Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is not pretended that the entry on the Journal was not correct in point of fact. Thereason why the member, whose seat was contested, voted, was stated in the presence of the Senate and the vote was recored under the opinion of The President protempore that his name being upon the list of Senators must be called as must be called the names of all other Senators. It was called. The vote was received; the resolution was announced to have been passed; and the Senate adjourned. Now, the onorablo member from Massachusetts, under the impression that the character of the body is involved the character of which he claims aparently to be the especial vindicator asks the Senate to strike out from the Journal that vote. I had supposed when I heard that such a motion had been made by the honorable Senator that it was nothing more than a motion to expunge an entry in the Journal that had been improperly entered, but the honorable member has left the Senate in no doubt on that subect, because, as authority for the motion which he makes, he refers to what was done in the British Parliament in the case of the contested election between Wilkes and Luttrell, in which he says that that Parliament, with a view to ving dicate its own honor and the rights of English men, after a lapse of 12 years exunged the proceedings which had been had in arliament in relation to that election. If the honorable members recollection had gone to an incident of still later date, it might have told him that the same proceeding was had in this body when, by a vote of the body, black lines were drawn around a vote of this body condeninatory of the arse of a very popular chieftain, great as a milito man, and almost idolized as a statesman. think the Senator belonged at that time to the party who denounced that proceeding as utterly unconstitutional. One of his great redecessors made a speech that thrilled t iroug out the Chamber, and thrilled throughout the land, denouncing the proceeding as a flat and palpable violation of t a Constitution. That speech is among the other speeches of that great man which have often Ibeen referred to by his successor, the present member from Massachusetts, and always with admiration; and I cannot imagine how it is that he should change his opinion in relation to the propriety of a course of that kind in this particular instance and now for the 1st time. It is “to save the honor of this body, ” and the honor of this body is to depend upon the keeping of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts! Speaking for one, and the humblest of the body, however presumptuous it may be, I feel myself as well able to maintain my official and private honor without the aid of the Senfrom Massachusetts as with it; and it is rather a reflection upon the character and the reputation of the Senate to be told by the Senfrom Massachusetts, or by anybody else, that we need his bidding to tell us what our own reputations demand or what the honor of the Senate requires. What have those of us who voted in accordance with the vote cast by the honorable member from NewJersey done? We have sat still, heard his vote recorded, heard the result announced, and not an objection was made by any member of the Senate, except by the honorable member from Nevada glib. NYE] and the honorable member from.Iassachusetts himself, who, in a moment of excitement, told us it was against the law of nature, not of nations, as he is represented. Against the law of nature to do what? That a man should sit in judgment in his own case. Is it his own case within the meaning of the principle upon which the honorable member from Massachusetts relies? It is the case of the State of NewJersey, and not of Mr. Stock ton. Hc stands here claimin to represent her. He in the t has vote in that capa city, and in casting his vote the other day he represented, not himself individually, but the State of NewJersey. Whether be properly represents NewJersey may be a question; but in the vote be cast, be cast it claiming to be the representative of NewJersey, and his name stands upon your files as the representative of NewJersey. How are on to get it off? Ev cry resolution that has been before the body, whether proposing an amendment to the constitution or otherwise; every bill which has been submitted to the body and upon which the body voted, no matter what the nature of the bill was, he has been permitted to vote upon, and his vote has been recorded. When has he ceased to be a member of the body? Never; and being a member of the body, what is there to prevent his casting his vote upon aquestion as much affecting, as he believes the rights of his own State as any question which has been presented before us during the period that he has honored as by his presence. Lord Coke, and Hobart, and various other authorities, have been produced for the purpose of showing that this case comes within the principle that they have announced. It is an entire misapprehension of the principle. He who has a personal interest with which the interest of the public is not combined has no right to sit in judgment in any case involving that interest; but whether he has a personal interest or not, when called upon to pass upon a question which involves the public interest as well as his own, he forfeits his duty to the public if he fails to vote. Nothing can be plainer than that; and the honorable members doctrine would be to force a Senator in the situation in which Mr. Stockton is placed to abandon the interests of his State upon the assumption that his own individual interest may perhaps be bound up in the public interest of the State. Assuming now that he has an interest, what is it? It is an interest I speak of it with due respect that no member of the Senate should for a moment suppose would influence the judgment of any member of the body; it is the interest in his pay. He has a compensation, and it is supposed that the interest in that compensation is likely to bias his judgment; for that is the principle upon which the exclusion rests. Will, the honorable member from Massachusetts tell us whether upon a great question of public moment his judgment could be biased by the fact that he was to receive 8250 p: month? My friend smiles; why? Only cause he knows, as I know, and we all know, that it is no interest within the meaning of the rule. Is it to be supposed that a Senator of the U.S. would be capable of bein false to duty in the discharge of a great an hivh public trust by the paltry and mean consideration that as he may decide it the one way or the other he is to pocket $250 a month, or to be without it? So far as interest is concerned, the interest is the other way. Who is there belonging to the body, looking to the more point of interest, that would not be benefited by leaving the bod? I am sure the honorable member from assachusetts, and no member of the Senate would bring his mind to the condition of alleging that Mr. Stockton or any other man who claims a seat upon the floor of this Senate, could permit his mind to be influenced by such a miserable, contemptible amount of interest as that. Then, if there is no interest within the meaning of the principle, the only question of interest that arises is a question of public interest.