Mr. STOCKTON. Mr. President, as the discussion of this question has been opened again upon the other side, I desire, in reply, to say a few words before the vote is taken. I have never had a single doubt on my part since I 1st examined this question; and as a simplequestion of law I think, after a full investigation, few soundlawyers would entertain a doubt in regard to it. I had the pleasure before I came here of taking the opinion of man emi nent lawyers, men of different shades o politics, and I found that all those whom I consulted, who examined the case thoroughly, at the conclusion of their examination were of the same opinion. The case was investigated care fully and thoroughly by the Judicinr Committee of this Senate; they did it amp e justice; the considered it as a urely legal question, an the report they made seems to me to be unanswerable in itSelf. Now, Mr. President, let me state the case and in a few minutes give the reasons for the conviction that it is so strong upon any mind. By the Constitution of the U.S or ticle one, section 3, “the Senate of the U.S shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof for 6 years.” Article 1, section 4,“the times, places and manner of holding elections for Sens&Reps shall be prese ibed in each State by the Legislature thereof, ” &c. By the constitution of the State of NewJer se, article 4,section one, the Legislature ofy the State is composed of a Senate and General Assembly, meeting separately in some instances, (article 4,clause one, clause 3) and in others in joint meeting, (article 4,section 5, clause one.) In the latter clause, called “ Legislature in joint meeting;" in article 5, clause 2, “ both Houses injoint meeting, ” and in article 7, section 2, clause 2, clause 3, “ the Senate and General Assembly in joint meeting.” By the statute of NewJersey entitled “An act to prescribe the manner of appointing senators of the U.S. on the part of this State, ” it is enacted “ that Senators of the U.S. on the part of this State shall be appointed by the Senate and General of this State in oint meeting assembAlesds, ”emabne no further provision is command in any statute of the State regulating the choice of Senators, except in case of vacancy, when the Governor may appoint. y be 2nd section of the same act the Governor is required to commission, under the cat seal of the State, every person who shal be elected a Senator. The senatorial term of Hon. JohnGr TenEyck, Senator of the U.S. from the State of NewJersey, expired on the 4th day of March, in the year 186 5. The legislature of NewJersey assembled on the IOlh day of January. in the year 1865, and it became its duty to choose a Senator in his stead to repre sent the State in the Senate of the U.S. To conform to the statute last stated in the choosing of the Senator, ajoint meeting became necessary. Accordingly, seen after the meeting of the Legislature, on the 8th day of February, 1805, the Senate passed the following resolution: Resolved. That the secretarybe directed to inform the House of Assembly that the Senatewill be ready to gointo joint meeting for the appointment of a U.S. Senator. State treasurer and such other State and county officersas may be necessary. on the 15thday of February. instant. at 3 oclock p."m. in the AssemblyChamber. 1nwhich the concurrence of the House of Assembly is requested." On the same day this resolution was sent to the House of Assembly, as follows: The following messagefrom the Senatewas received by the handsof their secretary: “SENATE CHAMBER.February 8. “ 1865. Mr. Speaker: I am directed by the Senate to inform the House of Assembly that the Senate has passed the folloiiin concurrent resolution: Rmolved. That 1 re secretary be directed to inform the llouse of Assembly that the Senate willbe ready to go into joint meetingfor the appointment of U.S. Senator. State treasurer and such other State and county oliiecrsas may be necessaryon the lath day of February. instant. at 3 ocloclr p.m. in"the Assembly Room. In which the concurrence, of the house of Assembly is requested. JOHN Li. MBEhElt. "SecyS.” On the 14th day of February, 1865, the following entry appears in the House Journal: "The resolution from the Senate relative to joint meeting was taken up and concurredin." The following is the journal of the joint meeting: 1.Join! Meeting. Sun: or NewJersey. Aesi iririnveHAMBER. TRl ZNTUNF.ebruary 15.1865. At half past nrec oclock.p. m. the Senate and General Assembly met in joint meeting in the Assembly Chamber for theyuriiose of making sun dry appointments: of U.S. Senator. State. county and township otheers. Hon. Joseph 1.Crowell nominated Hon. Edward W. Seuddpr tor chairman ol the jointmoeting; which was unanimously agreedto. On motion of Mr. llolsman. John H. Meeker was appointed secretary of the joint meeting. a motion of the same Senator, GeorgeB. Cooperwas a pointed asstsecretary. under the dircctior ioetthe chairman the secretary called the jomt meeting, as follows: essrs. Abbott 1. Abbott. N. S. Acton. Allen. anderson. liates.l!eesle Birdsall. Blauvelt. Boilinc. Boss. Brinek. Broking. buckley. Callahan. Cbriud ler.Clever. Corey.Coriell. Crowell. Culver Deuinrcst. Diekeson. Doughty. Douglicrty Diiryca. hislier. Go ble. Green. Haring. Harrison. lieulings lloarland. Boffman. Holmes. holsinan liorner. Iliff. W. J., Inliefld.y.W. M. Irick. Jarrard. Jenkins. Kearney. Kon Kinter. Lake, Landell. Latlirop. Liglhiliipe Lit tle . Ludlam. Martin. Moore. Nicholson. Nixon. ed die. Randolph. Reeves. Robins. Robison, Sehenck. TSacoyvloerl. Seudder. Seitfert. Staats. Stillo. Stockton. Treadwcll. Trusdell Van iiskrrk, " an Vin st. Van Wagoner. Ware. Weart. Willcver. will sou. Wright. Warts. Young 80. Mr. Holsmnn movedthat the rules of the last joint meeting be adoptedfor the Government of this cint meeting. exec t the 16th rule. for which he offored the followrngresolution: Resolved. That no candidate shall be declared electedunless ugon receiving a mrijorit of the votes of gailsl latthuerem. ein are elected to both cases of the Which was agreedto. The said 16th rule of the last jomt meeting was as follows: “16. That. all caudidates for office. upon receiving a majority of the votes cast by this iornt meeting shall be declared to be duly elected.” on motion of Mr. Ilplsman. the resolution under which the joint meeting was called was read. as follows: Henoleed, That the secreta be directed to inform the House of Assembly that the Senate will be ready to go into joint meetingfor the app intment of UniStatos Senator State treasurer and such other tale and county O carsas may be necessary.on the 5th da of February. instant. at throeoclock p. m. in the ssembly. In which the concurrenceof the House of Assembly is requested. Mr. Ludlam moved to proceedto the election of a U.S. Senator. Mr. Heisman moved to amend by postponing the sameuntil the 1stday of March next. Mr. Seovel moved further to amendby postponing t a same until the 7th day of March next. Upon which the yeas&nays were taken. as follows: In the affirrnative.were 20. 80 So said amendment to the amendment was not agreedto. lhcycasandna.thenbeinctaken upon the umendment olfered by Mr. Holnnau. resulted. as follows: In the affirmative. were. In lhc ogative.were 34. SO said amendment was agreedto. On motion of Mr. Heisman. it was Reaolved.That when this joint meetingadjourn it adjourn to meet on Wednesday. March 1. at 3 p.m. After appointing a large number of State officere. on motion of Mr. Heisman. the joint meeting adjourned. In Joint Meeting. Assunnnv EnAinmri. WEDNESDAY.March 1. 1565. At 3 oclock p. m. the ndjourned joint meeting cameto orderjn the Assembly Chamber. Under the drrcction ot the chairman the secretary called the jouit meeting.when the followmg gentlemen answeredto their names: 80. eleMcrt.iollnoolsfu Uiulnlll.m((ol ved that the considerationof the StatesSenator be postponeduntil the 15thday of March instant. The {lens&nays beingdemanded and ordered iipont c question of agreeing thereto.were as follows: In the affirmative.were Messrs.Abbott. L. anderson. Allen. Boss. Broking. Chandler. Corey. Coricll. Culver. Demurest Doughty Doughert. Dur ea.Ed snll. Goble. llnrihgl. Hop: and Ho man. iolmes. llolsmihine.unIlcildiy. W”h.in. telrl.ill )V. M. Jenkins. hear Little Martin. Robins. Selienek. Seovel. Seiidder. Sei ert. Stille. Taylor. Trciidwcll. lrusdell.Van Buskirk. Van V0rst, Wcart. Willcver. Warts. Young 43. In the negative were 37. So the motion was agreedto. Mr. llolsumu moved that when this oi nt meeting udourii it fter betomectonthelzithdayofll arch.instn nt. appointing several State ofilccrs.on motion Mr. Heisman ejornt meetingthou adjourned. In Joint Meeting., Asssiinnr CHAMBER. WEDNESDAY, March 15.1865. At 3 oclock p. m. the adjourned meetingcame to order in the AssemblyChamber. nder the direction of the chairman the secretary called the Joint meeting.when the followmg gentlemen answeredto their names: Messrs. Abbott L., Abbott N. S. Acton Allen. anderson. Bates.Beeslev.Birdsall, Blnuvelt. Bodine. Boss.Brinck. Broking. uckley Callahan. Chandler. Cleaver. Corey. Corioll Croivell. Culver. Demo rest. Diekeson Doughty. Doughert I) uryea. Edsall. Fisher. (ioble. Green Haring nrrison. Heulinzs. lIoafland. llollman holinee. llolsmun. ilorner. Ilitf. w., iiiir )Y.M. Irick. Jarrard.Jenkius. Kearney. Kennedy. inter. Lake Landell. Lathrop. Light hipe. Little . Ludlain. Martin. Moore. hicholson. Nixon. Peddie. Rondo] h. Reeves.Robins. Bobison. Sehenek. Seovel. Sou der. Seiffert. Stunts. Stille. Stockton. Tnvlor. Treadwoll Trusdell. Van Buskirk. Van Vorst. an Wagoner. Ware. Weart. Willever. Wilson. Wright. Warts. Young 81 It will be noticed that at the call of the joint meeting at its 1st session only 80 members answered to their names. There was a vacancy in the Legislature at that time, occasioned by the death of Mr. Fowler, a member from Sussex. Prior to the election of Mr. Stockton, however, Mr. Edsall was elected to fill that vacanc; thus completing the full numerical strengt of the Legislature present and voting on this occasion. Mr. holsman offerod the following resolution and movedits adoption: Received.That the resolution that no candidate shall be declared elected unless ufion receiving a majority of the iotesofall the mom or selected to both oasesof the Lecislatiire berese inded and that any candidate receiving a plurality of votes of the memberspresentshall be declared duly elected. Mr. Lndlani moved that the question bedivided. The chairinan ruled said motion out of order. the secretaryhaving commenced to call the roll upon the advition of said resolution. l hereupon.Mr. Crowcll appealed from the decision of the Chair. Upon the neutron. Shall the decisionof the Chair he sustainc I the Fees and nayii being taken re sulted as follows:. In the aflirmntive. GZ. In the negative. l5. So the decision of the Chairwns sustained. The question then bein upon the adoptionof the resolution adored by Mr. olsinan and O you and uuvs belllKtaken.resulted as follows: Affirmative l8 Negative 40. So said resolutionwe: udogtrd. Mr. lenlrins movedthat the joint meetingdo now ourn rmedie. lpon which theyoas&nayswere taken. with the followmg result: In the alfirmative. were 10. In the negative.: So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. Heisman moved that the joint meetingdo now proceedto the election of U.S. Senator. Which was agreedto. Whorcupon Mr. Heisman nominated Hon.John P. Stockton. of the county of Mercer. Mr. hennedfine miniited Hon. James W. Wall. of the county of urlirigton. Mr. Doughty nominated Hon. Peter D.Vrooin. of the county of Mr. Jenkins Mneormceirn.ated Hon. Henry S. Li ttle. of the county of Monmouth. Mr. Seovel nominated lion. F. T. Freiinghuysen. of l the count of Essex. Mr. Lui lam nominated Hon. John C. TenEyck. of the county of Burliu to n. Mr. Little declined cing a candidate and desired his namewithdrawn. Under the direction of the chairman. the secretary called the joiut meeting.resulting as follows: For John P. Stockton. 30. For John C.TenEyck. For James W. Wall. 1. For Peter D. Yroom. l. For F. T. hrelinghiiyson. l l. For Henry S. Little . 