e pluck, and they will, therefore,
read with interest of one such occasion, when Garfield effectually
quelled such an attempt. I find it in a chapter of reminiscences
contributed to the Boston _Journal_, by Ben Perley Poore, the well-known
correspondent:

"When the Jenckes Bankrupt Bill came before the House, Gen. Garfield
objected to it, because in his opinion it did not provide that the
estates of rebels in arms should escape the operations of the law. He
also showed that money was being raised to secure the enactment of the
bill, and Mr. Spalding, of the Cleveland district, was prompted by Mr.
Jenckes to 'sit down on him.' But Gen. Garfield was not to be silenced
easily and quite a scene ensued. The next day Garfield rose to a
personal explanation, and said:

"'I made no personal reference whatever; I assailed no gentleman; I
called no man's honor in question. My colleague from the Cleveland
district (Mr. Spalding) rose and asked if I had read the bill. I
answered him, I believe, in courteous language and manner, that I had
read it, and immediately on my statement to that effect he said in his
place in the House, and it has gone on the record, that he did not
believe I had read it; in other words, that he believed I had lied, in
the presence of my peers in this House. I felt, under such
circumstances, that it would not be becoming my self-respect, or the
respect I owe to the House, to continue a colloquy with any gentleman
who had thus impeached my veracity and I said so.

"'It pains me very much that a gentleman of venerable age, who was in
full maturity of life when I was a child, and whom I have respected
since my childhood, should have taken occasion here in this place to use
language so uncalled for, so ungenerous, so unjust to me, and
disgraceful to himself. I have borne with the ill-nature and bad blood
of that gentleman, as many others in this House have, out of respect for
his years; but no importunity of age shall shield him, or any man, from
my denunciation, who is so lacking in the proprieties of this place as
to be guilty of such parliamentary and personal indecency as the House
has witnessed on his part. I had hoped that before this time he would
have acknowledged to me the impropriety and unjustifiableness of his
conduct and apologized for the insult. But he has not seen fit to take
this course. I leave him to his own reflections, and his conduct to the
judgment of the House.'"

Those who listened