Mr. HENDRICKS. I know it is an exception, if you want an exception to the supposed rule that a man shall not vote for his own benefit; but it is a strikin case. The law might have been framed so t iat a Senator who voted for it should not have voted money into his own pocket. A man cannot vote in favor of his own personal interest; if that is the general proposition and that is the morality of par iamentary law on the subject, that bill could have been so framed as to avoid a breach of the rule. I might refer to some other cases. I believe that within a few da 5 4 volumes, containing the writings of ames Madison, have been distributed among Senators. I was not aware that they were to come until the reached my room. How did the get there? Senatorsmnst have voted them. Iihey are worth money; they are a valuable addition to a mans library; and yet we must have voted for them ourselves, or we should not have received them. I was struck the other day by the ver able arment of the Senfrom Rhode sland [Mr. Srnsous] upon the vexed question of interest between temanufacturer and the importer He occupied many days in the debate. hat Senator may perhaps have an interest in the action of Congress upon that question. As Congress may legislate for or a inst the manufacturer, he may be interests. It is under stood that he is one of the most enterprising of the manufacturers, one of the most success ful; and yet what Senator supposed that it was not proper for him to participate in the discussion of a question that affected the interest of the country at large, although it may have We are not elected to the Senate to benefit Ourselves, affected himself individually? Almost every question that we vote upon has some influence upon our individual fortunes. I do not care to discuss that further. I think the Senator had a right to vote under the circumstances, especially in view of the fact that he was, under the circumstances, denied the vote of his colleague. A oint is made in respect to the course of the Senfrom Maine in voting after he had paired off upon the fact that the pair was made several weeks ago. There is force in that suggestion when there is a general pair. If I pair with the Senfrom 9 upon questions of a class, for instance, upon all nestions in relation to the rebel States, with teunderstanding that that is to last buta short time, of course, ifl remain absent for a protracted time, he has a right to terminate that pair because I am cutting him off, by remaining absent, from hisparticipation in legislation upon aclass of  subjects. But if Ipair with him in regard to one particular question, whatdifference does it make to him whether the vote upon that question is taken tomorrow or a month hence? If the seat of his colleague is to be contested and I am to be absent and I intend to vote one way and he the other, and upon that subject he and I agree to pair off, not generally upon a class of subjects, but upon that particularquestion, how is it of interest to him whethert at particular vote comes u tomorrow or next month? If he pairs with me upon that particular question, not upon a class, I expect him to stand by the pair, because he is not prejudiced in his participation in the legislation of the country by the pair, anld Idthink he should stand by it until the vote is a Although I cannot agree that Senator Mon mu. under the circumstances ought to have voted, still I do not doubt that he gave his vote under the influence of the most honorable sentiments; but yet it had the effect under the circumstances to lose to Mr. Stockton the vote of his colleague. I think there is no force in the suggestion that Mr. WRIGHT remained from the Senate for a longer time than was expected, because it made no difference to Senator Mon niu. whether that question on which he was paired came up the next day after he left or one month afterhe left. I do not know whether it is a very good policy to, air off. That is a question of doubt. Ida not O it myself very much. If a Senator desired it on some particular question, I should not hesitate, I presume, to accommodate him; but if I remained here and he went home, would I expect to terminate the pair by giving him 24 hours notice? In the practice of the law if I agreed with the O 0 site counsel that a case should not be czsibd up until I gave him notice, I would not expect on Wednesday evening to telegraph to him in another State that I should call up the case on Thursday for trial; and if I went.into court on Thursday and told the judge that I had agreed to give notice to the opposite counsel in another State before I should call the case up, and told the court that I had given the notice the night before, I think the court would not allow me to bring that case to trial. The noticemust be reasonable, not 24 hours notice for an attorney to arran e his business in another State and come an meet me upon the trial. A man leaves the Senate because of the condition of his business at home, or because of the condition of his health. Is he expected to respond to a telegraphic dispatch by coming in the next train? ourts do not require that. It cannot be required in a court, and you cannot earryit in a court; and yet in the Senate, where the greatest courtesy ant! kindness is observed, it is expected that Mr. Wmon r who went home on account of his health should be able to take the 1st train and be here on the next morning! Mr. President, I think under the circumstances that it was not right, and that it justified the sitting member in casting a vote upon the question.