the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] in regard to the rights of this man's constituents. He is not on the floor of the House as a member representing a constituency. He has no right here to engage in debate, or to vote. He is only entitled, under the order of the House, to the courtesy of appearing on the floor until his case is decided, and to debate that particular case, and nothing eise.

Waiving all discussion as to the question whether this man's presence in the House, or his absence from it, under existing circumstances, would be most prejudicial to the rights and interests of Louisiana, I think it is due to ourselves, due to our dignity, due to the propriety of the House, and to the rights of members, that a man who has committed so gross and unprovoked an assault as that should be denied the courtesy of appearing on the floor, especially as the interests of Louisiana will not be injured by his absence.

HENRY A. BRIGHAM.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the following message from the Senate, which was read:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, January 23, 1865. Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (S. No. 212) entitled "An act for the relief of Henry A. Brig. lam," passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its concurrence on the 19th instant. Attest:

J. W. FORNEY,

Secretary.

Mr. THAYER. I desire to ask the gentleman whether in the case referred to, the defendant did not remain in the custody of the Sergeant-atArms, either actually or constructively, from the very moment of his arrest until the final action of the House in his trial and the sentence of the Speaker.

Mr. COX. And I would have no objection now to have Mr. Field brought here and placed in charge of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and put, as we have put witnesses, away down among the crypts of this Capitol, with nobody but the Speaker to have the privilege of looking at him. I might be willing to punish him even in that way, sir.

Mr. THAYER. The gentleman will allow me one moment. If I am correct in my statement that Houston remained in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms from the moment when he was taken into custody, by virtue of the Speaker's warrant, up to the time when his trial concluded before the House and the Speaker passed sentence upon him, then, of course, it is manifest that he could not have enjoyed the privilege of this floor during that time; and therefore the argument of the gentleman from Ohio, so far as it is founded upon any analogy to Houston's case, must, it seems to me, fail.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE-AGAIN.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would not have undertaken to trouble the House in relation to this matter but for the fact that all these questions may hereafter be drawn into a precedent. They may be quoted hereafter under other circumstances, not so aggravated as the present; and what may now seem almost nothing may some time become a monstrous outrage, of which the House will have to take cognizance.

I do not propose, in saying what I have said, to defend the conduct of this quasi member from Louisiana. He may be all that is charged, both a bully and a blackguard; but as he comes before us with the privileges, granted to him by this House, of appearing here for the purpose of sustaining the great right of representation in the popular branch of the national Legislature, he is entitled to more consideration than was Mr. Houston, whose term as a member of Congress had expired, and who had no such business and no such privilege in that highest sense. Now, sir, it will appear from this precedent that the House of Representatives, before undertaking to punish Mr. Houston for this attack upon a member, was more careful even than our courts of justice are in the trial of criminals. The House did not punish simply upon the prima facie case, as the gentlemen calls it-the case sustained by affidavit and the communication of Mr. Stanbery sent in writing to the Speaker; but after the arrest, the House proceeded to pass resolutions, reported to the House by a committee that was raised, proposing questions to be put to the accused-questions in relation to the assault, questions in relation to the motive of the assault, and finally requiring all the testimony to be reduced to writing; and then, before any punishment, before any deprivation of privilege, the House resolved to give Mr. Houston a chance to be heard by himselt and by counsel, according to the old rules of the common law.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I desire to ask the gentleman whether the House did not deny Mr. Houston a privilege by ordering him to be placed under arrest and by keeping him under arrest, and whether that was not as great a punishment as it would be to refuse a man the courtesy of the floor.

Mr. COX. It has never been considered as a punishment to bring a man up before a court of justice; that is preliminary to the punishment. If the gentleman will bring in a resolution to arrest this man Field and bring him here, and give him then a hearing, I will vote for it. I care nothing for him. All I want is that we shall not establish any precedent inconsistent with the right of every one to a fair trial.

Mr. COX. Well, Mr. Speaker, suppose it to have been the fact that Mr. Houston was constructively in the custody of the Sergeant-atArms, he no doubt was upon the floor of the House during all the time. Besides, as I have punishment to arrest a man. That is only a preliminary to the trial; and the punishment is consequent upon the trial. And in the case of Houston we have the very analogy for this special case, because, so far as he had the privileges of the House, he was not punished by taking from him those privileges until his own testimony had been heard and reduced to writing, until he had been heard by counsel, and the House had judged upon his case; and then they punished him, and punished him in the manner which is in this case proposed in advance by the proposition of my friend from Illinois.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, there is one consideration which will settle my vote on this resolution of my colleague from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] and it is this: the whole case is presented by the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] and I expect to vote for it. I repeat that I expect to give that resolution my vote; but while we are trying this man Field for an assault, I am willing to grant to him the privilege granted to every criminal in every court of being present and heard by himself or counsel in reference to the charges preferred against him. My colleague's resolution would not only deprive Mr. Field of the privilege of the floor, but would make this a sort of Star Chamber proceeding.

