Mr. Momma. properl voted or not. The question now ending is whether the honorable Senfrom ewJersey had the right to vote in a case in which he was interested. Upon that proposition the honorable Senfrom Maryland and the honorable Senfrom NewJersey take what appears to me tobe avery strange view of the case. They construe the interest that a Senator has in his seat here into a ecuniary interest, that which is involved in the receipt of his salary or compensation. I apprehend that that is not the interest of n Senator in his seat. They say he had the right to vote because it was NewJen sey voting, and not he; and upon the question as to whether NewJersey 5 ould be represented in the Senate through the honorable member now occupying the seat here, he had the right to vote for NewJersey. Sir, the question whether NewJersey had the right to a Senator here was not in question at all it has not been before this body; but whether NewJersey had a right to a Senator in the person of Mr. Stockton was the question that was pending and before the body, and that is involved now. The question of the pecuniary interest derived from the salary of a Senator as contradistinguished from the interest of a Senator in the franchise and pesse ssion of his office are 2 different things, widely different; the one so inconsiderable that there is an exception made by writers on arlintnentary law in favor of the point, for there would he no compensation provided by law unless there was an exception which allowed mmbers of legislative bodies to fix their own compensation, and therefore there is an exceplon made. But the right of a member to the franchise of the office; to enjoy it, its honors, its powers, its representative character, is what is involved in the proposition whether a Senator shall vote where that franchise is brought into question. Now sir, the more immediate question before the body is as to the propermode of rocedure. The honorable Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SanaMAN] has told us that he aproves rather the motion now pending, made by the honorable Senfrom hiassaghusetm, to strike from the Journal the vote of Mr. Stockton, and thus correct the proceeding and deprive that Senator of the vote that he cast. The honorable Senfrom Illinois [Mr. Tauunu11.] thinks that the proper course is to move a reconsideration of the vote, and in that respects Senator objects, and says that if that course be taken, then while the names of Senators are being called no question can arise as to the right to vote of a Senator, for the call cannot be arrested. That might be gotten over, after the motion to reconsider was made, by aseparate resolution, which should be a rule of the body, if adopted, declaring that no Senator has a right to vote upon the question as to whether he is entitled to a seat in the Senate or not; and that being adopted, would be a rule of the Senate. But there is a further objection, I think on reflection, to the mode proposed by the Senfrom IIllinois, namely, to reconsider the proceeding already had. It is that the reconsideration is based upon the presumption that the Senfrom NewJersey had a right to vote; for as the resolution was carried by but one majority, and his vote made that majority, if he had no right to vote the vote was null, and no decision was arrived at in his favor. If his vote was null and void, there is nothing to be reconsidered; butif he had a right to vote, the Senate may reconsider its action. The proceeding to reconsider, therefore, seems to carry with it the presumtion that the Senfrom NewJersey had the right to vote, for it is his vote that gives the majority and makes the reconsideration necessary; and in that view of the case I am not certain but that I prefer the mode 1st proposed by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, to correct the record, which assumes that the record is wrong, because the Senfrom NewJersey had no right to make up the mitiority by casting his own vote. Thus, Mr. President, I have endeavored to consider the immediate question at issue, and 1 close by saying that I have no doubt upon the nestion as to whether the Senfrom NewJersey, or any other Senator, should have the right to vote when his seat was brought in question in a legislative body.