“I believe, as I said before, that the Senator from New
Jersey is entitled to his seat; but I do not believe that
he is entitled to hold his seat by his own vote. He would
have held his seat without his own vote. The vote upon
the resolution was a tie without the vote of the Senator
from New Jersey; and that would have left him in his seat,
he already having been sworn in as a member. It is not
necessary that the resolution should have passed. He is
here as a Senator, and it would require an affirmative vote
to deprive him of his seat as a Senator.”
He then avowed his willingness to move a reconsideration of the
vote by which the resolution was carried, “if that is necessary
to accomplish the object.”
Mr. Sumner, after saying, that, when he brought forward his
motion, he had no reason to suppose that any Senator would move
a reconsideration, proceeded:--
The Senator from Illinois says, Suppose we strike out Mr. Stockton’s
name, what will be the effect? I answer, To change all subsequent
proceedings, and make them as if he had not voted, so that the whole
record must be corrected accordingly. The Senator supposes a bill
passed by mistake afterwards discovered, and asks if the bill could be
arrested. Clearly, if not too late. A familiar anecdote with regard to
the passage of the Act of _Habeas Corpus_ in England will help answer
the Senator. According to the story,--it is Bishop Burnet who tells
it,[21]--this great act, which gave to the English people what has
since been called the palladium of their liberties, passed under a
misapprehension created by a jest. It seems that among the affirmative
peers walking through the tellers was one especially fat, when it was
said, “Count ten,”--and ten was counted for the bill, thus securing its
passage. I am not aware that the mistake was divulged until too late
for correction. But we have had in the other House two different cases,
which answer precisely the inquiry of the Senator.
Here Mr. Sumner read from the House Journal, 29th Congress, 1st
Session, July 6, 1846, p. 1032, a motion by Mr. McGaughey with
regard to the Journal. He next read from the House Journal,
31st Congress, 1st Session, September 10, 1850, p. 1436, the
following entry:--
“The Speaker stated that the result of the vote of the
House on yesterday on the passage of the bill of the House
(No. 387) to supply a deficiency in the appropriation
for pay and mileage of members of Congress for the
present session had been erroneously announced, and that
the subsequent proceedings upon the said bill would
consequently fall.
“The Speaker then announced the vote to be, Yeas 78, Nays
76.
“So the bill was passed; and the journal of yesterday was
ordered to be amended accordingly.”
In conformity with this precedent, Mr. Sumner did not doubt
that by the correction of the journal the vote affirming Mr.
Stockton’s seat would fall, and he thought it better to follow
this course; but, anxious to avoid a protracted discussion, and
to “seek a practical result,” he was willing to withdraw his
proposition.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought that Mr. Sumner would “err
in withdrawing the proposition.” Mr. Davis, of Kentucky,
maintained “that Mr. Stockton had an undoubted right to vote.”
Mr. Stockton followed in vindication of his vote, referring
especially to an alleged understanding between Mr. Morrill
and Mr. Wright, which he said was violated by the vote of the
former.
“I never looked upon this as my case. It was the case of
the Senator from New Jersey. And when one gentleman from
New Jersey, my colleague, was deprived of his vote by--what
shall I term it? I do not propose to violate parliamentary
propriety by terming it anything,--but when one Senator
from New Jersey 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 eleven States out of the Union,
and they wanted to put New Jersey out; and I did not mean
that they should do it from motives of delicacy on my part.”
Mr. Trumbull said, “Let us settle at this time that a member
has no right to vote upon the question.… I think, upon
consideration, that perhaps the best way to arrive at it is
by the adoption of the resolution offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts.” Mr. Lane, of Kansas, who had voted to sustain
Mr. Stockton, said, “I was never more surprised in my life
than when the Senator from New Jersey asked to vote and did
vote.” Soon afterwards, Mr. Stockton said, “I rise to withdraw
my vote, with the permission of the Senate,” and proceeded
to explain his position. In reply to an inquiry from Mr.
Sumner, the presiding officer [Mr. CLARK, of New Hampshire]
said, “The Chair is of opinion that he cannot, unless by the
unanimous consent of the Senate he wishes to correct the
journal.” Mr. Sumner formally withdrew his motion to correct
the journal, “with the understanding that the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. POLAND] makes the motion for a reconsideration.”
Mr. Poland accordingly moved the reconsideration, and this
was agreed to, so that the original question was again before
the Senate. There was still debate and perplexity as to the
proper proceeding in order to repair the error in receiving Mr.
Stockton’s vote, when Mr. Sumner moved:--
“That the vote of Mr. Stockton be not received, in
determining the question of his seat in the Senate.”