Mr. L. MYERS. Mr. Speaker, I did not expect at this time to have said anything about the subject before the House, and I should not now do so but for some remarks which fell from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] on the other side of the House. I wish to say to him and to the country, on behalf of my colleague from the fourth district, [Mr. KELLEY,] that he neither presented this case here, nor did he prosecute it before the police court. When this man Field was arrested my colleague was sent for as a witness, and gave his testimony as in duty bound. The subject has been presented here, and with great propriety, by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK.] Still further; I witnessed the cowardly and brutal assault upon my colleague. I saw the whole proceeding from beginning to end, and without desiring to give evidence in the matter, I must add that while the language of this Mr. Field was as uncalled for, unprovoked, and insolent as his conduct was violent and outrageous, my colleague's replies to him were most proper and becoming, and when assaulted he was amply able to defend himself, held Field at a disadvantage, stating that his age alone protected him, and in fact exercised the greatest forbearance.

So much for the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Cox.]

Mr. COX. I made no charge of that kind against the gentleman's colleague.

Mr. L. MYERS. There was an intimation which went upon the records; I know that it seemed to be made jocularly, but upon the record

it appears serious. The gentleman [Mr. Cox] said that he doubted whether he would have come here to defend himself.

Mr. COX. That was a playful remark referring to my physical ability. [Laughter.]

Mr. L. MYERS. I understood the comic as well as the serious portion of the remark, but do not choose to leave anything to inference hereafter.

Now to another matter. The Journal of the proceedings of the House will show that the first day of this session, among others, this man Field presented himself here for admission with others claiming to be Representatives from the State of Louisiana. A resolution entitling them to seats in the House pending their application was offered this is in answer to my friend from Illinois [Mr. J. C. ALLEN]-and was modified and passed, entitling them only to the privileges of the Hall of the House. Yet, sir, the gentleman would now go further and permit this Mr. Field to occupy a seat here by my colleague, whom he has so foully assailed, with privilege to discuss

his case here.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. I ask my friend from Pennsylvania whether a man should be denied the privilege of being present when he is being tried for grave offenses, and when, if guilty, it is proposed to punish him?

Mr. L. MYERS. Certainly not, sir; I would permit a criminal to be present when he is being tried.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. The very thing it is now proposed to deny.

Mr. L. MYERS. Not at all, sir; the gentleman is begging the question, unless he wants this man brought to the bar of the House as a criminal-a course which, although eminently a proper one, is not now proposed. The resolution refers the case to a committee, so that testimony may be taken as to the character of the assault, and the facts be reported to the House for its action. The amendment offered adds that the privileges of the Hall heretofore granted to this A. P.. Field shall be rescinded. That privilege, Mr. Speaker, was entirely a matter of courtesy, and certainly there is evidence enough before us, undisputed, to justify its withdrawal, without entering into the question of criminal intent.

There cannot be a doubt that the language used to my colleague was for the purpose of intimidating him from the discharge of what he might deem his duty as a member of this House, and if possible to influence his action and vote in regard to the admission of those claiming seats here from Louisiana. The attack followed close upon that language, leaving time only for a deliberation which but aggravates the case. Now, sir, it matters very little to me whether the amendment of my friend and colleague [Mr. MOORHEAD] shall take the place of the original resolution, or whether the amendment of my friend from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] be agreed to instead. I prefer the latter, however, as an addition to the resolution. What I desire is that the House shall take immediate action upon the matter as presented, and I trust it will assert its own dignity and exercise its undoubted prerogative by excluding this Mr. Field at once from the privileges of the floor, and then let his case be acted upon before the committee, where he may be heard if he sees fit.

Mr. HARRINGTON. I ask that the resolution, amendment, and substitute may be read. They were read accordingly.

Mr. HARRINGTON. It seems, then, that the charge before the House is that a member of this House has been assaulted by one who claims to be a member-elect, upon certain grounds which are a breach of the privileges of this House. For one, I am opposed to the amendment. There is no evidence before the House, unless it be that taken before a police court, that there has been any violation of the privileges of the House. I would be as ready as any gentleman to punish a violation of such privileges under the provisions which are applicable to this body; but it seems to me that the exclusion of a man who is charged with this violation of privilege in itself is unwarranted and utterly at variance with every principle which has been recognized in these investigations. I do not know why the House should exclude a man from being heard in his defense because a member has been assaulted, any more than that a court should exclude a criminal or a supposed

criminal for his offense because he has been indicted.