1. Hon. John P. Stockton having receiveda plurality of all the votese ast.wasdeclared duly elected U.S. Senator for the term of 6 years from the 4th (in of March instant. After appointing several State o the crs. Mr. {{lllilgtiilmoved that the joint. Meeting do now rise. iic was a ree to. Attest: 8 JOHN H. Manama, ficrdary qf the Joint mfeeting. Now, Mr. President, 2 general propositions arise under this statement of the prowsions of the U.S and State constitutions, the statute of the State, and the proceedings of the “ Legislature in joint meeting assembled, ” namely: I. Was the Senator so elected “chosen by the Legislature” of the State? H. Was the “time, place, and manner” of holding such election prescribed by the legislature in the sense 0t these words as use in the Constitution of the U.S.? I. Under the 1st proposition it will be necessary to inquire, 1st, whatis the Legislature of NewJersey 7 and 2nd, did therLegislature make a choice? 1. What is the Legislature of NewJersey? The constitution of NewJersey, article 4,section one, clause one, provides, “The legislative power shall be vested in a Senate and General Assembl.” Articlefour, section one, clause 3, “T e 2 Houses shall meet separately 0n the 2nd Tuesda in January next after said day of election.” at the constitution also provides for the meeting of the 2 Houses, not separately, but in joint meetiu. Article 7, section 2, “ Jut ges, &c., shal be appointed by the Senate and General assemblyin jointineetin.” Clause 3, “The State treasurer, &c., shall be appointed by the Senate and General Assembly in joint meeting.” Article 5, clause 2, in a certain case the Governor shall be chosen “by the votes of a majority of the members of both Houses in joint meeting.” But the question recurs, when met in joint meeting are the 2 Houses still the Legislature? Article 4,section live, clause one, provides that “ No member of the Senate or GeneralAssembly shall, during the term for which he was elected, be nominated or appointed by the Governor or by the Legislature in joint meeting, ” kc. Article 5, clause 12: “Where a vacancyhappensdnring therecessof the Legislature in any officewhich is to be filled by the Governor and Senate or by the Legislature in joint meeting. the Governor shall fill.” kc. The journal of the constitutional convention in NewJersey shows that the clause cited above from article 4,when originally reported by the committee, did not contain the words “ Legislature in joint mectin, ” but simply said, during the time for wthe he was elected or appointed.” It was amended in ComWhole by inserting after “appointedH the words “by the Governor and Senate, or by the Legislature.” On motion of Mr. Ewing, (page 150, Convention Journal.) the amendment was amended by strikingout “ Legislature and inserting “joint meeting.” On motion of Chief Justice Hornblower, (page 151, Convention Journal) it was again amended by inserting before “joint meeting” the words “Legislature in.” The very object of this amendment was to conclude this question which had been raised in reference to the constitutions of some other States. These passages from the constitution of NewJersey (which only can define what is the legislature of the State) show conclusively that an election by the joint meeting is an election by the Legislature. But the Senate of the U.S., from 1789 to the present time the last 77 years has recognized the joint meeting of the NewJersey Legislature as the Legislature thereof, whatever may be the Legislature of other States. Every Senfrom NewJersey has been elected by the joint meeting under the rules prescribed by the same pr a similar statute. Unless the oint. meetiu is the Legislature we never have hada U.S. Senfrom NewJersey. 2. Did the Legislature make a choice? “The Senate of the U.S shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for 6 cars.” This establishes the body of electors. t has no reference to “ manner" of selection. “Chosen by the Legislature” is elected by the Legislature. It is the Legislature, not the people, who are to choose. “Elzgerc, ” to take out or elect, to call out one thing before an other, to select. “To choose” is “to elect.” That the words are used in the Constitution as synonyms is manifest from other clauses of the same instrument: “Who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” The times, places, and manner of holding “elections” for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed “in each State by the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” “The Senate shall choose their other odi cers and also a President protempare.” “Each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its own member“s, ” &c. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time fer which he was elected.” “The HoRep shall be composed of members chosen every 2nd yea“r.No person shall be a Representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” The HoRep shall choose their Speaker.” Yet, under this last clause, it is to be noted that Howell Cobb and N. P. Banks were each “chosen” by a plurality vote Speakers of the House. The 1st clause of the 4th section of the 1st article is as follows: “The times. places and manner of holding elections for Sens&Reps shall be prescribedin eachState by the Legislature thereof; but the Congressmay at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to t 8 place of choosing Senators." It is well known that this clause of the constitution was assailed 1n the State conventions on the ground that Congress might contrive the manner of holding elections so as to exclude all but their own favorites from office. The conventions of the States of Virginia, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, NewYork, RhdIsl and and SCarolina accompanied their ratification of the Constitution With a solemn protest against the power of congress over the election. They prepared amendments to the Constitution calculated to carry out their views, and recorded on their journals perpetualinstructions to their rercsentatives in congress to urge earnestly an zealously their adoption, and to refrain from the exercise of any power in consistent With the principles of the proposed amendments. Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, section 826, after having stated the objections to the latter part of the clause which were made at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the reasoning by which they were met, thiis concludes: “A period of 40 years hassince passedby without any attempt byCongressto makeany regulations or interfere in the slightestdegreoin the electionsof membersof Congress. If. therefore, experiencecan demonstrateanything. it is the entire safety of the spoonwinegr in congress.which it is scarcelypossible(rea from the past)should beexerted exce it upon v cryurgent occasions. The Statesnow regu atq the time the place and the manner of elections in a practical sense exclusively. The manner is very various; and perhaps the power has beenexertedin someinstances.under the influence of local or party fcclings.to an extent which is ipdefcpsiblein principle and polic. There is no uniformity in the clioics or in the mo e of election. In someStates the Rop Representatives are chosen by a general ticket for the whole State; in others they are chosen singly in districts. kc. In some States the candidate must have a majority of all the votesto entitle him to be dot inedelected; in others (as it is in England) it is sufficientif he hasa plurality of votes. 11 some of the States the chmceis by the voterse um cog e(asit is in England:) in others it is byballot. The timesof the elections are quite as various. sometimcshbeforo and sometimesafter the regular period at which the office becomes vacant. That this want ofuniformity as to the time and modeof election has beenpro ductive of someinconvenienceto the public service cannot be doubted, for it hassometimesoccurredat an extra sessiona whole State has been deprived of its vote and at the regular sessionssoinc districts have failed of beingrepresenteduponquestionsvital to their interests. Still. sostrong has been the sense of Congressof the importance of leaving these matters to State regulation that no cfforthas beenliith crto made to cure theseevils, and public opinion has almost irresistibly settled down in favor oing system.“ the exist Contrary to the prediction of the learned commentator, Congress passed an act in 1842, entitled “An act for the apportionment of Representatives among the severalStates accRoerging to the 6th census, ” the 2nd section of which provides that in every case where a State is entited tomore than one representative, the number to which each State shall be entitled under this apportionment shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of Representatives to which the State may be entitled. The authority under which Congress made this provision was the 4th section of article 1st, the latter part of which says Congress may at any time make or alter the State regulations in reference to the manner of choosing Sens&Reps. lVhen the law of Congress passed, NewHampshire, NewJersey, Alabama, Georgia, Missis sippi, and Missourihad election laws requirin their representatives to be elected by genera ticket. ewJersey and Alabama conformed to the law of congress. It was insisted that the elections of NewHampshire, Georgia, and Missouri, underthe Statelaw, werehIlSvoSildS.Sllligl, e debate on the subject occupied a large part of the session. The majority of the committeeto whom it was referred reported that the law was unconstitutional, and the members elected on general ticket entitled to their seats. The mine irty reported that the law was valid, and the seats should be declared vacant. Neither report was formally agreed to, but it was voted y a decided majority that the members retain their seats. The reports were both prepared by gentlemen of great ability the majority report by Stephen A. Douglas, and that of the minority by Garrett Davis. But both the majority report of Mr. Douglas, and the minorit report of Mr. Garrett Davis:1. ea, so far as tequestion concerns the right of the Legislature to prescribe any manner, where Congress does not exercise its privilege the State Legislature shall prescribe the timcs, places, and manner. Says Mr. Douglas: "An imperative duty rests upon the Legislatures, while a mere privilege is granted toCongress.In the performauce of this duty. theLegislaturesareclothed with a wide discretion. upon which the Constitution imposesnorestraints. the ymay providefor elections by general ticket or in districts; for votingby hallo or visa pace: for opening the polls at.one p ricean on one day or at dillerent places and on differont days. These and all things pertaining to the tim places and manner of holding electionsare confid to the wisdom and discretion of the several Legislatures, to be performed in such manner as they shall deemmostfavorable to popular rights and Just Representation." He alludes to the fact that when General Pinckncy proposed in the Convention which formed the Constitution, that the Representatives “should be elected in such manner as the Legislatures of each State shall direct, ”v he urged among other reasons in support of his lan, “that this liberty would give more satis taction, as the Legislature could then accommodate the mode to the convenience and opinions of the people.” Mr. Davis says: “Some of the Stateshave passedlaws regulating their election of senntors; 0ters have not; and yet the constitutionality of the regulations of the latter Statesfor holding their elections of Representatives has not been and cannot be questioned. such States nshave no regulations by law for the senatorial elections may malts them also; so Congresse ould pas a law requiring the election of Senators generally; for that would beanalteration of the electionregulation! of some of the States by adding to them. Congress couldthnsestablishuniformityin themodeof electing Senators. by enacting a law requiring both branches of the StateLegislatures to choose by their aggregate vote and might confine its action to thatoriiny other particular regulation for the election of Senator s. hat principle has generally prevailed in senatorial elections. dtc. the StateLegislatiires might alter their existing regulations relating tojime or place or manner. confining their action to either one." The report illustrates the meaning of the expression ohosoii” by the Legislature, u used in the Constitution in reference to Senators, and “chosen” every 2nd year by the people of the several States, in reference to representatives, insistin that this is only an in