Mr. Ewing, (page 150of the constitutional Convention Journal) the amendment was amended by striking out “ Legislature” and inserting “joint meetin.” Afterward, on motion of Chief Justice ornblower, one of the ablest jurists we have ever had in our State, (on page 161 of the Constitutional Convention Journal) it was again amended by inserting before “joint meeting” the words “Legislature in.” The ver object, I say. of this amendment was to conc ude thisquestion which has been raised in reference to the constitutions of some of the States. Now, gentlemen say that it requires an act of legislation to fix the mode of election. Then it requires the concurrence of the Governor. No law can be passed in NewJersey without the concurrence of the Governor. He has a veto power. Can he veto the presentation of “manner” for the appointment of a Senator? Whatever else is required, surely it cannot be legislation. ow, Mr. President, the Constitution of the U.S. does not require legislation. It uses the word regulation; Congress may regulate. In the Continental Congress many of their acts, all of theirncts, I believe, werepassed by resolution. Certainly it does not require legislation, or else the States whichhave never passed any act on the subject have never elected Senators. 17 States of this Union have never passed any act on the subject. If it requires legislation, how do you hold your seats? hey [e has been no legislation in your States at a The Constitution of the U.S. gave the power of election to the Legislature. The constitution of NewJersey says the joint meeting is the Legislature. f that be not true then by the statute read by the distinguished Senfrom NewHampshire, the prescription was made a prescription was made as ample by law in the State of NewJersey as ever has been in 17 States. The time, place, and manner of election are to be prescribed. What is “manner?” The manner is in joint meeting, and that is full compliance with the “manner.” Does he mean to say that the number of voices necessary to a choice is necessarily a portion of the “manner?” The distinguishe Senfrom Maine did not say so in Harlans case. He said it might be prescribed; and therefore he admitted, and the argument admits now, thatthe number ofvoices need not necessarily be prescribed by statutes. The full prescription of “ manner” is complied with when the Legislature says the election shall be in joint meeting. Some of the States say it shall require a majority of all elected, some say it shall require only a majority of a quo rum; and 17 States like NewJersey are silent; therefore those States have never made any prescription of “manner, ” and their senators are not entitled to seats on this floor according to the argument. I think the conclusion is plain, that it is no necessary part of the prescription of “manner” that the number of voices necessar to an election shall be rescribed by the fiegislature in advance. hat being so, what becomes of the argument that the oint meeting cannot do it? h