Mr. JOHNSON. I never object to any inquiry the honorable member puts; but he some times puts an inquiry rather in anticipation of what would be the properperiod of propounding it. He is sometimes rather in a urry like some other of my friends. [Laughter] N ow, the law of 1846 provides that "Senators of the U.S. on the part State shall of this po Assembly appointed by the Senate and General of this State in joint meeting assembled." Had they authority to pass that law, is the next inquiry. I do notunderstand that that is doubtc, and it could not well be doubted without unsettling the whole practice of the government. I think there are some 16 or 17 States in which the Senators are elected in joint convention, and nobody has ever in the ast called in qcstion the validity of such an e cction; and I do not understand that either my friendfrom NewHampshire or my friendfrom Maine does it in this instance. If they had the authority to call them together in joint convention, what were they when they got into convention? The Legislature is made to consist by the constitution of 2 branches, and the law says that those 2 branches, instead of acting concurrently in the election of Senators from NewJersey, shall meet in joint convention. What for, and in what capacit? To elect Senators is the purpose. n what capacity? As the legislaure, for they could not give the authority to anybody else. The constitution provides that Senators shall be elected by the Legislature and the Legislature, in the exercise of whatl understand to be the admitted power, passes a law which says that they shallp O into oint meeting and there elect. Elect how? lect as a Legislature, so that they are in the joint convention as a Legislature, just as they are in such a convention as a Legislature by force of the constitution in the election of State officers. There is not a word to be found in that law which provides that they are to act separately when the get into joint convention. There is not a wor which declares the number of votes which are to be necessary to the election; and the result may be and the result Often is and that proves, as think, that I am right and my friendfrom Maine is wrong that a Senator is elected without getting perhaps a single vote from one of the branches that constitutes the Legislature and authorized to act concurrently in tejoint business of that Dept of the government. That might have been the case here. The General Assembly of NewJ crse y consisted of 60 members, and the Senate of 21. Suppose Mr. Stockton, or an body else, had received a majority of the who O 81 42 and that every one of the votes cast for him had been cast by members of the House while every one of the votes of the Senate adbeen cast againsthirn, would he not have been elected? Certainly he would be elected; but he is not the choice of the Legislature in onesense, if my friends are right. If the legislative choice is to be made known by concurrent action and can only be so made known, then the concurrent assent is necessary. If it may be made known by the joint action, without reference to the authority conveyed to each body by its own constitution, then it can only be that a choice of that description is a choice by the Legislature; and if you come to the conclusion that the choice made in that way is a choice by the Legislature, it is only because the 2 bodies when in joint convention assembled constitute the Legislature. Why should it not be so? What has the sennte of the U.S. to do with it? What has the Constitution of the U.S. to do" with it? What have the people of the U.S. to do with it? We are the representatives of our own States. The Constitution denies to itself the authority to interfere with that right. It says that the election of the Senators of the several States shall be a matter exclusively within the authdrit of the legislatures of the several States. ow the he gislature is to not, when they are to be consul cred as a Legislature, whether in acting, rin the particular instance they are to be esteemed as a Legislature depends upon the and laws of the particular State, and it would be monstrous if it were otherwise. But what is it to us? Wh should we interfere and tell the people of ewJersey that they shall not elect in any mflnner that their Legislature thinks proper to elect? I agree with my friendfrom It aine, that the Legislature is selected by the Constitution of the U.S., but being selected, the powers which it is to exercise, the time when it is to exert them the place where the election is to be held, and the manner in which the election is to be eoifducted, all depend exclusively upon the constitution and laws of the State. Now, what is the fact? M friendfrom Maine says, and I wonder that e did not see that that be ged the whole question, that these precedents iave nothing to do with the question, provided they are all against the aw. That is assuming the very thing in dispute. All the members of the ComJudiciary, except my friendfrom NewHampshire, thought that the election was properly held, and the relied upon the precedents; and my friend lYrom Maine undertakes to avoid the application of the precedents by saing that the proposition is so plain against the precedents, the precedents should have no weight. If it be so lain, there is an end of the dispute; but I wonder that my friendfrom Maine had not seen that the fact that precedent after precedent had been established, if they were established, was evidence at least that in the Opinion of NewJersey the opinion which he entertains now is not so lain.