iontion of the body of electors, not the manner of elections, or the absurdity follows, that the people of every State not only have a right, butare ound to “ choose” the HoRep. it is manifest that the only object of this clause was to establish the body of electors, both as to Sens&Reps. The House is composedof members “ chosen” every 2nd year “by the people” of the several States, and the time, place, and manner of the choice is to be prescribed by the State legislatures. “ he Senate is composed of 2 Senators chosen by the legislaure" for 6 years, at the time, in the place, and by the manner preseribed by the Legislature. Chosen “ by the people” is always by a plu rality vote in NewJersey; the Legislature has so rescribed. hosen “by the Legislature” is as the senate and Assembly, in whom our constitution has vested all legislative power, shall prescribe; and in failure of a special rule prescribed, the pale of the body is prescribed by parliamentary aw. The times, places, and manner for holdin elections for Sens&Reps shal be prescribed in each State y the Legislature thereof. In some of the States it is rescribed by statute that the election shall be y concurrent action, in some by joint vote, in others an ef fort is 1st made to electby separate action, and on failure thereof resort is ha to joint meeting. Some States require a majority of all the members elected to choose a Senator, some only a majorit of those present and voting, some leave the number of votes necessary to the oint meeting, to determine either by rule for bat purpose, or parliamentary law, while some States it would seem have never passed any law on the subject, and must therefore prescribe the manner at the time by the action of the bod electing. NewYork. such election shall be made by the Legislature in the followin manner: the Senate and Assembly shall each o enly nomi nate one person for the Office of Senator in Congress; after which they shall immediately meet, and if they shall agree in their nominations, the person so nominated shall be apoiiited to the office for which he shall be nom inated. If they shall disagree, the election shall be made by the joint ballot of the senators and members of Assembly. Pennsylvania. By joint ballot; and a majority of the members present required to elect. Vermont. 1st by separate vote, and if the same person does not receive the majority of all the votes in each House, then by oint bal lot; and a majority of all the votes ofI the joint assembly required. NCarolina provides that the election shall be by joint vote of both Houses of the General Assembly, the vote being viva voce; and it is necessary to have a majority of the votes of both Houses to elect. wise onsin elects by joint vote, declaring in section 2 of the act, a majority of all the votes given shall be necessary to elect a senator. In Michigan the Senate and House shall each Openly nominate one person for the Office Of Senator, after which, they shallimmediately meet in joint convention in the hall of the House. If they shall agree, the person so nominated shall be deemed elected. If they shall disagree, the election shall be made by a joint vote of the senators and members, and a majority of the votes given in such convention shall be necessary to an election. Louisiana elects by joint vote; “and the person or persons having the greater number of votes shall be declared duly elected Senator or Senators, provided such number be a Mofity of all the members present." Kentucky. Senators in the Congress of the U.S shall be elected by viva vocevote of the members of the 2 branches of the General Assembly in joint ballot Alabama. A majority of the whole number necessary to a choice. Indiana. Hereafter all elections of U.S. Senators and other Officers to be elected by the General Assembly of this State shall be viva vocc, except certain officers specified, who are to be elected by joint ballot. Maryland. By joint ballot; and the person or persons qualified, and having a majorit of the votes of all attendin members in 0th branches, shall be declare duly elected. Arkansas. Joint vote; majority of all the votes given required. California. oint vote; a majority of all the votes given necessary to elect a Senator; and the convention can do no not but adjourn in the absence of a majority of all the members elect, in either Senate or Assembly. In Mississippi the act is as follows: An act prescribing the time, manner, and place of holding electionsfor Senatorsto Congress. At the regular session of the General Assemblyof this State next preceding the expiration of the term of a U.S. Senator or at any other session in which a vacancyor executive appointment shall be reported by the Governor, shall e the time of electing U.S. Senators. The mannershall be by vote of each memberof the Senate and each member of the HoRepin the State Legislature, and the placeof holding such election shall be in the hall of the HoRep of this State, and the particular day and hour of speh clect on shall be determined In eachcaseby aJtResolution of both Houses. In RhdIsland it is provided that Senators shall be elected by General Assembly in rand committee, and not in separate Houses. he name of each member shall be called aloud by the clerk; he hands in a ballot and responds the name aloud; nothing said about the number of votes necessary to a choice. Delaware elects in joint meeting; requires a majority of all the votes given as necessary to a choice; but if upon any balloting, 2 persons only shall be voted for and receive all the votes, and each of them an equal number of votes, the Speaker of the Senate shall give an additional casting vote, unless he shall be one of said persons, in which case the Speaker of the HoRep shall give an additional casting vote, unless he shall be the other of said persons; and further, if upon twice balloting, more than 2 persons 5 all be voted for, and one of said persons shall on each balloting receive one hal the number of all the votes given, then on the 2nd ballot the Speaker of the Senate may give an additiona casting vote to the person having 1/2 the number of all said votes, unless he shall be such person, &c. It will be observed that NewYork, Kentucky, Mississippi, Indiana, and RhdIsland, as well as NewJersey, require no particular numbers of votes, leaving the Legislature to manifest their choice in the manner they determine by their own rules. “ Louisiana declares 1st the “ plurality” rule the person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared duly elected, ” but subsequently provides that such number must be a, majority of all the members present. The law in Delaware is really a “plurality” law; for, where 2 persons have an equal number of votes, or one person shall have half of all the votes given, the Speaker gives an additional casting vote. Now, if it be true, as is alleged, that “chosen by the Legislature" means that at least a majority of the members should select the candidate, by directly voting for him, the permission to the Speaker to vote twice does not accomplish that necessary object. But if it is the “choice of the Legislature, ” manifested in any way the majority may see fit that is required, the object is attained and if a majority may not express their choice by a plurality vote, this act of Delaware is unconstitutional. Again, if it is a majority of all the members which is required, the laws of Pennsylvania, Michigan, issouri, Arkansas, Maryland, and Wisconsin are unconstitutional, for the majority of a quorum can elect under them. If, for exam lo, the number of members of any of the legislaures of these States is 81, a majority of the whole number is a quorum, namel, 41; a majority of the quorum is 21 members. here fore, 21 members out of 81 members, under the law of all these States, are capable of choosing a Senator. The rule requiring only a majority of the members voting has frequently been the rule of the joint meeting of NewJersey, and under it they elected a U.S. Senator in the year 1851, by less than a majority, and his right to his seat was never questioned. In this election the joint meeting 1st adopted a rule requiring a majority of the whole number; they subsequently rese inded itfor a majority of those voting, and elected by 3.)votes. In the case under consideration at present they adopted the rule requirin a majority of the whole number, and rese ined for the plu rality rule, and elected by 40 votes. During the argument inllarlanse ase, 30 4th Congress, 3rd session, Mr. Hale sai: “ It is said it is impossibleto make anything else the Legislature than the Legislature. That is true but doesan gentlemanherocontendthat it wasnot competent or the peopleofIowa to saytbat lessthan ii.majority should constitutea quorum if they saw fit so to do? Ia prehend not. In the Legislature of the State of assacliuse tts, when the HoRepe onsisted of some 400 or 500 members, 60 of them constituted a quo rum, and when the Senateconsistedof 40 members. 16 formedaquorum. 16 senatorsand 60 representatives might pass a bill, or do any other legislativeuct. but nobodyeversnppose dthat wasan infringement of the constitutional provision that the Legislature mustdo certainthings.” In the above case, cited by Mr. Hale, 30 one members in the House might express the will of the 500 members; and in the Senate 9 members might express the will of the 40 members; and thus the voice of 40 members was the voice of a Legislature which was composed of upwards of 500 members. The act in NewJersey simply says, Senators of the U.S. on the part of this State shall be appointed “by the Senate and General Assembly in joint meeting assembled.” There is no constitutional restriction, no restriction on the “manner, ” no provision asto the number of votes necessary. The act is eloquently silent on that subject. The joint meetings have from the earliest record always made their own rules, at one time requiring a majority of all elected, at. another time a majority of those present, electiu to some otiiccs without a bal ot, sometimes y acclamation, sometimes by silence. On this occasion they 1st required a majority of all elected; they then by a ina jority vote rese inded that resolution and adopted one declaring that the lnrality rule should prevail, and the rson who had the most votes should be dec in ed elected. Now the question is, whether the Senate of the U.S shall make, retrospectively, rules to govern the joint meeting of NewJersey, or whether it can by a majority vote prescribe the manner of indicating its choice. I he same clause that prescribes that the time, place, and manner of holding elections for senators shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature provides also in the same words for the election of representatives. Yet Representatives in NewJersey are always elected by a pluralit vote, and the statute declares that the hour of State canvassers shall to determine the person or persons wproocseheadll by the greatest number of votes have been duly elected; and under this very clause of the constitution, every member of Congress from NewJersey has always been elected by a plurality. Now, suppose the statute relating to the election of Senator had prescribed the plurality rule to the joint meetin, would it not have been valid? Certainly, it the general election law is valid. Yet, if it is, as charged, in violation of the Constitution for the joint mcetin to make such a rule, it must be in violation of the Constitution for the Legislature to prescribe it, and hence the election of Representatives from NewJersey has always been unconstitutional. The plurality rule has been the rule I in such elections in most of the States. The 1 States of Maine and Massachusetts were exceptions, but the inconvenience of the majority rule in electing Representatives was so great that it induced an amendment of the State constitutions of these States. But suppose that the majority is necessary to a point a Senator. The “ manner” in which the majority manifests that choice, in failure of any restriction of the constitution of the State or of the U.S., is certainly confided to their discretion, whether they vote by ballot or vicavocc; whether by rising or sitting; whether by permitting a plurality to indicate their choice, or requiring a majority of all the members elected, it is for them to decide. They did decide, that they “ chose” the candidate who, on