Mr. BOYER. The gentleman has not yet heard much of my argument; if he will have a little patience we shall probably soon have a better understanding of each other. I cannot, as I was about to say, brin my mind to see the vast distinction which has en made by the committee between a breach of privilege which has been committed againstthis House by the member from Iowa and that committed by the Gentfrom kentucky. It is diilicult to conceive of a personal attack made by words upon a member of this House more gross and contrary to the proper order and decorum of this body, than that which was made by the member from Iowa upon the Gentfrom Kentucky. He ca led him an incoherent, brainless defender of the President. Hc said that as a general he had no. record; that as a soldier he was without cour age. He denounced him as a pretender, and insinuated that he was held in contempt by GenlGrant and other officers of the rmy. The member from Iowa was called to order, it is true, but he was afterward permitted to go on to the end. He was twice mildly rebuked by The SPEAKER, when invoked by other members to interfere, but still he was permitted to proceed not only in order, but out of order, until he had exhausted the entire budget of his foul invective. I maintain that this House by having allowed that attack upon the Gentfrom hentucky to be continued after the Gentfrom Kentucky had twice iven warning that unless he was protected by tchouse he would be obliged to protect himself, put itself in the wrong. By that omission on the part of the House to extend to the Gentfrom Kentucky that protection to which asa member of this once c was entitled, it failed to vindicate its own dignity as well as the rrflts of the member so assailed; and it could not with an degree of propriety or justice visit upon the end.of the Gentfrom Kentucky e penalty which the committee has repose. Before the House can justly punis with severity a member for a breach of its privileges it should see that he has no cause of complaint for not having had, that protection which the rules of the House and the rules of decorum afford him. In the British Parliament they manage these matters in a different way, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the rules and usage in the House of Lords and the House of Commons in this particular. There they are swift to punish any breach of the privileges of Parliament; but they begin by extending to the member 1st assailed the most ample protection. They do not permit the occasion to pass without Visiting upon the member who offends by the personal abuse of another the rebuke which he deserves for the violation of the dignity of the body to which he belongs. In the House of Lords the following rule prevails, having been enacted as long ago as 1626. I quote from May’s Law and Usage of Parliament, page 319: '“ To prevent misunderstanding and for avoidin of i offcnsivo speeches when matters are debating, either in the House or at committees.it is for honor sake thought fit and so orderedthat alfpersonal, sharp, or taxing speechesbe forborne; an whosoeveran swerothanotherman'sspeechshall apply his answer to the matterwithout wron& to the person; and as pothing oifeusivois tohospo en.sonothing is to be ill taken if the party that speaks it shall resently makea fair exposition or clear denial of the words that might hearany ill ponstruction: and if any offenebegiven in that kind. as the House itself will be very sensible thereof. so it will sharply censure the offender and give the party offended a fit reparation and a full satisfaction." In the House of Commons substantially the same rule prevails. The author says: “ The House of Commons will insist upon the offensive words being Withdrawn. And upon an ample apology being made which shall satisfy both the House and the member to whom the offense has been given. “the apology be refused, or if the ioffcnded member decline to express his satisfaction. the House take immediate measures for preventing the quarrel from being pursued further by committing both the membersto the custodyof the sergeant.’ In a notable instance when, in the heat of debate, personalities were resorted to by Mr. Fox in his debate With Mr. Wedderburnc, and he was about to leave the House without having made an apology, the doors were locked, and he was kept in the hall until he had satisfied the House for his offense against its dig nity, and had by unapology rendered a proper reparation to the injured member. Sir, if the Congress of the U.S. were to adopt and enforce such rules as these there would be po excuse for a gentleman on account of abuSive words made use of against him in debate to resort to a cone or to any other instrument for the infliction of crsoual chastisement in a case like this. ccause when the House had judged of the ease, and had exacted the amount of reparation which it deemed to be due that would put an end to controversy. But that is the very thing which the House neglected to do in this case. It is scarcely worth while for the majority of the committee to tell us that there can be no such thing as an excuse for a gentleman under any circumstances resorting to redress outside of the‘House for slanders uttered in debate. Public sentiment in such cases, if it does not prescribe the law on the statute book, Will make the law which in effect repeals and supplies it. Bad as it is this is perhaps not the worst case of personal abuse that might be imagined. Is t iere a gentleman upon this floor who cannot imagiueasluuder repeated against him or his, not to present which would make him a mark for the contempt of any community in which he happened to live? There are offenses of that kind which might be committed which pny member’s constituency would justify him in resenting bya castigation even still more severe than that administered to the member from Iowa. Not only is the rovocation to be taken into consideration, but before this House can decide justly in this case it must consider the neglect of its own duty in not having provided against this contingency by the prompt enforcement of its own rules. Now, Bil“ while the committee recommend that CKplllBlOn,i;ll(Every highest penalty which the House can inflict, shall be visited upon the member from Kentucky, they only recommend that the House express its disapprobation of the conduct of the member from Iowa. They simply say, to use their own words, that his act “ merits the disapprobation of the House.” And I say, therefore, that while the penalty which is thus recommended to be inflicted upon the Gentfrom Kentucky is, beyond all reason, excessive, that which is proposed to be inflicted upon the Gentfrom Iowa is unreasonably mild. Gentlemen talk about the freedom of debate, and say that it must be preserved. So it must, but not to such an extent as that the moment a gentleman becomes a.member of this House he therefore is clothed at once with an unlimited license to become a blackguard. When gentlemen, by their election to this House, win for themselves the designation of “honorable, ” that is surely no reason why they should less observe the amenities of decent society or that they should cease to have a preper regard for the feelings of others. The offense committed in this case by the member from Iowa, the committee even say was as great an offense of that nature as could be conceived of. According to the report of the committee in their finding of the facts, the language used by the member from Iowa was malicious and Vile in spirit, and utterly false in fact. It was used, too, against a man u)Oll whom no better eulogy can be pronounced than that which was contained in the remarks of the Gentfrom Ohio, [ML SPALDING] the chairman of the select committee, who reported the resolutions of the majority. But he concludes that, therefore, because the character of General Rousseau is exalted, the more fit subject is be for punishment on account of the offense with which he stands charged. In this, too, I differ with the Gentfrom Ohio. I say rather that the higher the character of General Rousseau, the greater is the offense which has been committed by the member from Iowa in thus falsely and mali ciously assailing him on this floor. Let the House therefore, before it judges the Gentfrom Kentucky, judge itself. Let this House see whether it has done its own duty in this matter whether it has interposed when it should have interposed and afforded to the Gentfrom Kentucky such protection and reparation as deprived him of all reasonable excuse for afterward taking his character and his honor into his own keeping. This is the question which the House must 1st decide before it can justly decide against him upon either of the resolutions reported by the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to m colleague, Mr. Jonxsosj