LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 Class ^ 
 
/ 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1788-1789, 
 
 IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 A Tliesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
 
 University of Pennsylvania, in Partial Fulfillment 
 
 of the Requirements for the Degree of 
 
 Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 By 
 
 FRANK FLETCHER STEPHENS 
 
 Columbia, Mo, 
 
 E. W, Stephens Publishing Company 
 
 1909 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1788-1789, IN THE 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 

 It' 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1788-1789, 
 
 IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
 
 University of Pen7isylvania, in Partial Fulfillment 
 
 of the Requirements for the Degree of 
 
 Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 By 
 
 FRANK FLETCHER STEPHENS 
 
 Columbia, Mo. 
 
 E. W. Stephens Publishing Company 
 
 1909 
 
Copyright, 1909, hy 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. Introduction 
 
 II. The First Election OF United States Senators . lo 
 
 III. The First Election of United States Representa- 
 
 tives ^ 
 
 IV. Presidential Electors ^7 
 
 V. Adjustment of Various Federal and State Rela- 
 tions IN 1789 ^^ 
 
 Bibliography ^°7 
 
 Index . ^°9 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This study is a revision and enlargement of a monograph 
 which was accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate School of 
 the University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfillment of the re- 
 quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It was 
 undertaken at the suggestion of Professor John Bach McMas- 
 ter while the author was a Harrison Fellow in the University 
 of Pennsylvania, and is an intensi\'e study of the short period 
 in United States history following the ratification of the Con- 
 stitution of 1787 and previous to the organization of the fed- 
 eral government in the spring of 1789. 
 
 The author desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to the 
 library staff of the University of Pennsylvania and also to that 
 of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania for courteous assist- 
 ance in gathering the material; and to his several colleagues 
 and former teachers for frequent valuable suggestions and ad- 
 vice. 
 
 University of Missouri, July, 1909. F. F. S. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Transitional periods, if unaccompanied by violent commo- 
 tions, receive scant attention while yet uncompleted, and are fully 
 recognized only after a new epoch has been ushered in. Atten- 
 tion is always focused upon the present dimly related to the past 
 or future and it is only when one stops to compare the present 
 with a distinct time past — five, ten, twenty or a hundred years 
 that the change of conditions is at once apparent. Especially 
 is this true in any particular field if a distinct transitional period 
 has occurred in the interim. Such a period, in the political and 
 constitutional history of America, was the few months during 
 which the government under the Articles of Confederation quietly 
 gave way to the "more perfect union" under the Constitution. 
 
 The Articles of Confederation, rudely formed during a strug- 
 gle for bare existence, by men patriotic but inexperienced in the 
 government of a nation, were not adapted to the needs of the 
 time, and proved inadequate for an era of peace. Even before 
 final ratification by all the states an amendment to increase the 
 authority of the central government by giving Congress the right 
 to levy a five per cent duty on imports had been offered, only to 
 be rejected, and later efforts to amend were equally in vain. 
 Each of the thirteen states retained the sovereign rights of coin- 
 ing money, raising armies and taxing imports and exports. It 
 was to remedy such defects as these that the Convention of 1787 
 put forth the new Constitution. 
 
 The threefold purpose of this monograph is to trace the re- 
 linquishment by the separate states of these powers into the hands 
 of the federal government, to discuss the political and constitu- 
 tional questions involved in consequence of this transfer of power, 
 
 (I) 
 
2 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 and to show the awkwardness and lack of uniformity with which 
 the states did their part toward putting the new government into 
 operation. 
 
 A great weakness of the Articles of Confederation was the 
 provision requiring unanimous consent of the states to changes 
 in the Articles/ a provision which had defeated the impost, 
 revenue and commerce amendments. The members of the Con- 
 vention of 1787, therefore, fresh from these past defeats, pro- 
 vided in the seventh article of the Constitution that the ratifi- 
 cation by the conventions of nine states should be sufficient for 
 the establishment of the Constitution between the states so rati- 
 fying, a provision as necessary as it was revolutionary. But to 
 preserve legal forms as far as possible, and to get the result of 
 its work before the states, the Convention resolved on September 
 17 to submit the Constitution to Congress, to be transmitted by 
 it to the various states in convention assembled. And in order 
 to insure that the Constitution be put into actual operation when 
 ratified by the requisite number of states, Congress was asked 
 to fix a day upon which electors should be appointed, a day upon 
 which they should assemble to cast their votes for a president, 
 and the time and place for commencing proceedings under the 
 new Constitution. 
 
 Congress, then sitting at New York, received the Consti- 
 tution and accompanying resolves on September 28, 1787^ and 
 immediately transmitted them without comment ~ to the various 
 state legislatures to be referred by these last to state conventions. 
 The ensuing ten months proved a period of triumph for the 
 
 'Article XIII. 
 
 * "Congress having three states represented by those who were mem- 
 bers of Convention, and three of the most influential, each in three other 
 states, resolved to send it on veithout any recommendation, because its 
 opponents insisted upon having their reasons on the journals, if they offer 
 ed to recommend it". Arthur Lee to John Adams, October 3, 1787. 
 Adams' Adams, IX. 51:5. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL TERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 3 
 
 supporters of the proposed Constitution. Commencing with Del- 
 aware on Deceniiber 6, 1787, one after another of the states took 
 favorable action, until finally on June 21, 1788, the ratification 
 by New Hampshire made the ninth state. It now became the 
 duty of Congress to decide upon the details for putting the new 
 government into operation. 
 
 New Hampshire's ratification was received at New York 
 July 2. The question of putting the new government into opera- 
 tion was immediately referred to a committee composed of Car- 
 rington of Virginia, Edwards of Connecticut, Baldwin of Georgia, 
 Otis of Massachusetts and Tucker of South Carolina. This com- 
 mittee reported July 14, proposing that the day for the appoint- 
 ment of presidential electors be the first Wednesday in the fol- 
 lowing December, A proposition was made to amend this, by 
 which the two states with the furthest outlying counties, Virginia 
 and North Carolina (providing the latter should have ratified), 
 should appoint electors on the first Wednesday in December, the 
 three large states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York 
 (providing the last should have ratified) and the far-off state 
 of Georgia on the third Wednesday, and the remaining states on 
 the fourth Wednesday. This amendment, apparently looking to 
 the people for the choice of electors, was easily negatived, only 
 Connecticut and Georgia favoring it. 
 
 By July 28 the report of the committee had been debated 
 and amended to read as follows : "That the first Wednesday in 
 January next be the day for appointing electors in the several 
 states, which have or shall before the said day have ratified the 
 said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in February next be 
 the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states, and 
 vote for a president ; and that the first Wednesday in March next 
 
 be the time, and the place, for commencing proceedings 
 
 under the said Constitution. "^ 
 
 ^Journals of Congress, edited 1S23, XIII. 57. 
 
