Mr. JOHNSON. So Iunderstood. But the precedents go to show that in the opinion of the Legislature of NewJersey when they were meeting in joint convention, they could establish rules Without the authority of the Legislature acting concurrently. Now whathave they done? As far back as 1794 NewJersey prescribed the rules for the government of the joint meeting, and they adopted 15 rules. One was: “ That the electionof state officersduring the prel Qlltsessionbe mnanose" The had a ri7lit to do that, I suppose. At least have not word that denied “ unless.when otherwiseordered; and that all officers be put in nomination at least one day before their election.” I suppose they had the authority to do that, and yet there is no rule for it unless this rule be law. “2. Thatthe chairman shall not be entitled to vote, expept in case of a tie, and then to have a casting vo e. Had they authority to do that? The other rules do not so particularly relate to the question before us. In 1851 the following additional rule was adOpted: “ Renolved, That no person shall be elected to any oflloe, at any {oint meetjngdunng the presentsession unlessthere c a.majority of all the memberselected.giyxersouallypresent, and agreeingthereto." They had the authority to pass that, I presumwWhy did they pass it? Wh was it ne eessa m 1851 by rule to provide that noperson shouldbe elected to any office at any such joint meeting unless he received a majority of all the vote}? Beeausein the absence of such a rule, there hnght be another rule by which he might be elected without aniaority; and for the purpose, tluirefore, of excluing the authority to elect by ess than the majority, they passe a positive rule providing that a majority should be required. he power exerte was legislative; the subject to which the power addressed itself was a subject for the legislative Dept of the Government; and if t cy had therefore in the exercise of the power over that subject the authority to provide that a majority should be required, why, in the name of common sense, is it thatthey had not the authority to say that less than a majority should be sufficient? They went on under that rule, and in 1855 when the new constitution was adopted, they reaffirmed the 15 rules adopted as far back as 1794, but added the following: “That all candidates for oflioe, upon receiving a majority of the votese astby this joint meeting, shall be declaredduly elected." The same observations that I made in relation to the rule established in 1851 are applicable to this. But let me read from the report of the committee: “ the joint ineeting of 186ladopted the rulesotthe preceding joint convention for its own government among which were the following." They adopted the rules themselves at each meeting: "1. That the election of State officers during the plrgsentsession be men me. unless when otherwise O CH! " 15.That in all questions the chairmanof the joint meeting be called upon to vote in his turn, as one of the representatives in the Senate or Assembly, but that he have no casting vote ase hairman.” Changing the original rule in that respect, which gave him no authority to vote at al except to throw a castingvote in the result of a tie. “16.That all candidatesfor office, upon receiving amniomy of the votes cast by this joint meeting, shall hedeclared duly elected." They went on under these rules until 1865, when Mr. Stockton was elected, and at the 1st meeting in 1865, before a ballot was cast, they adopted the rules of the preceding joint meeting except the 16th, which required a majority, in en of which the following was adopte: “Resolved, That no candidate shall be declared electedunlessupon receiving a majority of votesof palggipgmmberselectedto both Houses of the Legis Why was that passed?