Mr. STOCKTON. Mr. President, I had not intended to say one word on this subject today but remarks have been made in the course of this debate which it may seem properthat I should reply to and 1st, let me ask, was I entitled to vote? The Constitution of the U.S., section 3 of article 1st, says: “ The Senateof the U.S shall becomposed of 2 Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereoffor 6 years; and eachSenatorshall have one vote. Now, Mr. President, I have flattered myself even yet, through 4 terrible years of this war, that I was living under a constitutional Government, and that when the Constitution of the U.S. said a thing in direct words, all the authority that could be read from parliamentary law would be inapplicable, and could not control the judgment of any gentleman in this body. Gentlemen seem to see this point very clearly; but their friends elsewhere do not. There, are in the Senate of NewJersey now 11 republican senators and ten Democratic senators; and at the opening of the session a republican senator voted for himself, with his party and elected himself president of the Senate otINewJersey, and is today presiding over it. Your rules, gentlemen, are different here from what they are in NewJersey. The question was never raised there. Mr. President, I am here by virtue of my credentials. The Governor of the State of NewJersey, under the broad seal of the State of NewJersey, told me that I was elected Senator. I beheved it was true. I examined the subject thoroughly, and as far as conviction could fasten itself upon the human mind, that conviction had fastened itself upon my mind. I presented those credentials. was sworn in. I took a solemn oath to do my dut as a Sea ator in this body. The doubt in this case is whether I should nothave voted when my name was called on the amendment of the Senfrom NewHampshire, [Mr. CLARK] gentlemen have failed to remark upon the fact that I did not vote when my name was called on the amendment. Why? From delicacy, which any gentleman would feel, not because I did not think I had a right to vote. Mr. President, it might have been a very serious question, it might have been a diiiieult thing for me to free myself from the responsibility (if my vote had been the deciding vote) of not voting on that amendment, and allowing delicacy to overcome what was my constitutional duty. Gentlemen say that I am voting in my own case, that it is a judicial question, and that I voted in my own case. Is that true? I have never thought so. If I thought it was my own case, I should not have come to the Senate, I should not have asked to take my eat here, [should not have presented my credentials. Some gentlemen may absorb their representative c araeter in personal considerations. cannot do it. I never looked upon this as my case. It was the case of the Senfrom NewJersey; and when one Gentfrom NewJersey, my colleague, was de rived of his vote by what shall I term it? I do not propose to violate parliamentary propriety by terming it anything but when one Senfrom NewJersey by artifice was prevented from recording his vote, as he would have done, the other was not to vote from delicacy. Mr. President, there are 11 States out of the Union and they wanted to put NewJersey out; and I did not mean that they should do it from motives of delicacy on my part. This, Mr. President, makes it necessary for me to make an allusion which is extremely disagreeable; an allusion which I did not intend to make; a subject so painful to me that I should like to see it erased from the record for the credit of the Senate of the U.S. I received yesterday, for the 1st time, a letter from the home of my colleague, since this unfortunate ditheulty occurred; and that letter is from his son, Major wright, who distinguished himself in the late war. I will,with the permission of the Senate, read one extract from it: “ Of Mr. llIURRILLB courseI am almost unwilling to speak. Ily what system of ethics he could justify Ihimself for hrenking his pledged word with myfather, cannot imagine. Npt one word has he written to my father on the subject: but he states in his seat, that after pledginghis honor not tovoteon your case, he fecls constrained to vote. What if he (lid notify you that he intended to break his word? Ilis businesswas to inform my father. That a man should feel himself released from an agreement with another becausehe announcedhis intention to a 3rd party to play false, is a curious sort of casuistry, worthy, though, of the new school of manuals." Mr. President, I held in my hand a letter addressed to me by Senator MORRILL, of Maine, giving me the information that he desired to be released from his pair with my colleague. The letter bears no date. It was received by me on the evening of the day for which my case was noticed, after