Since the Senator makes the claim, it is important for us to meet it, in some way or other,--by correcting the journal, or by a resolution declaring that the Senator shall not vote,--fixing the precedent forever, so that hereafter we shall not be left to the uncertain will or opinion of a Senator whose seat may be in question. We must rely, not upon his honor, but upon the Constitution, interpreted by this body and fixed beyond recall. Therefore I think still it would be better, if the Senate had corrected its journal. Being a vote that in itself was null and void, it was to be treated as not having been given. The Senator asks to withdraw his vote. To withdraw what? Something which has never been done,--that is, legally done. There is no legal vote of the Senator. His name is recorded as having voted, but it is a vote that at the time was null and void. There is nothing, therefore, for him to withdraw, but something for the Senate to annul. Mr. Sherman moved the reference of Mr. Sumner’s resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate refused to refer,--Yeas 18, Nays 22. The resolution was then adopted. March 27th, the consideration of the resolution declaring Mr. Stockton “duly elected” was resumed, when, after the failure of an effort to postpone it, Mr. Clark moved to amend it by declaring that he “is not entitled to a seat as Senator.” On this amendment Mr. Stockton spoke at length. The amendment was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 21,--Mr. Stockton not voting. He said, “I desire to state, in order that it may be a part of the record, that I do not vote on this question, on account of the resolution passed by the Senate yesterday.” The resolution as amended was then adopted,--Yeas 23, Nays 20. REMODELLING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO REORGANIZE THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 2, 1866. This bill, reported from the Judiciary Committee by Mr. Harris, of New York, was considered for several days in the Senate, and finally passed that body. It failed in the House of Representatives. Another bill, having a similar object, afterwards became a law.[22] On the present bill Mr. Sumner remarked:--