Mr. HENDRICKS. I have answered that question to the Senfrom Maine, and it is not necessary, as I think, to repeat the question. I an I do not know of any instance in which the gislature of NewJersey, acting in any way, has elected by a plurality vote; but it is admitted that the diegislature can elect by a plurality vote. The Senfrom NewHampshire, I believe, does not dispute that the legislature of NewJersey can prescribe that a lurality shall elect, acting in the separate ranches. Now, my pointis, that whatever the Legislature acting in the separate branches could dointhat regard, the joint meeting could do; and I argue that, in the 1st place, from the arliamentary law laid down by Cashing and aid down by other authorities. But suppose, as I was going on to so., that the parliament ary law is as stated by the Senfrom Maine, does that parliamentary lawbgovern the joint meeting of the Legislature in ewJersey? No, sir; for the reason that that joint meeting be. for so many years agreed to govern its proceedings by its own rules that its own rules and practice have become the rule and law for its government. Many times it has rescribed the number of votes required to e ect; at some sessions it has prescribed the rule that a majority of all the members elected should be necessary to make a choice. At other times it has prescribed that a majority of those present and voting should be sulhcient to elect; at other times, a majority of those resent, whether voting or not voting, should e required to elect; so that that body for many years has acted upon the principle that it had the power to regulate the question of the number of votes necessary to make a choice. Then the constitution of NewJersey is adopted; it recognizes the joint meeting as an institution of the State; it provides for the election of very many State officers by that joint meeting. Now, I ask, in view of the history of that joint meeting for so many years, the constitution itself adopting the joint l meeting as a legislative body, what power does the Constitution of the U.S. confer upon that legislative body I I say it is the power to do this not of choosing a Senator in the mode consistent with its practice. That joint meeting for so many years having controlled its own mode of proceeding, the arliaiuentary law thereby became abro gate so far as it was inconsistent with the practice of the joint meeting. How does it come that we have not the previous question in this body? It is a part of the parliamentary groceeding known for 200 years in iigland. It was known in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. It has been known in the HoRep ever since the adoption of the Constitution. It was practiced for many years in the Senate alter the adoption of the Constitution, but by cus tom it has been abandoned, and is no longer a t of the parliamentary law of this body. I now of no express abrogation of the previous question in this body. The rules of the body escribe what motions may be made during chute. It may be said that that rule had the effect to abrogate the previous question; but I think it will be found, though I have not had time to examine it. very thoroughly, that the previous question ceased to be a part of the w of this body by its nonuser, by the pradtice of the body to the contrary. It is very clear, Mr. President, that we can modify our rules by a practice of many years, and that [practice becomes the law of the body instead of the parliamentary law. it is known to lawyers that even the common law may be modified by a custom in a neighborhood to the contrary. This legal custom, this neighbor hood custom, perhaps, does not become the law of the land, so that the courts will eatofiicio take notice of it, but you can prove a custom in a neighborhood or a city, among all the people that exercise a business, trade, or art, in court for the purpose of making that custom part of the contract which is in question before the court. It is custom that has the effect to modify or abrogatea proposition of common law. 80 in a deliberative bodyI claim that a custom will modify or abrogate a part of the parliamentary law, and here for 75 ears, in the joint meeting of the NewJersey gislaturc, practice has obtained of governing its conduct by les adopted by itself, and among those rules is fou a rule regulating the number necessary to a choice. Now, Mr. President, one otherpointl desire to make, and then I am done. The joint meeting of the Legislature agreed to elect by a plu raity. They did so elect. The presiding officer, it seems from the record, announced the result, and there was no objection to it. The convention proceeded to other business on the result being announced, and by silence acquiese ed. I say that is conclusive upon the question. Here is the record: “Hon. John P. Stockton having received it plu rality of all the votese ast. was declared duly elected U.S. Senater for the term of 6 years from th“e 4th day of March, instant. Mr. Holsman moved that the joint meetingnew sad to the election of commissioners of deeds in O various townships; which was agreedto." No objection was made to the election; it was acquiese ed in by the whole body. I say after the body acquiesces in the announcement of the presiding otheer, makes no point. upon it then and there, it is the act of the whole body. We witness it here every day. How frequently when you, sir, put aquestion to this body is there in the allirmative not a single response, while in the negative there are 3 or 4 responses. The presiding officer knows very well from the course of the debate what is the judgment and wish of the body, and it is announced that the affirmative has carried. If I am not satisfied with that decision, must I not make my point then? Must I not say to the presiding otheer, “ I ask fora division, ” or “I ask for the yeas&nays, ” right then? If Iac uicse c in the announcement that is made presiding otheer, I cannot attorward question it. Suppose a case: suppose that when the vote is taken upon the passage of a bill, not a single Senator votes for the bill while every Senator who actually votes votes in the negative, and the presiding officer an nounces the vote to the body that the affirmative has it, and no Senator objects at the time, can you let that go upon the Journals and then afterward undertake to prove that the bill never did ass?