ogize; you began the attack; I have no apology to make." Placing his hand on his breast, to draw a weapon, I seized him by the collar, when he struck me five or six times over the face with a cane having an iron end, until it was broken. I said, "You have assaulted me in the House, but I have no desire to hurt you." He said, "You d-d coward, I want to disgrace you." I said, "You cannot do it. I only defended myself in debate." He continued swearing, when I said, "If the crowd is done with me, I will leave," and picked up a piece of the cane and walked away. I was alone and saw him surrounded by friends. I did not resist, presuming there was a purpose to assassinate me. I have suffered considerably from injuries in the face and on the shoulders, received from the iron point of the cane.- -Washington Correspondent.

My treatment of the blustering general was salutary. It ended his retort, "When were you in the war?" and my reply was pleasing to generals of real fame. Of those who stood Of those who stood up in my defense, were the Hon. James F. Wilson, Thaddeus Stevens and Generals Banks and Garfield, who spoke against the assaulting party and asked for an expulsion. These points were made by Mr. Wilson in his arraignment: that there had been in the assault a flagrant violation of the constitution; that honors were easy as to the use of language in personality, but the gentleman from Kentucky had been wounded and worsted in debate, and had fallen on the shield of his military record. Mr. Wilson, amid frequent interruptions, carried the house in his arraignment of mock chivalry so fully that no one cared to reply; and, on a call for my reproof, there was not a member to call for a vote of the house. This was the conclusion of his argument:

"Sir, we have had too much 'impression' about this case already; altogether too much 'impression'. Instead of being guided by the imprint which the official types have made upon the official records of this House, the impressions of gentlemen have been resorted to. This is the case so far as the words used in debate are concerned. But I am not ready to yield the case to the gentleman from Kentucky yet. There is one other thing worthy of our attention. After my colleague had responded to the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from Kentucky sought the floor again to reply. He did reply to what was said on that occasion by my colleague, and he closed his reply in this language:

"I hope now that I have heard the last of the member. from Iowa. I hope I shall never have occasion to recur to the subject again. Whatever glory he has gained in this contest I am content he should wear.'

"Such, sir, was the parting language of the gentleman from Kentucky to my colleague. He in effect declared that he desired to hear nothing more in relation to the case; that he desired to have nothing more to do with my colleague. With that declaration imprinted upon the records, the member from Kentucky deliberates for four days-'expecting an apology,' though he had not notified my col

league that he would not receive one; and closing in the House with the remarks I have just quoted, again notifying my colleague that he wanted nothing to do with him, the belligerents retired from the field. All was at peace so far as that controversy was concerned. 'I won't receive an apology; I do not want an apology. The storm is over. I am satisfied with what I have made, and if the gentleman from Iowa is satisfied with the laurels he has won, let him wear them; I am content.' Four days passed; and what then do we find? The gentleman from Kentucky seeks my colleague on the eastern portico of this capitol, and there administers to him a caning-for what? Why, sir, as the record shows, for language used in debate in this House, for which the Constitution which the member from Kentucky swore to support and maintain, declares no member shall be questioned elsewhere. Now, it may be that there is nothing but sunshine on that side of the case; but I want to know from members whether they are to be driven or coaxed away from their duty of maintaining sacredly the privileges of this body by any sympathy that persons may seek to create here in behalf of the gentleman from Kentucky, who seems to be so abundantly able to take care of himself, and who refuses apologies when tendered. Why, sir, from the nature of the discussion we have had it seems that in this country no man's character is worth anything unless he has been a military man. You may charge a man with being a 'liar', a 'mere thing', 'a pitiable politician'; you may use all kinds of opprobrious epithets toward him; he is nobody. But when a gentleman like the gentleman from Kentucky comes in here from the military service- and whether he performed his duty well or ill, I am not going to question - when such a gentleman comes in here and uses unparliamentary language like that I have read from his remarks, attacking the character of other members of the House, he is to be shielded by that immunity which his service in the army throws about him. Sir, I trust it will be very long before this House will adopt that doctrine.

"Why, sir, the character and reputation of a civilian are as dear to him as the character and reputation of a military man are to him; and when one is attacked it is certainly quite as much a provocation for a return of the attack in the body where the attack is made as language uttered by another is provocation for the military gentleman to change his base outside of this Hall, and make his attack there.

"Now, sir, I have occupied the attention of the House longer than I had intended when I sought the floor; but I desired to present, at least in an imperfect manner, the side of the case to which very little attention had been given during this discussion. I wish, also, before I conclude, to remind the House of the circumstances attending this assault. The gentleman from Kentucky had been thinking over it for four days. It was a deliberate, malicious assault upon a member of the House for words spoken on the floor. It was not only deliberate on the part of the gentleman himself, but his purpose was conveyed to at least one other person, whom he invited to be present, and who by some cunningly-devised means managed, without formal invitation, to have one other there, both of them being armed. The second one testifies that he did not arm himself for the purpose of taking a part in this difficulty; that he did not know the difficulty would occur. But by some means this man Pennybaker, who was notified of the assault, procured the attendance of these other innocent men, who did not know anything about it. It was strange, but it is true.

"Now, of course, these parties were all innocent, and this congregating together of three or four persons to assault a member of Congress amounts to nothing. I suppose, from the course this case has taken, that the privileges of this body amount to nothing; that the independence of the representative character, the independence of the legislative body of this nation amount to nothing, if you only

have its privileges infringed upon by some gentleman who comes here surrounded by military glory such as is claimed for the gentleman from Kentucky."

