“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.” Mr. Sumner remarked:-- I have no personal question with the Senator; I have for him nothing but kindness and respect. I deal with this question simply as a question of principle. The Senator tells us that he will not vote, when the case comes up again. I believe him; he will not vote. But, Sir, he has taken the Constitution in his hand, and, holding it up, he tells us that he finds in that instrument authority for it in his case.…