Mr. GARFIELD. And i also call attention to an article from a recent NewYork daily which contains many valuable suggestions on the subject under consideration: "PABLIAMENTAEY DECORUM. Some of our Contemporaries who are not enamoredof the legislation of this historic Congress are quite profuse in their do nunciations of it and severelycriticise its alleged lack of decorum. They point as, asthe Herald. At Ins, and other presses have done to the British Par lCiaomngernetsasnd French Assembly as the models which should imitate. Probably the following from the Pall Mall Gasette of June 2, whichgraphic ally describes, a recent scenein the house of commons, and which has not been rivaled of late years in the HoRep, illustrates the deeoruiuthey desire to have observed during our American discussions: hoAsiatic gentlemenwho lastnightnsited the House of Commons witnesseda remarkable scene. which must have rather' disturbed their previous concetion ot‘ the “collective wisdoin"ofagr country or more than an hour, a large gathering of have looking gentlemen were engage in hooting, owling. And groaning, while an excited little man was seenwagging a grey heard and gestit‘ulating WildlY. while every now and then as the storm around hiru partialy lulled ho was heard shouting disjointed traginentsqt‘ sentencesat the top of his Voice. The oriental visitors probably learned, from theiriuter reter, that thiswasMr. Wballey discoursing about Fenianism and the Pope, and must have beenrather puzzled 0 know whether it was terror ofistchoer Irish or butt of the Pope that causedsuch "In the French am. MviqlaTTf we often hear of oquallg boisterous scenes while a member‘s speaking. isses. exclamations ejaculations. interruptions the tinkling of the President’s bell, which is tafi0e Pdrliekspidaengta, fivneal fl yrdtchsepapirreinseorvfqautieolnlionfgothrdcecrh and, declaring the session suspende till the tumult ceases. They are concerned, too these criticising presses at itfhiet swterircetuurnepsreuctteedreend taegda. inst those in authority. as lIiive they forgotten Henry Clay's personal invectives against ohn Tyler? Are Douglas'sbitter denunciations of Buchanan blotted from history? WereJctferson. Madison, Jackson, and Franklin Pierce exemptfrom the severest personal eciisures? In a land like oursI where there is so much independence of thought, more freedom of idniscussion and severity of critieism are expected than Prumssoinaahreahvieeal countries. And yet the legislatorsof verely as our mdeinniosturnycheadvtcheir ministry quite asso been denounced in congrieftsesd: and a crsenal allusion by one of the most and faolsfifbyuing gacnhd as racerateterirsstiteosothf conFealosftahfisiianform parliamentary opponents though biting in the extreme to gsuulbajteifct.gassedunrclm ed. in the French 00ml the President watches the utterances of members, and, when a dispar allusion is made to the Emperor, stopsand scol s the otfonding member eaWnidthspinvernl of the sestorm scenes have occurred has been cotphieed labstyytchaer, parnedsstoef d theisscrciiptytionIonf tbhoetmh branches of our congres: a different ru 0. revails. the presidincutiieor ocsnot volu toenwit super lerviccable seal, t on utterances. gslicinyrFurleapnrcoem, tpotely ewchkednembyatmeresmin ber makes the point of order.but otherwise the freedom of debateis unchecked. Perhapsthis Congress compares unfavorably With those where totalswere drawn in the Senate Chamber, as in the uysof Benton and Mississippi hoote, or when a Senator was brutally beatenin his seat for words spokenin (IQ bate, and for which he had not.been even called to order: or when southern members crowded around Giddinizs's seat to silence his utterances or whcn Lovejoy’s speech provoked amc'leqand tight in the area. in front of the Speaker's chair, or when Crawford, of Georgia, andot ersstood by the side of THADDEUUS Stevens's and by personal threats sought to intimidate him. But. though there have beensome personal ittiheosuugshed which might betterhave been omitted and it has been harshly arraignedboth I) Presidential and Cabinetspeec es.wethink this onirress will not sufferby comparisonWith any of its predecessors of the last quarter of a century." Now, I wish to say that if the Speaker of this House were the organ of the fXtZCullVG Government, set u over us to exercise his judgment about what. was proper and what imprOper in all matters.of debate, he would simply be the censor, critic, and judge of propriety in the HoRep, and might abridge freedom of debate as he should choose. On the contrary, he is the executive officer of the House, chosen by the House, bound by the rules of the House, and subject to its 0 ers. I admit, as my colleague [Mr. Seanmxc] suggests, that it is the duty of The SPEAKER to maintain general order and deco rum in the House, yct every one knows that when a member rises to a personal explanation he must have unanimous consent, and the House, not The SPEAKER, gives the unanimous consent.