4 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Although seven more weeks went by before Congress was 
 able to decide upon the seat of the new government, no attempt 
 seems to have been made to change the time as accepted in this 
 amended report. The long delay was the result in part of the 
 unusual requirements necessary to carry any proposition in Con- 
 gress; and exhibits one of the weaknesses of the Articles; it was 
 necessary that a majority of the thirteen states represented by 
 two or more delegates vote in the affirmative, no matter how 
 many states were absent at the time, or how many gave a divided 
 vote. But there were still other reasons for the indecision. The 
 partisans of New York city had been studiously promoting delay 
 until news might come of the ratification by the state convention 
 at Poughkeepsie, a necessity before New York's claims could be 
 urged. Earnest supporters of the new Constitution, even if free 
 from this sectional feeling, had another and stronger reason for 
 delay; the existing state legislatures were probably everywhere 
 less Federal than the new legislatures to be elected in the autumn. 
 If Congress should at once send notice to the states of the neces- 
 sary arrangements to be made for putting the new government 
 into operation, it might afford a pretext to convene the existing 
 legislatures in extra session, and thus result in measures un- 
 friendly to the new government.^ 
 
 The contest was one between New York and a more cen- 
 tral point, preferably Philadelphia, though several other places 
 were suggested from time to time. Upon the first vote Phila- 
 delphia was favored by six states and would have been chosen 
 had not a delegate from Delaware, who really favored Phila- 
 delphia, divided the vote of his state in order to have a trial ballot 
 taken upon Wilmington.^ Consideration of New York was next 
 proposed but, on motion, postponed to try the strength of Lan- 
 caster and Baltimore. The former failed, but to the general sur- 
 prise, the latter obtained the necessary seven votes."^ As few 
 
 < Madison to Washington, July 21, 17SS. Writings of Madison, V. 238. 
 * Madison to Jefferson, August 10, 17SS. Writings of Madison, V. 245. 
 6 Ibid. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL TERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 5 
 
 seriously urged the eligibility of Baltimore, it was plain the ques- 
 tion was not yet settled. The debate was resumed on August 
 5 and 6 and the supporters of New York urged their claims. 
 They admitted that a central situation would be more proper but 
 insisted that necessary accommodations should be furnished, and 
 that such a place should be free from objections which might 
 render it improper or unlikely to be a fit place for the capital, 
 either permanently or until a fit place could be agreed upon. 
 To insure such a location it was urged that permanent decision 
 be left to the new Congress, as being a body less influenced by 
 local attachments and less embarrassed by want of time and 
 means. Furthermore, the removal of the public offices would be 
 attended with much expense, danger and inconvenience, not coun- 
 terbalanced by the advantages of any place at that time in a fit 
 condition to receive them. And finally, since unnecessary changes 
 of the seat of government would indicate instability and prove in- 
 jurious to the interests as well as derogatory to the dignity of 
 the United States, it was moved that New York be decided 
 upon as the place for commencing proceedings. 
 
 In opposition to this, it was declared that the .seat of gov- 
 ernment should, at the very outstart, be placed as near the center 
 of the Union as possible. There were three reasons for this: 
 first, that its influences and benefits might be felt equally through- 
 out the whole country ; second, that persons having business there 
 might approach with equal convenience from the opposite ex- 
 tremes (a powerful argument in those days of wretched travel- 
 ing accommodations) ; and third, that there might not be even 
 the appearance of partiality. New York, whether population 
 or distance was considered, was shown to be far removed from 
 the center of the Union. Further, the new Senate was to have 
 only eight members from east of New York, while sixteen were 
 to come from the South; and of the new House of Representa- 
 tives, seventeen were to come from the East and forty-two from 
 the South. The distance between New York and the extreme 
 
O UNIV'ERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 eastern state was hardly one-third of the distance to the extreme 
 southern state. Finally, the appeal was made to the eastern 
 states to commence the new government in the same spirit of 
 mutual accommodation and mutual confidence which had hitherto 
 marked the deliberations, and to reject a measure, which, from 
 its seeming undue regard for local considerations, would natur- 
 ally occasion jealousies and apprehensions. As a substitute for 
 the previous motion, it was then moved that the seat of the new 
 Congress ought to be in some place to the southward of New 
 York, This motion was negatived seven to six. South Carolina 
 and New Jersey voting with the northern states. Philadelphia, 
 again proposed, was voted down, Georgia being divided. The 
 question recurring on the original motion was carried seven to 
 five, South Carolina and New Jersey voting with the northern 
 states and Georgia still divided."^ 
 
 Thus amended and accepted in piecemeal, the ordinance was 
 finally voted upon a week later, August 13. In the meantime, 
 however, the Rhode Island delegates, refusing to give a final vote 
 for a system to which their state was opposed, had gone home.^ 
 One of the two New Jersey delegates was also absent, so the 
 ordinance failed of passage by two votes. Thus the whole ques- 
 tion had to be taken up anew. To increase the difficulty, the 
 North Carolina delegates had just heard the unfavorable news 
 of the adjournment of their state convention without ratifying 
 the Constitution, and so refused to have anything more to do 
 with the subject. Neither the North nor the South could now 
 muster seven votes, and it seemed as if the operation of the new 
 government would be delayed, if not finally prevented, by in- 
 flexibility and jealousy. 
 
 During the next three weeks ballots were taken on New 
 York, Wilmington, Lancaster and Annapolis, but the requisite 
 seven votes not obtained for any one of them. By this time, 
 
 ^Journals of Congress, XIII. 67-70. 
 8 Writings of Madison, V. 246. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 7 
 
 Alexander Hamilton had appealed successfully to Governor Wil- 
 liam Livingston of New Jersey^ to instruct the delegates from 
 that state to vote for New York, declaring this would conduce to 
 the permanent establishment of the Capital in New Jersey. The 
 Virginia delegates becoming aware of this plan, were all the 
 mor^e indisposed to yield to New York, feeling that the Capital 
 should be eventually on the Potomac. ^o Futile efiforts were made 
 on the second and fourth of September to settle upon a time in- 
 dependent of a place. It was felt apparently that the states could 
 proceed with their arrangements if that much of the question were 
 decided. This plan failed for the want of one vote. At this 
 juncture, to make the situation still more disagreeable, the Mary- 
 land delegates withdrew "in a temper."!^ The evident disposi- 
 tion of the northern states to risk or sacrifice everything m sup- 
 port of what the South felt to be an unjustifiable display of 
 favoritism toward their locality, was extremely irritating to the 
 
 southerners. 
 
 No more proceedings on the subject occurred until Septem- 
 ber 12. On that day it was again moved that the "present seat 
 of Congress" be the place for commencing proceedings. The 
 preamble recited in part, "longer delay in executing the previous 
 arrangements necessary to put into operation the federal govern- 
 ment, mav produce national injury."^^ a substitute motion provid- 
 ing that a more central place be chosen, but leaving the place 
 blank, was lost. At this point the Virginia and Pennsylvania 
 
 » Works of Alexander Hamilton, Federal edition, IX. 442- 
 '0 Madison to Washington, August is. 17SS. Writings of Madison, V. 
 248 Madison wrote a long letter to Washington on August 24, reviewing 
 the whole situation and offering reasons in favor of Philadelphia whtch 
 Washington characterized as conclusive. Writings of Madison. V. 256. and 
 writings of Washington, Sparks' edition, IX. 433- 
 
 H Writings of Madison, V. 260. The Journals of Congress record the 
 Maryland delegates as being present on Sept. S but not later. 
 12 Journals of Congress, XIII. 102. 
 
