Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, the House has seen fit to order an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the assault by the member from Kentucky Mr. Rot'ssnir upon the member from Iowa, Mr. Guinean, and to instruct the select committee to make a report recommending such action thereon as the committee might see fit. The committee have examined the whole case; they have submitted the testimony taken, and have recommended certain action thereon. A majority of the committee recommend, 1st, the we pulson of the Gentfrom Kentucky for the assault which he committed. The recommend, 2nd ly, a censure of the member from Iowa for the languave which he used. And 3rd, they recommend the arraignment of certain parties, other parties not members of the House who are held to have been in some sense presumabl rivy to the assault. Now, sir, I wilI 1st state. as clearly as I can, the facts of the case, not for the purpose of making a statement which shall carry with it the force of an argument on either side, but for the purpose of submitting to the House all the facts essential to a just judgment of the whole case. As it is cridently proper, I will begin with the debate. The debate commenced on the 3d day of February last. The member from Kentucky, speaking on the subject of the Freedrnen’s Bureau and while narratin to this House certain circumstances which ha taken glace under the jurisdiction of the Freedmen’s urcau in his own State, used this language: jus“tNow. sir. I told the agent of that bureau then what I thought and felt in reference tothis mut ter. I said to him. 'If you want to protect the freedmen of this community.I a uwi ith you henrt and soul. will stand by you in all 1115 measures;but if you intend to arrest white people on the e.cpnrte statements of negroes and hold them to suit your convenience for trial and fine and imprison them.then I say that I oppose you; and if you should so arrest and punish me. I would kill you when you setme at berty.’" Now, sir, we have nothing to do in this discussion with the sentiment embodied in that declaration: it may be just, or it may be unjust; it may be right, or it may be wrong. [hat is not the question now. The question is one of parliamentary propriety, and I do not see that there was an thing in it in violation of parliamentary or er, or of the privileges or rights of any member of this House. On the 5th of February the member from Iowa replied to that language in the following words: “The honorable Gentfrom Kentucky [Mix Rotssmc] declared on Saturday. as I caught his language. that if he were arrestedon the complaint of a negroand brought beforeoneof the agents of thisvbureau. when he became free he won d shoot im. It was not distinctly understood by the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. GRINXELL] whom the member from Kentucky said he would shoot, nor does it make the slightest difference so far as this discussion is concerned. The member from Iowa proceeded to comment upon that declaration, and said: “Is that civilization? It is thespiritof barbarism. that him.too long dwelt in our land thespirit of the infernal regions that brought on the rebellion and this war." The colleague [Mr. SMITH] of the member from hemucky interposed to deny that the member from Kentucky had used any such language. He declared that the gentleman did not belong to the class of men comprehended in the denunciations of the member from Iowa, but that he had served in the Union Army for 4 ‘years during the war. To which the member from Iowa rejomed: “I care not whetherthe gentlemanwasfour years in the war on the Union side or 4 years on the other side: but I anythat ho dpgrnded his State and uttered a sentiment I thought unworth of an Amer ican officer when hesaid that he won d do such an act on the complaint of a.negroagainsthim." To which the Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. Sim ii] replied: “I deny that my colleague made any such state ment.” To which the member from Iowa. replied: " I occupied the Spenker’s chnir when the gentleman’s colleague was speakiuz and I heard the words." But‘e afterward conceded that the report in the Globe was that upon which comment should be based: That was on the 5th of Feb ruary. On the 7th of February the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. ROUSSEAU] who was not present during the debate of the 5th, recurred to the matter, rising for the purpose of a personal explanation. H e then read from the Globe the sentence which I have just recited; that the member from Iowa did noteare whether the Gentfrom Kentucky had fought on the Tnion side or on the other side for 4 years. To that Mr. Rousseau rejoined: “ Mr. Speaker. I did not usethe bin uniteimputed to me by the mnmber from Iowa. l Mr. Gunmen“) And I pronounce the assertionthat has just been real. that l have degraded my State and uttered a saevnilteimselanntudnewr.orthy an American officer, to be false. and.unworthy to be uttered by any gentlemanupon this floor." It is claimed in this discussion that in that sentence