formed the body, undertook to say that they
would change the received and acknowledged Parliamentary and common law
in their mode of proceedings, and instead of acting according to that
law, as the Legislature must have intended that it should do, would
elect in a totally different manner from that prescribed by law,
namely, by a plurality vote, for which they had no legislative sanction
and for which there was no authority but their own will."

There was a long debate on the question, but the argument submitted
by Mr. Fessenden was never refuted by his opponents, and it was
practically repeated by every one who concurred in his general views.
Mr. Stockton made an able presentation of his own case, perhaps
better than any made for him, but he was never able to evade the point
of Mr. Fessenden's argument, or even to dull it. The case came to a
vote on the 23d of March, the first test coming upon an amendment to
the committee's report, which declared Mr. Stockton "not entitled to
a seat." This amendment was defeated--_yeas_ 19, _nays_ 21. The
vote was then taken on the direct question of declaring him entitled
to his seat. At the conclusion of the roll-call the _yeas_ were 21,
the _nays_ 20, when Mr. Morrill of Maine rose and asked to have his
name called. He voted in the negative and produced a tie. Thereupon
Mr. Stockton rose and asked to vote. No objection being interposed
his vote was received. The result was then announced 22 _yeas_ to 21
_nays_, thereby confirming Mr. Stockton in his seat. Mr. Stockton,
disclaiming any intention to reflect upon Mr. Morrill, intimated that
he was under the obligation of a pair with Mr. William Wright (the
absent colleague of Mr. Stockton) and therefore should not have voted.
The two had undoubtedly been _paired_, but Mr. Morrill considered that
the time had expired and acted accordingly. He was not only a
gentleman of scrupulous integrity, but in this particular case he had
taken counsel with his colleague, Mr. Fessenden, and with Mr. Sumner,
safe mentors, and was advised by both that he had a clear right to
vote. It cannot be denied however that Mr. Morrill's action created
much ill-feeling on the Democratic side of the Senate.

Mr. Stockton's determination to vote must have been taken very hastily,
without due reflection on his own part and without the advice of his
political associates, who should have promptly counseled him against
his unfortunate course. The Parliam