8 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 delegates, feeling that no alternative remained but to "agree to 
 New York or to strangle the government in its birth"^^ yielded. 
 The two delegates from Delaware moved to strike out "and the 
 present seat of Congress the place," and on the motion as to 
 whether these words should stand, those two states and Georgia 
 (which had usually been divided hitherto) supported the northern 
 states. As the final question was about to be put, Delaware 
 asked and obtained postponement until the following day. On 
 that day, September 13, by the unanimous vote of nine states 
 (Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland and North Carolina not 
 voting) the arrangements were finally completed. Electors were 
 to be appointed on the first Wednesday in January, they were 
 to cast their votes for president on the first Wednesday in Feb- 
 ruary, and the new government was to commence operations in 
 New York city on the first Wednesday in March, 1789. 
 
 This resolution, immediately announced to the states, was 
 received with general approbation. It had been expected for 
 weeks and the delay was beginning to cause considerable uneasi- 
 ness among the friends of the new government. Washington 
 wrote to Madison that the matter had already become the source 
 of clamor and might give advantages to the Antifederalists.^^ 
 But previous to this, Madison had written to Pendleton that he 
 had been ready for some time to conclude the contest, perceiving 
 that further delay could only discredit Congress and injure the 
 cause, but that his colleagues had not been able to overcome their 
 repugnance to New York.^^ The newspapers had been com- 
 plaining for some time. The New Jersey Journal for September 
 10 declared that the pernicious effects of the delay would be 
 
 '3 Writings of Madison, V. 261. 
 
 '< Washington to Madison, September 23, 1788. Sparks' Washington, 
 IX. 433- 
 
 '5 Madison to Pendleton, September 14, 17SS. Writings of Madison, 
 V. 260. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 9 
 
 Strongly felt in all parts of the Union. The Connecticut Courant 
 for August 25, complaining that sufficient time for framing the 
 necessary act had more than elapsed, said, "The delay does not 
 give satisfaction to the Masters of Congress, The People, who 
 scruple not to attribute it to motives, which it is to be hoped do 
 not exist." 
 
 Upon the final passage of the act, complaints ceased and 
 attention was turned from Congress to the state legislatures. All 
 classes began to speculate on such new questions as the time of 
 election, the mode of election and the candidates for office. 
 
CHAPTER n 
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION- OF UNITED STATES SENATORS 
 
 Of the three elections necessary in order to put the machin- 
 ery of the new government into operation, namely those for 
 electors, representatives and senators, that of the last attracted 
 the least attention. This was undoubtedly because the people had 
 no direct part in the choice. Within the respective state assem- 
 blies, the action taken was usually a perfunctory registration of 
 votes for men more or less important in the local political life. 
 
 The action of the legislatures differed in one interesting but 
 hardly important particular— the preparatory proceedings for the 
 senatorial election. Some states passed specific acts, similar in all 
 respects to legislative acts requiring the approval of the executive, 
 providing for the day, manner and place of the election. Other 
 states settled these matters by a simple, brief joint or concurrent 
 resolution. 
 
 Beside the passing interest in the result of the vote, a ques- 
 tion of permanent importance had to be decided. This was 
 whether the election should be by vote of the two houses of assem- 
 bly in joint session or in separate sessions. In many of the states 
 the former method had been used in the election of state execu- 
 tive officials, militia officers or members of the judiciary, and 
 that custom was now quoted as a precedent for the manner of 
 the election of senators. As a result the majority of the legisla- 
 tures elected by joint ballot. In those few states in which a con- 
 test ensued, it usually terminated in favor of the contention of the 
 upper house for an election by concurrent vote. 
 
 The first state to take action upon this election as well as 
 upon those for representatives and for electors, was Pennsyl- 
 vania. No complications between an upper and lower house 
 arose, for at that time the state constitution of 1776, with its pro- 
 
 (10) 
 
THE TRAXSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 II 
 
 vision for an assembly of a single house, was still in force. The 
 committee on the Federal government, appointed September i8, 
 1788, reported a bill five days later for the election of represen- 
 tatives and electors, and with the bill a resolution providing that 
 the following Tuesday, September 30, be assigned for the election 
 of two United States senators. Although some objection to such 
 prompt action was made, the resolution was accepted, it being 
 argued that this was a part of the great system for which the 
 assembly was making provision, and action could not prudently be 
 deferred. 1 Previous to the election three men were placed in 
 nomination, Robert Morris, General Irvine and William Maclay. 
 On the appointed day sixty-seven assemblymen were present, and 
 each voted for two persons. The first and only ballot resulted 
 in sixty-six votes for Maclay, thirty-seven for Morris and thirty- 
 one for Irvine. Maclay and Morris were therefore declared 
 elected.2 
 
 The new state constitution providing for a bicameral legis- 
 lature went into effect in the autumn of 1790, and in the selec- 
 tion of a successor to William Maclay, whose term of office ex- 
 pired March 4, 1791, a famous quarrel between the houses ensued. 
 The question seems not to have arisen until February 28, 1791, 
 when a resolution was introduced in the state senate, "That both 
 houses of the General Assembly meet in the Senate chamber on 
 Thursday the third of March next, for the purpose of electing, 
 by joint vote, a Senator to represent this state in the Senate of 
 the United States, and that the mode of conducting the present 
 election shall not be drawn into a precedent or example to govern 
 any future election. "^ This was negatived. On March 19, 
 another resolution "that if the House of Representatives agree 
 
 ' Lloyd's Debates, IV. 216. 
 
 2 Minutes of the Assembly of Pennsylvania. 
 
 3 This and the following actions are taken from the Journals of the 
 Senate and of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania. 
 
12 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 thereto be and he is hereby chosen by the legislature of this 
 
 commonwealth one of the Senators to represent this common- 
 wealth in the Senate of the United States," was introduced but 
 not carried. Finally on March 22, the state senate passed the 
 following resolve: "That on the 31st of March, the Senate and 
 
 House of Representatives w-ill proceed to the election of a 
 
 Senator, in the Congress of the United States, to supply the 
 vacancy in that body, made by the expiration of the period for 
 which William Maclay, one of the Senators, was elected, and 
 that the manner of choosing such Senator shall and is hereby 
 prescribed to be, that each House shall choose the Senator by 
 a viva voce vote in each House, and that should the Senate and 
 House of Representatives disagree, each House may report its 
 choice of a Senator until they agree in the choice of one and 
 the same person, and that the name of the person chosen shall 
 be inserted in a resolution to be agreed to by each House." On 
 March 26, this resolution was read in the house, and then ignored 
 till April II (long after the date prescribed by the resolution 
 for the election), when it was rejected. On motion of Gallatin 
 the house then resolved, "That on the twelfth inst., at twelve 
 o'clock, the Senate and House of Representatives will meet in 
 the Senate chamber, and then and there proceed (by joint vote 
 of the members of both Houses then present) to the election of 
 a Senator in the Congress of the United States." This was imme- 
 diately sent to the senate, but received no attention, and the 
 assembly adjourned two days later until August. 
 
