The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-07-23
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
WASHINGTON, July 81.
HOUSE


OF officers of the navy, with the amend
ments. The first amendment was to
strike out the provision limiting the
number of rear admirals, and inserting
In lieu of a proviso, that nothing in
this act shall preclude the promotion
OF officers for bravery, high qualifica-
ton, or distinguished conduct. The
was agreed to; also the
increasing the number of
officers to 20 Lieutenant Commanders,
90 Masters and 75 EnsignS, providing
that volunteers attached to a vessel at
sea or in foreign station may be ap-
pointed TO the regular navy, and strik-
ing out sentence that volunteer Off
GERS shall held their position until their
places can ~ supplied by graduates
from the Naval Academy.
Mr: Spa aiding called up the resolu-
ton directing the Speaker to reprimand
Mr.. Rousseau for his assault on Mr..
Grinnell.
Mr.. Rousseau sobtained consent to
make personal explanation. He said
he felt 1t his duty to the House and to
himself to say word or two on a mat
ter which had given him much pain and
modification. He thought the mem
bers had misunderstood his position
and the feelings and motives which
had prompted him. He had sat here
and heard himself denounced in a way
in which no member should speak of
another, and which certainly did not
tend to a good feeling. He thought
that the remarks ofthe gentleman from
Ohio Mr.. Gartield) the other day as
unfair and unjust towards him,
although that gentleman had risen pro-
claiming friendship to him. It seemed
as II both he and the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. WilsOn) had supposed they
were prosecuting a criminal. He
EhnnUhF oil
unintiuenced by passion or prejudice.
Mr.. Stevens objected to a criticism of
the Judgment of the House by a man
who was under sentence.
The Speaker ruled that the remarks
OF the gentleman stating that the men,
bers were influenced by passion were
not in order.
Mr.. Rosseau profered his readiness,
1t he had said anything improper, to
take it back. All he had said was that
the members should have come to the
consideration of the case unprecedented.
II that was not so, then he was in error.
He appealed to the house, if those gem
tlemen, Garfield and Wilson, had not
shown more passion, in words and ac-
ton, than he himself.
MI. Stevens again rose. He said he
must object to criticisms on the judg-
ment of the House.
Mr.. Rosseau protested that he had
not reflected on the Judgment of the
House. He was simply speaking OF
the arguments of gentlemen.
The speaker minated that 1t was
not III order to impute passion to mem
bers.
Mr.. Rosseau said that he would take
that back. He asked the speaker
whether he would be allowed to state
that an effort had been made to create
an excitement against him by bringing
IN the circumstances of a fist fight in
some part of the Capitol.
The speaker replied that Mr., Ros-
seau had already said it.
Mr.. RoSseau said that he would then
stick to it, and not take it back. He
went on to say that he was sorry to
see an ,effortSto influence members by
bringing up in discussion a fist fight
which had nothing to do with the case.
The House should not have been called
upon to listen to things of that sort.
His friend from Massachusetts,, Mr..
Banks seems to have been lying in
wait until the close of the argument,
and, when all reply was cut of, made
an appeal against him such as is rarely
heard in u court of justice, even in cases
OF the highest crimes known to law,
He thought the House could determine
the matter just us well without that APP
peal as with it. He must say that the
just to him.
Mr.. Stevens said he must insist that
It was out of order to criticise the mode
by which the House arrived at its judg-
ment.
The Speaker sustained the point of
order, reading from the manual n sem
tence that no prior determination ofthe
House Is to be reflected on by any menu
Der unless he means to conclude with a
motion to rescind.
Mr.. rousseau remarked that was the
farthest from his intention.
Mr.. Stevens said there was no mis-
taking the whole course of the gentle
mans argument. He objected to it,
and instead of the House being repri-
manded, he asked that the RESPONDENT
be reprimanded according to the orders
of the House.
Mr.. Rousseau protested that he found
no fault with the decision of the House,
and said he should submit to it like n
man as we'll US he could. He asked
whether he would be allowed to say
that members who were to be his
judges had appeared before commits
tee and prosecuted the case against him.
The Speaker said he did not think the
had a right to challenge the
motives of members.
MIR. Rousseau repeated his assurance
that he did not find fault with the de-
ctsion of the House. He was merely
speaking of the manner in which that
decision had been brought about. If
he was not allowed to do SO, then he
had nothing to say on the subject.
Mr.. Banks said he did not doubt that
the gentleman from Kentucky meant
to speak in vindication of himself and
not TO tmpugn motives of members
but he certainly did that when he spoke
OF the gentleman from Massachusetts
lying in wait for the close of the dis
cussion. That certainly implied a
motive which was not cFeditabIe, and
II was entirely untrue, The member
from Massachusetts had spoken be-
cause the report of the committee had
been violently assailed, aud there had
been no arrangement and motive: il
was matter of pure sccident.
Mr.. Garfield declared that he was en-
ttrely unconscious OF having used any
unfair argument, or having been act1-
ated by any unfair motive. It seemed
TO him, however, that if the whole mat
ter could be reviewed in this way, then
the order of the House would be re-.
versed, and he (Rousseau) would be
reprimanding the House, instead of be-.
ing reprimanded by the House.
The Speaker said so he had decided
three times.
Mr.. Rosseau said he would be very
sorry TO abuse the courtesy of the House;
he wished, however, to say word or
two to the gentleman from Massachu.
sets. Mr.. Banks had said something
about that gentleman lying in wait in
the argument he made. The gentleman
said that he had in that done him in
Justice, and he would therefore with
draw the remark, It had been asserted
against him that lie waited four days
before taking redress, and that his
anger had had time to cool, but he
thought the gentleman would agree
with him that no time is long enough
for man to cool when he is DETAINED