Mr. HOWE. The Senfrom California and myself differ simply upon one point, whether it is a rule of policy or a rule of law. I think it is a rule of aw, and wherever it prevails I think it is by force of law; and the existence of those enactments Itake to be evidence that but for them the majority must prevail, and not the plurality. It Mr. President, when the law nppoints an agent to do any act, that ngent, I think, is not authorized to substitutianother. When on individual is appointed to act as an agent or attorney for another, he must himself act; he must exercise his own discretion; he cannot substitute the discretion of another unless he is exgressly iu the act of appointment authorized to o it. When a cause is submitted to the determination of ajury of 12 men you must have the assent of every individual on thatjury. not merely of ii. majority, but of the whole, to the conclusion which is returned as the verdict, or it will be set aside. There cannot be any experimenting, there cannot be any contrivance eniploved to dispense With the necessity of each individual exercising his judgment and giving his assent to the verdict. The Whole 12 may go into the jury roonr and agree to adopt the o inions of the majority; but the verdict would be set aside, Itake it, without hesitation. They may agree to take the average judgment, but the verdict would be set aside, Itake it, without hesitation. Where an award is made after a cause is submitted to arbitration, you must have the assent of each one of the arbi trators to the award or it is not bindin. If it be conceded that when the Legislature by law has committed to the majority of the 2 Houses in joint convention the right to appoint a Senator those 2 Houses may, by a vote of their own, substitute a plurality for a majority, then can they not by agreement sub atitute a lottery or substitute another mode they see fit to adopt for the sefection of the Senator? If they had gone into joint meeting and the majorit of them had agreed to put the names of all the candidates into a hat, and draw out one, and that the name drawn should be the Senator, and they had ltlppeiied to draw the name of the present Senfrom NewJer hey from the hat 1st, and he had come here claiming upon that lot, would any Senator here say that he was entitled to his seat? But if not, why not? There would be the agreement of a majority of the members present to that mode of selection; why would not the lottery be just as binding, thus agreed to by the majority, as the decision of this plurality, which all admit would not have the slightest force but for the precedent agreement of the 2 Houses?