the Gentfrom Kentucky offered a distinct and direct insult to the Gentfrom Iowa, charging upon him in a personal sense falsehood and slander. Now, beg to ask the attention of the House for 6ne moment to this point: that the sentiment uttered by the Gentfrom Iowa was not the declaration of a fact, nor did it assume to be such a decla ration; it was simply the expression of an opinion. It was the opinion of the member from Iowa that the Gentfrom Kentucky had “degraded his State” and “uttered a sentiment unworthy an American officer.” Now, sir, when you pronounce an opinion false, you do not necessari y charge the man who uttered it with having uttered a falsehood. This distinction is recognized everywhere in all parliament ary bodies. It is recognized here; and it is recognized in the Britis House of Commons. It was recognized in a case which occurred there a short time ago, when Sir Robert Peel charged a member of that body with having uttered upon the floor what he knew to be false. The SPEAKER arrested Sir Robert Peel at once, and told him that, although he might pronounce a statement false, without offening par' liamentary propriety, he could not add that the member knew it to be false when he uttered it, without violating the privileges of the House; and The SPEAKER required him to apol ogize to the House and to the member, before he allowed him to proceed. Now, sir, on the other hand, it follows necessarily from this that when the Gentfrom Kentucky rononnced this declaration of the member from Iowa to‘be false, he did not necessaril charge him With having uttered a falsehood. am not here to defend the good taste of the language used by the Gentfrom Kentucky. concede that it does not quite correspond to my ideas of what is proper and courteous in debate. It savers a ittle of what the English are accustomed to call “bounce, ” and what in this country has hitherto been understood as “southern chivalry.” But that, as I conceive is a matter of taste; it is not necessarily a violation of parliamentary propriety; and I submit that the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr.WiL son] did not establish that the Gentfrom Kentucky had charged his colleague [Mr. GRINNELL] with falsehood in a personally offensive sense when he attempte yesterday to cite this passage in support of that assertion. That, air, was the 3rd incident of the debate, and it happened on the 7th of February. On the 8th of i‘ebruary the Gentfrom Iowa rose to a personal explanation, and after reciting the circumstances of the case, referred again to this very point. He said: “I give the memberthofull benefitof an explanation of his declaration that he would kill it white doulfit eye. rifacting under oath and in the dischargeof his that is a less unworthy not than to shoot an American citizen of African descent. That may not have been degrading to his State and whether it was. as I said. language unbecomingan American officer is n question which I shall refer to thogallant soldiersoft e state of Iowa whoneverfought, thunk God. but on onc sidc." The Gentfrom Kentucky rejoined that he could not allow the Gentfrom Iowa “to become the defender of the troops from the free States.” There the matter rested until the 11th of June. There seemed up to that time to have been no such gross violation of propriety and of the usages and paigrnliaitmy conftadrye bate as has been claimed on this floor. On the 11th of ] uue the Gentfrom Kentucky, in closing a speech which he had made, used the following language: sta“nItslyamida. sdier.aat wmhyinleaatigvoe. that flings had beenconState.in my hearing.upon this floor; and last and least of all things and every body.let us give a moment’s attention to the mom ber fromIowa. [ilIh GMNNELL] who 1st sailedher here. Shortly after conass assembled a my assailed State and myself. o charged that I gradedmy had denativeStatebysuyingthat I my family against would defend the agentsof the Freedmen’sBureau. That member was leasedto sayon the floor. in answer to suggostion o my colleague. [ML Saturn] that hedid not know whether I had fun ht four years on the rebel side or on the Federal si oin the late war. I had under my commandand fl htin under mo from that member’s State some 0 troops the rnvest from any State in the Union. I was in the war from the beginning of it until the end. In the Northwest I was nown to have been in the Federal Army; but that member said he did not know whcther I was on the rebel or the Federal side. I do not suppose a memberin the House believed one word of what he said." Mr. GRINNEIL here attempted to interrupt him, but the Gentfrom Kentucky obJected, saying: “I cannot be interrupted now. I wish to say that when a.membercan so for depart from what we – bodyi believes he oughtto know. and does know iste trut, it is ndegrudulion.not tohis State, for he can notdcgrude her. But to himself.". There, sir, is language which I admit may fairl I be regarded as a violation of the proprictics 0 debate. It is always a violation of the proprieties of debate to assert that a member states on this floor what