I do not know the cause which resulted in this encounter between the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] and the member-elect from Louisiana. It may have been a personal matter. If it was a matter of insult which the gentleman from Pennsylvania gave to the gentleman from Louisiana, it is a matter entirely between themselves. If it arose out of a personal insult, I would abide by the law and submit to the punishment, and I would resent it wherever it was given.

It is said here that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.KELLEY] has not asked for these proceedings. His sitting silent in his seat during these proceedings shows that he approves of and asks them, as he asked sureties for the peace before the magistrate in Washington, by the declaration that he was in fear of personal injury from Field. I would not do that if a thousand Fields were arrayed against me.

I insist, then, that the gentleman from Louisiana should be heard, unless you desire to declare, as the French Chamber declared, that every member of this assembly and his person is inviolate, whatever insults he may offer to the populace. I do not say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania insulted Mr. Field. I do not know how the matter was. If he did insult him, and Field had integrity and manhood, the gentleman should have been met and punished. But if Mr. Field, on account of something which transpired in the House only, attacked the gentleman from Pennsylvania, then the question of privilege applies.

For one, I am against the amendment, because to refuse to give to the gentleman from Louisiana a hearing upon this floor would do honor simply to the time of Jeffreys; would do honor to principles inapplicable to the jurisprudence of this country, at least. I do not believe the House of Representatives ought to belittle itself in such a manner as to declare that a man shall not be heard here because he happened to insult some gentleman upon this floor. I have heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania hurl his anathemas at this side of the House, in legitimate debate, in such a manner and spirit that had it been done else where than in this House he would have been called to immediate account. And if he used such language to Field outside of this House he ought to have been called to account, and no man who laid any claim to manhood would have hesitated one moment to call him to account.

But, as I said before, I do not know the facts of the difficulty between these men, and I wish to hear the evidence. I wish to know what transpired between them, whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania did use toward the gentleman from Louisiana the same language with which he has insulted heretofore members upon this side of the House under shield of the privileges of the House. If he did, then I say his chastisement was just, and no man who had a spark of manhood would hesitate to visit it upon him. If he did not, if the assault was simply for something which he had done in the House, and it shall so appear upon the investigation, I will vote cheerfully to punish the offender, as having violated the privileges of the House.

Mr. THAYER. I do not see, the gentleman will excuse me for saying, much argument in what has fallen from him, and I regret that he should have amused himself by putting hypothetical cases to the House reflecting upon the character of the gentleman injured, rather than upon the aggressor.

But I do not want to take up the time of the House with that matter. I simply rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the fact which appears upon the Journals of the House-it will be found on page 600 of the Journal of the first session of the Twenty-Second Congress-that Houston, who made an attack upon Stanbery, of Ohio, was in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms from the period of arrest upon the Speaker's warrant up to the time of his conviction and punishment by the House.

On page 600, for example, I find:

"Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, from the committee appointed yesterday to report a mode of procedure in the case of Samuel Houston, who is now in custody by virtue of an order of the House, made a report," &c.

The reported case in the Journals of this House

shows conclusively that he was in custody from the time of his arrest under the Speaker's warrant until his case was disposed of.

Now we propose a much more lenient mode of dealing with the alleged aggressor in the present instance. I suppose that the method of proceeding which was adopted by the House in the Houston case would be more proper and more in accordance with the dignity and authority of this House; but, sir, inasmuch as if we were to proceed, as the House proceeded in that case, to arrest the defendant and bring him to the bar of the House, it would be necessary for the House to proceed with his trial, and in that event he could not be tried by a committee of the House, but must be tried in the face of the House by the members of the House; and inasmuch as that would consume a great amount of the public time which there is a pressing necessity to apply to the business of the Government, it is better that the course should be adopted which is contemplated by the resolution of the gentlemen from Ohio as first offered by him. But, sir, there is nothing in the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] which is at all in conflict with the Houston case, as the gentleman from Ohio seems to suppose.

Both the gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. Cox and Mr. SCHENCK] seem to have argued that because no motion was made to deprive Houston of the privileges of the floor during his trial it is to be inferred that the House did not deem it proper to deprive him of that privilege; but if you will read the report as it appears on the Journal you will see that he was deprived of the privilege, because, from the moment the charge was made in a responsible shape by a member of the House, he was taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and remained in his custody until sentence was passed upon him by the Speaker. Now, the course contemplated by the gentleman from Illinois toward the alleged aggressor in this instance is of a much more mild character than the course of proceeding adopted in the Houston case; and I trust this House will, for the vindication of its own dignity, adopt both the resolution and the admendment.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Speaker, I do not the time of the House at any propose to occupy great length. cordially concur in the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] and also in the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] with this exception, that I think something is due to the representative character of Mr. Field. I beg leave to suggest the following modification of the amendment, which I believe will meet with the assent of the gentleman from Illinois, and which would be more acceptable to me and to other members upon this side of the House:

And until the report of the committee shall be made, the privileges of the floor of this House heretofore extended to the said A. P. Field are suspended.

