The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-06-18
F0RTH-EIGHTH CONGRESS-.
SENATE ProceedIngs Yesterday.
WASHINGTON. June-tf. Is

| After the reading OF the journal Mr.
/ Brown rose TO question OF privilege. III,
had the clerk read the remarks OF Mr.. In
gals made yesterday relative TO Mr.
Browns revision OF his (Brown's) speecl
made In the debate OF Friday last. Wher
the clerk had concluded the reading Mr.
/ Brown said that he had not replied L
Dir. Ingalls's remarks yesterday because
, he did not wish TO speak under the irri
I tation which Mr.. Ingalls's remarks wer,
! calculated and intended TO provoke. II
what he had to say he would keep with
in the decOrum OF the Senate, and haC
reduced his remarks 10 writing. He called
attention OF the Senate TO the insulting and
opprobious language used by the Senator
from Kansas towards a member OF the Sen.
ate who cannot repcl such insults without
violating the rules which all senators are
bound TO obey. Mr.. Brown did not wish
10 glaze over this matter. The charge OF
the Senator from Kansas was that OF ialSl-
fying the record and committing forgery
upon the records Of the Senate. This Ian.
guage was deliberately planned insult
and uttered not only in violation OF rules
OF the Senate, but i'm defiance OF the author
ity OF the presiding officer.
The Chair remarked that il the Senator
was employing that language to the Sena-
tor from Kansas. he (Mr. Brown was do.
ing the thing that he was charging against
that Senator. In accusing a brother-sena-
tor Of deliberately planning an insult the
Chair said the Senator from Georgia was
out OF order.
Mr.. Brown: "Then, sir, that remark is
withdrawn under the ruling OF the Chair"
The remarks OF the Senator from Kan.
sas, Mr.. Brown said, were not made hasti-
", but after two days had elapsed, and
after ample, and as Mr.. Brown supposed,
satisfactory disclaimer from himself had
been made OF all offensive imputation.
Mr.. Brown then referred TO the unbroken
custom OF revision accorded to senator's.
No matter how accurate a reporter may
be, he could not hear all the senators with
equal distinctness. Some senators did not
speak as distinctly as others. He (Mr.
BROWN was told that his voice was some
times inaudible in portions OF the chamber,
owing to his weak lrngs. lie had revised
his remarks in order to have them con-
form TO what he did say. according to his best
recollection. Had the Senator from Kansas,
however; called his (Mr. Browns attention
10 the words complained Of, as was usual
i'm such cases, he would have voluntarily
and publicly Invested the language OF every
trace OF even seeming unkindness or de-
probation. Notwithstanding even the as
surances given in the Senate by him
Brown, the Senator ilom Kansas had per-
sisted in his purpose OF insulting the Sem
atOr.
The Chair thought this observation out
Of order.
Mr.. Brown had supposed he was within
the line OF parliamentary propriety, but
Withdrew the remark. He submitted
10 the Senate whether 1t would per-
nit such an outrageous and inexcu-
sable breach OF its privileges to 90
unnoticed. For himself he trusted it
was not improper TO say that during
a somewhat eyentful life, in many conflicts
that he had had with brave men, where
there was real danger. the insinuation OF
want OF courage had never been made
against him. Therefore the alusiOn OF the
Senator from Kansas to Parthian arrows
from the safe ambush OF the printing
house did not apply to him Brown; that
the Senator seemed TO think chat he (BrOwn)
uttered something in his speech that he
was afraid to utter in his presence. He
venture to say that there was nothing in
the position, character, or antecedcntS OF
the Senator from Kansas to make him
an object Of apprehension, or to eX-
cite the fears OF any man. There
was no place so safe as this Senate chamber
for man OF discreet courage to buster and
parade his yituperative rhetoric. No other
Senator would have used such language rs
the Senator from Kansas had used under
the protection of the Senate, and he On
gall.) would not use it except under the
protection OF the Senate.
Mr.. ingalls, said that il the Senator from
Georgia would allow the remarks made
this morning to stand as they had been de-
livered he Qngalls) would be content, but
IL those remarks were to be amended by
interpolatiois and observations not de-
liycred, after they had been sent to
the printing-house, he (lngallS) preferred
to await before canv2ssing the vote until
all the returns were in. The Senator from
Georgia, Mr.. Ingalls, said, was mightier
with the pen than with either tongue or
sword; that tne Senator shed ink like
water-he was very courageous with the
pen. Mr.. ingalls, would not be diverted
from the real question at issue by the per-
sonal tinge which the Senator from Geor-
gia had seen fit to give to his observations
this morning. That the question was
whether the records OF the Senate had been
fal.ined by the Interpolation OF matter
personal in it's character, susceptible only
of an offensive Interpretation after the
record had been made up by the reporter.
The record OF the Senate debates was in
tended to be uerbdtim report OF what was
said and done day by day in the Senate.
70 secure this result we pay large sum
annually TO the most accomplished stenog-
rapher In this country. The Senator from
Georgia had said that in his opinion he had
used language which he had written into
the report, The reporter OF the Senate
said ne had not. The remark so inter-
polared was personal, derogatory, dlspara-
gipg. i'm violation OF the privileges OF de-
hate. breach OF the court OF the Senate,
and il was what would not have been done
I'm the ordinary affairs OF life between one
gentleman and another. =,
The Chair thought this remark out OF
order.
Mir. ingalls, then withdrew the remark
and said % the Chair that it would not
appear in the Record. Mr.. ingalls, con-
tended that the ya.ue OF the Record would
be DESTROYED il such interpretations were
permitted. He inquired how 1t would be
II n senator should some day appear here
to represent Alaska, and he tngalis)' alter
debate with that senator, should write
into the debate statements 10 tne
effect that the Senator from Alaska
was a cunning and sanctimonious hypo-
critic, who was forever washing his hands
with invisible soap in imperceptible wafer
and that they were not oyer-clean, morally,
after that performance. Suppose he were 10
the senator from Alaska, after
the debate had closed, as the "Uriah Heep"
of the Senate. Suppose he were to say
that he was the Joseph Surface Of Amerl-
can politics that he was snivelling polit-
zeal Pecksni1, who had been upon all SIDES
OF every political question, who had be,
longed to every party In his lifetime, ana