When interrupted in the extraordinary manner witnessed by the Senate, I was presenting reasons in favor of the measure on which we are to vote, and I insisted as strongly as I could that the special duty of the hour was protection to loyal and patriotic citizens against the President; I was replying to what fell from the Senator from Maine, who seems, if I may judge from his argument, to feel that there is no occasion for special safeguard, and that the system left by our fathers is enough. In this reply I used language which, according to the short-hand reporter, was as follows: I read from his notes:-- “There, Sir, is the duty of the hour. There was no such duty on our fathers, there was no such duty on our recent predecessors, because there was no President of the United States who had become the enemy of his country.” These were my words when suddenly interrupted. By those words, Sir, I stand. MR. DOOLITTLE [of Wisconsin]. I raise a question of order, whether these words are in order, as stated by the Senator. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already decided a similar point of order. The Chair will submit this question to the Senate. The Presiding Officer decided that Mr. Sumner was in order. Mr. Doolittle appealed from this decision. Debate ensued on the appeal, when Mr. Lane, of Indiana, moved to lay the appeal upon the table. Amid much confusion, other motions were interposed. At last a vote was reached on the motion of Mr. Lane. The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted,--Yeas 29, Nays 10. So the appeal was laid upon the table. Mr. Sumner, who was in his seat, refrained from voting. The Senate then adjourned. * * * * * January 18th, Mr. Sumner, having the floor, continued.