 When the assembly met in August, 1791, a conference com- 
 mittee was immediately appointed by both houses in order if 
 possible to come to some compromise. On September 9 the 
 house committee reported that the joint committee had held sev- 
 eral conferences, the result of which was that the senate com- 
 mittee contended for a concurrent vote, while it believed that 
 the spirit of the Constitution, the expediency of the case and the 
 example of a great majority of the states, all united in support of a 
 
THE TR,\NSmONAL PERIOD, 1788, I789 
 
 13 
 
 ioint vote. On the same day the senate committee reported the dis- 
 agreement, whereupon it was resolved by a vote of nme to e.ght 
 that on the next Tuesday, September 13. the senate would pro- 
 erf to the choiee of a senator. The day foUowmg, the house 
 approved the conduct of its committee and passed as a resolu^on, 
 "the members of this house in conjunction wth the members 
 of the Senate, will proceed to the election of a Senator. . . _. .on 
 Wednesdav next." On the thirteenth, the senate rejected th.s 
 Solution of the house, but when its own order of the day wa 
 called up, action was postponed. A few days '^ter he hou. 
 attempted .0 break the deadlock by passmg a «g"'^^ /" /^ 
 scribing the manner of election. The senate amended the b.U 
 by providing for the election by concurrent vote, an amendment 
 which the liouse refused to accept, and before any further 
 action could be taken the assembly adjourned. 
 
 Soon after adjournment, there appeared an art.cle m the 
 public press giving the reasons why a minority in the house 
 favoL the senate amendment. It was argued that suK-e Umted 
 States senators were to be chosen by the legislature, and smce 
 fh legislature of Pennsylvania consisted of two houses, the cho.ce 
 should be effected in the same manner that every other legislatw 
 act was done. A choice by joint vote would be a cho.ce b .. 
 houses acting together, not a choice by the Icpslatwe It was 
 u her decirred'that the action by the lower branch of the^g- 
 islature signified "an attachment to the.r own house a des.re 
 to extend'its influence, and an inclination to w-st the pow 
 of the senate out of their hands.- A defense of the house 
 maioritv for rejecting the senate amendment also appeared, 
 m le t was virtually admitted that either method was const>- 
 utional since senators elected by both methods had been ad- 
 m ted to Congress, yet in view of the fact that a deadlock m.gh 
 Tc ur if the dection were by concurrent vote the exped.ency of 
 
 Dunlap's Daily Advertiser, October 3, 
 
 [791. 
 
14 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 the joint session method was urged. It was also claimed that 
 the spirit of the Constitution favored a system in which every 
 member of the legislature had an equal voice, not a system in 
 which a member of the senate had four times the vote of a 
 representative, as was the case in election by concurrent vote.^ 
 
 It was thought that Governor Mifflin might now appoint a 
 senator to fill the vacancy, until the two houses could come to 
 an agreement.^ This he did not do, however, not feeling sure 
 of his authority. But when the new assembly met in December, 
 1791, he attempted to stir it to action by declaring in his message 
 that the thing of prime importance, demanding first attention, 
 was the choice of a senator.'^ Notwithstanding this official prod, 
 the session was but a repetition of previous ones — rejected bills 
 and resolutions, barren conferences and addresses to the people. 
 
 The next assembly met December 4, 1792. The senatorial 
 question came up at once, and after several considerations of the 
 subject, a bill was introduced in the house, December 17, again 
 advocating the joint session method. The bill passed the house 
 on the twenty-eighth and was immediately sent to the senate where 
 it suffered an even harder fate than its predecessors, being flatly 
 rejected without consideration. The senate, apparently, had lost 
 all patience, and on January 15, 1793, it proceeded to elect a 
 senator according to its own method. Eighteen members were 
 present, but eight declined to vote, entering their reasons in full 
 on the Journals.^ The other ten members gave a unanimous 
 vote to James Ross. When this action was conveyed to the 
 house, that body declared by a vote of forty-four to eleven that 
 
 *Dunlap's Daily Advertiser, October 4, 1791. 
 
 *The Mail, October 4, 1791. 
 
 7 Pennsylvania Archives, Series 4, IV, 201. 
 
 * Journals of the senate of Pennsylvania, IK. 70. The senate, fiirough- 
 out the twoyearsof this contest, had been very closely divided, a bare major- 
 ity holding out against the lower house. The latter on the other hand, had 
 a large majority, at times four-fifths, against the senate majority. 
 
THE TR-\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1788, 1 789 15 
 
 on constitutional grounds it could take no order on the senate 
 
 election. 
 
 No other action was taken till February 19, I793. when the 
 eight supporters of the house measures and only seven of their 
 ten opponents were present in the senate at the same time. A 
 resolution was then passed providing for the election of a United 
 States senator by joint ballot, nominations to be previously made. 
 This resolution was immediately sent to the house where it was 
 adopted without delay. Thus through strategy the joint session 
 faction finally attained its end. Previous to the date of election, 
 February 28, sixteen persons were placed in nomination, among 
 them being James Ross, Colonel Henry Miller, Albert Gallatin 
 and former Senator William Maclay. On the day of election 
 the house supporters united on Albert Gallatin and the senate 
 on Henry Miller. Of eighty-two votes cast, Gallatin received 
 forty-five and was declared elected. 
 
 When, because he had not been seven years a citizen, the 
 election of Gallatin was declared void by the United States 
 Senate,^ the Pennsylvania lower house passed a resolution to elect 
 a senator by joint vote. The senate showed signs of balking 
 again, but when it came to a decision, negatived a resolution for a 
 concurrent vote and reluctantly adopted the house resolve. Four- 
 teen persons were placed in nomination, but only three were 
 voted for at the election. James Ross, the successful candidate, 
 received fortv-five votes, Robert Coleman, thirty-five, and Samuel 
 Sitgreaves one. Thus, finally, on April i, 1794, an acceptable 
 senator was chosen for the term commencing March 4, 179I; 
 
 Like many of the other apparently constitutional questions 
 of the time, this contest was at heart a political one. The ma- 
 joritv in the senate was Federal, in the house. Republican. If 
 the election were by concurrent vote, the senate could hold out 
 against, and possibly in time secure a victory over the house, but 
 
 'February 28, 1794. See Annals of Congress, i793-95> 47-62- 
 
l6 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 if the election were by joint vote, the large house majority would 
 swamp the senate on the first ballot. This was the real signifi- 
 cance of the deadlock lasting until 1793. In 1794 the two houses 
 were of the same political faith, and it made little difference which 
 mode of election was used. This explains the yielding of the 
 senate to the house in the latter year. 
 
 The Connecticut and Delaware legislatures, following Penn- 
 sylvania in point of time, held their senatorial elections in joint 
 session, apparently without question or unusual incident. This 
 was the customary method for the election of several of their state 
 officers. The successful candidates in Connecticut were William 
 S. Johnson and Oliver Ellsworth. In Delaware the council and 
 assembly met together on October 25, at twelve o'clock, and placed 
 George Reed, Gunning Bedford and Richard Basset in nomina- 
 tion. At three o'clock of the same day, another joint session was 
 held and Reed and Basset were elected.^^^ 
 
 In Virginia the choice of senators was interesting, not be- 
 cause of any unusual method employed in the election, nor of 
 any contest between the two houses, but because the anti-consti- 
 tutional party in that state was making a last desperate attempt 
 to thwart the operation of the new Constitution by forcing Con- 
 gress to call a second general convention. It was necessary to the 
 success of this movement that friends of the Constitution must 
 not be sent to Congress, hence the struggle was carried into the 
 senatorial election. 
 
