Mr. SUMNER. I think, sir.I shall not err if I refer to the practice of the HoRep with regard to the members from Tennessee. It will be within the recollection of all that the credentials of these members were referred to the ComElections. Now, sir, notoriously, that is not the ordinary course with regard to credentials. The gentlemen who appear at the House with there credentials are sworn, as a matter of course, in or dinary cases. T he gentlemen from Tennessee were not sworn as in ordinary cases. Their credentials were refered to the ComElections, and on the report of that committee they were sworn in. Now, the ComJudiciary in the Senate for these purposes corresponds to the ComElections in the other House. We call upon our Judiciary committee to perform the service which in the other House is perforated by a special committee. Therefore, sir, we have already with reference to the case of Tennessee the example of the other House. In making the motion that I have made, I have fOIlOWed that example. But, sir, there was something that fell from the Senfrom iowa, to which i wish to make a moment’s reply. He imagines that if we make this reference we shall establish 0 dangerous precedent, and he even goes so far as to imagine the possibility under this precedent, that he or his colleague, coming from the patriotic State of Iowa, may find their credentials called in question. Sir, the Senfrom Iowa in making that Suggestion has forgotten for l moment t nohistory of the country; he has for gotten that we have just emerged from a great civilWar; that the State 0 Tennessee had taken a part in that war, and that the very question now under consideration is whether 0 gentleman who presents himself for reception as a Senator was compromised by that war. If in the State of Iowa there should pily be a rebellion, and if public report usnhhoaupd announce that our patriot friend had taken 9. art in it to such an extent as to sit on the each as a judge and enjoy its commission and swear allegiance to it, then if he should present himself with credentials as a Senator in this Chamber, I should think that we should be jus tifiedin aslrin an inquiry, and that is all that I ask now. take the case that the Senfrom Iowa supposes, but I add to it facts which he omits; an that, permit me to say, contains the whole question. If the case of Tennessee now were an ordinary case, like the case of Iowa. like the case of Maine, there would be no occasion and no justification for any such inquiry; but it is not an ordinary case, it is a, case incident to the anomalous condition of affairs in our country at this moment. It. cannot be treated, therefore, according to the ordinary rule; it is a new case, and to meet it we must make a new precedent. The Senfrom Iowa was very much afraid of precedents. Sir, I am not afraid of any precedent which has for its object the preteetion of right. I have said we must make a new recedent. Are we to confine ourselves absolutely to the precedents of the past? Clearly not. Just in proportion as new circumstances arise must they be met by a new precedent; and new circumstances have arisen nowand you are called upon to meet them frankly, simply, andin so doing to make a new precedent for the future. '