Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The gentlemancan make his own speech, if he desires to do so, when I am through. I have been stating the case as it is made up between these 2 gentlemen in the Globe. I have been presenting the language used by them during the progress of this difficulty. It is not for me to account for the motives of the Gentfrom Kentucky; his language is what I have to deal with. Now, sir, there was a correction made here by my colleague, presenting the gentleman’s own language asit apeared in the Globe after it had passed under the revision of its author. But the Gentfrom Kentucky, not being itisfied with what had occurred, brought the object up again on the platform in NewYork, nd made some remarks to which my colleague)ok exception in his remarks of the 11th June. (time 2 months had elapsed between the last ccasion on which the subject was referred to u the House and the reference to it by the Gentfrom Kentucky in NewYork, before.itaudiencein a community where my colleague formerly lived. He denounced'him as “a piti t'ul litician, ” all of which was, of course, entire y appropriate, and Isup ose if it had been said by him upon the flooro this House would have been daiined to have been entirely par liamentary. We come now to the 11th day of June, when the offense was offered by my colleague which is claimed to be a justification of the assault upon him, or at least in mitigation of it. This was some 4 months afterthe original offense and alter the Gentfrom Kentucky had stated in the goose that he did not want an apology from my colleague. Let me refer to the strictly parliamentary language used by the Gentfrom Kentucky in the elaborate speech which he made upon that occasion. He said: “I had under my commandand fighting undermu fromthat member s State, someof the bravesttroops from any Statein the Union. I wasin the warfrom the bPRlnltilif’, of itit until the end. In the North west.Iwas known to have beenin the fedoral Army' but that membersaid he did not know whether I wason the rebelor the Federal side. I do not supposeninember in this House believed oneword of what he said.” At this point my colleague rose and endeav ored to make an explanation; but the Gentfrom Kentucky said: “No. sir; I cannot.be interruptednow. I wish to saythatwhena membercan so or depart.fromwhat everybodybelieveslic omghtto know and does know is the truth. it is a degradation.not to his State. for he cannotdegradeher. but to himself. Iowa is not to bedegradedbyanyoneor evenby all ofber mcmbars on this floor. Sheis a gallant State, and I know what her peopleare." Well, this maybe regarded as a kind of general fling at the Iowa delegation. But let that pass inasmuch as, with the excetion of my colleague, [Mr. GniNXELL] we iave no particular interest in the matter beyond the pirotection of the privileges of members of this house. But I did not read all of his languago. I will go further back in his speech, an read another extract from it: “I said, sir, awhile ago. that flings had beenconstnntlymadeat my native State.in myhcnring.upon this floor: and lnstund least of iill thingsand every body.letus ivoa moment‘s attentiontothemember from Iowa, [Mr. GRINXELL] who 1st assailedher here. Short y after Congress assembledhc assailed myStateand myself: he chargedthat I had degraded my native State saying that I would defendmyfamily against the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau. that member was pleased to say on the floor, in unswer to a suggestion of my colleague. [Mr. Surru] that he did not know whether I ad fought 4 yearson the rebel side or on the Federal side in the late war." Now, I aflirm there is just as much of insult in what the member from Kentucky said on that occasion in reference to my colleague as there was in what my colleague said in reference to the Gentfrom Kentucky. And let me remind the House here that the whole attack of the member from Kentucky on that occasion was based upon a misrepresentation of what my colleague had said' a misrepresentation of the language which the Gentfrom Kentucky himself had studied and made the basis of a personal explanation in this House. Let it be borne in mind that he here asserts and makes it the ground of his attack that my colleague had said that he did not know whether the Gentfrom Kentucky had fought on the rebel side or on the Federal side, and remember in this connection that on the 6th day of February, 1806, the Gentfrom Kentucky made a personal explanation, to which I have alrea v referred, in which be quoted the language of my colleague, and which he at that time saw and knew to be as follows: “I carenot whetherthe gentlemanwasfour years in the waron the Union side or 4 yearson the otherside." Not “I do not know, ” but “I care not.” The Gentfrom Kentucky gets up in this House to a personal explanation, havmg read that language in the Globe, having conned it over, having had it read from the Clerk’s desk as the basis of his personal explanation. And then, after nursing his wrath for more than 4 months, he misrepresents the language in order to make an attack on my colleague.