Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1865-01-24
CONGRESSIONAL.
NOE hsESSlONALs
WASHINGTON, Jan. %.
HOUSE.

Mr.. Washburne offered a Joint resolu-
ton, that in lieu of duty on books and
newspapers, g duty of per cent. Gd VaLor-
en- be imposed. After debate this was
adopted by 81 to 40.
The resolution reducing the duty on
paper passed by a vote of 81 yeas against
40 nays.
Mr.. Schenck brought before the House
the subject of Mr.. A P Fields late assault
upon Judge Kelly, the latter being a
member of the House. he proposed the
appointment of 8 select committee, with
view to take seton to vindicate the pri-
vileges and freedom of legislation in thir
body. The resolution was adopted, and is
was ordered that pending the investigs
ton, Mr.. Field be excluded from the floor
Mr. Washburne offered a resolution of
thanks to General Sheridan, which was re-
ferres to the Committee on Military At
fairs.
Mr.. Frank presented the resolutions of
the Legislature of New York instructing
the SensLe and requesting the Representa-
tives TO vote for the pending constitutional
amendment to abolish slavery, If being in
compatible with free government.
On motion of Mr.. Schenck, resolution
was adopted authorizing the Committee on
Military Affairs 10 send for persons and
papers, and to examine witnesses, IS to the
situation and the treatment of prisoners of
war, the subject having been referred to
that Committee under resolution Of the
House.
In course of the debate in the question
of Mr.. Fields assault on Mr.. Kelly, Mr..
Brooks said that recently he had occasion
TO speak of certain Major Generals as gold
robbers, but in some prints ne Was repre-
serted as saying "bold robbers" He had
received letter from q Msjor General
who supposed the remark particularly ap-
plicsble to him, though at the time the
article was written there was another
Major General in New York. The letter
read as follows:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 1866.
James Brooks, Member of Congress, House
of Representatives
I find in the Daily Globe, of the 18th,
report Of your remarks in the House on
the 9th, an extract from which, personal to
me, is appended. have the honor to in
quire whether your remarks are correctly
reported, except perhaps in the misprint of
'fgold' for "bold;" and also whether there
was any modification, explanation or lin
itstion made by you other than appears in
this report. The gentleman who hands
you this will wait for, or call for your an
swer at any time and place you may des-
ignste. [Signed1 B.F. BUTLER,
Major General.
The extract from Mr.. Brooks speech
was in substance as follows
II am bound to say that an effort was
made to control the city of New York.
During the Autumn election the Govern
ment sent gold robber in the person Of
Msjor General in the United States Army.
RObber as he was of the public treasury,
and Major General, he dared not exercise
control over the actions of those whom the
field) had called thieves and robbers"
A question of order was raised on the
introduction OF the letter. Mr.. Brooks
quoted from the Constitution that for any
speech, in either House, nomember should
be questioned.
The Speaker ruled that Mr.. Brooks
would be justified in referring to the
answer to the letter.
Mr.. Brooks would be justified in refusing
to answer the letter.
Mr.. Brooks said he objected 70 the whole
letter. It was brought 70 him by Buffers
Adiutsnt In full uniform, instead of being
sent through the post Office. He did not
like military gentlemen coming into his
house and calling for an immediate answer,
or any answer. He expressed to the Aid
that he should not give an immediate an
swer, but would take his own time. The
remark being made on the floor of the
House, General Butler had no right to call
him in question. He contended that the
language of Buffers letter was that Of
duellist
a point of honor beingpressed, the speak
or decided the letter no Infringement
of privilege. The rules were suspended
to allow Mr.. Brooks to explain his grounds
for calling Butler gold-robber. He said
he referred to d transaction in the Sur
rogste Court of New York, when General
Butler was sued by Samuel Smith, Of New
Orleans, for $780, 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.
Spirited eolloquy then took place in
which several gentlemen tookpsrt.
Mr.. Leon asserted 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 before making the charge.
A sharp contest of words followed be-
tween Messrs. Brooks and Gooeh concerD-
ing the security and disposition of the
$50, 900 in gold