Mr. GU'IHRIE. Mr. President, I believe the Constitution provides that we may pass such a law as this in order to produce uniformity in the mode of electing Senators to this body; and therefore I can see no constitutional objection to the legislation proposed. I am opposed, however, to the 1st voting provided b the bill. It is provided that each House 6 roll vote by itself and record its vote, and that both Houses shall meet the next day' to count over the result, and then if the 2 Houses have not separately agreed upon the same man they are to have an election y joint ballot. I should have no objection to an election byjoint ballot after reliminary nominations in each House Sn stantiall that is the mode we have practiced in Kentuc y from the beginning. The 2 Houses agree upon a day when they will go into convention and elect a U.S. Senator. Each House, when the day comes, puts its candidates in nomination and reports them to the other House, and when it is seen who are nominated in each House they proceed to vote. The name of each member is called and he answers viva voce for whom he casts his vote. The clerk records the votes and the 2 Houses compare them bya committee, who reportto each House whether any person has got the majority. We +iave had viva voce voting always in our legisative elections, as, indeed, we vote at the polls viva race. I think mischief might come, and it would be likely to increase, by adopting the provision for the 1st day’svoting, because, unless the 2 Houses then chance to agree upon the same man, they are not bound by that vote. It is not provided in the bill that nobody else shall be elected by the convention on the 2nd day, but some of those voted for on the 1st day by the separate Houses. It leaves all that unproyided for. Then the provision that they shall continue to vote and do nothing else until they elect a Senator may create great difficulty. It may be impossible to secure an election. The votes may be scattered so that they can come to' no conclusion; but, according to this bill, when they commence to elect they can do nothing else until an election is secured. In our State we tried the provision of a State law to say when the Legislature should elect, and we, regularly, as if it were to put ourselves in opposition to the statute law of the State, contrive to postpone the election to some other time. It might be a very great convenience to' have the election through at once, but if you cannot make it at the time provided can it be made at any other time? 0 other business can be done until it is made; all legislation is to he sto ped. This feature of the bill, I think, is decidledly objectionable. I would have very little objection to this bill if it merely provided for an election by a joint vote of the 2 Houses, whether they were brought into the same room tovote, or whether the votes were cast in separate rooms and compared by a committee, as is done in Kentucky. There is very little difference between those 2 modcs. Sometimes it is convenient, where you have large Halls, to get them together. Sometimes, where you have small Halls, you cannot very well get them all to ether. fibers is something certainly due to the fact that hitherto this entire matter has been left to the States, and the result has been to secure, generally at least, a tolerable share of fairness and success.’ It is impossible to adopt any mode under which there may not some times be a contested election and charges of unfairness. The Senfrom Massachusetts thinks that uniformfly is u very great thing. Sir, God, in making man and His other creat ures, did not set us that example. He made us Widely different. In all free countries' where thought and action are free, the modt.p and manner of doing everything cannot be uniform. That is not to be expected. If the substance, free choice and air choice, is secured, I thihk we ought to be satisfied.