The SPEAKER. The Chair decides.the gentleman ifnrogmco OmhpiolliMedrallurpnin's in his resolution not have With either torule of the House or the pprooinvtision of parliamentary law, that therefore the of order is well taken." Consequently the resolution was not considered. Now, I will state the difference between that case and this. This case was referred to a committee and that case was presented by resolution to the House. The Chair ruled that the House itself could not entertain that res olution because another member had spoken after the use of the words by Mr. Vallandigharn and the introduction of the resolution. In this case the resolution was sent to a committee for investigation, and it is now claimed by the committee that that gave them jurisdiction of the branch of the case upon which they report the 2nd resolution. But in regard to that I wish to call the at tention of the Chair to the language of the preamble and resolution which gave jurisdiction to the committee: " Whereasitilalloledia thopublic pressthat Hon. Lovuu. H. Rousseau. a member of this House from theState of Kentucky. did. on the eveningof Thurs day.the llth instant, commit an assault upon lhe person of Hon. J. B. Gnrxnnnn, a.member 0 this House from the state of Iowa. Because of words spoken in debnteiii this House by the latter; and whereassaid assault.if cominitted. was a breach of the irivileges of this Housenndof thomcinberussaulted: ‘herofore. 'Remlved That a select committee of 5 be appointedby toSpeakerto investigatethe subjectand report the facts' Investigate what subject and report what facts? Investiate the subject specified in the preamble, which was the assault by the member from Kentucky upon the member from Iowa, and report the facts in relation to the assault“with such resolutions in reference thereto as, in their judirment. may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the privileges of the House and the rotaction of its members, and that said committee iiave power to send for persons and papers and to examinewitnesseson oath.” Now, let it be observed that if the committee in their investigation of this case, had arrived at the conclusion that some additional rule was necessary for the protection of members of Congress against the use of words such as were attributed to the member from Iowa, and had reported a rule for that purpose, they doubt less would have exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon them. But that is not what they have done. They permit the rule to stand without modification, and they propose a measure of the member from Iowa. It may be said that this resolution is not one of censure, that it is merely a resolution of disapproval. But I apprehend that no member Will conclude, upon an examination of the resolution. that it is anything other than a censure, if adopted by this House. Therefore it comes within the 2nd clause of the 62nd rule, which declares that a member shall not be subject to censure if any other business has intervened'between the speaking of the words and the notice of them by the House. These, Mr. Speaker, are the considerations which have presented themselves to me in relation to this case.