the coming ballot, should receive the most votes. It was not an unreasonable manner, for it was the rule adopted by the general election law of the State. t was the manner in which members of Congress were elected under the same clause of the Constitution of the U.S. which imposed upon them the duty they were on ged in performing. The Constitution of the U.S. commanded the Legislature to rescribe the manner of electing Senators. The Legislature by general enactment directs that the Senate and general Assembly, in joint meeting assembled, shall perform that duty. The constitution of New erse vests all legislative power in the Senate an General Assembly, and recognizes them as the Legislature when in joint meeting assembled. By custom dating before the constitution of the U.S., and continued to the present day, the 1st act of the joint session has been to rescribe the rules for the government of that ody. Under these circumstances can it be gravely insisted that the majority of this body was incompetent to make such a rule? But if they had no power from their legislative character, or from immemorial custom to performthe dut confided to them, by the adoption of rules which seemed to them calculated to attain the ends in view; still they were bound by arliamentary law, and wereclothed, atleast, with that authority, which appertains to all de liberative bodies. Mr. Cashing says, chapter fou“r, section 3: In all collective bodies of men assembledand daectciindginthokguepthoenarnfoyr the purpose of deliberating and suhject, or for the purpose ofselect imngrto anyoflicc.it is an admitted principle that what is doneor agreedto by the grenternumbershall ltlnd as the act or the will of the whole.” Again, section six: “Tho law of the majorityis universally admittedin all legislative assemblies, unlessin referenceto particular cases.persons, or circumstances, a different rule is prescribedbysomeparamountauthority, or is agreed upon beforehand and established by the assembly itself, bywhich asmaller numberis permitted or a largltxunumbgr is required to do someparticular act. at evenin these casesit is the Will of the majority thut goverm; becauseit is by a major vote: HI the 1stmatance.thattherule itsolfis established." In part 6, chapter 3, section 1826: " Everyquestion which is proponndedto a legislative assembly for its determination, and voted upon in any of themannersproscribed, receives its decision accordinc to the preponderanceof the votes.which, unless some other rnle is expresslyprescribed.asthere usually is ii i each assembly in reference to particular apostions, is ordinarily etIectedby a maiority. In use cases where the rules or customs of any assembly allow a vote to remain on an equal division, the decision.asneither side preponderatee is necessarily the negative. In many cases it is provided.either a constitutional requisition or by rule. that partic ar questions.in order to prevail shall require more. 2: vnodru. ynt of less, than the ordinary majority in their The 40 votes given for Mr. Stockton, no one else having more than 87, was, then, an indication of the will of the majority, and that was the Will of the whole. Every member elected to the Legislature was present and voted; no protest or objection was made. The result is, that “the Legislature, " and every member of it, voted for, chose, and appointed Mr. Stockton. The question is clear y within the principle of the case.from Florida, which was unan imously decided by the Senate. The result of that case was to establish the principle that, until Congress shall pubs an act on the subject, the State Legislatures may choose their own methods for the election of U.S. senators. In this case it appeared thata poll viva once was taken of the members, pursuant to the requirements of the constitution of the State, an 29 responded David Yulce, and 29 blank; whereupon the presiding officer declared that no choice had been made. They then proceeded to a 2nd and 3rd vote, With substantially the same result. On the 15th ofJan uiy, 1851, they again met in convention for the same purpose, and upon a call of the roll, 31 members responded Mr. Mallor, and 27 voted for Mr. Yulce, and others; whereu on the president declared Mr. Mallory to be uly elected. Neither the record nor any other evidence in the case shows that any objection was made at the time. The certificate of election was granted to Mr. Mallory, and be, having been quahfied, held the seat. Mr. Yulce contested the seat on the ground that he was himself elected at the 1st vote, because there was a quorum of each House present, and he being t ie only qualified person voted for, had a majority of this legal votes; those who responded “ lank, ” voted for no qualified person, and waived their rights. Mr. Mallory opposed to this inference a resolution of the 2 Houses, adopted in 1845 by concurrent vote, which had never been rese inded, and was in the following words: “Itemlverl That amajority of all theinembers elect composingtho twoHousesof GeneralAssembly, shall be necessary to determine all electrons dovolvmg upon that body. The whole number of members elect was 59, and Mr. Ynlce not having a majority of that number was not elected, if the rule was bindin and valid. Mr. right, on behalf the committee to whom the Florida case was referred, made a report, which says: LegIitslamtuarye bteoorbeseMrvaettdtthhaettitmhee, ppolwaceer.given to the and manner applies as well to representativesasto Senators; and hare again are other diversities in themannerof exercising it. Some States clect by a othersby a majority, and others hapvle urraelqituyiroefd votes: at the first trial a minority and a plurality afterward. Some. again. (until ongressm a calaw upon the subject.) electedby a general ticket, othersbyasingle district, or districts entitled tomore than onc.according to convenience. None of thesemodesof electing Senators or Representativeshave been held unconstitutional. but members have been uniformly admitted to their seats.whether electedin oneormoreof these modes. Those practices have at all times existed and haveiiiiiformly beenrecognizedase constitutional. proving clearly that the discretion repose din the legislatures of the Statesmay beexercisedin a diver sity ofwnys, and yet be a sufficient compliance with tvhieewrse, qthueirec momenmtisttoefetrheeco Cmomnsetnitdutthioena.doWptiitohnotfhese the following resolution: “licmlcerl, That hon. StephenIt. Mallory wasduly electeda memberof the Senate of the U.S. from the 3dday of March. 1851." After lengthy debate the report of the committee was adopted, and the resolution unanimously passed. Mr. oombs, in Harlans case, (Congressional Globe, 3rd session 34thou gress, page 299) says: preIsocwraibehthase ampoedrefeinct wrhigichht, huenrtiSl ta Ctoensgcrneustsoaientsa.nted representatives shall cast their votes, as she pleases. Istayosu.ght to be fixed. not as the Senfrom Maine by the particular Legislature which elects. There is nothing in the constitution like that. Power is given to Congress, and in exactly the samewords to the Lcizislature any Legislature which maybe lawfully constitutedunder the constitution of Iowa. There is perfectand abso his power on this subject in the Legislatures in the States until Congressacts. hen Congresse hooses, it can define how those persons whose duty it is under the Constitution to elect Senators shall do so. The State Legislatures can exorcise the right. It can be done by majority, or by a lurality or in any way, so that all the electors are allowedto vote and none are deprived of their right." Hrhe 1st article of the Constitution of the U.S. enacts that the HoRep shall “ choose" their “ Speaker and other officers. In reference to an election for Speaker, Mr. Cashing says: "In.reenrd to the number of votes necessaryto elect. it seemsto be a rule established at least by practice and usage that nothing short of minority an absolute Will be suilicientcven in those statesw are the etcuction of other oficers takes place by a pin But he adds in a note: “In the HoRepin Congress the Speakerhas always been elected without any previous obrudtesrimofpltyheinlloV irutsuce.orl provisionofluw to that died. o a resolution of the House to proceedto the election of a Speaker. On one occasion, and the only one it is believed that ever took place.the principlhwas departed from. the election of Speaker oft of House in the 31st conesr, contestedprincipally betweenHon. Robert C. inthrop, of Massachusetts.who had beenSpeaker of the last House, and Hon. Howcll Cobb of Georgia. That memorablecontestbeganon the of December in 1849 and endedon the 22dafter 63 bal Previous to the lust balloting a resolution was adopted. that at the next trial, in order to in sure an organization a lurality should be sufficient to elect. At the last alloting Mr. Cobb received 102votes out of 222, and was accordingly declared elected." It is well known that alter a much more severe struggle in 1856. Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., on the 133rd ballot was elected Speaker under the plurality rule, having only 103 votes out of 214. Now, it will be remembered, that in the HoRep the Speaker has always been elected without any previous order of the House, while in NewJersey the joint meeting have always made their own rules. That an absolute majority by law garliamenta is required for a presiding o cer where a other appointments may be made by a plurality. That the Speaker is required to be “ chosen” as well as Senators under the Constitution. If a lurality has twice elected or “chosen” a Speaker of the House, cannot a plurality, when a majority has so ordered, elect orchoosa a Senator? It may be urged that the consequences which would follow from permitting less than a majority of the whole to elect. furnish a conclusive argument against it. This was the argument used this morning: that if 2 members vote for one person, and every other member by himself for different individuals, the person having 2 votes would haven pliirality, and 2 votes might elect. That this argument is mere soph istry is easily manifested: l. The question is, whether the NewJersey Legislature in joint meeting assembled had the constitutional right to choose a Senator by adopting by a majority vote a plurality rule. This argument amounts to no more than that there might be cases “wherethe rule would be inconvenient.” it is an argument ab incon cement alone, and might be properly urged to prevent the adoption of the rule, but it does not touch the question of power on the part of the joint meeting to make it. 2. After the majority had adopted the rule, by parliamentary law 2 votes were 41 and 41 were 81. The majority adoption of the rule is the solemn pledge that they will accept the result as their own act. They vote for the can didate who has the plurality in advance. 8. The argument from inconvenience applies equally to the election of members of the HoRep: if a conclusive argument in one case, it is so in the other, for it is the same clause in the Constitution under which the elections are held, and from which the power is derived, and the consequence is that our election law and that of nearly every other State is unconstitutional, and we have never had a constitutional HoRep. 4. The majority rule did exist in Maine and NewHampshire, and was abolished as the most inconvenient of the two. 5. Nearly all the State appointments made by the joint meeting are made with only 2 or 3 voting; sometimes no voteis taken at all. It is done by agreement and consent. yet the silent assist in choosing the persons appointed. By way of example. in the joint meeting which elected Mr. Stockton, on motion of Mr. Holsman it was “resolved that the vote for county judges and commissioners of deeds be taken by nce lamation and that the counties in which vacancies exist be called in alphabetical order.” When, on motion of Mr. Lake, a list of ten gentlemen were appointed commissioners. 