Mr. DAVIS. The motion made by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts to correct the Journal. What matter does such a motion involve? Simply the question whether there has been a departure in the Journal, as it has been made up by the Clerk, from the roeeedings and acts of the Senate. According to that rule there is no correction to make. The record is in strict conformity to the action of the Senate, the Journal faithfully records everything that was done in the Senate and nothing more; and for that reason there is nothing to correct. But, Mr. President, I will say a word 11 on the main question here. I maintain that Mr. Stockton had an undoubted right to vote. He presented his credentials to this bod some 3 months since, and was admitte by its order to take the oath oiofiiee and to take his seat upon this floor as a Senator. From that time up to the consideration of this subject he has been voting, debating, and acting precisely as the other Senators. Was or was not his action as a Senator in this body as strictly legitimate and regular as that of any Senator in the body upon all other subjects? No gentleman will controvert that proposition. what is there to deny him the right to vote in his own case, as it is called, upon the question of adopt.ing the resolution reported by the ComJudiciary? e is a member of the body; he is a Senator of the U.S. As such he has been uniformly actin from the time that he took the oath of ofliec the same as any other Senator in the body. If his action were regular, legitimate, and properon all other subjects, was it not equally so upon the present subject and in the present mode? It is, unless there be some law or some rule that excludes him from his privilege and his right to vote. Where is the law, where is the rule, that debars Mr. Stockton from his right to vote in this matter? The precedents read by the Senfrom Massac iusetts are not analogous, because the HoRep have a positive rule that exclu es every member from voting upon any question in which he is personally interested. The Senate has no such rule; and in the total absence of such rule I ask gentlemen for the law that excludes Mr. Stockton from his right to vote. What says the Constitution of the U.S. upon the subject of the Senate and the right of Senators to vote? “ The Senate of the U.S shall becom osed of 2 Senators fromeachState chosenby the exis latnre thereof for 6 years; and each Senator shall have one vote.” That is the constitutional provision; that is the law of the Constitution in relation to the right of a Senator to vote generally upon all questions, without any exception whatever of his own case. He, by the letter of the Constitution, is entitled to vote, and he is by its spirit, too. Where is the rule, I ask again, that over rules this provision of the Constitution which expressly guaranties to every Senator the right to one vote? It is not found in the Constitution, it is not found in any rule of the Senate; and it cannot be deduced from parliamentary law, because that parliamentary law would be in conflict with this express provision of the Constitution. Mr. President, this is a rule not for this case. alone, but if it is adopted it will a ply to the future, unless it should be abrogate, and what will be its effect in the future? suppose at a future session the Senate is equally divided; it is separated into 2 parties and the strength of both parties is the same. Vhat is to be done then? One of the fractions of the Senate immediately institutes a contest of the seat of a Senator belonging to the other party, and under the rule that a Senator cannot vote in his own case, the party that makes the contest will gain the ase endency in the Senate by excluding the Senator whose seat is conteste from his right to vote, and overpower him by a majority vote on a question on which he is not entitled to vote, and deprive him of his seat. That will be the effect of it. Is therea Senator in this body who is not perfectly convinced in his own mind that the whole object of this movement now is party power in the body? If the division of the senate between the parties had been different, so different that the question how Mr. Stocktons right to his seat might be decided could not affect the majority in the Senate, and the power of the party that now is claiming by this mode to gain the ase endency, can any man who has witnessed the proceedings of the Senate suppose that there would have been any contest of his seat at all? A Mr. President, I am authorized to come to the conclusion that this is not a bona fide examination of the right of the Senfrom NewJersey to a sent here aecordin to his vote and the law and the Constitution. tis notintended to examine into and ascertain, upon the principles of law and the facts of the case, whether he is entitled to his seat or not. That is not the object. The object is to gain party power, to acquire a power in the body sufficient to achieve a 2/3rds vote of the Senate for the party objects of the part that is now in the ase endancy in the 2 I Houses of Congress; and no man is so blind as to wink his eyes against the truth of that proposition. If this issue had been made before a tribunal irrespective of party considerations and the necessity, real or supposed, of a party majority of 2/3rds, we should never have heard, in my judgment, of the right of Mr. Stockton being seriously contested, or at least such contest would only have been by a very small minority of the bo y. Mr. PresidentJ will not the same party excuses and the same need for part aseendency and for party strength in this and 7in the other House come about in the future? In future Senates, when the House may be divided, as it may well be divided, equally in the case that I put, what will be the effect of this precedent and of party impulses generally? It will be for one of the parties to contest the seat of a member of the other party in the House, without any regard to the merits of the case, but simply to grasp at and reach party wower. Now, Mr. President, if I