February 5th, after further debate, the final vote was taken on the resolution of expulsion, and resulted in yeas 32, nays 14. THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Upon this question the yeas are 32, the nays are 14. More than two thirds having agreed to the resolution, it is passed. [_Applause in the galleries._] THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Order! Order! The Washington correspondent of a Northern journal described the scene of the vote. “All seemed to feel that they were acting, not for the present only, but for coming time. The great crowd of spectators filling every available spot, and the presence of many of the members of the House, added to the impressiveness of the scene. Amid breathless anxiety and profound silence the roll-call commenced. For a time the ayes and noes bore a doubtful proportion. Senator Willey, having held his vote in abeyance till the last, had just announced that he should vote against the expulsion, and Senator Carlile, who had been generally supposed to favor the resolution, also joined his colleague among the noes. As the vote proceeded, the ayes became almost uninterrupted, and we were prepared for the result. A few moments more and the event was over,--felt by those who witnessed it to be scarcely less solemn than the infliction of death itself, and which will probably be cited in precedent when all its spectators shall have long been dust.” ANSWER OF A WITNESS CRIMINATING HIMSELF. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL RELATING TO WITNESSES BEFORE COMMITTEES, JANUARY 22, 1862. In considering the bill amending the provisions of the second section of the Act of January 24, 1857, enforcing the attendance of witnesses before Committees of either House of Congress, the following clause was objected to: “And no witness shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined by either House of Congress or any Committee of either House, for the reason that his testimony touching such fact or the production of such paper _may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous_.” In the debate that ensued Mr. Sumner spoke as follows. MR. PRESIDENT,--There seems to be much inquiry as to the Common Law on this question, and various points are presented. It is asked, for instance, whether a witness is obliged to answer, where his answer will render him infamous. I know the differences on this point, but cannot doubt that by the Common Law the witness is obliged to answer in such a case,--most certainly, if the question is relevant and material.