Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, when the Senfrom Illinois rose to speak I had made up my mind to say nothing in this debate, but topics have been introduced by hiinwhich I am unwilling should pass without notice. The Senator did not disguise that the case is without a precedent in the history of the Senate. Never before has a Senator appeared in this Chamber with the credentials of a minority and permit me to say further, that I think it will be found that the rule of a majority has the consecration of history in all the proceedings of parlinmentar or electoral bodies. It is the rule of the case of Commons in the choice of a Speaker. The oldest electoral body in the world is the Conclave of Cardinals; but who has heard that a Pope was ever elected by a minority? Let me ask your attention to this example that you may see how the rule of the minority has been constantly rejected, notwithstanding every temptation, inducement, and pressure to adopt it. There have been many contested elections during which the Cardinals separated from the world, each in a small apartment or cell, opening on the Hall of the Palace of the Quirinal, have been imprisoned some times for months, like a jury waiting for the requisite majority. They did not undertake to change the rule ofelectionsand to set up the will of a minority. There was Lambrusenini, who shone as Pope Benedict XIV, conspicuous as statesman and as patron of letters, who was not chosen until after the ineffectual ellorts of months. These instances stand as so many pillars and I refer to them now as proper to guide your conduct. the question before us is oflaw, and nothing else. this not a question of polities or of son timent, except so far as these enter into the determination of a question of law. It is a question for the reason alone. It lies in a nutshell. A brief text of the Constitution, and another brief text of a local statute are all that need be considered. The Constitution of the U.S. provides as follows: “The Senate of the U.S shall be comfised of 2 Senators from each State chosen by the pic/alum thereof." The times, places, and manner o holdmpelm hour for Sens&Reps shall be ruenbed in each State by t n Lemlafltreticreo: but the Congressmayat any time by law make or alter such rigulations, except as to the place of ehoosxnzSen a ors. In carrying out this provision, the Legislature of NewJersey, by a statute passed April 10, 1846, and copied from a statute passe in 1790, has enacted as follows: “ Senators of the U.S. on the part of this State shall be appointed by the Senate and General Assemblyof this Statein joint nueltng assembled." In pursuance of these 2 provisions of constitution and of statute, the e Legislature of NewJersey has undertaken to eect a Senator. From the statement of the case, it appears, that, on a certain day the 2 Houses assembled “ in joint meeting;” that they proceeded to act on a resolution declaring that “ the can didate receiving a plurality of votes of the members present shall be declared elected;” that this resolution was adopted by 41 votes out of 81 cleven Senators. being a majority of the Senate, and 30 members of the House, beingless than a majority of that body, votin for it; that, in pursuance of this resolution 5