Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1865-02-08
VOL. 11.--NO. %.
Gen. Butler in Congress Explanations.

Gen. Butler IN congress Explanations:
A Washington dispatch Of the Sd, report
ing congressional proceedings, has the fol-
lowing: La the course OF the debate on
the question of Fields assault on Kelly, Mr.
Brooks said that recently he had occasion TO
robber" but in some of the prints he was
represented as saying bold robber." he
had received letter from a Major General
who supposed the remark particularly APP
plicabe to him, though at the time there
was another Major General in New York.
At his desire, the letter was read, as follows:
WASHINGTON, January 90 l865.-HoR.
Jas Brooks, lHcn6er Of Congress, House Of
Representatives.: [ find in the Daily Globe,
of the 7th, report Of your remarks IN the
House on the 9th, an extract from which
personal to me is appended. L have the
honor to inquire whether your remarks are
correctly reported-except, perhaps, in mis-
print, gold for bold and also whether
there was any modification, explanation or
limitation made by you other than wh"t APP
pears in this report. The gentleman who 4.
hands you this will wait or call for your an
swer at any time or placeyou may designate.
(Signedj B. I. BUTLER, Maj. Gen.
The extract from Mr.. Brook specialwas,
in substance, as follows: am bound to say
an effort was made by the government to
autumn election. The government sent
there gold robber in the person Of Major
General of the United States. RObber as he
was of the public treasure, and Major
General, he dared not exercise control over
the actions of those whom the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr.. Schofeld had call
ed thieves and robbers. A question of or
der was raised on the introduction of the
letter. Mr.. Brooks quoted from the ConstI-
tuition that for any speech in either House,
no member should be questioned elsewhere.
The speaker decided that Mr. Brooks would
be justified in refusing to answer the letter.
Mr.. Brooks said he objected to the whole
letter. 1t was brought to him by Gen. But
ler's Adjutant, in full uniform, instead OF
being sent through the postoffice lie did
not ike military gentlemen coming into his
house and calling for an immediate answer.
He expressed'to his Abide Camp that he
could not give an Immediate answer, but
would take his own time; theremarks being
made on the floor of the House, Gen. Butler
had no right to call him IN question. He
contended that the language of Buffers
letter was that Of a duelist.
The point OF order being pressed, the
| Speaker decided the letter not an infringe
ment of privilege The meaning of the Ian
guage of the letter was open to doubt, and
was not therefore question Of privilege.
The rules were suspended to allow Mr..
| Brooks to explain the ground for calling
| Butler a gold robber. He referred to
| transaction in the Surrogate 5 Court OF New
York, where General Butler was sued by
| Samuel Smith Of New Orleans, for $50, 900
in gold which was seized by General Butler,
| in April, 1862, and now alleged to be in his
possession, it never having been paid into
| the Treasury of the United States.
A spirited colloquy then ensued, in which
several gentlemen took part. Mr.. Leon as
serted that the money was paid to the War
| Department, which Mr.. Brooks denied.
! Mr.. Gooch suggested that Mr. Brooks should
| have investigated the facts in the case be-
fore making charges. A sharp contest of
words followed between Messrs. Brooks and
| Gooch concerning the seizure and disposi-
| ton Of the $50, 900 in gold. Mr. Brooks
said if General Butler or his friends were
dissatisfied with the charge they could ask
| for committee of investigation, and not
send letter in order to draw him into
controversy. He maintained that he had
| been fully justified in using the adjective
against him. He then proceeded to state
what was known to other Generals involving
General Butler in common speculation.
Mr.. Stevens followed Mr. Brooks, con-
cerning the privileges of the house, and
| thought the privilege accorded to members
of abusing persons outside, and then shield
ing themselves under constitutional rights,
was entirely wrong. He was sorry the
names of those who voted for the suspen-
sion of the rules were not on the record,
that the country might know them. Mr..
Stevens gave way for adjournment to give
Mr. Schenck an opportunity to speak to-
morrow.