he knows to be untrue. No member has a right to rise here and impugn the personal veracity of any other member; and that I think the Gentfrom Kentucky did in this particular instance. It is only fair, however, to say that he did it on the assumption that the Gentfrom Iowa had said he did not “know” on which side the Gentfrom Kentucky had fought during the war. It is true, the Globe has reported it that he “ did not care;” but the Gentfrom Kentucky as sured the committee investigating this case, as he assured the House yesterday, that he was not present (and the record will show the fact) when the Gentfrom Iowa made the original declaration, and that he had been told by his colleague from Kentucky [hIL Siirm] that the language of the Gentfrom Iowa was that he “neither knew nor cared” on which side the Gentfrom Kentucky had fought; and this is urged in extenuation for the language which the latter used in saying that when the member said he did not “know” on which side he fought, he did not suppose any member of this House believed his statement. That, I think, is nevertheless, a violation of parliamentary propriety. this to be noted sir, that when the Gentfrom Iowa did get the floor he did not correct that alleged misunderstanding. He has not corrected it on the floor from that day to this. I do not say that this is a justification for the language used by the Gentfrom Kentucky; but I do say that it is a fact which may be taken into account, for it is a fact which may very well have weighed with the Gentfrom Kentucky in his views of this matter and in the action he took upon it. On the same day, after the debate had gone on some time, the Gentfrom Iowa rose to reply to the Gentfrom Kentucky, asking permis'sion to make a personal explanation, which was granted. Now, I do not propose to read at length what the Gentfrom Iowa said on that occasion. t was read in full yesterday at the Clerk’s desk during the speech of my colleague, [1“? Hana}. But I call attention to the leading points 0 it to this mainly, that it was in no sense a reply to an thing the Gentfrom Kentucky had said. It was simpl a personal attack upon him as a gentleman an as an officer of the Army. No one can read any part of it without seeing that this is its character. In the 1st place he refers to his personal appearance, “standing 6 feet high, wearing buff, and carrying the air of a certain bird that has a more than usual extremit of tail, wantring in the other extremit.” e then speaks about his beings defendhr of the President, and says: “ God savethe President from such an incoherent. brainlessdefender.equalin valor in civil and in military life. His military recordl Who has read it? In what volume of history is it found “ Where was he in the grent tights? Ask GenlGrant if you want his private opinion about him. Go to the general officers: and since he has alluded to Iowa. I will give the opinion of a oliicerfromthat State.for not 2 works agolheeadtoin!g methatwhentherowas nnoise in campthe menand it waseither it rabbit or General Rousseau.". He also refers touthe Gentfrom Kentucky “having a quarrel with his barber and being backed off, ” ogd concludes With the follo"wmg language: I did speak something about the men from Kentucky fighting on both sides. Sir. I haw been sent here h a majority of 7,000; and I do not go to the state of Kentucky for indorsoment.nor do the soldiers of Iowa. Their record is made and it Kweanstnuoctkmy.adeunderthe leadershipof any [minfrom Itwns madeunder the loadership of thoir own colour]: and generals and under GenlGrant and GenlSherman . When the gentleman not up here and claims the honor of having led the Iowa soldiers.I say that they were not so led: that they spum such an intimation; and in this I mean nothing lpier.rs Speaker.this is a painful exposition. But I am not responsiblefor it. When I make an assault. I expect to receive an assault in return." “And then the gentlemanwhinesoffwith I. woman'splea, taking refuge under feminineskirts as a certain other gentlemanwent off in disguise." Now, sir, that is the whole of the debate spread before the House for its judgment. I have already said that I regard the remarks made by the Gentfrom Kentucky in charging the Gentfrom Iowa with stating what he knew was not true to have been in violation of parliamentary propriety. I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the remarks made by the Gentfrom Iowa as an outra e upon all parliamentary propriet and all the courtesies of life in Congress an out of it, and I am perfectly williu to submit that judgment to this House or to fire country at large. Well, sir, the Gentfrom Kentucky listened to all that debate. He appealed twice to the House for protection, and the House failed in each case to afford it. He said in both cases that unless he could be protected by the House he must protect himself. At the time he forbore any ersoual resentment of language well calcu ated to irritate and exusperate any man of sensibility, and 4 days after that he committed the assault which has brought the matter before the House.