Mr. CLARK. That is the point. I say it is a part of the manner, and being a part of the manner it was competent for the Legislature in its regular organized way, and in no other way, to regulate it, and it was not competent for the Legislature, in a joint meeting only for the purpose of electing an officer, to regulate as they undertook to do. That is the very point. I hold it to be a part of the manner, and the Legislature having regulated the manner so far as to sayit should bein joint meeting, left the other part to the law of the country that a majority should be required to elect. But the case does not rest exactly there. It will be found that when that joint meeting, as I said before, came to vote upon this proposition, it did not command a majority of the 2 Houses as they were constituted. Only 30 Representatives could be found to vote in favor of it; jdst one half; so that it did not command the assent of the House of Assembly. It is said, Mr. President, and I think the report of the committee goes upon this ground, that a body like a joint assembly of the 2 Houses of a Legislature may prescribe rules of action. I do not undertake to deny that they may prescribe rules of action, but what rules of action? Rules of action which shall direct their proceedings as to how the business shall be done. But in this presentcase this is nota rule of action; it is a resolution which determines the result of their action. It undertakes to say, not how the vote shall be cast, but what shall be the result ifa person gets so inany votes, which I say itwas not competent for the meeting acting jointly to do, but that should have been done by the Legislature acting and sitting in the ordinary way asa Legislature, each House by itself. I do not undertake to find fault with what is stated in the report, in one of its sentences, to wit, “ that it was competent for a plurality to elect, if a law to that effect had been rescribed by competent authority.” But the itIiculty is that there was no such law. I desire to ask Senators this question: suppose the NewJer sey law of April 10, 1846, which says, “that Senators of the U.S., on the part of this State, shall be appointed by the Senate and General Assembl of this State in joint meeting assembled, ” adalso said, “and a majority of the votes of such meeting shall be necessary to a choice;” would it have been competent for the joint convention to over rule it? Will anybody contend that it would have been? Would it have been competent for that joint convention after having got together, to overrule the law and say, “Senators shall not be appointed by a majority vote of the joint convention?” An yet if they were the Legislature, as contended, why not? If they can say, in the absence of any particular law, when the whole matter rests in the common law and the parliamentary law, that a plurality shall be sufficient to elect, why could they not have said it, even if the Legislature had declared that a majority should be required? The only ditierence in the cases is that here a majority was required by the common law and the parliamentary law, and in the case supposed it would have been required by the statute law; but if the joint meeting be the Legislature, it could have over ruled it in the one case as well as in the other. This is the point: that when the Legislature was silent upon this matter, it left the election to be regulated by the common law of the land, as the State of NewJersey had practiced it, and the joint meeting had no more right to overrule the common law of the land in that particular than it had to overrule the statute law. Now, Mr. President, I say there was no law authorizing a plurality to elect; the joint meeting was not competent to make a law for that purpose; and Mr. Stockton did not receive a majority of the votes of the joint meeting. I think he did not get a majority of the Senate; he did not get a majority of the House; nor did he get a majority of the joint meeting; and yet here, under the pretense that they could prescribe the rule of election in that joint meeting, he comes in with his credentia s and undertakes to hold his seat, and asks the Senate to say that he is entitled to the seat. But, Mr. President, it is said that heis entitled to hold his seat because nobody objected at the time, because when this vote was cast and he was declared to be elected everybody acquiese ed. How acquiese ed? By their si lence? To whom could they rotest? To the Senate who would judge upon is election; and the very 1st moment, the very 1st day, he entered here with his credentials, the men who did not vote for him appeared here and remon strated and protested against his holding his seat; and this is the acquiescenceon their part which is to conclude them! Here is their remonstrance before you, presented by the Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Gowns] on the 1st day of the session, the ver earliest moment they could present it; an yet it is said that by their acquiescencethese remonstrants are not entitled to be heard, and the honorablemember is entitled to hold his seat l I do not so understand it. The point isa narrow one. I do not prouse to take up the time of the Senate. I have stated to the Senate and the Senators the considerations which induced me to differ from the other members of the committee in this report; they are to me controlling considerations. I think nothing else enters into this question but the more question of the power of the Legislature of NewJersey and the people of NewJersey as to whether the sitting member has been rightfully elected and is entitled to hold his seat here. I hold that he has not been elected, and therefore I have moved the amendment to the resolution of the committee; and on that question I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.