 On the first of November, 1788, Patrick Henry moved that 
 on November 8 the two houses proceed by joint ballot to the 
 choice of two senators to represent Virginia in the United States 
 Senate. ^^ Both houses agreed and on the sixth of November can- 
 didates were nominated. The only person brought forward by 
 the Federalists was James Madison. Three weeks earlier, in writ- 
 
 '" Minutes of the Council of Delaware, 
 n Rives' Madison, II. 648. 
 

 THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 I7 
 
 ing to Governor Randolph on the subject, Madison had said, "I 
 mean not to decline an agency in launching the new government 
 if such should be assigned me in one of the Houses, and I prefer 
 the House of Representatives, chiefly because if I can render any 
 service there, it can only be to the public, and not even in imputa- 
 tion, to myself. At the same time, my preference, I own, is some- 
 what founded on the supposition that the arrangements for the 
 popular elections may secure me against any competition which 
 would require on my part any step that would speak a solicitude 
 which 1 do not feel, or have the appearance of a spirit of elec- 
 tioneering which I despise."^2 g^t when his friends expressed 
 a strong preference for him over any other Federal candidate for 
 the senatorship, he waived all objections, though at the same time, 
 from the political complexion of the assembly, he did not expect 
 to be elected. 
 
 For the Antifederal party, two candidates, Richard Henry 
 Lee and William Grayson, were nominated, Henry taking the 
 unusual liberty of naming both. A letter from Governor Ran- 
 dolph to Madison, describing the proceedings on the day of 
 nomination, says, "Mr. Henry, after expatiating largely in favor 
 of Mr. Lee and Mr. Grayson, concluded that yourself, whose 
 talents and integrity he admitted, were unreasonable on this oc- 
 casion, in which your Federal politics were so adverse to the 
 opinions of many members. Your friends Page, Corbin, Carring- 
 ton and White were zealous, but the last gentleman, having in 
 the connection of his idea something about instructions, ac- 
 knowledged that it was doubtful whether you would obey instruc- 
 tions which should direct you to vote against direct taxation. 
 'Thus gentlemen,' rejoined Mr. Henry, 'the secret is out; it is 
 doubted whether Mr. Madison will obey his instructions.' "^^ 
 
 '2 Madison, to Edmund Randolph, October 17, 1778. Madison's Writ- 
 ings, V. 276. See also V. 296. 
 
 "Conway's Randolph, pp. 120-121. 
 2 
 
l8 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Henry urged in particular that Madison was against amendments, 
 a telling argument in an assembly committed, as it already was, 
 to the principle of amendments at any cost. This public 
 philippic against Madison had its desired effect. At the election 
 on the eighth, Lee received ninety-eight votes, Grayson eighty- 
 six, Madison seventy-seven and sixty-seven votes were given to 
 persons not nominated. ^^ Thus Virginia elected two declared 
 Antifederalists to the Senate. 
 
 The first choice of senators in New Hampshire was by con- 
 current vote. This was the more strange because the two houses 
 were accustomed to meet in joint session for debate on important 
 matters — as they did, for instance, to consider the best method 
 of carrying into effect the resolves of Congress relative to the 
 new Constitution.^^ But the journals of neither house nor of 
 any other extant records contain an account of any question 
 arising as to whether or not this was the proper mode of electing 
 senators. On November ii, the lower house, by a vote of sixty 
 to three proposed John Langdon as one of the senators. ^^^ The 
 day following, the senate concurred in the choice of Langdon, 
 and chose Josiah Bartlett as his colleague. At the same time the 
 house selected Nathaniel Peabody, and then waited to see what 
 the senate would do with this choice before acting on that body's 
 recommendation. The senate, however, by a vote of two to 
 eight non-concurred in the election of Peabody, and the house 
 then concurred in the choice of Bartlett. Bartlett declined to 
 serve, and on January i the house selected Paine Wingate in his 
 place, a decision to which the senate agreed. 
 
 The Massachusetts general court, in contrast to the New 
 
 '^Ibid. Each person of the 164 who voted named two candidates. 
 Randolph says that at least fifty of the sixty-seven votes given to men not 
 nominated, came from Madison's friends, who thus threw away their second 
 vote rather than assist Lee or Grayson. 
 
 '5 State Papers of New Hampshire, XXI. 349. 
 
 '«Ibid.. XXI. 356, 357. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, I789 I9 
 
 Hampshire assembly, had considerable trouble in deciding upon 
 an election method. The joint committee on the new government 
 made a detailed report November 4, in which it was recommended 
 that in the choice of senators, each branch of the legislature 
 have a negative upon the other.^'^ The house did not readily 
 accede to this, and the committee was called upon to defend its 
 action. To quote the Massachusetts Centinel, "Mr. Dawes ex- 
 plained the reasons which induced a majority of the reporting 
 committee to agree to it — he said the Federal Constitution had 
 directed that the choice should be by the Legislatures of the sev- 
 eral States. In order to ascertain what was meant by the term 
 Legislature, a recurrence was had to the constitution of this 
 State, and it had there been found that the Legislature consisted 
 of the two branches of the General Court, acting on each other by 
 a negative. The Committee therefore could do no other than 
 report as they had."^® As the house considered that mode of 
 election prejudicial to its privileges, the acceptance of the report 
 was negatived by a great majority. A deadlock, lasting for two 
 weeks, ensued, but finally on November 20, a compromise between 
 the two houses was effected. It was agreed that the choice of 
 presidential electors should be by joint ballot, and the choice of 
 senators by concurrent vote. On the following day the house 
 proceeded with the election of two persons, Caleb Strong and 
 Charles Jarvis. The senate at once concurred in the election of 
 Strong, but non-concurred in that of Jarvis, proposing John 
 Lowell instead. The house would not agree to Lowell's election 
 and chose Jarvis a second time. The senate, in turn, sent down 
 its second non-concurrence, this time proposing the name of 
 Azor Orne. The house refused to accept Orne and persisted 
 in naming Jarvis, but for the third time the senate non-concurred 
 and brought forward Tristram Dalton. Both houses seemed de- 
 
 "■ Massachusetts Centinel, November 5, 1788. 
 i»IbuJ., November 8, 17S8. 
 
