Mr. HENDRICKS. I am unwilling to have the Senate believe that I have proposed this postponement from any factions opposition to the will of the majority. I make the proposition because I think there is a possibility, will not say a probability, that the Senfrom NewJersey may be here tomorrow. The vote now stands 21 to 22, and a gentleman sn osin himself till this hour to be a Senator H genie his seat upon that close vote. His colleague is absent; he being present the resolution would fall. lam not ise ussing the effect of his vote upon the reconsideration. but I say he being present, the resolution excluding Mr. Stockton would have fallen. His absence is under peculiar circumstances. He said when he left that he would remain at every hazard to his health if he could not pair off; the pair was accomplished, and he left and that pair was afterward withdrawn at atime when he could not travel. The dispatches authorize us to entertain the hope that he may be here tomorrow. Now, is it wrong that we should ask that an opportunity be given to him to come and cast his voteupon the question of the right of his colleague to a seat here? Again, Mr. President, this is to establish a Irecedent, a precedent to which I do not agree. am just as firmly of the opinion that Mr. Stocktons election was legal and valid as the Senfrom Ohio can be that it was otherwise. I believe that the joint convention under parliamentary law, and especially under the usage of 75 years of that convention in the State of New, Jersey, had the right to prescribe the rule which it did prescribe, and that the election pursuant to that rule was a valid election. But now, sir, it is proposed to establish a precedent which shall be conclusive in all time to come, that no joint convention hereafter can adopt a rule electing a Senator by less than a majority. Beforca precedent having such weight and of such importance is adopted, the Senate ought to be as full as it is possible that it can be. Why, sir, it may occur in some State that no Senator can be elected by a majority. In 2 memorable instances the HoRep was unable to organize upon the majority rule. The Constitution of the U.S. simply says that the House may choose a Speaker; and according to the opinion of some gentlemen in this body that chmce must be made by the voice of the majority; and yet, twice in the history of the House no organization could be accomplished upon that ru e, and resort was had to the plu rality. That may occur in the States; it may be impossible upon the majority rule to elect Senators at times when it may be important to elect them. So, sir, in view of the importance of the question, in view of the rights, as I think, of the absent Senator, I have proposed for one day further the postponement of this question.