Several MEMBERS. That is precisely the same thing.

Mr. FARNSWORTH, I have no objection to that, and will accept it as a modification of my amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I now move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, being first upon the amendment offered by Mr. FARNSWORTH.

The question was put, and there were, on a division, ayes 72, noes 45.

Mr. ELDRIDGE demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative; yeas 83, nays 38, not voting 59; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ganson, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asabel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Orlando Kellogg, Knox, Lazear, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Stevens, Thayer, Townsend, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, and Windom-83.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Denison, Eden Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Philip Johnson, Kernan, King, Law, Le Blond, Long, McDow ell, Morrison, Noble, Pendleton, Perry, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Spalding, Strouse, and Joseph W. White--38.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. William J. Allen, Alley, Anderson, Blair, Bliss, Brandegee, Brooks, James S. Brown, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Coffroth, Creswell, Dumont, English, Frank, Garfield, Hall, Holman, Hulburd, Hutchins, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Knapp, Mallory, Marcy. McAllister, McIndoe, McKinney, Middleton, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Nelson, John O'Neill, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Radford, Scott, Smith, Smithers, Starr, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Stuart, Sweat, Thomas, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-59.

So the amendment offered by Mr. FARNSWORTH was agreed to.

The question recurred on the amendment of fered by Mr. MOORHEAD as a substitute for the original resolution.

Mr. MOORHEAD. As the House has adopted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] and inasmuch as there has been so much discussion of the matter, which has, perhaps, magnified unduly its importance, I will withdraw my substitute.

The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to. DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. STEVENS presented the following report: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the bill (II. R. No. 620) to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, having met, after full and free conference have been unable to agree.

THADDEUS STEVENS, GEORGE H. PENDLETON, Managers on the part of the House. JOHN SHERMAN,

JOHN CONNESS,

C. R. BUCKALEW,
Managers on the part of the Senate.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] on what point the disagreement arises.

Mr. STEVENS. There are, I think, four points of disagreement. There are large appropriations for California, some for Denver, and an appropriation for the contingent fund of this House; on all of which we disagreed.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I had understood that the only subject of disagreement between the two Houses was in relation to the additional compensation to employés of the House.

Mr. STEVENS. No, sir; there are other questions.

Mr. Speaker, as the Senate request the appointment of a new committee of conference, and have already appointed a committee on their part, I move that the House take similar action.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, the committee will be discharged and a new committee appointed.

There was no objection.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.

The other day, in the course of a controversy which I had with the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScoFIELD] who sits before me, I had occasion to speak of a major general of the Army of the United States, who had been in command at New York, as a 66 gold robber." In some of the public prints (no doubt from misunderstanding) I was reported as having spoken of him as a "bold robber." Since those remarks have gone before the public I have received a letter from a major general of the United States who seems to suppose that the remarks which I made were particularly applicable to him, although there was in command at New York at the time another major general, and although that city is the favorite tarrying-place of major generals, there being probably six or more, on an average, at some of the hotels throughout all the year. I send to the Clerk a letter which I have received from a major general of the Army of the United States in reference to those words spoken in debate. I ask that it be read.

The Clerk read, as follows:

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1865. SIR: I find in the Daily Globe of the 7th instant a report of your remarks in the House of Representatives on

the 6th instant, an extract of which, personal to myself, is appended.

I have the honor to inquire whether your remarks are here correctly reported, except, perhaps, the misprint of "bold" for "gold," as the remarks were quoted in other papers; and also whether there were any modifications, explanations, or limitations made by you other than appear in this report.

The gentleman who hands you this will await or call for an answer at any time or place you may designate. Very respectfully,

BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, Major General. JAMES BROOKS, Member of the House of Representatives.

[Extract.]

"I am bound to say that an effort was made by the Federal Government, during the pendency of the late presidential election, to control the city of New York by sending there a bold robber, in the person of a major general of the United States. Robber as he was of the public Treasury, and major general of the United States as he was, he dared not exercise the power given him to attempt to control the actions of those whom the gentleman calls thieves and robbers in my own city."

