Mr. D XON. Of course I sh to represent the Senator fairly. He tookwthe ground that the POTUS claimed that congress had not this right. I do not understand that the President takes any such round. I take no such ground. But how shal congress do that? I will state the position which occupy on that point. Whether it is the Presi dents position or not, I cannot say. I think it is, because he told usin his messafle that he had now brought these men to the doors of congress, and it was for Congress, each House for itself, to say whether the should be admitted as representatives. I acknowledge the necessity of examination, I acknowledge the duty of examination on this entire subject by Congress. In what way? As the Constitution points out, each House for itself. Is not that sufficient? All through his speech the Senator intimates that if we come to this position it is merely a question of credentials, that we can only examine the credentials of election. Over and over again he says that we are merely to examine the credentials of members because we de sire each House to examine for itself into the question. In my judment, it is nota question of credentials. I thindrthe language of the constitution is full. The elections, qualifications, and returns of the members shall be considered by each House. But, sir, if I am mistaken on that point it so happens that I have here an authority which the Senfrom Maine perhaps will be apt to question. as he probably would not desire to say t athe himsel was an authority, but which the Senate will not be apt to question. It is the Senator himself. In the discussion of the Stark ease this very question arose. It was claimed that Mr. Stark was disloyal, and therefore the Senate could exclude him, that the Senate could meet the question in limine, that we were not bound to wait until he was admitted as a Sen ator and then expel him by a 2/3rds vote. I took that ground myself. The Senate over ruled it. I thought that the vote of the Senate on that question was disastrous, and I said so; and the Senator who then occupied the seat that I now occupy [Mr. COLLAMER] told me afterward that my remark was a very objection able one. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] also thouvht that the vote was disastrous, and he rose and said that he concurred with me. The Senate refused to reject Mr. Stark, man Senators placing it on the ground that we ha no rightto do it. But the Senfrom Maine said the fact was not proved, and then he went on to say what the result would be if the fact was proved; and that was on the question of credentials. It was on the question of the qualifications, elections, and returns of a member. Mr. Stark came here, and in limine we objected to him. What did the Senfrom Maine say? He said what I think was entirely correct. I quote his language: "Suppose. for instance. that one of the leaders of this rebellion should present himself here: suppose the State of Tennessee should come back to the nion being freed of those who now control it, and that a Legislature properly elected should sendGeneralPil Jow here as a Senfrom that Slate: I would vote that he should not be allowed to take the oath. be causethough not a convicted traitor, he is an admit— ted traitor. I would not allow him to comehere by my vote: and if Senators ask me upon what principle I act. I tcllthom Inct upon in own indiiidual responsibility as a Senator of the U.S. It is for me tojudge both with regard to expulsion and with regard to admission: and it is betweenme and my conscience,myself and my God. who will judge me for the manner in which I disehar o my dutiesto my country."—Congreuional Globe, 2nd Sess: 37th (kmareu,p. 870. The Senfrom Maine there laid down the correct principle. Upon the question of cre dentials this whole question is the fore the Sen ate, and it is forus to consider on that question whether the member presenting himse f here for admission is a traitor, or whether he is true to his countr.