Mr. Stocktons vote, what will be the effect? On that I answer that the effect will be, in the 1st place, to change the subsequent proceedings and make them as if he had not voted, and the record must be corrected throughout accordingly and the declaration of the vote by the Chair accordingly. A ny proceedings subsequent to the action must be amended in harmony with the correction. The Senfrom Illine m put the case; suppose a bill is passed by mistake, and the mistake is afterward discovered, could that bill be ar rested? I say if it was not too late it clearly could be arrested. We all know the aneedote is familiar to us, the Senator has recalled it to my mind of the passage of the great set of hubeascorpus in ngland, which, according to the story, tI think it is Bishop Burnet tells it to us) passed under a misapprehensmn us they were voting. This was in teupperHouse; as the peers passed between the tellers one lord said, count such a peer, who was passing along, bein very fat, as ten; and he was counted as ten or the bill. The bill passed by some 4 or 5 votes; and so a fat man being counted for ten gave at that time to the English what they have since called the great ppeaolpledium of their liberties, the writ of habeascorpus; but I am not aware that the mistake was divulged until it was too late for correction. But we have had in the other House 2 cases, which I have before me in the Journals of the House, which answer precisely the inquiry of my excellent friend, the Senfrom “mom. I read from the House Journal, 1st session 2hinth Congress, under the head July (3, 1846, page 1032: “Mr. McGaugheymovedthat thesame[ the journal] be amended y inserting thereon all the proceedings of Fridaylnstin relation to the voteupon inserting salt in the sched ule of articles free of duty, which were then declared by the Speaker to be null. in consequenceof the discovery of an error in the adding up of a vote, and which were consequently omitted from the Journalof that day. “The Speaker stated that inasmuch as the error alluded to in the amendment proposed by Mr. Mc Gaughoy was discovered before the next vote was announced and as that vote was upon amotion to reconsider the last vote. made by a member who voted with the majority and as the correction of the error changed the result of that vote. the member making the motion had no right under the rule to make it and thereforeall the action subsequent to the announcement of the erroneous vote was properly stated by theSpeaker at the time to bo anullity, in which statement the House acquiesced. The Speaker therefore decided that the amendment of the Journ.il now proposed by Mr. McGaughey was not in order." The other case I find in the House Journal, 1st session 31st Congress, under date of September 10, 1850, page 1486: "The Speaker statedthat the result of the vote of the House on yesterdayon the passageof the bill of the House tNo. 387)to supply a deficiencyin the appropriation for pay and mileageof membersof congressfor tnod present session had been erroncously announced an that the subsequent proceedings upon the said but would consequentlyfa l. “The Speaker then announced the votetobe ycas 95.nuys76. “So the bill was passed: and the Journal of yesterdaywas ordered to be amended." According to these precedents, should the motion which I sent to the Chair be adopted, the Journal throughout must be amended accordingly; the vote would therefore fall; in other words, it would stand, as the Senator states, a tie. Now, I do not propose at this moment to discuss the condition in which that would leave Mr. Stockton, whether it would leave him a member of this body or not. I will aim ly make one remark upon it in which I think all Senators will agree with me. If the resolution is recorded on your Journal as having a tie vote on its passage, it surely is not passed. Mr. Stockton may be left in his seat, but the resolution aflirming his title to the seat is not passed; and, therefore, at any time during the present session, I take it, it will be open for the consideration again of the Senate, or that some further proposition looking to the same end maybe intro need; at any rate, the Senate will nothe concluded by the vote. Icontent my self with that statement; and now I come back to the proposition of my friendfrom Illinois. I said at the outset that I was not in a condition to make the proposition of reconsideration. I would add, also that I adhere to the opinion which I expressed at the beginning, that it were better, if the Senate were now disposed, to proceed at once to correct the Journal by striking out the name of Mr. Stockton from the vote in question, and thus establishing aprecedent for all time. But that may cause a discussion protracted, and I do not know whetherthe Senate are ready to adopt it or not. The Senfrom Illinois, however, is ready to move a reconsideration; and that I see will furnish a practical mode of reaching the conclusion which I seek. On the consideration of his motion, of course we may properly object to the vote of Mr. Stockton, an take the opinion of the Senate upon that objection. What I have been aiming at will then be reached. As I say again, I should like to eliminate from the Journal of the Senate the record that has been made; but I seek a practical result, and therefore I shall follow teSenfrom Illinois. I withdraw the proposition. Mii. SHERMAN. I think, with due deference to the Senfrom Massachusetts, that he emin withdrawing the proposition. If he will not withdraw it for a moment I will givea reason wh I think so.