Mr. HOWE. I find in the Washington correspondence of the NewYork Times, Mr. president, some remarks which it has seemd to me worth while to notice. In speakinfl of the de bate which took place on.Eria onfhe passage of the concurrent resolution, this is said: pe“aMrsr. Doourruis colleague, Mr. Hows whqnaip to have an ambition to out radical all the radicals, run into a trap upon invitation of Mr. Doonir run to anyonewho holds that the Senatesfunction wasconfinedto the aimplo examination of oredentiall of applicants for seatsin the Senate.to showhimself. Upon this invitation Mr. How: showed hinwell and distinctly avowedthat he entertained that view. Ha stuck to it persistently, notwithstanding the wins cred admenishments from Mr. FESSENDIN and other llepublicans, who tuggedat the coat tail of the Wisconsin Senator, and endeavoredto make him take back the fallacy. This was, however. nuts to crack for Mr. Doom nu, who went ati with a gusto and completelydemolishedhis oolle s theory." Mr. President, I thought I might say to my colleague that it was not exactly kind of him to be setting such traps for one so simple and so verdantas myself. I do not think he ought to do it, and I think it is very unkind of the NewYork Times to laugh at me when I do fall into them. I am afraid the NewYork Times does not comprehend how terrible a thing it for so solemn a sheet as this is, to indulge in a laugh. To one of my weak nerves, it is absolutely frightful, and I hope the experiment will not be tried again upon me. Now, Mr. President, I ask for one moment to call attention to the trap that was set for me. I came into the Senate from the other end of the Capitol, and I found mycolleague asserting that some Senator “entertained the opinion that the Senate can only judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members." He boldly stated that some senators had asserted that doctrine. Nobody seemed willin to be responsible for it, and inasmuch as the proposition was stated in the exact words of the Constitution, I thought I would venture to stand responsible for the correctness of the Constitution; and $01 advised my colleague that if he could not find anybody else to say iIt, would say it myself and now, you see, whenever my colleague or anyone else sets a trap for me and baits it with the exact words of the Constitution, I am extremely apt to fall into it, because I snap at all such language. that was his proposition; that was his accusation; that was the eresy with which he charged Senators somewhere, that the Senate could only judge by itself of the elections, qualifications, adreturns of members; and that is precisely what the Constitution says the Senate can determine for itself. That is the doctrine which this correspondent of the NewYork Times says my colleague pitched into with gusto and utterly demolished. How did he demolish it? You see that if be demolished it at all, he demol ished a clause of the Constitution: and but for the assertion of the NewYork Times which I am in the habit of reading, and which I believe I should never have dreamed that he had demolished the Constitution; but upon such authority I shall not dispute it. How did he dlpmolis it? Why, he went on to argue like i. is: “We are to judge of the elections of Senators. Who electSenators? Legislatures. Can anybody else elect them but Legislatures? No. Therefore we are empoweredbyth a Constitutiontojudge whether there are any Legislatures.” Very well: the Senator argues that under the power to judge of elections we can investigate and ascertain and determine whether there are Legislatures to elect. Having established that belies demolished this clause of the Constitution. He was arguing as to what is included within the power to judge ofelections, and upon that point there was no question between my colleague and myself. lhere had been none raised up to that time, and I do not know that any has been raised since. I simply asserted that we were only authorized by the Constitution to determine these 3 things. He goes on to argue that in determining these 3 things we may determine certain preliminaries or certain incidents to these things. In other words, he is arguing as to what is included within the power to judge of elections, and I was simplyasserting that that was one of the 3 things which we could determine. That was the difference between my colleagues argument and my proposition. I did subsequently put anotherquestion to him as to whether, in judging of the qualifications, if a given Legislature should senup here 2 Gentlemen to take seats in the Senate, each one of them having the qualifications which the constitution prescribed for all Senators, if we were authorized to admit one and reject the other. I put that question to him because I was of the Opinion that he held that we could not do so. I found by his reply that I was mistaken; that, I woke up the wrong passenger decidedly. He satisfied me in an instant that he did hold the very idea which I had supposed he repudiated. He says we could admit one and reject the other; we could reject them both; we could admit 2 Senators from Canada. I find by looking at the debate that he did disclaim our power to admit 3 from Canada. only limited to admit 2 from Canada; and I tshink he says we cannot admit but 2 from a tats. We are