Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss this case in cztenso. The report of the ComJudiciary is so c ear and convincing that any attempt to strengthen it would be “gilding the gold and painting the lily.” I shall only reply to some of the arguments made in the present debate. The Senfrom NewJersey [Mr. SlOCl ros] was elected by the Legislature of that State in a joint meeting of both Houses of that body, and so far there is nothing complained of as irre ular in the proceeding. But it is said that TIE was not chosen by a majoritywf that joint meeting, which is the question now before the Senate. If he was so chosen his right to his seat is indisputable; if not, he is not a Senator of the U.S. It may be pjeniised that there is nothing in either the constitution or laws of NewJersey which prescribes the manner by which the joint meeting may manifest the will of its majority, whether by a direct vote on the main issue or by other and indirect methods of attaining the desired end. Now, the joint meeting from the earliest pe riod had been in the habit of enacting rules for its government, and upon this occasion it do clared, in the 1st place, that it would require a majority of all the members present to c ect. But before the election was made that rule was rese inded, and it was declared that the person having a lurality of the votes cast should be taken to e chosen. The 1st rule required that the person elected should have more votes than all the other candidates together; the 2nd that he should have more votes than anyI other candidate. ow, it is objected that the joint meeting could not adopt this latter rule, and the reason urged is, that by means of it a less number than a majority were enabled to elect; all of which is said to be erroneous and fatal. But this is more specious than sound: because it takes only a art of the proceeding for the whole and loolis only to the final vote, ipstead of looking to that vote in connection with the rule adopted by the majority. It desires its advocates to assert that the only way the mal jority can manifest its will must be by a single, Immediate, and direct vote upon the final issue, and this they say is the universal or common law of Parliaments all the world over. Mr. President, I deny that in iota, it is not true that the majority when not bound by a reexisting and express law cannot ascertain its will in any manner it may see fit. It is not restrained or limited in any way by any supposititious or implied law; nor can it be; it is not in the nature of things. Now, there are many ways of ascertaining the will of the majority. The 1st and most common is to put the main question at once, as we do here in the Senate, and thus discover on which side is the larger number of voices. This may be called the direct mode, and is especially applicable to all questions having but 2 sides. But in cases of elections the question may have more sides than two; nay, illere will be a side for every candidatelpro posed, and the direct method is usually inap plicable without repeated trials sometimes weeks and months are spent in ballotin before a result is attained, as has happene in the HoRep when choosing a Speaker. Now, one of the most obvious we 8 of avoiding that difficulty is to adopt the in i rect method, of which there are many. A very common one is to make a rule that after one Or more ballots only the 2 highest shall be eligible as candidates and all the rest thrown off. Now, this rule is the act of the majority, and it leads to another direct vote as between the 2 highest, thus ending the contest. No body has yet complained of such a rule because it excluded all the candidates but 2, yet it does so to effect a choice. But the majority may make another rule, just as they did in this case, namely, that a plurality of votes shall elect; which is precisely the same as throwing 06 all the candidates except the one having the highest number of votes, whom it agrees to accept as elected without moreand the whole taken together constitute. but one act, though an act with 2 parts, and it was an act of the majority just as much as if the majority had afterward ratified it by a direct vote, as is sometimes done for greater certainty. Even here the same thing was done in effect, because the joint meeting immediately certified that Mr. Stockton was duly elected, returned that to the Governor of the State, who certified the same to the Senate of the U.S. Now, suppose the majority were to protest against all this before us, what would have been our answer? Would you not have asked, why did on make the rule? Why did you not rese in it? Why did you acquiese e in the election under it, and certify it as your act?