Mr. STOCKTON. I desire to sayaword in reply to the oint made by the Senfrom NewHampshire, [Mr. Cancun] He is mistaken in the fact upon which he founds the whole of his argument. The present act regulating the election of Senators in NewJersey is not the not passed in 1790. It cannot possi bly be the same act, because when the constitution was changed, in 1846 I think, the very names of the 2 bodies that constituted the Legislature were changed. The old act commenced, “ Be it enacted by the Council and General Assembly of this State, and it is hereby enacted accordingly.” The act as you will find it at present on our statute book begins, “ Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly.” The word “Council” was changed by the constitution. Let me also refer to the argument the Senator used in reference to the constitution. The old constitution of NewJersey required that officers should be elected by what we used to call a constitutional majority. That was a majority of all elected, if I am right. At present, in case the Governor is elected by the Legislature, the present constitution requires a majority vote; but in reference to all other officers, no such vote is required; nor is there any requisition in the constitution for any number. Therefore the argument is directly the reverse of what the gentleman suggests. The express statement that in case of the election of a governor a majority vote is requiredois an exclusion that it was intended in any other case. I will turn in a moment to the act of NewJersey; I have our revised statutes here. I can say in addition that our laws were all subniited to certain gentlemen to arrange and codify, after the new constitution was adopted, and all the acts in this statute book are laws revised and altered under their direction. On page 547 of Nixons Digest we find this title: “An act to prescribe the manner of appointing Senatorsof the U.S. on the part of this State. Revision. Approved.“ That is, it was approved by the Legislature and made a law after being submitted lor alteration and after being altered, at least in the way that I suggest, by changing the title. It was approved April 10, 1846, after the change of the constitution: “Senators of the U.S. on the part of this State shall be appointed by the Senate and General Assembly of this tatc, in joint meeting assembled; and in caseof vacancy, " &c. The position is taken that the Legislature was to prescribe the rule for the joint meeting; and failing to do so, the rule laid down to legislative assemblies by parliamentary law was to govern. I say that by that very parliamentary law the joint meeting had the right to make any reasonable rule for their government. The position now taken practien ly is, that the senate of the U.S shall make the miles by which the joint meeting of the Legislature of NewJersey shall take the sense of that body. The whole case is there. There are men, clear minded men and lawyers, who will review this case hereafter; men whom fallacies cannot blind; men who will not examine it in their minds and in their judgments with any very nice and hair splitting technicality; men who will honestly and firmly look upon the decision of this Senate without any respect for part; and they will seize that one point, that to Legislature of the State of NewJersey is the properbody to determine how it will take the sense of the body, and not the Congress or the Senate of the U.S.