Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, it will be understood by the offering of this amendment. 1 think, that I did not concur in the report oi the ComJudiciary. Aller a fall examination of the case. of the law, and the facts and the usages of the Legislature of the A State of NewJersey, and of other bodies simi larly constituted, I could not bring my mind to the conclusion that the Senfrom NewJersey now holding the seat was entitled to it, or that he was duly elected. I differed from the majority of the committee upon this point. Mr. Stockton was elected in a joint convention of the 2 Houses. After thatjoint convention had assembled, it undertook to say, in the ab sence of any law or rule prescribed by come tent authority to that etfect, that a less number of the convention than a majority, to wit, a plurality, should entitle the person receiving such plurality to an election. There were in that convention 81 persons present. Upon casting their votes for Senator, it was found that Mr. Stockton received 40 votes, arid Mr. TenEyck and other persons 41; so that Mr. Stockton did not have a majority of the convention; and the question now submitted to the Senate, and the one upon which I think the whole matter must turn, is, whether that joint convention, sitting and acting as it did as ajoint assembly, had the power and authority to say that a person not receiving a majority of the votes was entitled to a seat in this Senate. I maintain this as my 1st reposition: that under the Constitution of the {iU.S. the constitution of NewJersey, and the laWs of NewJersey, where the constitution and the laws prescribe no different rules, a majority was necessary to constitute a valid election. In the absence of a law prescribed by the Legislature of NewJersey, or some authority, if there was any other authority competent to do it, I say a majorit would be required to entitle the senator holing the seat to remain in it, because it is the law of cororations aggregate, and it is the arliamentaryIaw of the land, that when a deliberative body or assembly like that. under takes to act, it acts by a majority, and only by a majority, unless it has the power to prescribe for itselfa different rule, or some other authority having such power has done it. There is no pretense that the Legislature of NewJer sey or any other authority but this joint convention so assembled ever undertook to say that a plurality should elect; but the joint convention did. I do not undertake to den that it was competent for the Legislature of NewJersey, organized and acting in its propermanner and s here, to say that. a plurality might elect, I0not deny that a plurality of a e gislatuqre, when the majority so determine, can elect a Senator. I concede that, but I say that here nobody having competent authority under took to prescribe t rat a plurality should elect. The Legislature of NewJersey did prescribe that the election of Senator should be by joint convention. I will read that law. It is the 1st section of a law of the State of NewJer sey, passed April 10, 1846: “ Sse. 1. Senatorsof the U.S. on the part of this State shall be appointed by General Assemblyof this State in Joitnhte mSeeneattinegaansd sembled; and in easeavacancyshall happenbydeath or otherwise. at any time during the sitting of the Legislature, then, and in such case.the vacancy or vacanciesso happening, shall be filled. during such sittings, by the Senate and Assembly of this State: and it a vacancyor vacancies.by the death of either or both of the said Senators or otherwisehowsoever shall hop on during the recessof the Legislature. then the governor of thestate or in caseofhis death, iasbtesreinngce or other disqualification, the personadmin the government for the time being, may make a temporary appointment or appointments. until the n extmecting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancyor vacancies." Now, as I understand it, that is the only law of the State of NewJersey prescribing that a Senator shall be appointed byjoint meeting or in any way regulating the election; and Senators will observe that this lawis entirely silent as to whether a plurality shall elect, or a majority shall be necessary, and leaves it entirel to stand upon the common law of the land an the usage of the people of NewJersey. Then, I maintain, that the Legislature being silent on that point, the number necessary for the appointment of a Senator would be the number necessarily required by the common law and the parliamentary law, to wit, a majority; and so the Legislature and the people of NewJersey understood it, for never, up to this time, in the whole history of the Government, did they even undertake to appoint a Senator by anything less than a majority of the joint meeting. It is something entirelyncw and novel. More than that, they did not ask the Senate and the General Assembly of that Legislature, sittin in the regularly organized way as 2 branc ies, to passe law authorizing a plurality to elect; but when they had got in convention, by a majorit of the Senate, and without a majority of teHouse, they undertake to determine that a plurality should elect. The papers in the case show that upon the vote as to whether a lurality should elect, only 30 members of the House voted in the affirmative. There are 60 members in the House of Assembly; 30 voted in the affirmative, and 30 in the ne ative; so that there was no majority in the House of Assemblyin favor of that proposition. In the Senate there were ten votes against it and 11 for it. So it was carried by one vote in the joint convention. 41 votingin favor of the reposition and 40 against it, and this for the 1st time in the history of NewJersey or of its legislation.