Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I was saying that I presumed gentlemen would allege that this case was taken out of the operation of the rule by the terms of the rcsolntion referring the case to the select committee. I will read the preamble and resolution: “Whereas it is alleged in the public press that Hon. Lovnu. H. Roussssu. a member of this Home fromthe State of Kentucky. did. on the evening of Thursday. the 14th instant, commit an assaultupon the person of Hon. J. B. GRINNELL. a member of this House from the State of Iowa. becauseof words spoken in debate in this House by the latter: and whereassaid assault.“ committed. Was a breachof the privilc esof this House and of the memberas saulted: Therefore, "Resolved. That a pointed by selecteommittee of live he np the Sreaker to investigate the subJect and to report the acts.with such resolutionsin refer neencceesthsaerryetoas in their judgment maybe properand for the vindication of the privilegesof the Houseand the protection of its members. and thatsaid committee have power to sendforpersonsand papers and to examinewitnesseson oath." I presume it will be claimed that by the terms of the resolution this committee were clothed with full power to investigate and report upon everything connected with the assault and a leged provocation. I wish te’state, in answer, that what the House cannot do by itself it cannot do through a committee. It appears from the proceedings of that committee that in the proceedings of the House for several days thereafter business of various kinds was transacted. Many members addressed the House; and this resolution was not adopted unlit several days had transpired. Now, sir, it will be observed that the committee in submitting this report. do not propose to change the rule of the House. There is no recommendation that the rule shall be modified in any manner. The resolution reported by the committee comes intothis House with the 62nd rule.which has been read as one of the standing rules of the House, and that rule says the lauguaife of which I will repeat that no member sha i be held to answer or be subject to censure of the House for words spoken in debate if any other member has spo on or other business has intervened after the words spoken and Is the point of order before exception totheru sh allhave been taken. That is the rule of the House today, as it was when the resolution was passed providin for a select committee and referrin this subject to them for examination. The 2nd resolution reported by the committee and which relates to the words 5 oken by my colleague is in direct conflict with that rule of the I house. Now, sir, could the House itself at this time censure my colleague for words spoken on that occasion? If we could not do it by original act, can we do it on the basis of a resolution reported by a committee which is a creature of the House, the rule standing just as it existed when the committee was raised? I have not one precedent directly in point. There may be some; bdt I have one which involves the identical principle, if my view of the force of that report be correct. In the record of the 37th Congress I find that on the 24th of April, 1862, a resolution was offered by Mr. Hutchins in reference to words spoken by Mr. Vallaudigham. The subject came up for consideration on the 26th of April, and I find the following report of the proceedings in Volume 47, page 1833, of the congressional Globe: “The SPEAKER. the question pending when the House adjourned was one of privilege. raised by gentleman the from Ohio. [Mr. urenins.) against his colleague. IMr. Vattinnioiuu] The following is the resolution submitted to censu c the Gentfrom Ohio for disorderly words spoken in debate in inn io ComWhole on the state of the WhereasHon. 0. L. Vsntsnniunsil, amember of this House, of the State of Ohio, in Committee of the i nghoHloen.m. Ba.deuseof the followmg language concern E. "‘Mr. WADE. a Senatorin Congress: Chairman. I days havewa tedpatiently for 3 for this the earliest occas:onpresentedfor aper sonul explanation. In aspeceli delivered in thiscity not in this House certainly not in the Senate no such speechcould have been tolerated in an American Scuate fl lind the folloWing:’ 'Now. sir. bore in my place in the House and as a Representative, I denounce and I speak it advisedly the author of tl at scoundrcl, and a coward. Speech as a bar. a