Mr. CLARK. I said he did not intend to do so discourteously. I do not believe that he did. But I cannot permit the idea to go out that we have unconstitutionally interfered with the rights of the State of NewJersey. I find that the State of NewJersey has attempted to elect a Senator. She has given him a certificate of election, and sent him here to occupy his seat. The Constitution provides 30 “each House shall be the judge of the elections, re turns, and qualifications of its own members;” so that when the sitting member from NewJersey came here with his certificate in his hand, and asked to be admitted to his seat, it became the constitutional right of every Sen ator here to inquire what were his qualifications and how he had been elected; and if we, as Senators, attain tto oback and investigate the doings of the egis atnre of NewJersey, and to inquire how and under what rules be was elected, and attempttojudge for ourselves, we are acting undert e Constitution of the U.S., and are not to be charged with unwarrantable interference or an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the State of NewJersey. It is an interference (if you call it an inte erence) which the Constitution of the U.S.tates clearl gives us, and which as a Senate we have a rightto exercise; and if we can exercise it rightfully under the Constitution of the U.S., how can it be an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the State of NewJersey? The Senfrom Maryland may differ with the Senfrom Maine and myself as to what was the effect of the rule; but there certainly can be no difference, it seems to me, as to our right toinquire what is the effect of that rule and when the patent fact is open to the Senate that the Gentleman claiming to hold this seat was sent here against the will of a majority of the joint meeting which undertook to elect him; against the Will of a majority of the Senate of his State; against the will of a majority of the Assembly of his State; against, as I say, the will of a majority of the Legislature of his State, we are not to be charged with an unwarrant able interference with the constitutional rights of NewJerse if we undertake to look into it and see whe the r he is properly elected here. It seems to me no more an unconstitutional interference in this case than it is in every other case that has come before the Senate. Did we not, in the case of the Indiana Senators, look into the constitution and action of the joint meeting which attempted to elect them? So in the case from Iowa. Vas it an unconstitutional interference with the rights of those States? When the Constitution provided that we might look into the qualifications, did it contemplate that it was an unwarruntahle interference? Each Senator will judge for himself, upon his own examination, what are the constitutional rights secured to him in conducting this examination. Mr. President, in the course of thi argument it is said that the joint meeting of the 2 Houses of the Legislature of the State of NewJersey was the Legislature of NewJersey, and they cite the constitution of NewJersey to prove it because it speaks of “the Legislature in joint meeting.” What does that mean? The Legislature acting by joint meeting, the 2 Houses coming together to act as a joint meeting; and the constitution of NewJcrsey confines them entirely to the election of officers; when they O in there they have no power except to elect oSicers, and to elect officers, let me an, accordin to the laws of the State of NewJersey. hen the constitution gives them the power as afLegislature in joint meeting to elect officers, it by no means gives them the power to make the laws or alter the laws under which the are to be chosen. The Senfrom NewJersey admits himself that by the laws of NewJersey, had it not been for this rule, a majority would have been required. Do I not understand him rightly?