Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-07-23

the number and regulate the appointment
of officers of tbs navy, with amendments.
The first amendment was 20 strike out the
proyis0 limiting the number of Rear Ad-
mirals and inserting il lieu of it proYiso
that nothing in the act shall preclude the
promotion of officers fo- bravery, high
qualifications or distinguished conduct.
Amendment agreed to.
Also amendments increasing the number
of officers to twenty Lieutent Commanders.
fifty Masters and seventy five Ensigns
providing that volunteer officers attached to
vessels at sea or in foreign stations may be
appointed to the regular navy and strik-
| ing out the sentence that volunteer officers
shall hold their positions until their places
can be supplied by graduates from the
Naval Academy.
Mr.. sPALDfNG called up the resolution
of the House directing the Speaker to
| reprimand Mr.. Rousseau for his assault on
Mr.. Grinnell. %
| Mr.. ROUSSEAU obtained consent to
make a personal explanation. He said he
| felt it his duty to the House and himself to
| say word or two on a matter which had
| given him so 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
i and heard himself denounced in way in
which no member should speak Of another,
and which, certainly, did not tend 10 good
feeling. He thought that the remarks of
the gentleman from Ohio (Garfeld) the
other day were unfair and unjust toward
him, although that gentleman had risen
proelaiming friendship to him. It seemed
as if both he and the gentleman from Iowa
| (Wilsonl had supposed they were prose-
cutting a criminal. lie thought they should
have come there uninfuencsd by passion
and prejudice.
Mr.. STEVENS objected to a criticism Of
| the Judgment Of the House by man who
was under sentence.
The SPEAKER moved that the remarks
of the gentleman, stating that members
were influenced by passion, were not in or
| der. f--
Mr.. ROUSSEAU professed his readiness if
he had said anything improper to take it
back. All he had said was that the mem
bers should have come to the consideration
of the case unpreludiced. If that was not
30 then he was in error. He appealed to the
House ifthose gentlemen, Garfield and Viii
son, had not shown far more passion in
mode and action than he himself.
Mr.. STEVENS again arose. He much
objected to the criticism on the judgement
of the House.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU protested that be had not
reflected on the judgment of the House. He
was simply speaking of the argument of the
gentlemen.
The SPEAKER intimated that it was not
in order to impute passion to the members.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU said that he would take
thai back. He asked the Speaker whether
ne would be allowed to say 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 said that the gentleman
had already said it.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU said he would then stick
to it and not take it back. He then went
on TO say that he was sorry TO see an effort
made TO influence the members, by bringing
up in discussion fist fight which had moth
ing to do with the case. The House should
not have been called upon to listen to a
thing of that sort. His friend from Massa-
chusetts, Mr.. Banks, seemed to have been
lying in wait until the close of the argu-
ment, and when all reply was cut off, made
an appeal against him such is rarely heard
in court of justice, even IN cases of the
highest crimes known TO the law. He
thought the House could determine the mat
ter lust as well without that appeal. He
must say that the proceedings in this case
had not been entirely just to him.
Mr.. STEVENS said that he must insist it
was out of order TO criticise the mode by
which the House arrived at its Judgment.
The SPEAKER sustained tho point of
order, and reading from the manual a SEN
tenee that no prior determination of the
House is TO be reflected by any member,un-
less he means to conclude with q motion to
rescind.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU remarked that that was
the farthest from his intention.
Mr.. STEVENS said there was no mistak-
ing the whole course of the gentleman's ar
gument. He objected to it Instead of the
House being reprimanded he asked that the
respondent be reprimanded according to the
order of the House.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU protested that he found
no fault with the decision of the House. He
said he should submit to it like man, as
we'll as he could. He asked whether he
would be allowed to say that the member
who was to be his judge had appeared be-
fore the committee and prosecuted the case
against him.
The SPEAKER said that he did not think
the gentleman had right to challenge the
motives of the members.
Mr.. ROUSSEAU repeated his assurances
that he did not find fault with the decision
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 lie had nothing to say on the sub
ject.
Mr. BANKS said he did not doubt that
the gentleman from Kentucky meant 70
speak in vindication of himself and not i'm
pugn the motives of the members, but he
certainly did that when he spoke OF the
gentleman from Massachusetts lying in
wait for the close of the discussion that
certainly implied motive which was not
creditable, and it was entirely untrue The
member from Massachusetts, had spoken be-
cause the report of the Committee had been
violently assAiled, and there had been no
arrangement. Itwas matter ofpure acei-
dent.
Mr.. GARFIELD declared that he was en-
tirely unconscious of having used any un-
fair argument or having been actuated by
any unfair motive 1t seemed to him, how
ever, that if the whole matter could be re-
viewed in this way, then the order of the
House would be reversed and he (Rousseau)
would be reprimanGing the House instead
of being reprimanded by the House.
The SPEAKER said he had so 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 Massachusetts. He
had said something about that gentleman
III 0diL III al Nc uiduc.
The gentleman said he had in that done
him injustice and he would therefore with
draw the remark. It had been asserted
against him, that he waited four days be-
fore taking redress, and that his anger had
had time to cool, but he thought the gen
gleman would agee with him that no time
was long enough for a man to cool, when he
is DETAINED on the records Of the nation,
when an outrageous assault was committed
on his reputation. He had waited for the
House TO take the matter in its own hands,
as he thought it should have done, but he
made no complaint against the House for
its course on that occasion, nor on the
Speaker. Rhe thing had occurred in few
moments and there had been much excite
ment and confusion. The injustice which
had been done was in not having the mat
ter called up, and the member from Iowa,
(Grinnell) and himself, perhaps, punished