20 UXIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 termined and an indefinite contest was foreshadowed, but just 
 at this juncture Jarvis withdrew. The house then chose Nathan 
 Dane but the senate insisted upon Dalton, and on November 
 24, the house concurred in the latter's election. ^^ 
 
 In New Jersey the "joint meeting" had a regular organiza- 
 tion. Annually, at the beginning of each new legislature, the 
 two houses cam,e together and elected officers of the joint meet- 
 ing to serve one year. Many important questions and all elections 
 of state officers came before this body. This explains the tenth 
 section of the act for carrying the new Constitution into effect 
 in New Jersey, passed November 21, 1788.20 By this section 
 it was provided that two citizens of the state, qualified as the con- 
 stitution directed, should be chosen by the state legislature 
 assembled in joint meeting. The governor of the state was 
 authorized to commission the persons so chosen, under the great 
 seal of the state. On the day following the passage of the bill, 
 the council proposed to the house a joint meeting on the follow- 
 ing Tuesday, November 25, at the college library room,2i for 
 the purpose of electing senators and other officers.22 The house 
 promptly acquiesced, and at the prescribed time and place, twelve 
 councillors and thirty-eight assemblymen were present. Each had 
 the privilege of voting for two persons. Four candidates were 
 placed in nomination: William Paterson, Abraham Clark, Jona- 
 than Elmer and Elias Boudinot. Of the one hundred votes cast, 
 Paterson received forty-five, Elmer twenty-nine, Clark nineteen 
 and Boudinot seven. Paterson and Elmer were declared elected.^s 
 It is worthy of remark that in this case, judging by the returns, 
 a concurrent vote would not have changed the result. Of the 
 twenty-four votes cast by the councillors, Paterson received 
 
 19 Massachusetts Centinel, November 22, 1788, et seq. 
 
 20 New Jersey Session Laws. 
 
 21 The assembly was meeting at Princeton. 
 
 22 Journal of the Proceedings of the Legislative-Council. 
 
 23 New Jersey Journal and Political Intelligencer, December 3. 1788. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 21 
 
 twelve, Elmer had seven, Clark three, and Boudinot two; while 
 of the seventy-six votes by the assemblymen, Paterson received 
 thirty-three, Elmer twenty-two, Clark sixteen, and Boudinot five. 
 All four candidates were professed Federalists, though it was 
 thought Clark favored amendments. 
 
 The Maryland legislature passed no law on the subject of 
 the election, but it was agreed by a concurrent resolution that 
 the election should be by joint ballot, that no person should be 
 chosen except by a majority of the attending members of both 
 houses, that one senator should be a resident of the western shore 
 and one of the eastern shore, and that the election should take 
 place December g.^^ On that day thirteen of the fifteen mem- 
 bers of the senate, and seventy of the seventy-six members of 
 the house of delegates attended the joint session. John Henry 
 and George Gale were put into nomination for the eastern shore, 
 and Charles Carroll and Uriah Forrest for the w^estern shore. 
 On the first ballot Henry, Gale and Forrest each received forty- 
 one votes, and Carroll forty. Since eighty-three members 
 were present no candidate had received the necessary majority 
 of forty-two, and a second ballot was taken. It resulted as fol- 
 lows: Henry forty-two. Gale forty, Forrest forty-one and Car- 
 roll forty-one. Henry was therefore declared elected as the 
 senator from the eastern shore, and adjournment was taken un- 
 til the following day. The first ballot cast when the joint session 
 reassembled resulted in the election of Carroll, forty-two votes 
 being given to him and thirty-nine to Forrest.^^ Had the Mary- 
 land election been by concurrent vote, either a deadlock would 
 have resulted or it would have been necessary to eflfect a com- 
 promise between the two houses, for, on the first ballot, forty 
 of the seventy members present from the lower house voted for 
 Henry and Forrest, while twelve of the thirteen senators present 
 
 2< Session Laws of Maryland, 1788. 
 
 25 Independent Gazetteer, December iS, 178S. 
 
22 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 favored Carroll and Gale.^^ Possibly, even as it was, the result 
 was a compromise, for Henry, supported by the house majority, 
 was chosen over Gale, while Carroll, supported by the senate 
 majority, was chosen over Forrest. 
 
 The South Carolina and Georgia legislatures chose their 
 senators early in the year 1789. Little more than the names of 
 the successful candidates, and the fact that they favored the Con- 
 stitution is known. The Georgia legislature, similar to the 
 Pennsylvania assembly, was composed of but one house at that 
 time, and being free from inter-house struggles, had no difficulty 
 in making James Gunn and William Few its choice. The elec- 
 tion in South Carolina was probably in joint session, the mode fol- 
 lowed in the choice of presidential electors. Pierce Butler and 
 Ralph Izard were returned. 
 
 The absence of any constitutional provision or congressional 
 law specifically describing the manner of the choice of senators 
 was felt most keenly during the first election in New York, where 
 a deadlock in the legislature deprived that state of representation 
 in the United States Senate for the greater part of the first ses- 
 sion of Congress. The upper house of the assembly contained 
 a very small Federal majority while the lower house was Anti- 
 federal in the proportion of about seven to five. This gives the 
 key to the situation at once, though upon its face the contest was 
 altogether a constitutional one. 
 
 The assembly met December 10, 1788. Ten days later the 
 senate passed a bill providing for the election of Philip Schuyler 
 
 26 Nothing has been found to indicate that this contest was anything 
 more than the result of personal rivalry. Carroll and Gale were unques- 
 tionably P'ederalists, but there is no apparent evidence that Henry and 
 Forrest were Antifederalists. The house of delegates was certainly 
 Federalist, as is proved by the law it passed for the election of repre- 
 sentatives, and hence would not have supported Antifederalists. Possibly 
 Henry and Forrest belonged to the middle party favorable to constitu- 
 tional amendments by Congress. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 23 
 
 and Robert Yates, but when it came before the house it was 
 rejected without debate. The house, meanwhile, had framed a 
 general election bill for senators, representatives and presidential 
 electors, which it passed December 22. In the election of sena- 
 tors, this bill provided that the senate and assembly should each 
 openly nominate as many persons as there were senators to be 
 chosen, after which nomination both houses should come to- 
 gether and compare the lists. Those persons named in both were 
 to be declared elected, and in case only one man was so chosen, 
 from the remaining persons whose names were on one list only 
 the other senator was to be chosen by joint ballot.^" 
 
 The senate passed the bill, but with amendments wholly 
 changing its character. For electing senators, the upper house 
 substituted the following: "The senate and assembly of this 
 state shall, if two senators are to 'be appointed, openly nominate 
 two persons, and shall respectively give notice each to the other 
 of such nomination; that if both houses agree in the nomination 
 of the same person or persons, the person or persons so nominated 
 and agreed to shall be the Senator or Senators to represent this 
 state in the Senate of the Congress of the United States; that if 
 the nomination of either house does not agree in any of the per- 
 sons nominated by the other the Senate shall on the same day 
 openly choose one of the persons nominated by the assembly, and 
 the assembly shall on the same day openly choose one of the per- 
 sons nominated by the Senate, and the two persons so chosen 
 shall be the Senators to represent this state as aforesaid ; that in 
 every case where two Senators are to be chosen, and both houses 
 agree only as to one in such nomination as aforesaid, and in every 
 case where only one Senator is to be chosen, either of the two 
 houses of the legislature may propose to the other a resolution 
 for concurrence, naming therein a person to fill the office of Sena- 
 tor, and if the house receiving such resolution shall concur there- 
 
 2^ Pennsylvania Packet, January iS, 1789. 
 
