Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-01-11
\ CARD.

In the House oil Representatives on thursday last,
the following collOquy occurred between Mr.. Grow
of Pa, and myself:
Mr.. Grow. *** " And had the gentleman from
NOrthCarOlina (Mr. Branch) been as familiar with
constitutional law and parliamentary prccedcntS as
his long practice in legislation would have led us to
suppose, he could have found sufficient and album
dant reasons to Justify my conduct and that of
majority of the House, without violating all parlia-
mentary and gentlemany courteSieS that are recog-
nzed in all deberative bodies, by impugning the
motives OF his peer and charging Sordid and selfish
considerations the moving motive and cause OF
our action"
Mr.. Branch. desire to ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania whether am to understand his Ian
guage as imputing to me any conduct that
gentlcmanly.
Mr.. Grow. | said that the gentleman violated all
parliamentary and gcntlemanly courtcSeS that are
recognized in all debcrative assemblies. 1t needs
no reference to parliamentary law to know that
The first rule of parliamentary law is that no gen
tleman has the right to impugn the motives of an
other
Mr.. Branch. desire to ask the gentleman whc-
ther he means by that language to npute to me
any conduct that is ungentlcmanly?
Mr.. Grow. | ask the gentleman to refer TO his
own language and see what he thinks --
Mr.. Branch. demand of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to know whether he means by that
language to impute to me any conduct that is I'M
gentlemanly or unbecoming?
Mr. Grow. The gentleman charged the other
day, that had defeated the Post Office appropria-
ton BILL in order to compel the President of the
United States to call extra session Of Congress.
say that such an imputation on my motives was
not gcntlemanly under parliamentary law
Mr. Branch. / repeat the question which have
already asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania
whether he designs in those remarks to imputc to
me any conduct unhecoming gentleman fail
ure to respond | shall assume to be an affirmative
answer.
Mr. Grow. Mr. Clerk, take the language of the
gentleman. What have said on it is plain English
and there it stands. The gentleman the other day
impugned my motive of action on the Post Office
bill. The impugnment of motives in a Legislative
body, is everywhere regarded, not only unparlia
mentary, but as ungentlemanly, under pariiamenta-
ry practice and law
Mr. Branch. | repeat that the gentleman has not
responded to my inquiry, and that shall take his
failure to respond as an affirmative answer.
Mr.. Grow. The gentleman can take just what he
pleaSeS.
Mr.. Branch will do so.
Immediately after the occurrence, addressed to
Mr. Grow and handed to my friend, Mr. WinSOw,
for delivery, note, of which the following is a
copy:
WASHINGTON, CRY, Dec. 90, 1859.
"SIR: Will you please name a time and place
outside the District of Columbia at which you will
receive from communication in writing
Every respectfully,
al. OBJ. BRANCH.
"Hon. GALrsHA \. Grow"
On the copy of this note retained, is endorse
ment by Mr.. Wnslow in these words:
"The note of which this is a copy was handed to
| me by Mr. Branch Immediately after the coloquy
between him and Mr.. Grow. No opportunity &C.
Cured of delivering it without attracting undue at
tention until met Mr. Grow at the Capitol on Fri
| day "WARREN WISsLOw."
During Friday evening received from Mr.. Grow
| through Hon. r. E. Fenton, of New York, reply,
| of which the following is a copy:
WASHINGTON CRY, Dec. 80, 1889,
o'clock, p. IN.
"SrR: Your note of Doth instant was placed in
my hands by your friend, Gov. Winslow, at twelve
o'clock m. to-day. l know of nothing that makes
it necessary for me to name time and place outside
the District of Columbia to receive from you CON-
muncation in writing. Your note was doubtless,
as nothing else has occurred between us based upon
remarks made by Inc in debate in the House of Re
representatives. in reply to your speech impugning my
motives and the integrity of my acts as leglS-
lator.
"On that occasion used no language m violation
| of Parliamentary law, and none not warranted by
your remarks thus impugning my conduct
"If your note is to DC considered of hostile
character then have this to reply: Regarding du-
cling as at variance with the precepts of the Chris
tan religion, and the sentiments of Christian peO
pie and it being prohibited and declared crime by
the laws enacted by the body OF which we are mem
bers, cannot recognize it as justifiable mode Of
settling difficulties among men even in cases of un
warranted provocation. But my personal rights and
freedom of debate guaranteed by the Constitution
shall defend whenever they are assailed.
Every respectfully, yours,
"GALUsuA A. Grow.
"Hon L. OBJ BRANCH"
By those who are acquainted with the penal code
of this District to which my attention is drawn by
| in hic latta he under
stood that no other course is left than to publish
| this narrative and leave the whole matter to the
impartial Judgment of honorable men of all sections
| ofthe conntry L. OBJ BRANCH.