Mr. Story says, in discussing the mode of electing Senators: "Anotherquestion might bosnggestedw, hetherthe Executive constitutes a part of the Legislature for such a purpose, in caseswhere the State constitution gives him a qualified negative upon the laws. But this has beensilently and universally settled against the executiveparticipation In the appointment." He also says: “Generally. but not nniVersally, the choiceof &n ators is madeby a concurrent vote." Since the authorwrote that has been changed, and generally, but not universally, the choice of Senators is made by joint conventions at the present time. Now, air, it being admitted that the “Legislatnrc” named in the Constitution of the U.S. is a joint assembly of both bodies, and that that joint assembly, when met, has authority to elect, it matters not in that joint assembly whether the successful candidate receives a single vote of one of the bodies; ifhe obtains votes enough from the other he is ie ally elected. For instance, in the State of ewJersey, which has a General Assembly, as it is called, of 60 members, and a Senate of 20. one members, nobody will question that when met together for the purpose of electing a U.S. Senator, i 41 members of the General Assembly had voted for a articular candidate, and every Senator an all the other members of the Assembly had voted against him, he would have been elected; so that the 2 bodies are merged in one when they meet. Then this mode of election by the joint convention is an appropriate one. Next, can a plurality e ect? Extreme cases are put. The question is asked, suppose that an individual gets but 2 votes out of the 81 members; if every one had voted separately execpt 2, who concentrated on one person, would he have been elected 2 That is not the question here. it is not to be decided by putting extreme cases. I believe there is not in the other end of this Capitolasingleperson holding his seat except by virtue of a plu rality vote, and it mioht have happened that every memberin the HoRep should obtain his seat by getting but 2 votes before the people, if every other voter had voted for himsel or somebody that nobody else cast a vote for; and yet does anybody deny the authority to elect by a plurality? Again, the Constitution of the U.S. says that Representatives shall be chosen by the people who constitute the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legslature. Whatis meant by “the people" in thatvease? It does not mean majorities. Nobody construes it so. It means that the man who gets the most votes is elected in all the States. There have been times when majorities were required. Then I take it for granted that this is not an improperor unconstitutional or illegal way of electing. Now, how was Mr. Stockton elected? Let us take his case. From time immemorial in NewJersey the mode ofelect ng a U.S. Senatorwas by njointmeeting of the 2 bodies. From time immemorial this joint meeting had prescribed its rules. It did so in 1794. Invery,? unqlHa 591 joint meeting which met from that day to the time of the election of the present member adopted rules for its own government. The question is asked, had it ever adopted a rule that a plurality should elect before? No. Had it ever adopted a rule that a majority should not elect before? Yes. The question is not whether it has adopted this particular rule; the question is, bad it authority to adopt rules for its government? and if it had, it had a right to adopt any reasonable rule, not an unreasonable one. It adopted a rule in 1851 by which a majority of a quorum could not elect, and it acted under it for years. It required a majority of all the members elected to both Houses to constitute an election under the rule adopted in 1851. There were but 81 members in both Houses; 41 was a majority; and under the majority rule if 41 Senators and members admet, 21 could have made an election. Would that mili State against the right of a Senator here because 21 electe him out of 81? The argument would be just as good as to say that it militates against the right of the election in this case when it is said that only 40 voted for the person elected out of 81. Under the majority rule. 21 could have elected a Senator. What is this majority rule? It is a rule adopted for convenience. Does it mean a majority of the whole body? No. That is not what you mean by a majority in the sense in which it has been used in this discussion; but it means the majority of a division. 1st, you divide the legislative power into 2 parts, and that art which has the largest number you may divi e again. The majority of a quorum is all you mean by it; you mean 21 out of 81; so that this argument that the Senfrom NewJersey was not elected because he did not receive when the vote was taken a majority of all the persons elected to the Legislature of NewJersey, goes for nothing. Nobody contends for that, except there is a rule, as there was in NewJersey in 1851, requiring it. Let it not then be said that the Senator holds his seat by 40 votes on} of 81. On the principle you are advocating Tie might hold his seat ere by 21 votes out of 81. That does not prove anything. It is not true that he is here with a majority of the Legislature of NewJersey protesting against him. lhese protestants do not constitute as many as the votes he got; he got more votes than all these protestants put together; and he got them in pursuance of the action of the whole body. This convention when it met together, having made rules for its government at every meeting of the oint convention for more than 70 years, did the same thing on the occasion of the election of Mr. Stockton. But Senators say it never did this precise thing; it never declared that a minority should elect. If it had a right to declare that more than a majority of those present should be required, had it not a right to declare that a plurality should elect, or adopt any other rule? The point is as to the option of therule for its own government, not as to this particular rule unless it is an unreasonable one. They did adopt this rule, not by a minority; a majority of the Sens&Reps of the State of NewJersey composing the Legislature of the State of NewJersey assembled together, and amajority of all of them, 41.declared that they would express their will as to who should represent the State of NewJersev by taking a vote and giving the certificate of election to the man who got the most votes. They proceeded to ballot. Mr. Stockton received more votes than any other person, was declared elected, and the joint convention proceeding to the election of other otheers, completed its business, adjourned, and no more was heard of it until a protest is afterwards got up by a minority of the Legislature, a less number than voted for the Senator, who ask now that he be unseated, or who deny the validity of his election because he was elected in the manner that a majority of that joint convention prescribed. There is the case. But a distinction is made by Senators between, a Legislature which can elect and a legislature which can prescribe a rule. Let us test that. It is admitted, not denied by anybody in the Senate, that the 2 bodies of the Legislature in joint meeting may elect a Senator. They are a Legislature for that purpose of electing. Nobody denielthat; but it is said they cannot prescribe a rule. Why can they not? The prescribing of rules is a legislative act, says the Senfrom Maine. Let us see if it is a legislative set. If it is a legislative act, then it must be an act which goes through the forms of legislation, and it must be an not submitted to the Governor for his approval, because no legislative act can have force in the State of NewJersey which is not submitted to the Governor for his aproviil.