24 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 in, the person so named in such resolution shall be the Senator, 
 but if such resolution shall not be concurred in, either house may 
 on that or any future day, proceed to offer to the other a resolu- 
 tion for concurrence from time to time until they shall agree upon 
 a Senator."28 
 
 The amended bill received an adverse vote in the house, but 
 according to Article XV, of the state constitution, before it could 
 be finally rejected, a joint session or conference had to be arranged 
 and "managers" appointed by each house to present its point of 
 view. This conference was arranged for January 5. Duane, 
 L'Hommedieu and Schuyler were appointed to speak for the sen- 
 ate; Jones, Adgate and G. Livingston were to perform a like office 
 for the house. A great debate, lasting almost the entire day, 
 ensued. It was urged in behalf of the original bill that it followed 
 the plan directed by the state constitution and was therefore the 
 only constitutional method. To this it was replied that the new 
 Federal Constitution had made certain parts of the state consti- 
 tution null and void. The latter had indeed provided for the elec- 
 tion of members of the Continental Congress by joint vote, 
 but under the new regime the only authority for the appointment 
 of senators was derived from the Federal Constitution. The 
 house managers demurred, saying that the new Constitution did 
 not expressly do away with or contradict the election provision of 
 the state constitution; the latter was still in force and should be 
 employed. In that case, answered the senate managers, since it 
 was clear that United States representatives were as much "mem- 
 bers of Congress" as were senators, they ought also to be elected 
 by joint ballot of the two houses, — a deduction plainly following 
 the house arguments, though as plainly unconstitutional. But. it 
 was rejoined, the senate amendment was not conformable to either 
 of the constitutions, since the language of both was that of choos- 
 ing or electing, whereas the idea in the amendment barely airiount- 
 
 ^ Pennsylvania Packet, January 18, 1789. 
 
THE TIL\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, I789 2$ 
 
 ed to an appointment. A joint vote is an election by the legisla- 
 ture, they argued further, while a concurrent vote is simply an 
 appointment by an act of the legislature. An appointment by an 
 act was precisely the proper method, replied the senate speakers. 
 The new Constitution prescribed, "the times, places and manner 
 of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be 
 prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." That is, the 
 legislature, in New York the senate and house, must act as 
 it usually acts, since no other mode is dictated, — and the two 
 houses in New York "act by and have a negative upon each 
 other." The house ignored this and advanced a new argument. 
 The assembly was nearer the people, and in a case of this kind 
 ought to have more power in the choice; this was the principle 
 upon which the state constitution had been formed. The senate 
 managers denied this and affirmed that the state constitution 
 had established an equality between the two branches of the leg- 
 islature, which the house plan would destroy. As a last resort the 
 house managers urged the acceptance of their plan on the grounds 
 of expediency: the senate plan was not conclusive, and if the 
 two houses could not agree, no appointment would follow. In 
 answer it was stated that the senate amendment copied the plan 
 used satisfactorily in the passage of laws.^^ 
 
 At the conclusion of the conference the assembly rejected 
 the amendment by a vote of thirty-five to twenty-four : the senate 
 refused to recede by a vote of eleven to eight, and the bill was 
 lost. About two weeks later the house passed another bill pro- 
 viding for the choice of senators, but it contained provisions 
 exactly similar to those of the bill which had failed. The senate 
 passed the bill with the same amendment as before. A conference 
 was again held but neither side would compromise, and the bill 
 was lost. Spasmodic efforts to come to an understanding were 
 continued, but all were fruitless, and the legislature finally ad- 
 journed March 3, with no senators appointed. 
 
 2« Pennsylvania Packet, January-Februarv, 1789. 
 
26 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 The contest was now transferred from the legislature to 
 the voters of the state. The election of state officers was to be 
 held April 28, and both parties made strong efforts to win.^o 
 The gubernatorial contest attracted the greatest attention, but 
 the struggle to control the legislature was a close second in in- 
 terest. The final returns showed that the honors were divided. 
 The Antifederalists were successful in the choice of a governor, 
 CHnton winning by about four hundred votes, but the Federalists 
 had a majority in the legislature. On June 4 Governor Clinton 
 issued a proclamation convening the legislature in special session 
 at Albany July 6.^^ Although no definite reason was given, it was 
 surmised by the press of the country that the special business was 
 the election of senators.32 
 
 On July 8, two days after the legislature had met, a bill 
 directing the manner of appointment of United States senators 
 was presented to the house. In brief, it provided for an election 
 by concurrent vote, thus justifying the position which the senate 
 had held at the previous session. Each house was to nominate 
 the number of persons to be elected. If the nominations agreed, 
 those nominated were to be declared elected. Otherwise, if two 
 persons were to be chosen, the house was to choose one from the 
 two senate nominations and the senate one from the house list. 
 If only one senator was needed, or if two were to be chosen and 
 only one had been agreed upon in the first nominations, the elec- 
 tion was to be by concurrent vote.^^ 
 
 This bill passed the house July 10, and the senate July 13. 
 Just at this point the Council of Revision came forward in sup- 
 port of the Antifederalist position. This Council was composed 
 of the governor, chancellor and judges of the supreme court, and 
 
 3° PennsyU-ania Packet, May 8, 1789. The slate was '•convulsed b_v 
 parties." 
 
 3' Independent Gazetteer, June 10, 1789. 
 
 32 Independent Gazetteer, June 30, 1789. 
 
 33 Ibid., July 22, 1789. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 27 
 
 had authority to return to the legislature, together with their 
 written objections, all bills which they considered improper to 
 become laws. Then, unless passed by a two-thirds vote of both 
 houses in separate session, such bills failed.^^ On July 15, the 
 Council of Revision returned the bill prescribing the manner of 
 electing senators, with the following objections: 
 
 "I. Because the Constitution of the United States directs 
 that the Senators be chosen from each State by the Legislature 
 thereof. If by the Legislature is intended the members of the two 
 houses not acting in their legislative capacity, no law is necessary 
 to prescribe the mode of election; concurrent resolutions extend- 
 ing in this case as well to the mode of election as to the choice of 
 persons, and the bill, as far as it goes, operates as a restriction 
 upon the constitutional rights of the two houses. If the Legis- 
 lature are only known in their legislative capacity, the Senators 
 can constitutionally be appointed by law only, (that is, each house 
 having a negative upon the other) and no considerations arising 
 from inconvenience will justify a deviation from the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 "2. Because this bill, when two Senators are to be chosen, 
 enacts that in case of the disagreement of the two houses in the 
 nominations, each house shall, out of the nominations of the 
 other, choose one, and that such person shall be the Senator to 
 represent this State ; and thus, by compelling each house to choose 
 one of two persons, neither of whom may meet with their appro- 
 bation, establishes a choice of Senators by the separate act of each 
 branch of the Legislature, in direct opposition to the Constitution 
 of the United States, which in the third section of the first article, 
 declares that they shall be chosen by the Legislature. "^^ 
 
 The house refused to pass the bill in the face of these ob- 
 
 "New York Constitution of 1777, Article III. 
 
 '^ Street's Council of Revision of the State of New York, p. 290. 
 Albany, 1855. 
 