Mr. Allison in finale called up the resolution and order of the House. Speaker Colfax said:

“General Rosseau: The House of Representatives has declared you guilty of a violation of its rights and privileges in a premeditated assault on a member for words spoken in debate. This condemnation they have placed upon their journal and have ordered that you be publicly reprimanded by the speaker.

"No words of mine can add to the force of this order, in obedience to which I now pronounce upon you its reprimand."

There are incidents outside of the official debates, and the action of the House, to be noticed. I was deeply interested in this Freedman's bill, having had interviews with General Grant as the head of the army. Prominent colored people, also, and General Howard, looked to me as a champion of the bill. In the discussion in committee of the whole I was chairman a portion of the time of the speaker's call, and listened to all the debates. I was further pushed to the verge of personalities by the overbearing, pompous manner of the member from Kentucky, and the frequent boast of his military record and the taunting sneer, "When were you in the war?" This was offensive to real soldiers, who were happy in seeing his plumes lowered on the field he had chosen for the false estimate of his ability. The remark that "he would shoot a soldier on duty" General Grant assured me was regarded a disgrace and unsoldierlike. The civilian, loyal, and on duty at home and in Congress, I deemed as honorable, if less noted, as the soldier, and the code of ethics and taste which made severe language fit for a general, I regarded as suited to a civilian. Still, my peaceful course in waiting for the action of Congress did not meet the favor of belligerent spirits. I had with the spirit of a man, on my way down the avenue, stepped in and asked for a pistol, but it did not suit me. On entering my lodgings, I met Senator Howard of Michigan, who asked what was the matter with my face. And on the reply, "Not much," said he must know, and I gave the facts in a few words, saying, "I will go to my dinner.” "Dinner! Shoot him before you eat. It is a cowardly conspiracy backed by Johnson and traitors." Soon he came to my side at dinner, saying, "I gave you wrong advice, it is too late for violence, you cannot afford it. They were drunk, while you are cool

and sober." On going up to my room I found Senator Grimes of Iowa, Senators Wilson and Sumner, also members of the Iowa delegation, to restrain me from shooting my assailant, which would, they said, involve regret, and end in assassination. The time had passed to use a deadly weapon, except in self-defense. My Iowa friends in the department made me a present of a heavy cane with an iron head from a bolt in the historic Monitor, and this I carried. By a resolution of the House, the parties in this affair were summoned before a committee called to meet in a high by-corner of the capitol, reached by winding stairs. I was the first to arrive and stood alone by the stair, when Rosseau appeared. Seeing me only, as, standing over him with the iron-headed cane, he could not retreat without exposing himself to a blow which would have broken his skull. Standing still, while in my power, he turned pale. I said, "I have you in my power, but I will not kill you." Not a word further was spoken, and I give him credit for a frank relation of the circumstances that I did not use my power and advantage to take his life. Great as the provocation was, I have always been glad that, though he made one attack upon me, I did not imitate him, which I could have done with a deadly blow, in safety, when alone.

General Rousseau, leaving Congress, was appointed an officer in the regular army, by President Johnson. While on duty in New Orleans, after two or three years' service, he died. I hear that he has a family living, and I would not mention rumors or facts as to his career which might be an uncharitable reflection on the unfortunate dead. While in New Orleans, I met an acquaintance who was with the general in his sickness, and learned that when near his end, he said he regretted the assault, for while I wounded his pride by severe words, he wished to live to make reparation by an apology, for I had spared his life.

Fair debate without personalities is a practice to be commended, however great the provocation to bitter retort. For many years I was thrown where there was sharp debate, and suspect myself of a bitterness, which I must charge to indignation toward a cruel pretender. Severe words should not be indulged except on the greatest provocation, is the lesson of an unhappy affair. I would be one in the role of peacemakers, who are on the best authority blessed.

Lincoln's War Cabinet.
William H. Seward

CHAPTER XII.

Salmon P. Chase-Edwin M. Stanton-
General and President Grant.

The Emancipation Cabinet I knew well- Mr. Chase, Mr. Seward, Mr. Bates of St. Louis, a quiet gentleman of the old school; Montgomery Blair, son of Francis P. Blair, the eminent admirer and eulogizer of General Jackson; Caleb B. Smith of Indiana, a speaker of ability and local fame; and Mr. Stanton the War Minister. Abraham Lincoln, of course, was the great figure who humorously describes himself on duty, "Keeping his cabinet in order and from quarreling." How little they had in common in native endowments, and even less in environment and birth, yet all favorable to the attainment of world-wide renown.

It was in 1861 that I first met the president. Waiting, on his request, I took from the marble mantle a volume by Orpheus C. Kerr. It was a light, witty burlesque, and, while holding it in my hand, Mr. Lincoln said, "Don't judge your friend by that book of fun and romance. I read it when my brain is weary, and I seek relief by diversion, which this promotes. I have hours of depression, and I must be unbent. When a boy, the owner of a bow and arrow, I found one must let up on the bow if the arrow is to have force. Read Kerr and then pity me chained here in the Mecca of office-seekers. You flaxen men with broad faces are born with cheer, and don't know a cloud from a star. I am of another temperament. But, drop the book, and if the country will get up as much fever in enlistments as there is strife for the offices, the rebel leaders will soon have a collapse."

Months later I called, and met his salutation, "How is Iowa; with whom did you leave those few sheep (a few thousand) in the wilderness?" "Not much, Mr. President, of shepherd David's wilderness-all prairie. Will you please tell me, how did you know I kept sheep?" "I remember men by association, and know