Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-01-11
A CARD.

In the House of Representatives on Thursday last,
the following colloquy occurred between Mr.. Grow,
of Pa, and myself:
Mr. Grow. *** And had the gentleman from
North Carolina (NIr. Branch) been as familiar with
constitutional law and parliamentary precedcnts as
his long practice in legislation would have led 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 gentlemanly courteSies that are recog
nized in all deliberatvc bodies, by impugnng the
motives Of his peer and chargn Sordid and selfish
considerations as the moving motive and cause 81
our action
Mr. Branch desire to ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania whether am to understand his lam
guage as imputng to me any conduct that was I'M
gentemanly.
Mr. Grow said that the gentleman violated all
parliamentary and gentlcmanly courteSes that are
recognized in all deliberative assemblies 1t needs
no reference to parliamentary law 10 know that
The first rule of parliamentary law is that no gen
tleman has the right to nlpugn the motives Of an
other.
Mr.. Branch. l desire to ask the gentleman whc-
ther he means, by that language to mpute to me
any conduct that is ungcntlenanly.
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 un-
gentlenlanly or unbccoming?
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 mputation on my motives was
not gentlemanly under parliamentary law.
MIR. Branch. l repeat the question which have
already asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania
whether he designs in those remarks to impute to
Inc any conduct unbecoming a 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 it is plain English,
and there it stands The gentleman the other day
impugned my motive of action OH the Post Office
bill The inpugnment of motives in a legislative
body, is everywhere regarded not only as unparla-
mentary, but as ungentlemany, under paramenta-
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.. Winslow,
for delivery, a note, of which the following is a
copy:
WASHINGTON. Cry, Dec. 90, 1850
"SR: Will you please name time and place
outside the District of Columbia at which you will
receive from me communication in writing.
Every respectfully,
IL OBJ. BRANCH.
"Hon. GALUsHA a. Grow"
On the copy of this note retained, is an endorse.
ment by Mr.. Winslow in these words:
1.-THE note of which this is copy was handed to
me by Mr.. Branch Immediately after the colloquy
between him and Mr.. Grow. No opportunity oc
Cured of delivering it without attracting undue at
tention until met Mr.. Grow at the Capitol on Fri
day. "WARREN WNsLow."
During Friday evening" received from Mr. Grow
through Hon. K. E. Fenton, of New York, a reply,
of which the following is copy:
WASHINGTON Cry, Dec. 80 1885,
Z o'clock, p. IN.
"SIR: Your note of 29th 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 com
munication in writing Your note was doubtless
as nothing else has occurred between u.s. 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 legis
| lator.
"On that occasion used no language in violation
| of Parliamentary law, and none not warranted by
| your remarks thus impugning my conduct
If your note is to De 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 PEG
pie, and it being prohibited and declared crime by
the laws enacted by the body of which we are mem
bers, l cannot recognize it as justifable mode O.
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,
| "GALUsHA 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
Mr.. Grow in his letter, it would be readily under
stood that other course is left me than to publish
this narrative and leave the whole matter to the
impartial Judgment of honorable men of all sections
of the country. L. OBJ. BRANCH.