National Republican., 1884-06-18
A DUEL WITH WORDS.
Senators Brown and ingalls, Continue 10 Fire
at Each Other in Debate.
Some Graphic Observations Used
Merely as Illustrations.
Tho House Agrees 10 the Conference Report on tho
Fitz-John Porter Bill.
Amendments 10 the Pacific Railroad Acts
Discussed and Adopted.
THE SENATE.

Atertnc rehulnB OF tue JOURNAL Mr' brOWn roso
toaquestion ofpriyilege He had the clerk read the
remarks Of Mr.. ingalls,, made Monday, relating to
Mr.. Browns revision of his [Mr Browns remarks
made in the debate of Friday last. When the
clerk had concluded the reading Mr.. Brown said
he had not replied to Mr.. Ingallss remarks at the
time they were made because he did not wish to
speak under the irritation which Mt ingalls's
remarks were calculated and intended to provoke.
In what he had to say no would keep within tho
decorum Of the senate. and had reduced his re-,
marks to writing. He called the attention ofthe
senate 10 the Insulting and opprobrons language
used by the senator from Kansas Mr.. lngallsl
toward u member OF the senate, who could not
repel such insults without violating the rules
which all senators were in honor bound to obey.
Mr.. Brown did not wish To gloze over this matter
The charge of tho senator from Kansas was that
of ialsfying the record aud committing q forgery
upon the records Of the senate. This Language
@ %Is psnnUa insult va anu uttered , no.
defiance ofthe authority OF the presiding officer
The chair remarked that If the senator was en-
ploying that language to the senator from Kan
sas he lNir. Brownl was doing the thing that he
was charging against that senator. In accusing
brother senator of deliberately planning an insult,
the chair said the senator from Georgia out of
order.
Mr.. Brown. ""Then, sir, that remark is with
drawn, under tho ruling of the chair"
The remarks of the senator from Kansas, Mr..
Brown said, were not made hastily, but amer two
days had ELAPSED, and after ample, and, as Mr..
Brown supposed, satisfactory disclaimer from
himself had been made OF all offensive imputa-
tion, Mr.. Brown then referred to the unbtOkeu
custom of revision accorded to senators. 10
matter how accurate tho reporter may be hc
could not hear all senators with equal distinct.
ness. Some senators did not speak as distinctly
He [Mr. Brown was told that his voice was
sometimes inoudible in portions Of the chamber
owing to his weak lungs. He had revised his
remarks In order TO have them conform TO what
he did say according to his best recollection.
Had the senator from Kansas. however, callod
his MIR. Brown'sl attention to tho words COM
planned of, as was usual in such cases, he would
have voluntarily and publicly divcsted the Ian
guage OF every trace OF even seeming unkindness
or depreciation.
Notwithstanding even tho assurances given in
the senate by Mr.. Brown. the senator from Kansas
had persisted in his purpose OF insulting u SEN
ut0r.
The chair thought this observation out of
order.
Mr.. Brown had supposed he was within the line
of parliamentary prOpriety, but withdrew the re-
marx; He submitted to the senate whether 1t
would permit such an outrageous and inexcusable
breach of its privileges TO 90 unnotced. For him
self, he trusted II was not Improper to say that
during a somewhat eventful life in the 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 tho remarks of the senator from Kansas
to "Parthian arrows from the safe ambush of the
printing house" did not apply to him Mr.. Brownl.
That senator seemed to think that he Mr.. BrOwnl
inserted something in his speech that he was
afraid to utter in his presence. He vontured to
say that there was nothing in the person., the
character. or the antecedens of the senator from
Kansas TO make him an object Of apprehension or
TO excite the fears OF any man.
There was no place SO safe us this senate cham
Der for a man OF discreet courage TO bluster aud
parade his viLuperatiye rhetoric. No other SEN
alor would have used such Language as the senator
from Kansas had used under the protection of the
senate, and he Mr.. Ingallsl would not use IL
cept under the protection OF the senate.
Mr.. lugalls said that If the senator from Georgia
would allow the remarks made this morning to
stand as they had been delivered he tHr Ingalls,
would be content, but If those remarks were to b0
amended by interpretations and observations not
delivered, after they had been sent 10 the printing
house, lie lMr Ingalls, preferred to wait. before
canvassis the vote, until all the returns were tn
The senator from Georgia, Mr.. Ingalls, said. was
miglier with the pen than with either the tongue
or the sword.