True copy:

F. C. CLARKE, Captain and A. D. C. Mr. BROOKS rose.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I rise to a question of order. I submit that, if that be the evidence on which the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] raises his question of privilege, it is not sustained by the evidence.

The SPEAKER. Before deciding this question, which affects a member of the House, the Chair would ask the gentleman from New York to designate which part of the letter he regards as an infringement of the privileges of the House.

Mr. BROOKS. Section six of article one of the Constitution, in defining the privileges of Senators and Representatives, provides that "for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place."

The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains that point, and would decide that the gentleman from New York, could, under that provision of the Constitution, refuse to answer the question propounded by the major general. [Laughter.] But the Chair is serious in asking the gentleman from New York which part of the letter he regards as bringing it within the rule.

Mr. BROOKS. If the Chair will allow me, I will state presently.

That letter was presented to me by a Captain Clarke, who stated himself to be an aid-de-camp of Major General Butler. He was dressed in the uniform of the United States, and was in person a very handsome gentleman, who would grace the court as well as the camp. He was desirous of an early answer. I could not like, and I do not like, the presence of military gentlemen in the chambers of members of the House, requiring immediate answers, or any answer, to notes from their superior officers, [laughter,] and I stated to this aid-de-camp from General Butler that I would not give him an answer, but that in due time, after proper deliberation and in the proper manner, I would give an answer to the questions which General Butler desired to have answered. These remarks, respecting a major general of the Army of the United States, were made in debate, on the floor of this House, and I do not choose to enter into an epistolary correspondence with Major General Butler respecting them or any other remarks that I may make as a member of this House. Here, where I made them, I then propose to answer his question.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman from New York is debating the subject while there is a question of order pending before the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of order raised by the gentleman from Massachu

setts.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I should like to know the question of order before the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state it for the information of the gentleman and of the House. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] rises and presents as a question of privilege a letter received by him from Major General Butler. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] raises a question of order and claims that the letter, as read, does not show any breach of the privileges of the House. The Chair stated to the gentleman from New York that he desired to be referred to the particular word or sentence which, in his opinion, constituted a violation of

and the one in the Congressional Globe. So that he knew by actual investigation and inquiry that the report of my remarks were revised by myself, and that the words used on the occasion, approved and indorsed by me, were "gold robber." He

Mr. BROOKS. If the Chair will allow me, I will state the point which I regard as a breach of privilege.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts raises the point of order that the gentleman from New York must not debate the entire subject, but must refer to the particular part of the letter to which he objects.

Mr. BROOKS. I refer to the whole letter, but particularly to the closing paragraph of it-the letter being presented by a military gentleman in

uniform.

"The gentleman who hands you this will await or call for an answer at any time or place you may suggest." That is the language often used in the duello; and if I had time to look up precedents, I have no doubt that I could find twenty cases where duels resulted from such language as this.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will again read the letter, when the Chair will give his decision. The letter was again read.

The SPEAKER. It appears from the letter just read that the gentleman from New York stigmatized, in a speech which he made on this floor, a certain gentleman as a "gold robber," and that that language having been reported in the public papers a gentleman who supposes himself to be meant, writes the letter just read. It appears to the Chair that there is nothing in the language used in this letter which involves a breach of the privilege of the House. If he ruled that it were then he would be compelled to rule that letters addressed by constituents to members of Congress as to how they had voted or spoken on pending propositions were also infringements upon their rights.

We know that language, differing in some degree but still somewhat of the same character, has been used as a preliminary to further correspondence under what is called the "code of honor," but which the Chair regards as a code of murder. If the Chair thought this language could be brought within the language of what is called the code of honor, the Chair would have decided that the gentleman's question of privilege was well taken. But it appears most natural, and not improper, that when a person has been stigmatized here as a gold robber, he should inquire whether the speech which contained the report had been correctly reported, and whether there had not been some qualifications of such a charge made by the gentleman from New York other than in this report. There is no menace in this inquiry that the Chair can see. The Chair thinks the inquiry a natural one, and not couched in improper language, and therefore rules that it is not a question of privilege.

Mr. BROOKS. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. Is that appeal debatable? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter, which has been read to this House, from a major general in the Army of the United States. Undoubtedly he had some object in sending this letter to me. If his object had been to know whether I had been reported correctly, he could have found the authorized proceedings of this House in the Congressional Globe, revised by me on that occasion, known to have been revised by me, and which he could have learned by an appeal to the reporters of the speech, who reported me at that time. The means of obtaining information were clear and well known to him, and he has proved that they were well known to him, because in the Daily Globe he read "bold robber," and in the Congressional Globe "gold robber," which was the language I uttered. Major General Butler, of the Army of the United States, has clearly and eminently shown that he has considered both reports, the one in the Daily Globe, I

me with any desire to obtain information, for if that were his whole object that information he had in the authorized and official reported proceedings of this House.

