MR. SUMNER. I will make the distinction clear. I have never said there was a promise in the case of the thirteen, as I insist there was no promise in the recent caucus. Had the Senator felt it his duty to come into the Senate and oppose the report, I should have been pained to find him on the side of wrong; but I am not ready to say that he would have been constrained by the caucus. But, plainly, the repudiation of a caucus vote for Human Rights is to be judged differently from the repudiation of a caucus vote adverse to Human Rights,--assuming, as I do, that there is no promise in either case. … Sir, I am tired of this talk of honor, in connection with the public business. This is too solemn; we are under too great responsibilities. Every Senator acts with honor. The Senator from Maine acts with honor, when he seeks to impose a rule which I think offensive to the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator from Illinois acts with honor, when he says that he will not be bound by the vote of this caucus in a particular case. Other Senators act with honor, when they refuse to be bound by the resolution in any of its terms. Every Senator acts with honor. He only acts otherwise who makes injurious imputations upon his associates. Yes, Sir, let us have this caucus code. If it is to be administered with such severity, let us know it in advance, its terms and its conditions,--what extent of dishonor is to be visited upon those who do not adopt the caucus conclusions, and what extent of honor upon those who so steadfastly and violently carry them forward. Let us have the code. I believe, Sir, that the true code for the Senate is found in the National Constitution, in the rules of this body, and in the sentiments of right and wrong which animate every honest soul; and I believe that no advantage can be taken of any Senator by reminding him that he forbore at a particular moment to register his objection, just as if we were all there on trial, to be saved by speaking promptly. It was no such debate; we were there with friends and brothers, each respecting the sensibilities and convictions of his associates, and, by interchange of opinions, seeking harmony, but not submitting to a yoke. After further remarks from Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Tipton, the substitute of Mr. Ross was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 19. The resolution, was then adopted,--Yeas 23, Nays 9. * * * * * July 10th, Mr. Sumner called up the following, introduced by him July 8th:-- “_Resolved_, That the resolution of the Senate, adopted the 5th of July last, limiting the business of the Senate, be, and hereby is, rescinded.” In remarks that followed, he showed the character of the proceedings in the Twenty-Seventh Congress, which had been adduced as a precedent for the limitation of business. In reply to Mr. Fessenden, he said:--