Mr. DEMING. A discussion arose yesterday upon a personal matter, between the Gentfrom NewJersey, [Mr. Rocsiis] the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Cosituxu] and the Gentfrom NewYork immediately on my right, [Mr. HAYMOND] I paid but little attention to the discussion as it progressed; but on reading the report in full in the Globe of this morning, I feel it due to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] to add a few words to the disclaimer which he then uttered, that he was not responsible for the aragraph in the Times, which was 1st read iiy the Gentfrom NewJersey, and which was afterward commented upon by various gentlemen of the House. Iwas not present in the House when the bankrupt bill was introduced by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. COXKLING] I shortly afterward saw the Gentfrom RhdIsl and, [Mr. JEXCKES] the author of the bill which was acted on recently by the House, and who, as we all know, has labored assid uously during the last 2 sessions to perfect that bill; and he informed me that the bill presented by the Gentfrom New. York was the identical bill which he himself had so laboriously prepared. I thought but little of the circumstance at the time; uta day or 2 later. I saw a namqranh in the NewYork ulburdwlamos Humphrey, Johnson, I move that the House Herald which affirmed distinctly that the bill offered by the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Costume] was a more perfect bill than the one which had been presented by the chairman of the committee on the bankrupt law; that it was such abill as could not be picked to ieccs in debate; that it was a bill which embo ied all the legal acumen of the House, and a bill which the author of the paragra ih thoughtwould certainly pass. It seemed to me that, under the circumstances, gross injustice was done by that paragraph to the Gentfrom RhdIsl and and upon exibiting the paperto various members of the House, they concurred with me in that opinion, and agreed with me that the injustice should be corrected. I went to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] and pointed out specifically the points wherein I deemed gross inustice was done to the Gentfrom RhdIsland, and I asked of im the privilege of making in his papera correction of that paragraph, solel tor the purpose of viiidieating, as I conceive, the merits and the ability of the Gentfrom RhdIsl and I stated tot e reporter of the limes the facts of the case, to Wit, that the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Cosici.ixe] who had voted against the bill of the Gentfrom RhdIsland, had subsequently introduced that identical bill. I did not make this statement with the intention of placing the Gentfrom NewYork invidiously before the country in any respect; I was unconse ious of being animated by any motives inimical to him; and if the result of m interference in this matter and the making diytheso statements to the reporter has either injured his feelings or prejudiced him before the pnblic, I wish to make this public disa vowal ofany such intention, and to tender him an apology.