If he had wanted to inform himself on the subject, the proper course was to have addressed me as other gentlemen address me when mistakes occur in the reports, and that is, through the United States mails, through the city post office here, or through some friend of his, a member of this House or otherwise. But on Saturday last, for purposes well known to himself, he sends to me no civilian, no member of Congress, no letter by the city post office or otherwise, but as I was at my breakfast an aid-de-camp, in full military panoply and in the uniform of the United States, and in the military service of General Butler, came into my apartment and demands politely but earnestly, an answer to the letter which he handed to me. The letter is in the ordinary form that duelists resort to preliminary to the arrangement for an apology or a fight. If I had been a duelist I should have well apprehended what he meant, and acted upon that apprehension forthwith. If, in other days, such a letter had been received, written from a southern gentleman to another southern gentleman, or to a northern gentleman, the meaning of that closing paragraph would have been well understood, and if I had been a party then to such a letter I should have consulted a second, and thus have had an immediate correspondence and communication with the aid of Major General Butler, to whom our mutual interest would have been intrusted.

In these latter days, however, when the duel and duelists are supposed to have departed from the Halls of Congress, I know of no such proper way to respond to such a letter as this here, in person. Hence, as a member of this House, I have never upon a question of privilege in a matter | pertaining to the freedom of debate which is guarantied to me by the Constitution to say what I have to say, with no desire to enter into any personal or epistolary correspondence whatever with Major General Butler, whose literary talents I well estimate, and which, if not altogether Chesterfieldian, have nevertheless the vigor and verve of Junius. I chose then, as a member of Congress of the United States, to answer this major general of the Army of the United States upon this spot where I made the remarks of which he is supposed to complain. It is upon that ground I have appealed to the House, and ask here the right to say whether I have been correct or incorrect in the language by which I impugned the course of Major General Butler.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman from New York explain to the House what reason he had for charging that Major General Butler was a gold robber?

Mr. BROOKS. That is what I want to do, but I cannot do it in discussing a question of order. [Cries of "Let us hear it." Let us have it."]

The SPEAKER. Is there any objection to the gentleman from New York proceeding in the line of remark indicated by the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. STEVENS. I think the gentleman had better confine himself to the point under discussion.

Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is a parliamentarian of thirty years experience, and he knows that within the next thirty hours, even if he objects now, I can say, and in order, too, all I desire the country to know.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not know what the gentleman may do. I can hardly tell; but I know that I require that he shall stick to the text now.

Mr. BROOKS. Am I to understand that I can or cannot answer the question of the gentleman from Illinois, and state the reasons why I pronounced Major General Butler a gold robber?

The SPEAKER. It can be done only by unanimous consent, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania objects.

Several MEMBERS on both sides. Suspend the rules; it can be done on Monday, two thirds asscnting.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to suspend the rules so as to allow the gentleman from New York to proceed without limitation upon debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the rules were suspended, two thirds of the House voting in the affirmative.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I am much indebted to the House for the courtesy with which they have permitted me to extend the range of my remarks, and I will try to say nothing, while stating facts, which will offend any gentleman upon either side of the House.

First permit me to state as a reason why I did not reply by letter, or otherwise, courteously to General Butler, that I had noticed when in the city of New York, that he was surrounded by a staff of twenty or twenty-five officers in the Hoffman House on Fifth avenue, having ten or fifteen horses in front of that hotel richly caparisoned, and that from that house he sent out aids-de-camp to summon gentlemen before him. And when one gentleman appeared before him he found him sitting at a table with two large pistols, one on his right and one on his left; and therefore I did not choose to reply by letter to the demand of one aid-de-camp, though if a posse of United States soldiers or a platoon had appeared with that aidde-camp I certainly should have yielded to so large a physical force, and have sent the requested reply. These displays and manifestations in New York indisposed me to any, even epistolary, courtesy to be carried on though a staff officer of the general when transferred to the city of Washington.

The grounds upon which I based my charge upon that occasion of a gold robber, were certain transactions in the city of New Orleans, in which, it appeared by testimony taken before a court in New York, that a rich brother of Major General Butler, who had been largely trading in New Orleans, had bequeathed to him, the major general, a large sum of money. General Butler came to New York to execute the will through the surrogate, when a suit was instigated against him to collect from the proceeds of that will the value of some fifty thousand dollars in gold, which the plaintiff in the case alleged had been robbed from him by the then commanding general. The plaintiff was a northern man, from Ballston, Saratoga county, New York, who had spent many years of his life in amassing a fortune in New Orleans, of which fortune, in part, General Butler had been plundering him.

