Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, at this late hour in the discussion upon this question I do not think it desirable to indulge in many remarks. There are, however, one or 2 oints which have not to m mind been satisfactorily presented to the house and it is main] to them that I wish to direct the few remarks t lot I have to make. Much has been said in reference to the assault made in debate here by the member from Iowa upon the member from Kentucky. In reference to that, I must believe that the member from Iowa really did not intend anything derogatory to the member from Kentucky. The latter gentleman, however, understood it differently, and, so understanding it, recognized his right to vindicate himself. It must be borne in mind that the remarks of the member from Iowa were imprinted upon the public records of the country; they were placed in the Globe, to go down to all posterity; and his assault upon an honorable gentleman who has proved his courage and vindicated the honor of his country upon the battle field thus passed dOWn to posterity. There it stands forever as a record against him. Sir, this demanded something more than a mere retraction; yet the retraction itself did not go upon the record as the assault did. The gentleman assailed had made various efforts to induce the House to protect him against this assault, and the House had failed to do it. The words were then upon the record, to live forever and forever, and he sought what be conceived to be the only possible chance of vin dicating himself. He had notified the House that he would do it. He had told the House while these offensive remarks were being made thatif the House failed to protect him he would be compelled to protect himself; and he sought that protection. The House was well advised of the fact that he meant to vindicate himself, for after once so stating he went forward to where the Gentfrom Iowa was delivering his speech, and standing near him reiter ated the statement, “If the House will not protect me, I must protect myself, and I am able to do it.” That was fair warning; and yet the Gentfrom Iowa was permitted to proceed. I recognize the position assumed by The SPEAKER in regard to this matter as a correct one, namely, that permission having been given to the Gentfrom Iowa to make a personal explanation, The SPEAKER had no right to interfere, unless his attention was called to the remarks of the member from Iowa by some member of the House; but, after the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] ad interfered, the Gentfrom I0wa still went on, and it was not so much the words he used, as the manner of using them, that was disrespectful to the member from Kentucky. Now, the Gentfrom Kentucky, having notified the House of his intention to protect himself, and still not receiving due protection from the House, what else could he do? What other course was left open to him than the one he pursued? Following the bent of his own judgment, and not having received the apology that would vindicate him before the country on this record, he went out of doors to correct the wrong and maintain the position that he had occupied as a man of courage and determi nation. As this branch of the subject has been elaborately discussed, I am uiiWilling at this late hour of the day to elaborate it further. I will simply call the attention of the House to an extraneous matter connected with this transaction which has been brought in here by the report of the committee for the action of the House. Here are 3 gentleman who are imlicated in this assault by the committee, and) who may be brought to the bar of the House for punishment or rebuke. Now, as an individual member of the committee I maintained, throughout its session, but we had nothing to do with these gentlemen, and I wish to present my views on that point to the House. These 3 gentlemen were brought before the committee as witnesses. They were summoned and compelled to obey its mandate and when there were examined in reference to the character of this assault. They had no notice that there was any charge against them, and had no opportunity to defend themselves; and yet now they find themselves sud denly charged with a breach of the privileges of the House, and ordered to be brought to the bar of the House to receive its censure. Why does the Constitution of our country provide that no man shall be required to criminate him selt'in givirtp testimony? Do not all our crim inal proceeings proceed upon the idea that a man's word, when upon the witness stand, shall not implicate him? And yet these gentlemen are to be brought to the bar here to answer for a high crime without notice, and simply because their own words upon the witness stand have been used for their own condemnation and judgment? Sir, we have had the Constitution elaborately elucidated during the progress of the discussion in this case; and I would like now some constitutional lawyer totell me what right there is in this House to bring these gentlemen to this bar for what they did in the premises. Let us see what were the facts in reference to these 3 gentlemen. It is alleged that there were some 15 or 20 persons on the portico of the Capitol at the time this assault was made, and of those only these 3 are called to account. It is alleged that one of these was there as the persona friend of General Rot'Ssinir, and he admitted that he was there as a friend of long standing. What for? Because General ltoussmv had intimated to him that he was going to commit an assault on Mr. Guixxam. some time, and probably that day; and it. was for the purpose of seeing that there was justice and right and fairness in the contest between these as sailants that he was there.