Mr. TRUMBULL. That would be the position of it. It would stand a tie vote, and of course the resolution would not be agreed to. That is the position in which it would be left if this motion should prevail, as I understand it. Now, that the Senfrom NewJersey had no right to vote is to my mind very clear, and I am sorry, exceedingly sorry, that he should have been betrayed into some remarks that have fallen from him, and that the Senfrom Delaware should have followed them up, in which the Senfrom NewJersey started by saying that 11 States are kept out of the Union and now NewJersey is to be kept out of the Union. such imputations are unwarranted here. The Senfrom Dela ware talks of party associations. Sir, ifparty was to decide it the Senfrom NewJersey would have had no power, by an impropervote of his own, to sit here today. It is a judicialquestion; and it is because members of the Senate rise above all political considerations in deciding such questions that the Son ator sits here an hour, and it ill becomes him to taunt the Senate with party considerations. It is because it is no party question, because it is a judicial question purely, one affecting him that he has no right to vote. It is not at all like the case he puts of the Senate of NewJer sey, which he says is today presided over by a senator who voted for himself. Is that at all like this case here? Did the senator in NewJersey settle his right to vote? The independent right of a voter is one thing; but thatcing settled he may vote for himself that is a matter of propriety and delicac on is own part. But when the questionisw etherhe has the right to vote at alor not, it is a udicial question upon which he has no right whatever to vote., Let me say to my learned friendfrom Maryland that these questions are not confined to dollars and cents. it is the interest of the party that disualifies him. It is the principle that a marfs all not be a judge in is own case, and the office may furnish as higlhatemptation as the dolIars and cents to do wrong. It is because civil governments would carry out that divine precept, “ Lead us notinto temptation, ” that no man is to be tempted to do wrong by deciding in his own case. I have before me a decision of a case, a political case, decided in a judicial tribunal, arising out of an election in the State of Pennsylvania The Commonwealth vs. McCloskey, 2 Rawle, 369. I read the syllabus of the case: 18“1U2p, der the act of Assemblyof the 24thof March. incorporating the township of Moyamensins, the 3 commissioners electare not competentto take part in decidinx on the validity of their own election.” Now, let me read from the opinion of the supreme court of Pennsylvania in that case: "From the facts which have been disclosed, it is apparent that the approval of the election of the respondents dependsaltogetheron their own vote, on that independent of thatyote there had notboon that confirmation of the election which is requiredby the act of incorporation. The inquiry will then be. to which all othersare subordinate in some measure, yhciher the act of Assemblyauthorizes this proceeding on the part of the commissioners elect;whether each of them who hays beenreturned elected are entitled toiiidge of theirown electionIwith full power an“dItauthority to aprove thereof. will be coneed that where it can be avoided no man shouldbe permitted todecidehis own cause nor can I perceivemiich didereneewhere heis called on to determinehl Sright to an office of proiit, or one oftrust, accompanied.as this is, with extensive patronage. The temptation to an abuseof the trust is asgreat in the onecaseastheother: and is such that no prudent Legislature would intrust such a power to any person unlessin casesof necessity; and where such necessityvonsts the legislative grant would, wc should be is to suppose, be In such clear, unequiv oenltermsastolonve roomfornei the r doubtnorcaiil. In England, it is said that evenan act of Parliament, adeagainst natural equity. as to make a judge in is own cause, is void in itself: for. as it is oxpressed, uam, nature, nun!immutabilia and they are [cueslegum. m. Savadge Bob. 87 and in 12Mod, if an act of arliament should ordain that the same person shouldbe party and: edge, or, which is thesamething. pdge in his own cause, it would be a raid actofPar iament. for it is impossible, says the court. that one should beJudge and party; for the judge is to determine betweenparty and party, or between the government and a party; and our own courts appear equally aversetothe introductionof sueh a principle. An act of the Legislature, says Justice Chasein Calder and wifeps. Bull, 3 Dull, 386, contrary to the great 1st principle of the social compact, cannot be considered arightful exerciseof legislative authority. The obligation ofalaw in Governments, established on express compact and on republican principles, mustbe determinedby thenatureof the power on which it is founded, A law that punished a citizen for anlllHOCBM action, or mother Words, for 11h act which, when done, was in Violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawflil pariuivdagtoe contracts of citizens: a law thatinakcs aman in hisowu pause or a law that takesproperty fjurosmticAe afnord agivpeesopitletoto.Iit is againstall reasonand intrust a Legislature with such powers; and therefore, it cannot be presumed thpy have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our State governments amount to a prohibition of such actsjof legislation; and the general principle of law and reasonfailed there. To maintainthat our Federal or State Legislatures possessed such powers, if they hadnot beenexpresslyrcstrained, would be a political heresyaltogether inadmissible in a republican government."