MR. PRESIDENT,--I should not have said another word, but for topics introduced by the Senator from Maine; yet before I allude to those particularly, allow me to answer his argument, so far as I am able to appreciate it. He will pardon me for saying that he confounds right and power. Unquestionably the Senate has the power which he attributes to it; but it has not the right. A jury, as we know, in giving a general verdict, has power to say “Guilty” or “Not guilty,” disregarding the instructions of the court; but I need not say that it is a grave question among lawyers whether it has the right. Now, assuming that the Senate has the power which the Senator from Maine claims, it seems to me it has not the right. It has not the right to disregard the spirit of the National Constitution; and the present proposition is of that character. The Senator does not see it so, I know; for, if he did, he could not give to it the weight of his character. Others do see it so; and if they do, the Senator from Maine must pardon them, if they act accordingly. The Senator would not vote for anything he regarded as hostile to the spirit of the Constitution. I cannot attribute to him any such conduct. Can he expect others to do what he would not do himself? This is my answer to the argument, so far as I understand it. Perhaps I do not do justice to it; yet I try. There was one other point of argument. The Senate, so the Senator argues, may postpone an individual measure to the next session. Grant it; does it follow that they may postpone, immediately on their arrival, the whole business to another session? MR. FESSENDEN. They can adjourn on the next day, or on the day they meet, if they please. MR. SUMNER. But so long as they continue in session as a Senate, then, under the National Constitution, they must attend to the business of the country. They cannot tie their hands in advance. To do so is to violate the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator cannot have forgotten the Atherton gag, to which I referred before, without naming it, however. Was it not justly an offence and a stench in the nostrils of every patriot citizen? Has it not left a bad name upon the Congresses that recognized it? But this was simply a declaration not to receive petitions on one subject; and now, under the lead of the Senator, we are to continue in session an indefinite time, and to receive no petition, no bill, nothing on anything except on one specified subject. I submit, if the Atherton gag was unconstitutional, if it was odious, if it was a bad precedent, then you are very rash in establishing this much broader precedent. Do not condemn the offensive legislation of the past; do not condemn those slave-masters once so offensive in these Chambers. You go further than they. You impose a gag not upon petitions merely, but upon the general business of the country.