll, a member calls another to order, and requires the words to be taken down in writing, when the Speaker rules upon the question of order. Sometimes the rule is carried a step further, and the demand is made that the member called to order shall take his seat until leave is nted by the House for him to proceed in org; Sometimes, but rarely, the house goes beyond this and carries out the rule to its fullest extent and rigor by censuring the offending member upon the s ot. The Gentfrom Iowa [b Mr. WILSON] read in precedent of Mr. Speaker Grow, from the 37th Congress. But he did not read the language of the Manual which was quoted b the S weaker at that time. The language of Mr. allandi ham was uttered in comWhole, when the Speaker was not in the chair and conld not be. The Manual lays down a specific rule regulating debate in ComWhole; and this is the rule: “ Disorderly words spokenin a committeemus!be ownriltyteren podrotwn as in the House; but the commillee can them to the House/or animadversimi." The only way the House could have taken notice of the words excepted to in that case, was by having them written down in Committee of the whole, to be reported to the House. The Committee of theiWhole is a different body entirely from the House; it is presided over by a different person and is governed by different rules, as members are all aware. It has no power to censure a member for disorderly words, but must report them specifically to the House for its action. The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that under the 62nd rule, which is composed of 2 parts, separated by a semicolon, it is distinctly shown by the 1st part that “ calling to order" is excepting to words s oken in debate, and that that can be pursue further, if any member sees fit to do so; that any member can demand that the words excepted to shall be taken down in writing; or a member may demand that the person called to order shall take his seat until the Speaker decides the point. But even if the decision is adverse the Speaker cannot compel him to stop his speech, while any single member on the floor can. by demanding that he shall not proceed further unless by consent of a majority of the House. As this may seem strange to mem belrs, the Chair will read from the 61st ru e: " If the decision be in favor of the membercalled to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed; if other mine.he shall not be permitted to pmceed, in caseany membeorlu'cctw, ithoutleaveii the house. It is for any member to object to another, against whom a point of order has been successfully made, going 0n without the leave of the House. And the rule seems to be predicated on the presumtion that if, out of all the members who hear the objectionable words and the Speaker’s ruling against them, no one objects to is proceeding further, they are willing that he shall continue his speech. No such action was had in the House on the 11th of June, when this debate occurred.