6. That under the laws of at least 6 of the States where a majority of those present are permitted to cast the vote a majority of the 220mm may elect, and the majority of the gislature may not be present and voting at all. That under a, similar role the joint meeting of NewJersey have elected a U.S. Senator who took his seat unquestioned. I now come to the 2nd point: H. Was the “ time, place, and manner” of holding such election rescribed by the legislature in the sense of these words as use in the Constitution of the U.S.? There is no objection to the “time and place;” the only question is, was the “manner” prescribed in the sense intended by the Constitution of the U.S.? Neither the words “time” or “place" aEect the question whether a majority of votes or less is necessary to a choice. The whole objection must be to the defective prescription of the “manner.” If the word “manner” has no reference to number of voices that shall elect, then the failure of the Legislature to prescribe the number of voices necessary to a choice is no objection to the indication by the jointmeeting of the number of voices by which the will of the majority shall beexpressed. In the ab sence of any legislative rule as to the number of voices neccssar, the joint meeting. as a de liberative body, iad full power, under parliamentary usage, to determine, by a majority of its members; the number of votes which shall indicate their choice. In the prtlent in stance they declared that the vote of a plurality should indicate their choice; that vote indicated Mr. Stockton. He was therefore the choice of the joint meeting in the manner indicated by the majority. But if the word " manner" does relate to the number of voices necessary to a choice, then has no “ manner" ever been prescribed by the Legislature of NewJersey, by concurrent action, but such “ manner” has always been prescribed by the rules of the “ Legislature in joint meeting assembled.” No Senator has, therefore. ever been elected from NewJersey. All such elections have been void. The Legislature may prescribe by other means than a law. It may exercise its authority by JtResolution, by rule, and by ordinance and each House rescribes rules for its own government. nder them the voice of the House maybe taken in a variety of ways, by acclamation, by tellers, by rising, and by yeas&nays. When the actionof cither House is reported to the other, they cannot inquire into the means by which such action was arrived at; that is controlled by the bodies themselves. Upon what principle, then, can the “jointmeeting” be debarred from exercising the same privilege? The rules of the Senate cannot bind them, for they are not the Senate; nor can the rules of the House for the same reason. Yet there must be rules or there would be anarchy. Suppose, however, for the sake of the argument, that the “ Legislature in joint meeting as sembled, " is not the Legislature alluded to by the Constitution of the U.S., when it directs that the “manner” of choosing senators shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; that the joint meeting, although competent to elect, could not prescribe the “ manner, ” and you are driven to the in evitable conclusion that “the manner, ” as the expression is used in the Constitution, does not necessarily include within its meaning the regulation of the number of votes necessary to a choice, for the act in several other States, as well as NewJersey, fails to prescribe the number of votes necessary, and the manner therefore has never been prescribed in any of these States by the Legislature. Consequently, no Senators have ever been constitutionally elected therefrom. It. seems then that the “Legislature when in joint meeting assembled” are competent to prescribe the “manner” of election under the Constitution, or “the manner” was sufficiently described by the statute. One or the other of these propositions must be true. In either case the constitutionalrequiremont is complied with. l “The Legislature in joint meeting assembled, " was 518 “manner” by the statute, and the number of votes requisite to a choice as well as the methodof making the result of the individual choice of its members the choice of the Legislature, and properly manifesting it were questions ofcustom and parliamentary law; the authority to decide which was inherent in the body from the necessity of the case, and was, moreover, an incidental power resulting from the duty imposed by the Constitution of the U.S and the “manner” prescribed by the Legislature. Although the Legislature in joint meeting assembled may not be able to pass a law, or do any act which the Houses are required to do separately, when it is admitted that they can elect a Senator, it necessarily follows that they can pass rules for their governance while in the performance of that duty. The distinguished Senfrom Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] said, in Harlans case, 34th Congress, 3rd session) speaing of the inherent powers of a Legislature when as sembled in j0iut meeting: “The convention beinformed ” f “it remainsto inquire what were the incidentsof the convention itself. A convention has certain legal incidents. It has the powerto adjourn if it is legally formed. It. has the power to decide what shall constitule a quorum, if there is no overruling constitutional provision on that point. It has the power to organize. It has the power to decidewho shall preside over it. It has the power of perpetuation.un less its ex1stence is terminated by asuperior power at accrtnin time. Then this convention being as sembled, whether under the statute or not, on comiiiz together.had these incidents: the power of do cidinighow the Senatorshould be clecte deciding, apowerof whatshould constitute a quorum; the power of decidimr that it might adjourn from day today, or do anything else that it saw fit to do, and was not prohibited from doinIrby any provision of the constitution of the LU.S. ” The Constitution of the U.S. snys the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, ” but it is silent as to the particular mode whereby such " times, places, and manner" shall be prescribed, and when an act is required to be done without any limitation asto form the body required to perloim such act may select any form it chooses. The Legislature, therefore, may perform the duties imposed upon it in this instance either by statute, by concurrent resolution, by JtResolution, by ordinance, or by rule injoint meeting assembled. They are not confined to the mode by statute, for a statute requires the sanction of the Governor, and the Governor is no art of the “ Legislature.” But the 2nd c ause of the some section of the Constitution says “Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations.” Here the manner in which Congress may crforin this act is expressly provided. It is “ y law, ” 1. e. by statute; but the name comprehensive word “regulations, ” 1. 0. rule, order, or law, is used when referring to the m“ ode prescribed by the Legislature, namely, may “alter such regulations.” The Legislature, therefore, under the Constitution of the U.S., having full power to prescribe “the times, places, and manner: in any way it shall see fit, neither the Senate nor the congress of the U.S. can dictate to it the mode in which such duty shall be performed. Congress may “bylaw, ” under the Constitution, “ make" regulations of its own, or “ alter" those already made by the Legislature, but it cannot interfere with the Legislature in its selection of the mode by which it will perform the duty imposed upon it bv the Constitution of the U.S., and if Congress cannot interfere, much less can the Senate of the U.S. As well might the Legislatures of the several States attempt to dictate to congress the modes in which they shall execute the powers which have been granted by the several States to the Union. Mr. Badger, in the discussion of the Florida case, says: "The Constitution of the U.S. beatows upon the Legislature the power of prescribing the time, place, and mannerof electing the Senatorsand membersof the HoRep. It oonlon upon them the whole jurisdictionathe entire power of making the law in regardtoelections. The gentleman (Mr. Yulce) has stated that only the fOHlllllhlel 9! an election.the orderly mo.hod merely of conducting it is of committed to the Legislature, butnot the law elections. This, surely, is not 50. oes not the Constitution of the U.S. give them the whole powerl Cortainl yit does. The State has the power to prescribethe time place, and manner of the election; but Congress, the only otherauthority over the sItu, btjheeent, has power only toregulatethese 3 things. thesedo not include the whole power. then the whole power is not by the Constitution conferred at all”. But this cannot o; and hence, su cct only to the control of Congress, the State has powerover the subject."the entire Again, he says: “ Now. we must recollect that on this subjectwe are dealing With a transaction which took placein Flor ida; in a legislative bo I of that State, which not. only has power to prose rie decideJudicially upon the existenee ualensd.boupteraalstiootnos of a rule. so tar astheir electionsare concerned." Again, he says:, “ Now. whetherthese29votesare to be considered asvotesof assent, or no votesat all. Depends entirely upon the laws and usagesof the State of Florida. T O Congressof the U.S. not having exer cmisigedh the exeprociwsee, rtwohinictehr, puonsdee.rretghuela Constiitution a, rtdhetoy the election of Senators, this election de ended exclusivsly upon therule prescribedby the legislature of is sFblmoreidtha. ing{tn attemptisinade to showthat there lD lhedQClSl0nol f other Statesand trl banals. Something in thenatureof a general parliamentary law. which controls the State of Florida on this point.nnd fixesthocharacter of assentuponthese blan votes. Or makes them nullities. Permit me to say, that if it were shown that every other State in the Union, or on the face of the earth. had laid it down as a rule that blank votes should be reiected, solrigchotuenstteddease vooatfefese otfthasissent, this would not in the election. ifa differentrule or practice as prevailed in Floridn: for Florida, in the absence of any legislation by concan.has as absolute a right to prescribe a rule or opt a pradtice of her own, as to the mode of signifying assent or dissent, as any other tribunal, or Legislature or authority on earth. So that the question at last comes around, not as to what is therule of the Legislature of NewYork or RhdIsland, but what is the rule established by the Legislature of Florida? That is the only question. Allow me to remark that this Semi tohas no Jurisdiction to prescribeany rule or to control any rule that has been prescribedin a State our function is pure] Judicial; we are to judge of the election, to sayw ether a party has been elected accordingto the rules or practice prevailing in the State from which becomes.” It has been the uniform custom for the legislature of NewJersey in joint meeting assembled to make rules for its government. Mr. Stockton was chosen under the rules adopted by the joint meeting. W bother the rules adopted on that occasion when that election took place were the same as on other common is not a question which concerns the Senate of the U.S. Delegates to the Continental Congress were elected in NewJersey in joint meeting before the adoption of the Constitution of the U.S. Senators have always been elected in joint meeting, and no Jomt meeting has ever assembled in NewJersey that did not adopt rules for its own government. Both under the old and new constitution of NewJersey, the a“cts of the Legislature which prescribed the manner" of election of U.S. Senators fnil to go into detail as the form of taking the sense of the joint meeting, because by both Constitutions the 2 Houses are clothedwuh all legislative power, and are a constitutional legislature when in joint meeting assembled, an because the cuStom derived from rhomentary law for them to make the rules or the joint meeting, in joint meeting, e ach meeting for itself, was older than the Constitution of the U.S. A brief historical examination of this question will place it beyond doubt. The Constitution of the U.S. went into operation March 4, 1789. The old constitution of NewJersey, which remained in force until 1844, went into operation July 2, 177d That constitution vested the government in n Governor, Legislative Counci, and General Assembly. After providin for the election of the 2 branches of the legislature, it de clares that the Council and Assembly jointly, at their 1st meeting after each annual election,I shall by a majority of votes elect some titperson within the colony to be n Governor for one l year, who shall be constant President of the Council, and have a casting vote in their proceedings. The