Mr. CLARK. They only give their votes in 2 ballot boxes, which are brought together and counted just as if they had met together in the same Chamber. It is practically the same thing; but the 2 Houses 0 not actually come together to do it. The Senators from Kentucky prefer that method; it is the method to which they have been accustomed. So the Senfrom Ohio prefers the method to which he has been accustomed. The Senfrom Vermont probably would prefer the method to which he has been accustomed. The Senfrom Maine prefers the method to which he has been accustomed and the vote by ballot. The Senfrom RhdIsland prefers his method and the vote viva voce. Now, the object is to have uniformity in the mode of electing, and of course we have got, each of us, to surrender something or to unite on a lan which shall combine the whole of these tings. The committee propose, in the 1st place, to let the 2 Houses vote in the re u or way, acting separately, for Senator, each house by itself. If the 2 Houses happen to elect the same man, then he is to be the Senator of the U.S., selected in the ordinary way; but if there is found to be a.disagreement, then the 2 Houses, for the purpose of settling that disagreement, combine their votes, and in joint convention select a Senator. That is to prevent disagreement. I think, during the existence of the Government, in NewHampshire we have never failed in more than one instance in electing a Scam tor by concurrent vote. In Maine the Senator says he was balloted for some 18 times, and then they failed in regard to it. Now, to prevent such a failure an to combine the 2 methods together, the committee have reported this bill, 1st to let the 2 Houses act by concurrent vote, and if they fail in that vay then to let them set in joint convention. t secures an election in the end. The objection made by one of the Senators from‘Kentucky can hardly, it seems to me, be worthy of much notice, that one of the Houses may have elected one man, the other House may have elected another man, and then when they come together in joint convention they may choose a 3rd man. Why not? If the House selects a man not agreeable to the senate, and the Senate a man not agreeable to the House, and they can together in jomt convention agree upon a 3rd man and thus select a man acceptable to them, why not take him? I do not see any objection to that.' It secures undoubtedly a proper man, and it results in securing at least a Senator, so that there shall be no vacancy. Objection is made to the provision that the convention shall keep voting until a Senator is elected. That cannot, it seems to me, be any interruption to the business; and it is for the purpose of securing an election of the Senator that the 2 Houses shall not separate and afterward, on account of some diflerence, refuse to go into joint ballot again and elect. I do not believe it would occur once in 100years that any 3rd party would stand out in the way which the Senfrom Ohio suggests and‘thus prevent the ordinary legislation of the State. The veryfact that they were prevented from proceeding with other business might operate to induce them to come into a choice, because the busirfbss might be pressing behind, and they might say to themselves, “ We cannot do any business until we settle this election, and therefore we will settle it.” It seems to me that it is a wise plan to secure the election of a Senator in the end.