Mr. JOHNSON. I understand what you mean very well. I think you are clear] in error. But what I was about to say was t is: the original resolution was “that all candidates for office, upon receiving a majority of the votes cast by this joint meeting, shall be elected." The substitute rule was “that no candidate shall be declared elected unless upon receiving a majorit of the votes of all the members elected to 0th Houses of the Lewislature.” Nobody has questioned the validity of that rule, as far as I know; nor did an hody ever question the validity of the original rule of 1801, as far as I am advised; nor did anybody question the validity of the rule on the same subject adopted either in 1794 or in 1851. If the mica adopted at these several periods wem right and valid, why were they valid? Only because it was a subject over which the joint meetin had jurisdiction. The possession of jurisdiction, and the manner of regulating that nrisdiction, are entirely distinct inquiries. dive the power to the joint meeting to prescribe rules, an then the rules prescribed, be they wise or be they unwise, are the laws for that joint meeting, and they are laws for the joint meetin only because of the other proposition that it is a subject submitted to the joint meeting by the very constitution of the body. But let me inquire fora moment whether the ground 11 on which the ComJudiciary pace the question more decidedly is open to any serious objection. What is “ it? Yourcommittee preferplacing the authority of the oint meetingto preseribe the plurality rule on the reader groundthat, in the absenceofauy law. either of Congressor the State on the subticct, a oint meeting of the 2 Housesof a legislnturc, t uly assembled, and vested with authority to elect a U.S. Senator, has a right to prescribethat a plurality may elect, on the pr inciplethat the adoption of such a rule by a minority vote in the 1st instance mnkcs the act, subsequentlydonein pursuanceof such majority vote, its own.” Is not the principle right as applicable to all elections? What is the principIe, to reeat it in my own language? 1 at where a body acting collectively or actin concurrently is clothed with the authority to e ect, and have the right, therefore, to require that a majority of the whole shall be necessary or a majority of both branches shall be necessary, it is in their power to say that less than a majority of the whole shall be sufficient whether acting collectively or acting conjointly. I suppose nobody will doubt that. Then, as is conceed by both my friends who have spoken against the conclusion to which the committee came, that it was compe tent for the Legislature of NewJersey by a law to provide that an election of a U.S. Senator should be made by a plurality of votes, why isit not competent for the Legislature when meeting in convention to adopt the same rule? My friends say no, for he who receives less than the vote of a majority is not, within the meaning of the Constitution, the choice of the Legislature. That is begging the whole question. Why is he not the choice of the Legislature? If the Legislature by law so provides, the honorable members admit that a party receiving only a plurality would be elected; and why would he be elected in that case? Only because such an election is within the very term of the constitutional revision which says that Senators shall be “chosen by the Legislatures thereof.” Now, in the case supposed, acting either concurrently or conjoint y, they chose, in the 1st place, in order to effect the object submitted to them exclusively, to provide that when they go into the election, hewho receives a plurality shall be considered as elected; but he is not in point of fact, as indicated by the mere vote, chosen by a majority of the Legislature. He is a majority candidate and a majority Senator; but in the sense of the Constitution, is he not the majority candidate and the majority Senator? If he is, as he certainly is, why is it? Only because they have said, speaking properly in their legislative capacity, that he who is elected in that way is the choice of the Legislature. Well, now, what has been done? Honorable members seem to suppose that the difficulty is to be found in the words of the Constitution as they are found in the 3rd section and in the 4th section of the 1st article. I have read the 3rd section; now what says the 4th? "The times, places and mannerpf holding clcotions for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed in each State by c Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter i such regulation except as to the place of choosing Senators." Congress has not legislated either as to the time or as to the manner; then the State is to do it under the very authority devolved upon it to decide for herselfat what time and in what manner and at what place her Senators are to be elected. That is eft to the State. What has the State done in this case? They have de cided by the act of April 10, 1846, and the validity of that law is not called in question, that Senators shall be appointed by the Senate and General Assembl of the State in joint meeting assembled. hat is all it says. How they are to act when they get into joint meeting, in what manner they are to vote, whether viva voce or by ballot, whether nominations are to be made orally or not in advance, and ifin advance, how long in advance, that le Yislation is silent. Now, what is the result?. y friends who differ with me on this subject seem to suppose that it is a common law principle applicable to all bodies of this description, that in the absence of some legislation changing the rule, a majority must act. That in one sense is true; but how is the majority to act in orderto change the rule? It is to act by providing for a different rule; and if they do provide fora different rule, and that different rule is comlied with in the particular election, then the legislature have complied with the provision of the Constitution which gives to the Legislature the authority to prescribe the manner in the absence of any prescription of manner on the part of the Congress of the U.S. The Legislature prescribed no manner; congress prescribed no manner. What does the word “ manner" mean? What is its properacceptation? The election is to be held at such time and at such place and in such manner as the Legislature may direct. Whatis the meaningoft e term " manner" as here used? What does it involve and include? Does it include the mode of voting? I suppose it does. But who is to decide that? The Legislature has made no provision. Cannot the joint meeting decide it? I suppose that will be admitted for there is nobody else to decide. The whole duty would be arrested if there was not attached to the joint meeting an authority to regulate the mode in which the voting should proceed.