Mr. SHERMAN. I think it would be well to take the honorable Senfrom NewJer sey at his word, and refer the pending resolution of the Senfrom Massachusetts to the ComJudiciary, with instructions to report by Thursday morning, so that we may have that question settled. I have no doubt that the action of the ComJudiciary would be complied with, and would be looked upon as the settled rule on this question. If any Senator thinks that the Senfrom NewJersey has a right to vote we ought not to force a vote on that question to night, because the matter has not ct been full debated. From the beginning I adsome doubts about it. Under circumstances of some difficulty, I was placed in a position where I was compelled to decide a question for myself; the circumstances were somewhat differentfrom the circumstances in this case; and I know the sensitive embar rassment under which any person acts who is compelled to cast a vote when that vote is misunderstood. I will state the facts: some years ago I was a candidate for office, when it was supposed that my vote was necessar to elect “fine, and it was gravely debated whether or not I had the right to vote. I had a natural sensitiveuess against voting for myself for any office except a mere opular election, and I gravely considered it. Tly politicalfriends then almost unanimously, perhaps unanimously, held that I had the right to vote for myself for that office if the contest came to such a position that my vote would elect me. I debated it for along time, but I came to the conclusion that my constituents had the right to my vote, and under the circumstances I would have cast the vote. But I draw a wide distinction between the position in which I was then placed and the position in which the Senfrom NewJersey is now placed. His question is ajudicial one. This is a high court of errors. This is the final tribunal and the only tribunal to decide his right to a seat. It is a udicial question. He is not merely running or an cities where the choice is between one of 2 persons, when he has the right to cast the vote of his State or district in favor of his own political party fora mere party Office; but the question of his right to his seat is involved. It seems to me if anyquestion is judicial that is ajudicial question. t involves not only the mere salary, which is nothing, but his right to the office, which is a judicial question to be determined by the courts in many cases, but here the Senate is to determine for itself. Upon this question I have already indicated my opinion; but if anybody else has any doubt of it I would certainl refer it to the ComJudiciary. The report of that committee I has no doubt would settle it forever, so that when the question may hereafter arise there would be a fixed rule adopted by the General concurrenceof all parties in the Senate. I therefore move that teres olution of the Senfrom Massachusetts. be referred to the ComJudiciary with instructions to report by Thursday morning.