Mr. DUMONT. There is no foot note about it. The provision referred to has been repealed b the clause that comes in contact with it. hen 2 laws come in conflict with each other the latter law, according to all the adjudications in the lend, repeals the former. The gentleman may say thattheseRculations are made by Arm officers. That does not make any kind of iiference if Congress afterward ado ts them. I do not care, who made them if they were made by an old woman, if they were made by the most humble man in Washington city if Congress afterward by solemn enactment adopts them as the law of the land they are the law of the land, notwithstanding the gentleman may talk about “ foot notes.” The Gentfrom Pennsylvania has been very kind to me. On one occasion he yielded the floor to me, giving me an opportunity to make a speech out of my turn. fhlt exceedingly grateful to the gentleman for that; and the last thing which I would have wished to do was to show my ingratitude by inflicting a wrong upon him. I understand this whole thin. The gentleman was led into some errors. I acknowledge him to be good lawyer, one of the ablest in the land; but he was led into some errors by yielding a too credulous ear to those who misrepresented the facts. And now the gentleman has been led into additional blunders by having what I said reported to him in an offensive sense. You, Mr. Speaker, heard the few crude remarks that I took occasion to make yesterday. I do not pretend that they had much merit; I do not pretend that they were what they ought to have been; I do not pretend that they were what they would have been if they had come from the classic lips of the gentleman who has taken offense at them. But they were Will the gentleman allow question? and moved that it be referred to the gals: what I believed to be appropriate to the 1 Sir, a person who could not understand a word of the English language hoard 2 persons engaged in a discussion in that language., He went away and said that a particular one of the ‘parties had proved victorious; he had ll no kin of doubt about it. “Why, ” it was, asked, “ how did you find out which was victo 1 rious? You could not understand aword that, either of them said.” His reply was this: “Why, one of them got mad, and I knew then 5 that he was whipped." [Laughten] The gentleman did at mad, and there is no use of isguisingit. here isuo needof going l round the bush. There is no use of being, mealy mouthed about it. He went from one blunder to another on this subject, and it was l the bounden duty of any sworn member of the House, in answering him, to refer to the mis, takes which he had made. I did it as a man, and I profess to be as much of a man as any on this part of God’s footstool. I intend so to act on all occasions. I did not do it with any view of being offen sive to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. I entertain no unkind feelings for him, none whatever. I confined my remarks to those which he had made in regard to the Army. I entertain no unkind feelings for him, because I presume that he has been led astray by those who heard myremarks and were inclined to get him to pitch into me. [Laughten] I have now said all that I desire.