Mr. JOHNSON. It is very far from my purpose to suggest, because it is altogether opposed to my belief, that the vote which the Senate has pronounced has been governed by any party consideration; thatis to say, that Senators have voted contrary to their judgment under the influence of party motives. Whether party motives may have influenced the judgment, is another matter; but that they have conse ien tiously acted, I have no doubt; and even if I had a doubt, I would not exress it. I am as much opposed as the honorable member from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] or as the honorable member from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] to motions made for the purpose of delay; and if there was nothing to be accomplished by the motion which is now made but to laythe vote, if it was factions in any sense, I should vote against it. I recollect that at the last session when the question of the right of Senators from Louisi ana to seats in this body was before us, the honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. Season] and the honorable member from hio [Mr. WADE] declared their purpose on the floor of the Senate to cak the session out in order to prevent a voteslieing taken on that question; and they s oke the session out. The honorable member gum Massachusetts was, though in arliamentary language, still in fact, reproved by the honorable member from Illinois upon the ground that such a proceeding was factions. It was perfectlyevideut at that moment that if the vote had been taken, there would have been a majority for the Senators from Louisiana of some 6 or 7, and the avowed purpose of the 2 honorable gentlemen to whom I have adverted in speaking out the session was to prevent that vote being cast; and the member from Massachusetts said that he had a perfect right to resort to every parliamentary movement that might promise success in his object. Now, I am not in favor of any such course, and I never have in my public life pursued such a course. I find no iault with it,howcver, because each Senatormust act upon his ownjudgment; but in myjudgment it IS erroneous, and I therefore would not support a proposition which I believed was merely made for the purpose of defeating the sense of the Senate. But. that is not this case; it is very far from being this case. What is this case“! On Friday by a vote the Senator whose seat was contested was declared to be entitled to hold that seat, by a majority vote. It was objected at the time the vote was cast, or a few moments before it was cast, that one of the votes cast in that majority was improperly given the vote of the Senator whose seat was contested; but still it went over, and the next day a proposition was made by the honorable member from Massachusetts to correct the record by striking out the name. The result of that would have been that there would have been a tie. The tie then would have left the Senfrom NewJersey in his seat. That would not have accomplished the purpose. Now, what he pens today? Twice, at the instance of my friendfrom NewHampshire, [Mr. CLARK] has this question been post poned, each time because ie was sick. It was to have been called up on Monday. Those who accorded and there was a unanimous concurrence as far asI know in the desire of the member from NewHampshire to post pone the consideration of the question, were perfectly willing to accommodate him because e was sick, although he was here. The chair man of the committee have notice that he would call it up on Wednes ay; and on Wednesday the member from NewHampshire repeated the request to postpone it because he was sick, although he was here. It was accorded to him, and by no vote more cheerfully than by mine. Now, In What condition are we placed? You haye, after it was received, directed the vote of the Senfrom NewJersey to be stricken from the list, and One of those who had voted for him is not now in the Chamber, and his absence causes the majority against the Senfrom NewJersey. Now, what is proposed?