I found my remark upon a deposition submitted in the court of common pleas by the plaintiff in the case, to which I call the attention of the House, and which I ask the Clerk to read.

The Clerk read the deposition, as follows: Court of Common Pleas, for the City and County of New York: Samuel Smith and Andrew W. Smith against Benjamin F. Butler.

City and County of New York, so:

Samuel Smith, one of the plaintiffs above named, being duly sworn, on solemn oath deposes and says:

That some twenty years ago he left the county of Saratoga, in this State, where he was born, and where his aged mother still resides, and went to New Orleans, without any means but youth and hope, to seek for better fortune. By severe economy, constant toil, and the unremitting Industry of long years, he and his brother Andrew together, succeeded in acquiring a considerable property, and they became extensively engaged in the business of private banking; the very nature of their business compelled them to make constant advances of money on southern credits; when the war broke out they were extended, and it was not possible for them to collect in their claims without much delay. The State of Louisiana seceded; deponent opposed the secession, and quietly remained to liquidate his affairs, and save what he could. It is easy for those who were safe in the North to talk bravely about their patriotism, and to boast of what they would have done; but had such been where we were, they might have thought differently.

On the 24th of April, 1862, news came that Admiral Farraragut had passed the lower Forks. The greatest consternation prevailed. All who had any money wished to conceal it. The fear was of the wild mob and the soldiery, in case the city should be given up to pillage. Deponent had about sixty thousand dollars in gold coin in his safe, which he had been collecting together, and which he had hoped to save. In this frightful consternation deponent took $54,000 of the gold coin and secreted it in the air cells around his safe and left about $6,000 of his own in the safe, besides a small amount belonging to some of his customers. Admiral Farragut's success left New Orleans at his mercy, and General Butier entered the city on the 1st of May and the rebel soldiery fled, and there was no pillage of the town. Forthwith General Butler issued his proclamation, dated May 1, 1862, and directed every man to return to his business, and promising the fullest protection, and expressed himself in these words: "All the rights of property, of whatever kind, will be held inviolate, subject only to the laws of the United States. All the inhabitants are

enjoined to pursue their usual avocations. All shops and places of amusement are to be kept open in the accustomed manner, and services are to be held in the churches and religious houses, as in times of profound peace."

Deponent did not suppose that this solemn proclamation by a general of the United States was intended as a delusion and a snare, and opened his banking house in the fullest confidence that the general would not violate his plighted faith.

The secreted coin could not be reached without tearing down a wall of masonry, and deponent being unwilling to excite notice by tearing down a lieavy brick wall and withdrawing the coin, when the city was in such a fearful state, let it remain for a few days to await events.

General Butler soon began to examine into the affairs of banks, bankers, and men supposed to have money, for what public end no one could understand.

On the 10th of May General Butler ordered deponent to open his safe, which he did; but the general finding but $6,000 in coln in the safe, while deponent's books showed $60,000 in hand, demanded the concealed coin, which deponent refused to give up, telling General Butler that it was concealed, and the object of the concealment, but declining to reveal the place where it was secreted.

The general then ordered deponent to prison and threatened to confine him in Fort Jackson until he revealed the place of concealment. Deponent was powerless; without the protection of law and at the mercy of despotic force, after being imprisoned in the manner above described, deponent revealed the place where his gold was secreted. General Butler tore down the masonry and carried off the $54,000 in gold, besides the money in the safe, and after a few days he returned to deponent the $6,000 left in the safe, and $4,000 of the concealed coin, keeping $50,000 in gold, which he has retained from deponent to this hour; the general then let deponent go, despoiled of his hard-earned property, and with his business broken up and destroyed, and now when deponent seeks in a lawful way to obtain redress he is met with these false telegrams from Washington. The statement that "this gold was condemned by a military commission as the proceeds of the robbery of the United States mint at New Orleans" is without a shadow of truth, is utterly malicious, and is in every syllable basely false. Every dollar of it belonged to the plaintiffs; it was the proceeds of long and patient toil; not a penny ever belonged to the mint or to any confederate State office or department thereof, and the military commission so found, and the one who ordered that false telegram sent knew or ought to have known it. Deponent makes this affidavit with a true copy of that commission and report before him. That commission was composed of three able and upright men-Governor Shepley, Hon. Thomas J. Durant, and Dr. Mercer and their report was made in June, 1862, and proves the shameless falsity of these slanderous telegrams. Deponent took the oath of allegiance, the amnesty oath also, and is as true and loyal a man as he who by military force has taken away deponent's property.

