Mr. SPALDING. Yes; and if any person interposed in favor of either one then they er pected they might be called upon to use their pistols. That was the evidence. Mr. Speaker, it is in evidence that the member from Kentucky, after saying to the member from Iowa that he had waited 4 days for an apology for words spoken here upon this floor and receiving in reply “What of that?” am “I will teach you what of that." And then he administered blows upon him With his rat tan, until, after some 8 or 10 blows, the stick itself broke, and the pieces were gath ered up from the pavement. Now, it is said that no injury was inflicted, and that no injury was designed to be indicted. “by, air, the very object of the member from Kentucky, as avowed by himself and sworn to by all.the witnesses who said anything upon the subject, was to bring the member from Iowa into disgrace. And how could he 0 it more effectually than to whip him aroun the face and the head and ears and shoulders with a small rattan, stop in occasionally to lecture hill 1,0.nd saying, ow, you damned pup y and poltroon, look at yourself.” The memor from Iowa, after receiving half a dozen blows, exclaimed, “I don’t want to hurt you.” To which the reply.was made, “I don’t expect you to hurt me,you damned scoundrel, but you tried to injure me upon the floor of the House. And now look at ourself; whipped here, whipped like a dog, disgraced and degraded. here are your 127,000 constituents now?" And for what was this assault committed? For words spoken in debate upon the floor of this House in open session; proved so by the witnesses' admitted to be so by the member himself. We have here, then, this bold case of a member of this House 4 days after he had uttered the language in debate upon this floor, being assailed with violence, and whipped, whipped like a dog. in the eastern portico of this ‘apitol, in the presence of ten, 15, or 20 men, without a hand raised in his defense. But, anygentlemen, this was rovoked by the language used by the member from Iowa, dero atory to the character of the member from I Kentucky as a chivalrous officer of our late [haion Army. Mr. Speaker, whenever any gentleman upon this floor shall see fit to espouse the cause of Lovnu. H. Rousseau, and to portray him here as a patriot, as a high minded gentleman, as a chivalrons soldier, as an officer who in the hour of his country’s danger did as much with his bright blade as any other man perhaps, more perhaps than any other man from the old State of entncky I say that whenever any member shall see lit to do that, Iwill say “ amen” to the eulogy, and 0 him one better on it, in the language of the Vest. gLaughter] For my part, ifI have read aright no history of the battles of Shiloh, of Perryville, of Murfreesboro‘, the white plume of the gallant Henry of Navarre might well be poled when compared with that of ltocssmu. doubt not his chivalry; I doubt not his courage. No man in this country, no woman, no child, has a right to disparage the fair military fame of Lovem. H. ltorssssu. And sit ting in my seat as a member of this House, my blood chilled in my veins when I listened to an imputation to that effect. I cannot for a moment countenance any such imputation; I will set the seal of my re robation u' on it Iwherever I find it. But tie more lolty the character of Lovum. H. Rousseau, the more of a gentlemen and a hero you make him out to be, the more of a star you make him in the bright galtixy of our heroes, the worse is the example for all time to come for this HoRep. For this here, this patriot, this high minded gentleman has seen fit, not withstanding his 4 years of discipline in the school of the Army, to break over the discipline which is interposed by the Constitution and by parliamentary law, to violate not merely the privilege of a member of. this House from the ‘tate of Iowa, but one of the dearest and most hallowed privileges of the people of our whole country. Unless we can have freedom of discussion upon the floors of Congress, where are we? It was said, in the discussion of that celebrated case ofHouston and Stanberry, by the old ora' tor from IllidIsland, Tristam Burges, that free discussion and liberty were contemporane ous fires; they would blaze and brighten, or they would ale and be extinguished together. And, sir, I elieve in that as a truth. Liberty among the people of our country depends mainly upon the freedom of debate in this Congress of the U.S. How are we to protect freedom and independence in debate if we suffer the violation of these high privileges to be passed over with impunity? It may be said, “ fen can disapprove of the conduct of General Rousseau as on disapprove of the conduct of the member from Iowa. You can call him to the bar of the House and repri mand him through the mouth of the Speaker.” That is true. A1this is now within the power of the House. But, sir, in a case so well definedns the case of Rousseau and GRINNELL, where there is no possible room for doubt in regard to the intent with which the assault was committed; where it is avowed to have been committal for words spoken in debate, and where it was committed, not in the heat of debate, not when the assions were aroused and on fire, but after our days of cool and deliberate consideration; when with a fixed and fell determination to override the Constitution and the privileges of the House these ignominious blows are inflicted upon the person of a member, we are called upon to determine solemnly that we will content ourselves with nothing less than an ample vindication of the dignity and the privileges of this House. The majority of the committee have, with great reluctance, come to the conclusion that they must recommend to the House the expul sion of the offending member as the only adequate penalty for an offense committed with so much coolness and deliberation and under such aggravated circumstances. I think, sir, that if it were the last vote I should be called ‘upon to give in this House, I should do violence to my conscience should I give a vote for an thing less than expulsion, knowin as I db that the offense has been clearly an perfectl proved, and knowing the consequences which must follow should the House lightly pass over such an infri ement of its high privileges. It may be said “the provocation was great.” We all admit it. But, sir, the majority and the minority of the committee concur in the position that the provocation presents no justification whatever. It never will do for members to take into their own hands this administrative justice for offenses given to them on the floor of this House. I was asked awhile ago by a member of this House, “ What would you do if a Representative on thi’ floor should in the course of a speech utter words highly derogatory to the character of another member, affecting that member, perhaps, in the dearest family relations ‘3” I care not how high you set the provocation; I say that no language which may be uttered here can justify a member in in icting personal violence upon another member. This HoRep can “punish its members for disorderly behavior." It has this power by the express provision of the Constitution. It has full power over all the words, all the actions of every member of this body. It is competent for this House to punish a member, even to the extent of expulsion, for disorderly be havior, as well for words of this provoking character spoken in debate, as for any other conduct that is disorderly.