Mr. HALE.Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss the report of this committee or the resolutions submitted by them, but I simply seek the floor in consequence of my colleague [Mr. Dnvrs'l] huvin intimated that he would move a resolution of reference as to the rights of the House, and the rights of members of the House in regard to the publication of libels like that reported upon by the committee; and I rise for the purpose of suggesting to my colleague that when he offers that resolution be make it a littleanore comrehensive, so as to cover another branch oft is case, which has come to my knowled e within the last 2 days. The report of tie committee has been exhaustive of the subject committed to it so far as affects the charges brought against my colleague in the libelous letter which was read at the Clerk’s desk. Since the hearing before the committee was' terminated and since their report was made to the House, I have received t rough the mail, and I understand other members have received the same document, a pamphlet bearing the printed signature of James B. Fry, whom I understand to be this same Provost Marshal GenlFry, purporting to be instructions by Mr. Fry to his counsel for his defense before this committee. It strikes me as a little singular that the private instructions of the person on trial to his counsel for the defense should be printed and circulated among the body which was to pass upon the subject after the counsel has been heard in fall before the committee, and his argument printed for the benefit of the House. In that pam hlet I find this very re markable language, which I think involves, if possible, a higher breach of privilege even than the original one. For bear in mind that this is printed, orat least circulated, after the report of the committee, falsifying the original charge. This pamphlet says: I “0f the principal charges(containedin my letter) maintain and reassert not only the substantial but the literal correctness." In other words, after a fair trial and examination before a committee, with every opportunity afforded him to maintain his original charges, and utterly failing to produce any evidence whatever to maintain them, a pamphlet is here circulated in which the original libel is reasscrted in its full length and breadth, and in all its details. I submit that there is a question of privilege for the examination, consideration, and action of this House. Another word in regard to this document. It states by way of preface that this was a letter of instructions which was addressed by GenlFry to his counsel, Hon. A. G. Riddle, on the eve of the oral plea which Mr. Riddle made in compliance with the requirement of the committee. If that were so truthfully, of course these instructions would be privileged, as long as confined to their proper and legitimate use, but not when ublished for the reading of anybody besides the counsel. But most singularly Mr. Riddle, in his argument as the counsel for GenlFry, states to the committee that he has had no opportunity of consulting with his client and has received no instructions from him, oral or written, except upon a single point, while these instructions cover the whole case. If the counsel told the truth in his statement to the committee, it would appear that this officer of the Army of the U.S. was not only guilty of publishing a libel and a ronounced libel on a member of the House, lint was guilty of doing it on the false pretence that it was originally prepared and sent forth as instructions to counsel when it was not the fact, and when no such instructions had been issued. I therefore ask my colleague, [lira Davis, ] when he introduces his resolution to inquire into the rights of members, to include the question whether the House shall submit to such publications as that contained in the pamphlet which I hold in in hand.