CONGRESS, UNITED STATIC. 



227 



then, settled that the two Houses of a Legislature in 



: :< -tiu^ asM-inl>! ' the Legislature, 



vested by the Constitution of the United States with 



nutiH'i - :ts one body, to elect a Senator, the 



.11 i-i, did the joint meeting of the Senate and 



sembly of New Jersey, duly convened, 



iu pursuance of a resolution previously concurred in 



i House separately, choose John P. Stockton 



s Senator ? 



That it was competent for a plurality to elect, if a 



law to that effect had been prescribed by competent 



authority, will hardly be questioned. This is the 



rule \erv generally, if not universally, adopted in 



: of members of the House of Represent- 



wlio are "chosen every second year by the 



i.f the several States," and no one questions 



lidity of the election of a Representative by a 



plurality vote when the law authorizes a plurality to 



eleet. It is, however, insisted, and truly, that no 



law of New Jersev authorizes a plurality to elect. 



\vs of New Jersey are silent on this subject, 



but they do authorize "a joint meeting of the two 



Houses of the Legislature to appoint a Senator, and 



it has been the uniform practice of this joint meeting 



since the foundation of the government to prescribe 



the rules for its own government. These rules as to 



the number of votes necessary to effect an election 



have varied at different times, sometimes requiring a 



majority of all the members elected to both Houses 



of the Legislature, sometimes a majority only of 



those present, and in the case under consideration 



only a plurality. 



Suppose, under the rule first stated, but 79 mem- 

 bers nad been present in the joint meeting, and 40 

 bad voted for the same person, would he have been 

 elected ? And if not, why not ? 79 out of 81 would 

 have constituted a quorum, and 40 would have been 

 a majority of those present. The only reason why 

 such a vote would not have made an election would 

 be the existence of the rule adopted by the j'oint 

 meeting, declaring that " no candidate should be 

 elected unless receiving a majority of the votes of all 

 the members elected to both Houses of the Legisla- 

 ture." While that rule* was in force, no presiding 

 officer would have thought of declaring a candidate 

 elected, nor would any candidate have supposed him- 

 self elected, because ho received a majority of the 

 votes cast, unless such majority was a majority of all 

 the members elected to the Legislature. Under the 

 other rule, "that a person receiving a majority of the 

 votes of those present should be declared elected," 

 who would doubt the validity of an election by 81 

 out of 60 votes, if only so many had been cast? If 

 the joint meeting had the right to prescribe, at one 

 time, that it should require a majority of all elected 

 to the Legislature to elect, at another time that a 

 majority of those present might elect, and at still 

 another time that elections might bo had by accla- 

 mation, it had the right to prescribe that a plurality 

 should elect ; and when any candidate received a plu- 

 rality he thereupon became elected, not simply by 

 the will of those who voted for him, but by the will 

 of the joint meeting, which had previously, by a ma- 

 jority vote, resolved that such plurality should elect. 

 It might be urged in this case, with much plausi- 

 bility, that inasmuch as the constitution of New Jer- 

 sey recognizes the two Houses in joint meeting as a 

 Legislature, that such joint meeting was the very 

 body on whom the Constitution of the United States 

 had conferred the power to prescribe "the times, 

 places, and manner of holding elections for Sena-. 

 tors;" but your committee prefer placing the author- 

 ity of the joint meeting to prescribe the plurality 

 rule on the broader ground, that in the absence of 

 any law cither of Congress or the State on the sub- 

 ject, a joint meeting of the two Houses of a Legisla- 

 ture, duly assembled and vested with authority to 

 elect a United States Senator, has a right to prescribe 

 that a plurality may elect, on the principle (hat the 

 Adoption of such a rule by a majority rote in the 



first instance makes the act subsequently done in 

 pursuance of such majority vote its own. 



The committee recommend for adoption the fol- 

 lowing resolution : 



red That John P. Stockton WM duly elected, and I* 

 entitled to his seat, as a Senator from the 6uto of New Jer- 

 (->. fur the term of six years from the 4th day of March, 

 1805. 



Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, moved to 

 amend the resolution reported by the commit- 

 tee, by inserting the word " not " before the 

 word "duly," and also before the word "en- 

 titl'.-d." lie said: " I conld not bring my mind 

 to the conclusion that the Senator from New 

 Jersey now holding the seat wus entitled to it, 

 or that he was duly elected. I differed from 

 the majority of the committee upon this point. 

 Mr. Stockton was elected in a joint convention 

 of the two Houses. After that joint convention 

 had assembled, it undertook to say, in the ab- 

 sence of any law or rule prescribed by compe- 

 tent authority to that effect, that a less number 

 of the convention than a majority, to wit, a 

 plurality, should entitle the person receiving 

 such plurality to an election. There were in 

 that convention eighty-one persons present. 

 Upon casting their votes for Senator, it was 

 found that Mr. Stockton received forty votes, 

 and Mr. Ten Eyck and other persons forty-one ; 

 so that Mr. Stockton did not have a majority of 

 the convention ; and the question now submit- 

 ted to the Senate, and the one upon which I 

 think the whole matter must turn, is, whether 

 that joint convention, sitting and acting as it 

 did as a joint assembly, had the power and 

 authority to say that a person not receiving a 

 majority of the votes was entitled to a seat in 

 this Senate. 



"I maintain this as my first proposition : that 

 under the Constitution of the United States, the 

 constitution of New Jersey, and the laws of New 

 Jersey, where the constitution and the laws 

 prescribe no different rules, a majority was ne- 

 cessary to constitute a valid election. In the 

 absence of a law prescribed by the Legislature 

 of New Jersey, or some authority, if there was 

 any other authority competent to do it, I say a 

 majority would be required to entitle the Sen- 

 ator holding the seat to remain in it, because 

 it is the law of corporations aggregate, and it is 

 the parliamentary law of the land, that when a 

 deliberate body or assembly like that under- 

 takes to act, it acts by a majority, and only by 

 u majority, unless it has the power to prescribe 

 for itself a different rule, or some other author- 

 ity having such power has done it. There is no 

 pretence that the Legislature of New Jersey or 

 any other authority but this joint convention so 

 assembled ever undertook to say that a plural- 

 ity should elect; but the joint convention did. 

 I do not undertake to deny that it was com- 

 petent for the Legislature of New Jersey, or- 

 ganized and acting in its proper manner and 

 sphere, to say that a plurality might elect. I 

 do not deny that a plurality of a Legislature, 

 when the majority so determine, can elect a 

 Senator. I concede that, but I say that here 



