Mr. GARFIELD. The occasion for my colleague's point of order is past now. I hold that the Gentfrom Kentucky had his remedy perfectly at his commund, ‘nnd that everytime protection was asked for it was given to the full extent demanded. And not only so, but after the Gentfrom Iowa had concluded his personality the Gentfrom Kentucky then took the floor and proposed to repel the assault in kind, that is, to answer words by words, and did so. And I will here remark, though I did not hear the discussion myself, that it appears to be the general opinion of members who did hear it, that the Gentfrom Kentucky bore himself with more diity and propriety at the conclusion than his ugliersary did. I make that remark for the purpose of showing that he came out of that encounter better than he went in. He began as the assailant, but he concluded with a d of dignity which partly covered the offensive matter and manner of his opening speech. Having come out of the encounter with some dignity and relative credit, he con. cluded his remarks on that occasion with these words: "I hope now that I have heard the last of the member from Iowa. I hope I shall over have on casionto recur to thesubpoctfgain. Whatever glo he has’gaine din this contest am con10th o should wear.’ Thus, Mr. President, the books were again balanced. As the war of words in February closed with about equal fortune and the books were then balanced, so, as the collision ofJunc 11 was concluded, the books were again balanced; the Gentfrom hentucky declared himself satisfied with 0 art he had taken in the transaction and sai tie matter had ended. Now, I hold that on every ground of honor ablecoiitest the matter was then ended. Ifcow ardice had been charged upon one side, false hood, which is worse, had been charged upon the other. If a slur had. been cast upon the military fame of one, the doc iest stain had been imputed to the manhood o the other, and after these mutual criminations and recriminations the books had been balanced and peace was declared. If anything happened utter that it ha pened by virtue ot a new assault, on nssau t that must stand alone by itself. And now let us consider this assault. Gentlemen are familiar With all the details of it. I call attention for a moment to the spirit manifested by the Gentfrom Kentucky on the trial before t'c committee. Instead of desiring to palliate his oiI'cnsc, instead of munifcsting any purpose to explain or to to the committee or the member thaat ploielogiiazed beaten, it is plainly evident on every page of the testimony that the member from Kentucky was proud of having committed the offense and wished to make it up ear that it was done courageously and prompt y, and thatho did not even wait. for an explanation. Let me read a few passages from the record of the cross examination of Mr. GRIXNELL by Mr. Rorssun: I nation, Iwanttoas ou ninto state whethor du not strike youovert cshon derswith thorattan on the instant you uttered words declining an apology. Whatever they were. " Anita“. I said very soon. I would not say on the instant. I think you sworn a gooddeal beforeyou ltrnck me. Did not I strike you before swearing wh. 3AM. I think not. “guctannllc Oe‘rI.Il.Athreink you I am positiveabout that? Question.Was not the swearingand the striking dome unllnncously‘l ""A nnrrrr. I should sayyou swore 1st.quentin. Did you put.your handon me until that rattan was about worn out? “IlllsWC'J'.I think I caught you when you comm“ence d. In m'on. I be: you to besureaboutthat matter. you to bring it again to your recollection." He wants the Gentfrom Iowa to be certain that he thrashed him before any word was spoken, and to make it appear that he came to thrash him and for nothing else. He wants the committee to understand that thrashing was the business he came for, and not to ask for an apology, that he did not expect any apology, but come there to assault and disgrace a member of this House for words spoken in debate. 4 times in the cross examination of the Gentfrom Iowa the Gentfrom Kentucky seeks in that waty to make it appear that he fought thcinemlier roin Iowa asquickly as he could possibly get at him, without waiting for any kind of ceremony. That is the spirit displayed by the Gentfrom Kentucky in this case. When he is called to the stand as a witness, in the same spirit he goes out of his way to put this question to the member from Iowa: “Question.I.wish to put the question to you distinctly, so asto introduce proof on that subject. I ask you again if, when I spoketo you about anapol og and you said somethingdeclining it. whether I didnot instantly beginwith the rattan and wear it. out, and whether everyblow I struck wasnot struck beforeyouput your handsonme; and wlicn you took hold otmy arm did I not take you by the throat and thrust youup n ruinsta column; anddid not you then remark to me, I do not want to hurt you;’ and (lid I not say, 'You areverykind.’ or wordsto thatetfect t” And when by and by the committee seemed to be in doubt whether they should decide that these things were done because of words spo ken in debate, the gentleman says, “ Certainly they were.” He hastens to assure us that the whole thing wasa matter of deliberate purpose and preineditation. He does not seek to pal liate his offense. He makes no apology. It is only the amiable Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HALE] and his other kind hearted friends who come before us and beg us to be lenient. The member from Kentucky gives us no ground whatever for leniency. Now, what was this assault made for? He declares it was for the purpose of disgracing a member of the House. Was it also for the purpose of proving his courage? Mr. Speaker, if did not happen to know of the former gal lantry and courageof the Gentfrom Kentuck, this assault would have proved to me that ie was totally destitute of manly courage, especially when we consider the comparative physical proportions of the 2 gentlemen. I here might have been some proof of cour age if the Gentfrom Iowa had assaulted the Gentfrom Kentucky; but on the other side, none. There must be other proof of the courage of the Gentfrom Kentucky than that. He should'have assaulted a person more muscular and powerful than the Gentfrom lowa if he wished to prove his courage. His courage was already established, and I regret that he thought it necessary to rees tablish it in such a way. Mr. Speaker, I should have said nothing on this subject but. for one reason. The military record of the gentleman has been referred to as a reason why the House should look len iently on his offense. Sir, letit once he decided that because a man has been in the Army he may therefore violate the personal privileges of members of the House, and there are quite a number of gentlemen on this floor who would be interested in that decision. If the military members of this House desire to have their military histories spread upon public records, and their military achievements rehearsed with all the decorations of oratory, it will only be necessary for them to get. up a collision with some member that can safely be flogged, and their neglected military exploits will adorn the columns of the Globe and be scattered through out the country. But, sir, as one of these who served in the field I utterly repudiate any such claim of impunity, and I ask gentlemen to judge me and my acts by the same rule that they judge any other member of the House. We are peers on this floor. It makes no difference whether I came here from the highest walks of military life, from the plow tail, the work bench, or the schoolhouse, I am officially the peer of every member on this floor. And I ask, Mr. Speaker, whatwill be the effoct of allowingthis offenseto asslightly by? Iwas sorry that the gentleman lirom NewYork I Tilri RAYMOND] saw fit to refer to the long catalogue of barbarisms practiced in this House, and then to ask in apparent exultation, “Which one of those was expelled? Not one, not even Pres ton S. Brooks for his assault on Mr. Senses.” Why was he not expelled? It was because there were enough bullies in the House to keep Mr. Brooks in his seat. But now, when a new era has dawned, when a new chapter is opened in our history, I beg members of this House to write down some bold, brave words that shall declare that here men stand upon their rights and not upon their muscle; that no longer the barbarism of bludgeons or the arguments of clubs are to be used, but the reason and judgment of men. Suppose you retain the member from Kentucky in his seat; he may have presents of canes and rattans; he may be feted and toasted for his barbarous offcnse against the dignity of this House. I beg this ones to set the seal of its condemnation upon his act. Sir, look to the fleet of his example. Even since I began this eech, a brutal assault has been committed in t isbuildin, in the corridors below where I stand, upon the person of the clerk of a committee of this House, and he is now weltering in his blood, his life despaired of. That clerk may die of the injuries a bull has inflicted upon him since I commence these remarks, and if on decree that the act of the member from Kentucky shall go without rebuke, then you may as well notify all the smaller men here to arm themselves with pistols creallcr. Sir, if fighting is to be the rule, if that is what we are to expect, then let us know it that we may be preared for it. Sir, I shall vote for the resolution of expulsion as it has been reported from the committee without change or alteration, and I trust that this House will have the moral courage to pass it by a vote so nearly unanimous that no man shall ever hereafter hope to gain any glory by becoming a bully, and [logging members whenever he may not be satisfied with what has been said in debate. ASSAULT ON A COMMITTEE CLERK.