Articles of Confederation became oblig atory on all the States in March, 1781. They declared that Delegates should be chosen in such manner as the Legislature of each State should direct. Accordingly by an not passed in 1783, section 22, it was enacted that the council and Assembly in joint meeting at the 1st sitting of the Legislature after the annual election, and at any other time when thesame may be necessary, shall elect and choose any number of Delegates not less than 3 nor more than 7 to represent this State in the congress of the U.S., and shall a recupon the form of credentials to be given t cm of their appointment, which credentials signed by the chairman of the joint meeting, shall authorize the said Delegates to sit and vote on the part of this State, in the Congress of the U.S., during the year or time for which they are elected, unless in that time superseded by a new appointment; and it was further enacted in section 25, that no person shall be hereafter elected a Delegate to represent this State in the Congress of the U.S., iin less he hath beena freeholder withinthis State for at least 3 years, and an inhabitant of the same for at least 7 years next before his election, and worth 1,000 in real and personal estate within this State. In addition, it was required that he should take before one of the judges of the conrt of common pleas of the State the oaths of abjuration and allegiance. The joint meeting was established, then, by our old constitution long before the Constitution of the U.S. It was the instrument of electing our Governor. By the Articles of the Confederation the Delegates were, almostin the language of the present Constitution of the U.S., to e chosen in such manner as the Legislatiire shall direct. The Legislature directe in joint meeting. From 1781 to 1790, the Council and Assembly met sometimes in the house of Mr. Howell, in Trenton, in the library of the college at Princeton, in the Methodist church, in the city of Burlington, and in other places. They made their own rules in reference to all other matters except the number necessary to elect the Governor which was provided in the constitution. In reference to other officers, when no rule was adopted as to the number necessary to elect, they elected not by an absolute majority of the whole body, but by amajority of those present. In case a majority of those present was not attainable, the rules of practice required that only the 2 highest can didates should be voted for on the next ballot. As. for example: November 25, 1783. The Council and assembly met at the house of Francis Witt, in Trenton. appointment as treasurer, the joint meeting proceeded to the election of another person in is room. Ephraim Harris, Moore Furman, and James Mott were nominated. Harris had 14, Fuririau 6, Mott 20. “ Whereby it appears that neither candidate had a majorit of the votes present; therefore, the 2 hig est were voted for again.” This rule of the joint meeting, requiring the name of the lowest candidate to be drop ed, was only one means of expressing the will of the majority. It compelled certain members either to remain silent, or cast their votes for one of the 2 highest candidates. Strictly speaking this is only another means of declaring that the candidate who in reality is but the choice of a minority of the members, should be formally declared to be the choice of a majority. A majority of the members present being unable to agree in their choice of an individual, consent that the parliamentary rule requiring a majority shall be complied with, by compel ling certain of the members to forego their reference. In order to do this certain members must voluntarily surrender their rights, of the privise iio determination could be arrived at by the majority. Is not this only another, and John Sehurman having declined his a more arbitrary manner of declaring that the choice of a liirality shall be the choice of a majority oft in whole? The rule which appears to have been always adopted at the commencement of the session was: “Rmolved. That the election of State officers during the presentsessionbe viva once and that all otficers he put in nomination at least one day beforethe election." In reference to Delegates, the usual entry is in this form: “November 23, 1780. The Council and Assembly met at the House of Mr. Bergen. in Trenton. "The joint meeting rocceded to the election of Delegatesto representt is State in Congress and the votesbein talien.lIon. John Witherspoon.Abrnhain Clark.Wil iam Churchill houstuii. William Paterson. William Barnett. Esqs. were duly elected." and a resolution followed empowering them to vote and to represent the State in the congress of the U.S. of North America. When then, in 1789, the Constitution of the U.S. became o erative, the clause which left “the times, places, and manner” of the election of Sens&Reps to the Legislatures of the several States, was in accordance with the plan which had been 13 years in use. In 1790, on the 12th of November, the legislature of NewJersey passed another act in reference to the duties required of NewJersey by the Constitution, entited “An act to prescribe the manner of appointing Senators of the U.S., and hlectors of the President and VEEP, on the part of this State.” The rst section is in these words: “Be it enactedby the Giuncil and GeneralAssembly oiefliia Slnlc and il fl hereby enacted by the aulhorilyof t name.That Senators of the U.S. on the part of the State shall be appointed by the Council and General Assembly of this State injoint meeting assembled.on the 1st Tuesdayof November of every year in which this State is authorizedto elect a Son ator of the U.S. at the place where the legislature shall then sit and on such otherdny or days asmay be appointed by the Congressof the U.S. ” The act provides for the Governors filling vacancies when the Legislature is not in session, the appointment of Electors for President, and concludes: “That every person whoshall be electeda Senator or Elector on the part of this State shall be commissioned by the Governor of this State or the person administering the government for the time being. under the great sea of the State." There was a supplement passed in October, 1796, and the 18th of January. 1805, merely referring to the time of election, Congress having left the time, place, and manner to the Legislature. They say as to Senators as they did in reference to Delegates, “By the Council and General Assembly of this State in joint meeting assembled." That Council and General Assembly under this constitution being the Legislature, and under it, acting in jomt meeting, to elect the GOveine r. The joint meeting of November 13, 1794, adopted for their government the rules and orders of the House of Assembly. N ovember 20, 1794, 15 rules and orders were adopted for the government of the joint meeting, which, with occasional additions and alterations, have been adopted since that time. They were as follows: “1. That the election of State officers during the present sessionbe oiimooce unlesswhen otherwise ordered; and that all officers be put in nomination at least one day beforetheir election. "2. That the chairman shall not be entitled to vote exceptin caseofa tie and than to have a cast in vote. 1!3.That the chairman attendearefully to the preservation of order and regularityin transacting the businessof the joint meeting; that he shall not on gage in any debate or propose his opinion on any question without loavo of the joint meeting. "4. That every member when he speaks, shall stand up in his place, and address himself to the hair. “5. That in all debates and proceedings the members observethe strictest decorum and that if anyone use indecent expressionsor utter any personal reflections or otherwise offend herein. he be consured accordingto the nature and aggravation of the offense. "6. That no debate onsuoor question be at as a motion unlessit, be 2nded.when it shall c open to debuto, and the same repeivtja determination by the question.unlessit be llld asideby the Joint mooting or motion be made to amend it, to postpone it, or for the previous question. “7. The previous question shall be in this for: Shall the main question now be “It? and until e cided shall preclude all amciiment and further debateon the main question. “8. If any ine tion contain more than one simple question any member may have it many pnihsnsthercare distinct question divsid.iif dse ibnotondaeldl in his motion. “9. That no member speak more than twice on the same subject in the samedebateWithoutleave of the House. "10. That all questions of order be determined by the chairman. subject to an appeal to the Joint rneoting1w1hcTnhadtemwhaenndetwdboyo fromuromreem members use to speak nearly at the same time the chairman shall decide who shall speak 1st. "12. When any (EICBfiOD is stated and by the joint meetingagreedto c put. no mcmbershall be at liberty to Withheld his vote without the leave of the joint meeting. “13. That the names of the membersvoting and for whom they have voted shall be entered on the minutes if moved forand 2nded. "14. That thoJomt meetingmay list of nominations is not gone throng with. re“s ig1n5a.Tthioantsorern pointments may be made without the commissionsbeingexpired. if the coinmissiopspf the personsto be reappointed exare the salinesitting in which the joint meetingshal be onrn when the October 28, 1796, itwasresolved that the rules and orders established by the joint meetin on the 20th of November, 1794, as entered on t cir journal for that date, be the rules for the government of this joint meeting until otherwise ordered. In 1797 the rules of the 20th of November, 1794, were adopted, with the additional uire opening the doors of the gallery, &c., The journals of each year usually set out the rules in detail, but occasionally only refer to the portion altered, stating the to es of the last joint meeting were adopted, with an exceptiou, addition, or alteration, as the case might be. On the 2d day of September, 1844, a new constitution went into Operation in NewJer sey, which declared “ the legislative power shall be vested in a Senate and General sse rnbly." In article 7, section 2, in providipg for the appointment of civil officers, it says judges of the courts of common pleas shall be appointed by the “ senateand General Assemb a in joint meeting.” So with the treasurer an lice er of the State prison and other odiccrs. ejoint meeting is,under our constituuon, the Senate and General Assembly, in which all legislative power is vested. It is provied that the Governor shall be elected by the leglal voters of this State; “ the person having tehighest number of votes shall be the Governor. If 2 or more shall be equaland highest in votes, one of them shall O chosen Governor by the voteofn majority of the members of Houses in joint meeting. The necessity for regressing that it should be a majorit of both Houses in this case excludes the i ea of any restraint on the power of the joint meeting to make their own rules as they had been accustomed to do in others. April 2, 1845, Peter D. Vroom, Henry W. Green, William L. Dayton, and Stacey G. Potts were appointed to revise the laws, suggest amendments, die. The present act in reference to the appointment of U.S. Senator is to be tound in theirrevision on page 806, as it is now in Nixons Digest, page 547, as follows: “1. Be it mated by the Senate and General Anem bliy of theSlateof NewJen I, That Senators of the U.S. on the part of this State shall be apointed by the Senate and General Assembly of this State in joint meeting assembled, and in case ii vacancy or vacancies shall happep. bydeath or otherwise. at any time during the sitting of the Legislatiire. then and in such casethe vacancyor vacancies so happening shall be filled during such sitting. by the Senate and Assemblyof this Stiitcand it a vacancy or vacancies, by the death ofcither or both of thesaid Senators or otherwise however shall lia men during the recessof the Legislature. then the ov crnor of the State or in case ofhis death. absence, or other disqualification the person administering the governmentfor the time being. may make a tempo rary appointment or appointments until the next mccting of the Legislature. which shall then fill each vacancy? Or VflCitheICS. adbe it enamd, That every person who shall be electeda Senator on the part of this State, shall