Mr. WILSOh, of Iowa. It would be a sorry thing for this House to establish as a precedent that it will take the recollection or the impression, as the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] says, as to what. language mcmbers use in debate, casting aside the re art of their remarks in the Globe entirely. he Gentfrom Kentucky, in February, made use of the Globe as the basis of his personal explanation. The language therein contained was what he found fault with on that occasion; and yet he changes the language when he comes to speak in June, and refuses to give my colleague an opportunity to explain, deebnes to yield the i oor for an explanation. Sir, we have had too much “impression” about this case already; altogether too much “impression.” Instead of being guided by the imprint which the otIicial type have made upon the official records of this House, the impressions of gentlemen have been resorted to. This is the case so far as the words used in debate are concerned. But I am not ready to icld the case to the Gentfrom Kentuc yyet. There is one other thing worthy of our attention. After my colleague had responded to the Gentfrom Kentucky the Gentfrom Kentucky sought the floor again to reply. He did reply to what. was said on that occasion by my colleague, and he closed his reply in this language: “I hopenowthat I haveheard the last of themember from Iowa. I hope I shall never haveoccasion to recur to thesubjectagain. Whatevergloryhehas gainedin this contest I amcon10th e shouldwear." such, sir, was the parting language of the Gentfrom Kentucky to my colleague. Tic in effect declared that he desired to hear nothing more in relation to the case; that he desire to have nothing more to do with my collea e. With that declaration imprinted upon t. e records, the member from Kentucky deliberates for 4 days “ expecting an apol ogy, ” though he had once notified in colleague that he would not receive one; an closing in the House with the remarks I havejust quoted again notifying my collea ie that he wante nothing to do with him. the belligerents re tired from the field. All was at eace so far as that controversy was concerned: “I won’t receive an apology; I do not want an apology. The storm is over. I am satisfied with what I have made, and if the Gentfrom Iowa is satisfied with the laurels he has won, let him wear them; I am content.” 4 days pass; and what then do we find? The Gentfrom Kentucky seeks my colleague on the eastern portico of this Capitol and there administers to him a canin efor what? Why, sir, as the record shows, or language used in debate in this House. for which the Constitution which the member from Kentucky swore to support and maintain, declares no member shall be questioned elsewhere. Now, it may be that there is nothing but sunshine on that side of the case; but I want to know from members, whether they are to be driven or coaxed away from their ditty of maintaining sacredly the privileges of this body by any sympathy that persons may seek to create here in behalf of the Gentfrom Kentucky, who seems to be so abundantly able to take care of himself, and who refuses apologies when tendered. Why, sir. from the nature of the discussion we have had it seems that in this country no man’s character is worth anything unless he has been a military man. You may charge a man with being a “liar, ” a " “ mere thin, " a itiable politician;" you may use all lads 0 up robrious epithets toward him; but that is notiing, if he be a civilian; he is nobody. But when a gentleman like the Gentfrom Kentucky comes in here from the military service and whether he performed his duty well or ill, I am not going to question when such a gentleman comes in here and uses unparlia mentary language like that I have read from his remarks, attacking the character of other members of the House, he is to be shielded by that immunity which his service in the Army t rows about him. Sir, Prust it will be very long before this House will udOpt that doctrine. Why, sir, the character and reputation of a civilian are as dear to him as the character and reputation of a military man are to him; and when one is attacked it is certainly quite as much a provocation for a return of the attack in the body where the attack is made as language uttered by another is provocation for the military gentleman to change his base outside of this Hgall and make his attack there. Now, sir, I have occu ied the attention of the House longer than Iha intended when Isought the floor; butI desired to present, at least in an imperfect manner, the side of the case to which very little attention had been given during this discussion. I wish, also, before I couclu e, to remind the House of the circumstances attending this assault. the gentfrom Kentucky had been thinking over it for 4 days. It was a deliberate, malicious assault upon a member of the House for words spoken on the floor. It was not. only deliberate on the part of the gentleman himself, but his purpose was conveyed to at least one other person whom he invited to be present, and who by some cunningly devised means managed, without a formal invitation, to have one other there, both of them being armed. The 2nd one testifies that he did not arm himself for the purpose of taking a part in this difficulty; that he did not know that the difficulty would occur. But by some means this man Pennybaker, who was notified of the assault, procured the attendance of these other innocent men who did not know anything about it. It was strange, but it is true. Now, of course, these parties were all in nocent, and this congregating together of 3 or 4 persons to assault a member of congress amounts to nothing. I suppose, from the course this case has taken, that the privileges of this body amount to nothing, that the m dependence of the representative character. the in ependence of the legislative body of this nation amount to nothing if you only have its privileges infringed upon by some gentleman who comes here surrounde by military glory such as is claimed 'for the Gentfrom Kentucky.