Deponent respectfully submits that this false charge about a copperhead attachment, and these false and slanderous charges that deponent's gold "is the proceeds of a robbery of the United States mint" published in the newspapers through telegrams from Washington while General Butler was there, and for the purpose of deceiving the public and of prejudicing their minds before the trial of the cause, (which cause had been legitimately commenced under the order of this court,) deserved the rebuke and severest condemnation of every judge and right-thinking man in this community. SAM. SMITH.

Sworn to this 29th of November, 1864, before me, FRED. SMYTH, Notary Public, New York. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, that deposition will explain to the public and to the House whether I was justified or not in the use of the words which I did use in the course of my controversy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SCOFIELD.] I have only to add that those $50,000 in gold have never been paid into the Treasury of the United States, and yet remain in the hands of Major General Butler.

Mr. LOAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly.

Mr. LOAN. I desire to ask the gentleman whether the money has not been returned to the proper Department?

Mr. BROOKS. It has never been returned to the Treasury of the United States. It is not there.

Mr. LOAN. Does the gentleman know if General Butler has not reported it to the War Department as subject to their order, and to be paid over when the War Department may so di

rect?

Mr. BROOKS. I am not able to answer that question, not having any connection with the War Department.

Mr. LOAN. I understand that that is the

case.

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York what was the result of that suit in the New York court?

Mr. BROOKS. It is yet pending. Mr. STEVENS. A pretty document, then, to read here! Why, no decent man would have done it.

Mr. BROOKS. The fact is not to be disguised, decent or indecent, that the $50,000 are not where they ought to be, in the Treasury of the United

States, but are in the sole control and possession of Major General Butler.

Mr. GOOCH. I ask the gentleman from New York to yield to me for one moment. Mr. BROOKS. Certainly.

Mr. GOOCH. I will say to the gentleman from New York that if, before making his charges upon this floor, he had taken occasion to investigate the facts; if, before charging General Butler with being "a gold robber," he had inquired at the War Department, he would probably have learned that Major General Butler had reported that he had this money in his possession, the circumstances under which it was taken, and his readiness to obey any order of the War Department or his superiors in relation to it.

Mr. BROOKS. At what time did he make that report?

Mr. GOOCH. I apprehend it was before he was sued.

Mr. BROOKS. How long before?
Mr. GOOCH. I cannot fix the time.
Mr. BROOKS. Does the gentleman know the

fact?

Mr. GOOCH. I say I do not know the time. Mr. BROOKS. I know it was not until the suit was threatened.

Mr. GOOCH. Was it or was it not before the gentleman made his statement upon this floor?

Mr. BROOKS. I know that Major General Butler used the writers for the press in this city to proclaim through the press of New York that the money was in the Treasury of the United States when it was not there.

Mr. GOOCH. I ask again, was it or was it not before you used your position upon this floor to charge General Butler with being "a gold robber?"

Mr. BROOKS. I charged, and I reiterate the charge, that a man who robs a loyal citizen of $50,000 in gold, and keeps that money, deserves the epithet which I applied to him.

Mr. GOOCH. Does the gentleman say of his own knowledge that such was the fact?

Mr. BROOKS. I say it is so stated to me. Mr. GOOCH. But have you ever investigated it; and did you know when you made the charge here the other day that General Butler had not made that report to the Secretary of War?

Mr. BROOKS. I know that he did not make that report till this suit was threatened and till he was affrighted into making it.

Mr. GOOCH. That is not the question. Had you, before you made the accusation, ascertained whether or not General Butler had reported that he had this money to the War Department?

Mr. ANCONA. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman from Massachusetts is not addressing the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains that point of order.

Mr. GOOCH. I would like the gentleman from New York to give me an answer to the question I have put. If General Butler, while in command of New Orleans, has wrongfully taken money from anybody, and has not reported the fact to the Government, but has attempted to conceal it, he has committed a wrong. If, on the other hand, the gentleman from New York, rising in his place as a Representative, has charged General Butler, without investigation, with being a gold robber, he has done a wrong. And, sir, it seems to me that he is the last man who should come here and claim that he should not even receive a note of inquiry from the man whom he has charged with being a gold robber, and try to shelter himself behind his privileges as a member of this House. I would like an answer to my question.

Mr. BROOKS. And I would like an answer to this question, has General Butler that gold, or has he not?

Mr. GOOCH. General Butler has that gold, ready to respond for it to the Government or to anybody entitled to receive it. [Derisive laughter from the Democratic side of the House.]

Mr. BROOKS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will leave you to judge between him and me, and that must end this controversy with the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. GooсH,] whether a major general of the United States who takes by force and violence $50,000 in gold from a northern man, and keeps that gold from him until this day and hour, is or is not a robber of that loyal man of the North.