be commissionedby the Governor of this State or the person administering the government for the timecing, under the greatseal of the State." The Legislature were no longer the Council and General Assembly, but the legislative power had been vested in the Senate and General assembly by the new constitution, and the are commoned by the Constitution of the U.S. to prescribe the manner. Hence the changed form of the act. In 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, the rules for the election were prescribed as they had been before the adoption of the new constitution; sometimes adopting the rules of ac last joint meeting, and sometimes altering em. In 1851 after electing the officers in the usual way, the journal states that the following rules for the government of the joint meeting were read, (and after setting them out at length) Mr. Edward G. Rogers moved that the 1st rule be amended by striking out the words “ viva coca, ” and inserting the words “ by bal lot” in lieu of it; not agreed to. Amurned to February 14, 1851. Mr. Canlicld offered the follhwing resolution, which was agreed to: “Thatno person shall beelectedto anyofliccat any oint meetingduring the presentsession, unlessthere O a majority of all the members elected personally present, and agreeing thereto." Nominations were made for Senator; 40 votes were necessary ton. choice under the rule. No one receiving the requisite number, the joint meeting adjourned. After various adjournments and efforts to elect, Mr. Hineline offered the following: “Resolved, That the rules of the joint meetingre iuirjng a majority of all the members electedto the legislature to elect any officerhe rese inded and that amajorit of those voting be sufficientto elect any officer to o appointed by thisjoint meeting.” The motion being agreed to, a ballot was taken, and a U.S. Senator declared elected by 89 votes; they being a majority of all cast. In 1852 they adopted 15 resolutions, whicb are set out in the Journal, to govern the joint meeting, on motion of Mr. Alexander. In 1853, the same, on motion of Mr. Sit greaves. In 1854, on motion of Mr. Mulford. Some of the officers “chosen” by the joint meeting in nearly every session were chosen without a ballot or a poll by acclamation, as it was termed. 1855. Mr. Allen moved that the rules of the last joint meeting be the rules for the government of the present joint meetin, unti otherwise ordere. Motion was agreed to; and the rules were read, and adopted. Mr. Allen moved the following as an additional rule for is government of this joint meeting: “That all candidates for office upon receiving a majority ofthovotes cast by thisjoint meeting shall be declared duly electod." Motion agreed to, and rule adopted accordingly. Mr. Roberts moved the following: “Resolved, That this point meetingwillvote for the olhcerson nomination y voice.exceptfor the trons urer and keeperof the State prison, which officers shall be voted for by ballot, after the election of the other otheers." Mr. Allen moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words “by ballot.” Motion to strike out agreed to. Mr. Hoxsey moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after “resolved, ” and inserting “that this joint meeting in voting for treasurer and keeperof the State prison will vote by ballot." Motion to strike out and insert was not agreed to, &c. In 1859, Mr. Iliuckley moved that the rules of the last joint meeting be adopted as the rules for the government of the present joint meeting, until otherwise ordered. Mr. handler moved as an amendment to the said motion that the 12th rule of the last joint ineetir. be omitted, autuhat the vote on his amendment be taken by ballot. Mr. Buckley moved that the vote be taken viva voce. The vote was ordered to be taken viva vocc the amendment not agreed to, and the rules of the last joint meeting adopted. In 1860, on motion of Mr. Buckley, the rules of lastjoint meeting were adopted and set out in the journal. In 1861, Mr. Demarest moved that the rules of the lastjoint meeting be adopted as the rules for the government of the present joint meeting until otherwise ordered, which motion was agreed to, and said rules adopted, as follows: "1. That the election of State officers during the present sessionbe viva ooceunless when otherwise or“dered. 2. That the chairman shall attend carefully to the preservationof order and regularity in transacting the business of the joint meeting, and that he shall not engagein unydebate, or reposehis opinion on"any question, without leaveo themint meeting. 3. That everymemberwhenhe speaksshullstand up“in his place, and addresshimself to the Chair. 4. Thatin all debatesand proceedings the membersshullobserve the strictest decorum, and that if anyone use indecent expressions or utter any personal reflections, or otherwise oflzendherein, he be censured accordingto the nature and aggravation of the olienso. “5. That no debateensne, orquestion be put on a motion. unlessit be 2nded, when it shall be open to debate, and the same receive a determination by the question. unlessit belaid asideby the joint meeting, or a motion be madeto amendit, to postponcit, or for the previous question. “6. The previous question shall be in this form: Shall the main question now be put? and until decided, shall preclude all amendmentsand further debateon the main question. "7. If any motion contain more than one simple question, any member may have it divided into as manyparts astherearedistinct questions, if 2nded in his motion. “8. That no memberspeak more than twiceon the samesubject in the same debate, without leave of thojoint meeting, "9. That all questionsof order be determinedby the chairman, subjectto an appeal to the joint meeting when demandedby 4 members. 10 That whentwp or more membersriseto speak nearly at the sametime, the chairman shall decide who shall speak1st. "11. When anyquestionis stated and by the joint meetingagreedto e put, no membershall be at liberty to withhold his vote Without leave of the joint m“ele2ti.ng:he namesof the members voting, and for whomthey have voted, shall beentered on the minutes, if movedfor and 2nded; and the ayes and noes shall be enterednpon the journal upon every questiontaken in thojointmectinz, other than questions of appointment, when movedfor and 2nded by 5 members exceptthe vote he unanimous. "13. That the joint meetingmay adjourn when the list of nominations is not yet gone through with. “14. The appomtmentsor renppointmentsmay be madewithout resignation or the commissionsbeing expired if the commissionsof personsin cities shall expire the samesitting, or Within 2 monthsthere after: Prootded, Thatwhen ancw appointment is made, the personsoappomted shall not be considered us in commission until the expiration of the commissmnof the former person whose place it is to su“pply. 15.That in allquestions the chairman of the joint meetingbe called upon to vote in his turn asone of the representativesin the Senate or Assembly, but that he have no castingvote as chairman. “16. That all candidatesfor otheo upon receiving a muority of the votes cast by this joint meeting shall isdeclared to be duly elected." It will be observed that in the 2nd rule adopted in 1794, the chairman was not entitled to a vote, except in case of a tie, and then to have a casting vote; and by the 15th rule, as above, be votes in his turn as a member, but has no casting vote. In 1862, Mr. Demarest moved that the rules of the last joint meeting be adopted for the government of this joint meeting. On motion of Mr. Cook, the rules were read. Mr. McGrath moved to amend so that the voting would be by ballot. The yeas&nays being demanded, resulted 39 yeas, 40 nays. 80 said amendment was not agreed to. The main question was then put an agreed to. In 1863, on motion of Mr. Randolph, the rules of the last jointmeeting were adopted for the government of this joint meeting. In 1864, on motion of Mr. Buckley, the rules of the last joint meeting were adopted for the government of this joint meeting. In 1865, the joint meeting that elected Mr. Stockton, the Journal says: February 15. Mr. Heisman moved that the rules of the last joint meeting be adopted for the government of this joint meeting, except the 16th rule, for which he offered the following resolution: "Remlued, That no candidate shall be declared elected unless upon receiving a majority of the votes of {11: the piembers elected to both oases of the legislature. Which was agreed to. March 15. The da to which the joint meet in had been regular y adjourned.r. Holsman offered the following resolu tio"n, and moved its adoption: Resolved.That the resolution that no candidate shall be declared elected unless upon receiving a majority of the votes of all the memberselected to both Houses of the Legislature be rese inded and that any candidate receiving a plurality of votesof the memberspresent shall bedeclaredduly elected." Which resolution was adopted by a majority of all the members elected. So that the rules of this joint meeting were the 1st 15 rules adopted in 1861, and this last resolution in place of the 16th. That is, the plurality rule adopted in place of the rule requiring a majority of all elected which had been on the 1st do of the session of the joint meeting substitute for the 16th rule of the last jomt meeting, which required onlya majority of those votin. nough has been said to show that the joint meeting in NewJersey have always made their own rules. Being the Legislature, under the constitution, the needed no directions as to the rules of their joint action, but made them by parliamentary law, and custom dating before the constitution and continued to the present do. {In President, I have but one other oint to present to the Senate and then I sha l close. insist upon it that the Legislature acquiese ed in the mode of the election, and unanimously ratified it as their choice. The Journal shows that each House separately in the usual form unanimously adopted a resolution to go into joint meeting. Every member of both Houses was personally present at the time specified in pursuance of the resolutious and voted to establish rules for the government of the body in conformity with the uniform practice since the adoption of the constitution of the U.S. Among others: "That no candidate should be declared elected unless upon receiving a majority of all the members electedto both Housesof the Legislature." At an adjourned session every member of tht Legislature elected was present in pursuance of resolutions of the Houses to that effect, for the purpose of electing a U.S. senator, when the vote was taken to rese ind that rule, and substitute for it a rule that any candidate receiving “a lurality of votes of the members present shalFhe declared duly elected." This rule was adopted by a majority of all the members electe, every mom or elected present and voting. Mr. Stockton received 40 votes, no one else receiving more than 37; there being 4 scatterin votes. Mr. Stodrton was declared elected, in the presence of the whole Legislature; not one of whom expressed any dissent. The joint meeting transacted some other business and adjourned sine die, the Legislature was in session some 15 days after the adjournment of the joint meeting, and finally adjourned for the session without one word of protest. There has not been one single word of legislative protest against it from that day to this. Certain individuals who allege that they were members of that Legislature, and I presume they were did bring in a paperhere protesting a aidst my election, but there has been no legislative protest, no action on the part of the body that did the acts complained of as being imroperly done. Mr. Stockton was duly commissioned by the Governor of the State, under the great seal of the State, as provided by the net. This was the will of the Legislature, expressed in the manner the majority had previously prescribed, and subsequently acquiese ed in by all. It can, therefore, in no propersense, he called a lurality election. The 2 bodies met and gave a jomt vote under alaw which authorized it. The Houses separated; neither House objected; of course they both assented, and the election is valid. It is a familiar rule, applicable to all elections by political bodies, that the public dec laration of the result of an election by the body itself or its presiding officer. with