Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I have only one remark to make. When the proposition was made by the Senfrom Massachusetts to amend the Journal of the Senate, knowing as I did, and knowing as every senator here knows, that the Journal spoke the truth, and therefore could not be corrected except so as to make it speak falsely, I raised a question of order as to the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts. when Mr. Stock ton, the Senfrom NewJersey, voted the other day, there was objection made, but his name was called and he voted. A Senator rose and inquired of the Chair whether it was proper, whether it was legal, for the Senfrom NewJersey to vote upon that reposition. anyone hearing the decision of) the Chair must have come to the conclusion that, in answer to that question, which amounted in fact to an objection to that vote being recorded, the Chair decided in effect that it was properthe name of the Senator being on the list, and there being no rule of the body to exclude the vote. If that was an objection made, and the decision of the Chair was against the objection, then I hold that the only proor mode to be pursued was to take an appea from the decision of the Chair on that question, and to have had a vote of the Senate whether that decision should stand as the judgment of the body. But if it be not treated as a decision of the Chair, still I hold that the only propermode would be areconsideration of the vote declaring that the Senfrom NewJersey was entitled to his seat. Now, Mr. President, let us look at this question for one moment in a legal point of View. It is not the 1st time in the course of my not very long life that I have seen law books cited in support of a proposition which had nothing to do with the case under consideration. What is the objection made here to the right of the Senfrom NewJersey to vote in this case? It is that the law books say that no man shall be a judge in his own case. To what has that aplication? To legislative bodies, as to the right of members to seats in those bodies? N ot at all; but it has reference and reference alone to judicial proceedings, proceedings in court, proceedings before legal tribunals, and not to proceedings in legislative bodies. If the Senfrom NewJersey held an office that the courts could take judicial cognizance of, the right to exercise which they could inquire about, this question might have application. suppose thata person assumes to exercisethe utics of an office and a writ of quo warranto is sued out against him, that is a proceeding in court, and in such a case as that the person who is the party to that writ cannot sit as a judge in the case. The principle cited that a party shall not be ajudge in his own cause never had application, and the law books from which the principle is cited show conclusively that it never had application in reference to proceedings in legislative bodies, but only to judicial proceedings in courts oflaw and equity. ut, sir, look at the form in which this proposition is made. It is in sheet, as I said, treating it in one aspect, a proposition to amend the Journal, which you cannot amend except you make it speak falsely, to say that a thing did not occur which actually did occur in the body. I now come to view it in a more objectionable aspect. As the motion reads, it is to strike from the Journal the vote of Mr. Stock ton. Have you got that right? If you have, then I hold that you have the same authority to come into the Senate and on motion strike from the Journal the fact that a bill was passed. Have you got that right? When the journal shows that it was passed, and when the body knows that it was passed, can you do that, in stead of moving to reconsider the vote upon the passage of the bill? Have you the authority to get rid of the binding effect of that act by simpl moving to strike from the Journal the fact that it ha passed the body? If you have not got authority to do the letter you have not the authority to do this. Mr. President, every legislative body makes its own rules. It is said that this is contrary to parliamentary law. A case has not been cited where it has been held to be contrary to parliamentary law, where there was not some rule of the body in conflict with which it was. The cases cited from the British Parliament show this state of facts: that when a question in which a member of Parliament is interested is before the body he is bound to withdraw under their rules. Is that according to any parliamentary law except the law of the Parliament of GreatBritain? Does it bind any other legislative body? If so, why did you not order Mr. Stockton out of this Chamber when his question was under consideration? Then the authority of a rule of the HoRep is cited which says that when a member of the HoRep is interested, he shall not vote upon the subject. That shows that in the absence of such a rule as that in the HoRep the party would have been entitled)to vote; and to make it applicablehere you are bound to show that before that vote was recorded there was some rule of this body to prevent it, because the rules of the HoRep do not bind the senate of the U.S. Is there any such rule in this body? Nobody contends there is, and yet the case is attempted to be decided upon parliamentary law and cases arising under special rules adopted in the English Parliament and special rules adopted in the HoRep for their government. Mr. President, this case only shows this fact, that in times of high political excitement the interests of party rise infinitel higlhcrthan the great questions of justice an of law: and if Mr. Stockton, the Senfrom NewJersey, is ousted from his seat, in my judgment it will not be because the law orjustice is against his right, but because the interests of party seem to de mand it.