Mr. TRUMBULL. I think that either course might be pursued in regard to the admission to his seat of the gentleman who presents himself at the present time from Tennessee. 'The practice of the Senate has been entirely uni lbrm. On the presentation of a proper cre dential, primafacie, the gentleman is entitled to be sworn in. That has been the general understanding of the Senate; but that primafacie case may be overcome. The Senate considered that it was overcome in the case of Mr. Stark, alluded to by the Senfrom Massachusetts. No objection interposing, as a matter of course a Senator is sworn in on the presentation of his credentials, without any reference to a committee. in legislative as semblies where all the members come together for. the 1st time, where there is no organized body to decide upon the right of any of the members to seats, it is a necessity that the body inust organize on the primafacic papers of the members. The Senate, however, is someWhat differently constituted; the Senate is always organized; it is a permanent body, only 1/3rd of its members oing out of office at anyone time; 2 thir s are always in office; hence there is not the same necessity which prevails in bodies where all meet together upon a common footing, none having yet beenqualified; and it is out of that necessity thatt e rule I imagine has been adopted that the person having the credential is to be sworn without any further question; otherwise you never could organize a legislatife body at all, as there is no one to decide as to other questions. Now there is a manifest impro riety in this. It often occurs in is 'slative odies; it has once or twice in the HoRep at the present session, that members who have ultimately been decided not entitled to seats have sat for months and voted upon the most important questions. Of course that is an evil, that is not right, that ought not to be; and it there was any way of avoiding it it would not be. It can be avoided in the Senate, because this being a permanent body and being always organized, there is no such absolute necessity to swear in a person presenting the primafacz'c case. We are organized without that; but the general practice in the Senate has been when a party presented a primafacie case to allow him to sworn. Now, what is this case? I think that Mr. PAT TEllSON on the presentation of his credentialsis entitled to be sworn as a member of the senate, unless now something has occurred that makes it proper that he should not be sworn. What has occurred? The Senfrom Michigan says that he is informed that the gentleman who presents himself as a Senator cannot take the oath which is required before he is entitled to take his seat in this body. To put the case strongly, not intimating or supposing or believing that any such case exists in this instance, an pose that a known and avowed iusiigator of] the late rebellion; to make the case more palpable, suppose JeffersonDavis himself Were to be sent ere as a Senfrom the state of Missis sippi; or as he is, I believe, in confinement, take the case of the rebel VEEP, and as Stephens has been elected a Senator. that is a case we may well imagine; suppose he were to present himself here to be sworn as a Sea ator, what should we do? The Senate and the country know, we all know, that Mr. Ste phens was engaged in a rebellion against the Government of the U.S and that if he took this oath in which he declared that he had not been, it would not be true. Now, the Senate would not sit by and with the knowl edge, every one of us, that this was false we would not permit a man to come here and take such a false oath as that. A judge of a court would not allow a witness to go on to testify to that. which was palpably false right in his presence. He would stop him, and the senate in such case as that would not allow the person to take the oath. I do not think we could justify ourselves in permitting a person to commit a crime of that character in our presence when we knew he was committin the crime for which he would subject himself, by the law to which the Senfrom Michigan has referred, to all the pains and penalties of perjury. We should no more be excusable if we were to sit still and allow a man to commit perjury in our presence when we might prevent it, than we should if we allowed him to commit murder in our presence if we could prevent it. We would not allow a man to commit murder here; if we knew he was about to do it we would interfere to prevent it if we could. If we knew he was about to commit robbery or any other crime, it would be our duty to interfere to prevent it. If we knew that a man came here who was not qualified to be a Senator it would be our duty to interfere.“ In this case the Senfrom Michigan states that hehas such information if it be true, and it has made an impression on his mind sufficiently, in his judgment, to justify him to rise in the Senate and statein his place i