the acquies cence ofevery individual member, is conclusine. It is also as well established that every individual member present at such public declaration of the result of the election, and at that time passing it subsilentio, acquiese es. Multitudes of questions are determined in a legislative body without actual vote, merely by the declaration of the presiding officer, no member dissenting. Cushings Manual says, section 1792: “In order that any proposition may becometheact or will of the llouse it is necessaryt at it should oeive the assent of a majority of themembers, whircch may be manifestedin 2 ways, namely either by no one objecting to the proposition. in which casethe sense of ilie House is ascertained by their common consent.the thing being sufficiently declaredwhenno man contradictsit; or by ii.majority of the members de“claring themselvesin its favor. (omensuulolliel rrorum, is a maxim of the common law and the dictateof common sense, and it may be implied aswell as expressed." Brooms Maxims, page 103, says: “ Where. at the trial of the cause.a proposal was made by the judge, in the presenceof the pounse l on bothsides, who made no objeotion, that the juryshould assessdamagese ontingently, withleave to the plaint ff to move to entera verdict fobtho amount found oy the jury, it washeld that both parties werebound by the proposal and that the plaintiffs counsel was not thercfore at liberty tomore fora new trial on the lllOlllld of misdirection, for gmiaceteoiuentirevidrtiir, the silence of counsel implied then their consent to the courseadopted by the judge.” In the Queen vs. Green, 2 Q. B., C. J. Den man said: “I am of opinion that the objection here taken is Fehed. principles thneetcheastse aornyctoursrcead ninpinadrtuiecuimlarracpaasrets". to exercise iin office cannot be heard in this court on pg application in this court to turn him out of that o oo. Lord Kenyon said, in Rex vs. Clarke, 1 East, 46: “The court will not listen to a corporator who has acquiese edorporhnps concurredin the very actwhich he afterwardeomes to complain of when it suits his purpose. In Camerons case, 34thCongress, 3rd session, it was alleged by the protestants that theSenate did not appoint a teller and perform other duties at the time prescribed by the statute. The report of the ComJudiciary, submitted by Mr. Benjamin, contains the following language: “But where. as in the present case, both Houses roccede dwithout objection from any source to perorin tllullfiOfliiiltutional duty of electing a Senator. the necessityof complying with any particular forms required by law may fairly be considered as waived by common consent, and it is entirely too late, after the result of the voting has been ascertained, to raise a question as to the mode of proceeding." "Mr. Bayard said in Harlsns case: I can well understand that where a quorum votes, the acquiescenceof the 2 bodies, after the election is made arid ufter the severance of the iiit met ting precludes inriuiry into the question of legality because there is necessarily assent, in the same manner that we assent to votes taken herewithoutnquorum, when no ycjtsand nay;Iare called and no decision had. That principle is familianin a variety of other cases. Acquiescence binds political bodies, and all other bodies. here the contrary does not appear they are supposedto be present and to assent.not as o presumption of fact. at as a presumption of law: and a presumption of law is not controvertiblo by evidence. That is the meaning of what I say. If when the vote has been taken a majority ofbeth bodies being present, by a quorum. a person is declared elected and no obection is made by the action of either House singly and theyseparate.of necessityit is apresumption of law that the election was valid and neither House can afterward look into it." Mr. Bayard said, in the same debate: “I can understand perfectly well, under the rin eiple of "passing a measurean silt Mia, that we own no riuht.to inquire into the question how members of itnher Legislature. whetheroft Senate or House, votetl States, if the certificate tioencoomf ash Senatur thoefntthiceabtenditneed according to the laws of thoState. Where the 2 bodies l zmesetehatendexgpivreesasieodinWtvilol toef, aumndacjorarity law which author govern, of the whole to House obajned etsthtoenth the Houses separate and neither lent and the election eisleveatiloidn. "of course they both as Mr. Cashing says in his treatise on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies: "The rule of“decision ine lloonneil and deliberative assemblies, whose membersare equal in point of right. is, that the will of the greater number present and votin the assembly being duly constituted is the will of the whole body. Hence. whatever is regularly agreedupon by a majority of“the members of a legislative assembly is a thing dene and past by that body." The principle as universally admitted is again emphatically pronounced by the some high authority in part 1st, chapter 4,section 3, under the title “Of the priiiciple upon which the result of an election is determined” "In all collective bodies of men, assembled and acting togetherfor the purpose of deliberating and deciding upon any subject, or for the purpose of electing to nny office. it is an admitted principle that whatever isdone or agreedto by the greater number shall stand as the act or Will of the w olc. This principle assumes, asits busis.the absolute and perfect O unlity of all the individuals. one with another. w 10enjoy the right of suffruge, in the possession of the elements essential to the determination of any act to be done, or to the formation of any judgment to be pronounced, or to etfecting any election4o be madeas the act, judgment, or choice of the whole." Again, part 6, chapter 2, section.1702, says: “In order that any proposition may becomethe act or express the sense, judgment, opinion, or will of the House, it is necessary that it should receive the assent of a majority of the members, orof such other number as magbe agreed upon or otherwise fixed beforehand: which may be manifested in 2 ways. pamely, either by no ones objecting to the proposition, in which case the senseof the louse is ascertained by the ir common consent. The thing being sufficiently declared when no mun contradicts it or by a majority or the requisite number of the members declaring themselves in its favor. in which case the senseof the House is ascertained by a question put and determmod." The act of the Legislature left the election to the expressed will of a majority of the joint meeting. That majority agreed that the “choice” of the Legislature should be indicated by the plurality rule. This was the will of the majorit; their choice. ltwas the act, judgment, an choice of the whole. It is the “Legislature” that elects; not the members thereof. They act under the rules that they may adopt, and the principles of parliamentary law as established by authority and usage. the question is not what any individual member preers nor how he manifests his referejice. It is, what is the chemo of “ the legislature” as legally manifested? As a private cororation acts under the common sea of the be v, properly authenticated, the Legislature of NewJersey provides how the result of their chOice shal be manifested to the U.S. senate and }to the world, by a commission under the great seal of the State. When Mr. Stockton was declared elected in the joint meeting, according to the manner of choice agreed upon by the whole, it was notice that in toview of the presiding officer he was the choice of the Legislature, and that so would the Legislature speak by its only voice, the sig nature of the Governor and the great seal of the State. The declaration was assented to subsilentfo. The Governor was authorized by the Legislature, under the great seal of the State, to commission Mr. Stockton as Senator, for so they said all. If this election was not the will of the majority, why was the declaration that Mr. Stockton was duly elected permitted to pass in silence? If they desired to avoid the result of the plurality vote which they had previously agreed to, whether it was in theirpower to do so or not, they would have manifested it, if only to prevent the conclusion of unanimous consent. Having the return, he is entitled to take his seat upon his credentials, beyondquestion. lt is equally true that the fact that there was some error or mistake in giving the credentials, by which the did not properlg express the choice of the legisluture, may e subsequently examined when properly brought before the U.S. Senate. But in order to raise even this question, it is manifest that the charge must be that the credentials do not properly exress the Will of the Legislature at the time of the election, while they were in session, before they separated, while the matter was pending. This is the foundation of the attack; no charge without it can authorize an examination. Admit that the Legislature agreed by a vote of a majority of the whole to select in this manner, to express their choice in this we; that when the result was reached they hear it announced and declared, aproved it by unanimous consent, silently confirmed the result of the majority rule by the action of the whole, made it the duty of the Governor to commission the candidate declared to be elected under the great seal of the State, and you are estopped from attempting to prove that the election was invalid. Individual members may change their mind after the joint meeting, am the Legislature had adjourned, and ceased to exist, but this cannot alter what was done by the Senate and Assembly when assembled in joint meeting. The protest of individual members after the adjournment of the Legislature, affected in no manner the action of the Legislature in its official capacity. The majority of the Legislature authorized the application of the plurality rule. Subsequent to its application, they confirmed and ra lied their previous action by their silence when Mr. Stockton was declared duly elected. Their official power to question their action has exired. Their subsequent protest as individ ua s could in no manner affect their official action as representatives, though they might, in common with another individual, contest the validity of such legislative action. The Senate is the “judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, " but in reference to the manner of the election, they are confined to the question, whether or not it was done as prescribed by the Legislature of the State. IfbothHouses aveassented, there is nothing upon which the Senate of the U.S. can pass judgment. In conclusion, Mr. President, from the fore going examination I think I have proved the following propositions: 1. Senators of the U.S. are to be “chosen” by the Legislatures of the several States. 2. The “manner” of the choice is to be prescribed by the Legislature thereof. 8. The Legisleture of NewJersey, by statute, indicated “the Senate and Assembly in joint meeting assembled” as the “ manner” in which the duty imposed upon them by the Constitution of the TU.S. should be performed. 4. The constitution of NewJersey recognize! “the Senate and Assembly injoiiit meeting assembled " as the Legislature of the State. 5. “The Senate and Assembly in joint meeting assembled ” have full power to determine the “manner” of the election of the U.S. Senator, by the authority derived from the Constitution of the U.S.; the constitution of the State; by virtue of the statute law of the State; by parliamenwy, usage, and by universal custom. 6. That if the jeint meeting had notthe power to prescribe the manner of choice, yet the “manner” being determined by the statute of the State, “the Senate and Assembly in joint meeting assembled” were authorized to indicate their choice by such rules as they might adopt. 7. The election of Mr. Stockton under the rules adopted by the joint meetin of 1865 was not a plurality election, but was techoice of the majority, expressed by the method indicated by them, so declared in the resolution previous to the election, and subsequent to it, by the silence and acquiescenceof all the members. Y. That the whole body confirmed the election of Mr. Stockton, and authorized legtiael Governor, under the statute, tobommission him as U.S. Senator for 6 years from the 4th of March, 1865, and thereby the matter is concluded.