Mr. HENDRICKS. Very well; then there was no opportunity given. If there was no announcement of the result there Was no opportunity given to question it. Upon this question Iwil read a very few authorities. Brooms Maxims, page 103, says: “Where at the trial of the noun a proposal was madeby the jndge in the presenceof the counsel on both sides, who made no objection, that the jury should asses!damages contingently, with leaveto the plaintiff tomove to enter a verdict for the amount found by thajury, it was hcld that both parties were, bound by the promaid, and that the plaintiffs counsel was not there ore at liberty to move for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. for qui (acctm imilire videtiir. the silence of counsel implied than their consent to the courseadopted by the judge." In the Queen is. Green, (2 Queens Bench Cases) Cliief Justice Denman said: “I am of opinion that the objection here taken is good. It is not necessaryto scan particular cases. The principle is, he that concurred in inducing ii. party to exercisa anotiiccoannot be heardi n, thise ourt on an application in this court to turn him out of that office" Lord Kenyon said, in Rex vs. Clarke, 1 Ea"st, 46: The court will not listen to ii.corporntor who has acquiese edorperhnps concurredin the very actwhich he afterward comesto complain of when it suits his purpose. In Camerons case, 34th Congress, 3rd session, it was allege by the protestants that the Senate of the State did not appoint a teller and perform other duties at the time prescribed by the statute. The report of the ComJudiciary, submitted by Mr. Benjamin, contains the following language: “But where, as in the present case, both Houses proceeded without objection from any sourceto perorm their constitutional duty of electing a Senutnr, the necessity of cemplyin with any particular forms required by law may fair y be consideredas waived by common consent and it is entirely too late, after the result of the votfiir has been ascertained, to raise equation as to the mode of Proceeding." These are all the authorities to which I wish to refer on that point. I hold (though I do not think it is important to refer to that principle) that the result of the vote having been announced, Mr. Stockton having been declared to be elected Senator, that announcement not having been questioned, the body proceeding to other business acquiese ed in the announcement. That convention, it is not questioned, could elect in any mode. Suppose on their assembling somebody had proposed that Mr. Stockton be the Senator, an the vote had been taken viva vocc and the presiding officer had announced that Mr. Stockton was elected senator, could it be afterward questioned that he had been elected Senator? As well might a man go into court and question the announce ment made by the presiing officer of this body on the passage of a law and undertake to prove that the law was not in fact passed, when on the announcement of its passage being made by the presiding officer no Senator questioned it, all the Senate acquiese ed in the announcement made. So it being announced in this goint meeting that Mr. Stockton was elected Senator, all the members of the convention knowing the purpose of the announcement and the purpose of temeeting and the business that was before it, that announcement bein made and acquiese ed in by the silence of a the members of the body, it is the vote and adof the entire body. But upon the 1st question my mind was entirely clear on the investiation in the committee. the question wast ere very thoroughly investigate, and the arguments which the learne Senators on that committee presented in giving their votes were entirely conclusive to my mind.