Mr. Dayton, You must dro him and vote for one of these other 2 candiates." Is that not a power as extensive, as arbitrary, as the power of a majority to say that a plurality may be permit ted to elect? If it be necessary that the individual voice ofeach member of the body should be expressed, and that he should name the individual to be chosen, is he not as effectually deprived of that voice when he is told that he must vote for one of 2 men who have received the highest number of votes as he is when it is said that the choice of a plurality shall prevail? It is nothing in the world but undertaking to say beforehand how the sense of the body shall be made known. It is not the individual elector who elects; it is the legislature as a body, and therefore it matters not what their individual sentiments are, whether they love a man or hate him; whether they de sire him or not. What it is necessary for them to do is, that when they speak out as one body the voice that does speak according to arliomentary usage shall say what is their c oice. But, Mr. President, in 1794 an incident hap pened of a peculiar character. It appeared on the 12th of November, 1794, that there was some mistake in the ballots cast in the election of SecyState: “ It appearedthat one moreballot had been given in the whole number of ballots than memberspres ent in the joint meeting. On the question, whether the election on that account he considered its void, it was carried in the negative. On the question whether ths joint moctinl will investigate take by again taking the ballots, it was catrhrieedmiisn the nfiirmative.” On the 20th of November, 1794, the joint meeting adopted the 1st rules and orders that were ever adopted in the State of NewJersey for the government of the joint meeting of the Legislature, and that was done because of the mistake which had been made a few days he ore and which there was no rule to provide or. The Senate makes rules for itself; the Assembly makes rules for itself; but neither the rules of the Senate nor the rules of the Assembly can govern the joint meeting, because the joint meetin is neither the Senate nor the Assembly. If t mm are no rules, there will be anarchy; and when anarchy was threat ened by the happening of a mistake which there were no rules to correct, the wisdom of those who composed that Legislature induced them to adopt rules, and those rules are the rules which are referred to in the report of the committee, which were adopted in 1794. From that time on there never has been a joint meeting in the State of NewJersey that has not adopted rules for its own government. Upon this point, in order that I may be distinctly a preliended, I be leave to admit most cleary and emphatical y, because it is a fact, thatI have found no resolution de claring specifically the number of votes which should be required as necessary to a choice until 1851. There were resolutions in reference to everything else, but nothing in regard to the number of voices necessary to constitute an election. What, then, was the number of voices necessary? Necessarily, by parliamentary law, a deliberative body is controlled by the majority where there is no other rule prescribed. In 1851, however, the Legislature of NewJer sey established a precedent which, according to the gentlemans own arment, must cover the case. In 1851 the Legislature of NewJer sey being called upon to elect a Senator, the joint meeting when it 1st assembled passed a resolution declaring that it should require a majority of all the members elected to the two Houses of the legislature to elect a Senator in Congress. under that resolution various ballots were bad, and the joint meeting adjourned on several occasions, not being able to electaSemitor. Finally, a gentleman proposed a resolution rese inding that rule an de claring that a majority of those voting should be sufficient to elect. That resolution was adopted, and a gentlemen was declared elected on the same vote which he had had for, perhaps, 18 or 20 ballots before. He was elected, receiving 39 votes, while I had 40 votes, and yet he too his seat in the Senate unquestioned, and remained here until he resigned. Now Mr. President, as a matter of precedent, ify gentlemen be right that the whole oint in this case is that the joint meeting he not the power to adopt a rule of this character, the case to which I have just referred is a direct precedent against them, because the rule originally adopted there required more than a majority of a quorum, and therefore that was a rule which they could not adopt according to the gentlemens argument, not being the natu ral rule; and then they rese inded that rule simply by a major vote, and adopted one permitting a majority of those voting to e ect, thereby having a rule which was as much at variance from the principle that “the Legislature" must be a majority of all those elected as the rule adopted in my case. If “the Legislature” must choose by a majority of all those elected to it, all the State laws which permitted a majority of a quorum to elect are unconstitutional. If a majority of the Legislature is required, if they must vote as individuals, a majority of a quorum of the body,according to the argument of these gentlemen, does not fulfill the requisition. According to my argument it does, for a majority of a quorum of this Senate is, as I say, the Senate; it matters not who the individuals are, or how they vote, or how many are here, if the number is a quo rum it is the voice of the whole Senate.