That senator shed ink like water He was only
courageous with the pen. Mr.. Ingalls, would not
be diverted from the real question at issue by the
personal tinge which the senator from Georgia
had seen fit TO give to his observations at this time
That question was whether the records of tho
senate had been falsihed by the Interpolation of
matter personal In its character, susceptible only
of All offensive Interpretation after the record had
been made up by the reporter. The record OF the
senate debates was intended TO be a verbatim re-
port OF what was said and done day by day ia the
senate; To secure this result we pay a largo sum
annually TO the most accomplished stenOgrapherS
In this country The senator from Georgia had
said that in his opinion he had used the language
watch he had written into the report, The re-
porter of the senate said he had not. The remark
20 interpolated was personal, derogatory, dispar
aging in violation OF the privileges of debate a
breach of the courtesies of the senate, and is
what would not have been done In the ordinary
ailairs of life between one gentleman aud another
The chair thought this remark out of order.
Mr. ingalls, then withdrew the remark, and said
to .he chair that IL would not appear in the
Record.
Mr., Ingalls, continued that the value of the
record would be destroyed II such interpretations
weN permitted lie inquired how 1t would be ii
senator should some day appear here TO repre-
sent Alaska, and he Mr.. Ingalls, after debate
with that senator, should write into the debate
statements to the effect that the senator from
Alaska was cunning and sanctimonious hypo.
cure, who was forever washing his hands with in
visible soap in impercepible water, and that they
We're not over clean morally after that perform
ance! SUPPOSE he were to characterize the sena.
''urah Heep' Of the senate; suppose he were to
say that he was the Joseph Surface of American
snih, who had been upon all sides Of every polit-
cal question, who had belonged to every political
parry In ms lifetime, and belonged 70 none that he
had not betrayed, would that be within the privl-
lege OF debate, or In accordance with tho prOprie-
ties OF legislative proceedings?
49, THESE observations, Mr. ingalls, said, he used az
illustrations they had no personal application.
lio only employed them 70 show what serious
consequences ght follow this liberty of amend-
ment by the addition Of offensive remarks. AS to
the imputatons OF the senator from Georgia upon
his lAlr. lngalls'sJ personal courage and appear
ance he begged 70 say TO the senator from Georgia
that he lMr, Ingalls, here distinctly ayowed all
that he had hitherto said, in any sense that the
ssnator from Georgia saw iit to attribute to IT, aud
hind the privileges OF the senate chamber.
u, Inc usual breathing pause following the de-
livery OF this sentence was characterized by dead
silence in the chamber aud the crowded Iilurles
When Mr.. Ingalls, added, This is all desire 10
say, sir in response to gentleman" u general
blzz was heard, and the galleries were Instantly
half emptiGd.
Mr.. Hampton said that in justice to both sena.
tors he ought 10 say that he Mr.. Hampton) was
sitting Just by the senator from Georgia when he
used one OF the expressions referred TO- or words
OF their tenor ana effect, the senator from Kansas
not being at the time in his seat, but in tho back
aisle OF the chamber
On motion of Mr.. Sherman. Mr.. Ingallss motoh |
70 eSpunge tue words complainod OF was laid on |
the table.
THE NEW YORK BANKS RESOLUTION
Mr., Sherman IN calling up Mr. Bntler's resolu- |
ton Of inquiry Into Tie condition OF the New |
York banks made verbal report from the com. |
mitlee on finance, After reviewing the circum-
stances attendant upon the recent financial |
troubles IN New York city, Mr., Sherman con- |
tinued that all that had been done to prevent Il |
panic had been done by the banks themselves.
The government of the United States had no |
lot or parcel in IT, except far as the secretary Of
tho treasury had called III bonds-an ordinary |
transaction, The committee on finance, to which |
was referred the resolution heretofore introduced |
by Mr. Morgan, had called before them the comp
trolier of the currency, who was familiar with Gll |
the facts and examined him and secured from
MN all the Information possible NJ this time.
Ihey were still examining the subject over
ceruncauon, the committee believed, had been
praotlcally stopped and there was no evidence
that any banks mad overcertlhed checks except
those that had got into trouble.
Mr sherman submitted u statement showing
the COhulllon OF the associated banks of the city
OF New YORK by weeks from May 81 TO June III,
1881, which would give the senator from South
Carolina almost all the Information called for by
his resolution, II contained statement of eighty
three banks, showed tho amount of loans, the
amount Of specie and Of legal tender on hand, the
amount of deposits and Of circulation, us well US
OF the reserves The general result 10 DO gathered
from hl lgIn Mr. -.