28 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 jections, and immediately afterward adopted a resolution provid- 
 ing for the choice of senators by concurrent vote. This mode being 
 acceptable to the senate, the house proceeded to nominate Philip 
 Schuyler and James Duane. The senate by a vote of thirteen to 
 six concurred in the choice of the former but rejected the latter, 
 proposing instead Ezra L'Hommedieu. On the following day 
 the house non-concurred in the choice of L'Hommedieu, and by 
 a unanimous vote nominated Rufus King. The senate immedi- 
 ately concurred, thus finally completing the election.^^ 
 
 North Carolina and Rhode Island, represented in the United 
 States Senate in the second and third sessions of the first Con- 
 gress, both chose senators by ballot in joint session, the custom 
 followed in the selection of state officers. This system was modi- 
 fied in North Carolina by a peculiar arrangement in which each 
 house in separate session, at the close of the joint session, con- 
 curred or non-concurred in the action of the joint session.^^ 
 This arrangement, however, apparently did not affect the choice 
 of senators. 
 
 The North Carolina convention ratified the Federal Consti- 
 tution November 21, 1789. Three days later the house proposed 
 to the senate that on the following Thursday, November 26, the 
 two houses should proceed to the choice of United States sena- 
 tors, accompanying the proposition with the names of twelve 
 persons as candidates. The senate agreed to both the resolution 
 and the nominations. On the first ballot in joint session, the leg- 
 islature elected Samuel Johnston by a large majority .^^ but failed 
 to concentrate on a second choice. Another ballot was accordingly 
 arranged for December 2, with three persons in nomination. But 
 three successive sessions, on as many different days, had to be 
 
 36 Independent Gazetteer, July 24, 17S9. 
 
 87 When the joint session chose Alexander Martin as governor to 
 succeed Johnston, the senate withheld its concurrence because it had been 
 suggested that Martin was not eligible. State Records, XXI. 661. 
 
 s«Ibid., XXI. 628. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 29 
 
 held before Benjamin Hawkins was finally chosen on Decem- 
 ber 8.39 
 
 The Rhode Island assembly was convened m special session 
 immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, and an act 
 was soon passed making provision for the election of two senators 
 and one representative. The former were to be chosen "agree- 
 ably to the usage in the choice of state officers by this General 
 Assembly, joined in a grand committee, and not in separate 
 houses, and by ballot, and not otherwise."^« The successful can- 
 didates were Joseph Stanton, first, and Theodore Foster, second.^^ 
 In order to enable them to take their seats in Congress, it was 
 voted to loan to each one hundred fifty dollars, to be repaid with 
 interest upon their return.^^ Both took their seats in Congress 
 June 25, 1790. This made the representation of the thirteen states 
 in the upper house of that body finally complete. 
 
 A summary of the results of this first election of United 
 States senators reveals the fact that despite the wide-spread dif- 
 
 39 Hawkins took his seat in Congress on January 13, and Johnston on 
 January 29, 1790. 
 
 <° Rhode Island Colonial Records, X. 3S5. 
 
 ^1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, X. 387- Stanton was an Anti- 
 federalist and had voted against the adoption of the Constitution. W. R. 
 Staples, Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, p. 673- 
 
 Foster was a Federalist from Providence and had worked hard for the 
 adoption of the Constitution. Collections of the Rhode Island Historical 
 Society, VII. 121-122. 
 
 No information as to who were the opposing candidates, nor as to the 
 number of votes received, is extant. It would seem probable that at the 
 election each member of the assembly voted for one person, the two re- 
 ceiving the highest number being elected. In that case the assembly, 
 ^■hich had an Antifederalist majority, would naturally give the highest 
 number of votes to an Antifederalist, who would then be -first senator, 
 while the minority would unite to give the second highest number ot votes 
 to a candidate of its party. This man would then be "second senator.' 
 « Rhode Island Colonial Records, X. 386. 
 
30 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 ference of opinion as to the proper procedure in such elections, 
 a large majority of the legislatures decided in favor of the joint 
 session method. In two states, Pennsylvania and Georgia, the 
 assemblies at that time were composed of a single chamber, and 
 hence the election was a ver\' simple matter. Of the remaining 
 eleven states, only three, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and 
 New York, chose their senators by concurrent action of the two 
 houses. 
 
CHAPTEE ni 
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION OF UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 During the same few months that the states were decidh^ 
 for the first time, just how the appointment of senators should be 
 made, they were also making their first provisions for the election 
 of United States representatives. None of the states had taken 
 any aetion previous to the autumn of 1788, but the subject had 
 been discussed in the newspapers of the country during the sum- 
 mer and the people had become familiar with the respective ad- 
 vanmges and disadvantages of two plans, a district system and a 
 general ticket system. One writer had suggested a combmat.on 
 of the two modes, namely, that the respective states divide them- 
 selves into as many districts as there were members to be chosen 
 direct the voters to fix upon a member from each district, and 
 then let the entire state vote for the whole number of mem- 
 bers By this mode, he declared, a knowledge of the local in- 
 terests of every part of the state would be carried to Congress 
 but in such manner as not to interfere with the genera interes 
 of the whole state, the agriculture and commerce of the states 
 would always be kept in friendship with each other, and none but 
 men of real character and abilities would be returned for such 
 men are generally best known throughout every part of a state. 
 By the plan of choosing federal representatives at large a friend 
 of the general ticket urged, the pernicious acts of caballing and 
 influencing would be avoided, and the best chance of obtaining the 
 esrman'and the best abilities afforded.^ The Constitu.iona 
 provision that the legislatures of the respective states should 
 
 1 Massachusetts Centinel, July 23, 17SS. 
 
 2 Ibid., November i, 178S. 
 
 (31) 
 
32 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 prescribe the times, places and manner of holding the elections ^ 
 showed no preference for either mode, and in deciding the ques- 
 tion, the various state legislatures were generally guided by mo- 
 tives of policy, or by election custom. 
 
 A variety of election laws was passed, immediately after the 
 passage of which, the political parties in the several states began 
 to take measures for bringing suitable candidates before the 
 public. It is very difficult, owing to the paucity of records of 
 any kind, to follow these moverrtents, but the political activities 
 may be traced in three or four states. 
 
 Pennsylvania led off in favor of the general ticket system. 
 The state as a whole was Federal, But there were strong Anti- 
 federal sections which, had the district system been adopted, 
 would have returned representatives from that party. So it was 
 obviously the part of political wisdom for the assembly, which 
 was strongly Federal, to adopt the general ticket system. Such 
 an argument was not given by the supporters of that system on 
 the floor of the assembly, however. There, when the report of 
 the special committee showed that it favored the general ticket 
 system, its opponents urged, on the grounds of expediency, that 
 only by the district system could eight men^ have a particular 
 knowledge of the local and common interest of their constituents 
 throughout the state. To this it was replied that the district sys- 
 
 ' Constitution, Article i, section 4. 
 
 Madison, in the Constitutional Convention, said, "These were words 
 of great latitude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be 
 made of the discretionary power. Whether the electors should vote by 
 ballot, or viva voce, should assemble at this place or that place, should be 
 divided into districts, or all meet at one place, should all vote for all the 
 representatives, or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the dis- 
 trict — these and many other points, would depend on the legislatures, and 
 might materially affect the appointments." 
 
 Elliot's Debates, edition of 1861, V. 401. 
 
 * Pennsylvania was entitled to eight representatives. 
 
/ 
 
 THK TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 33 
 
 tern was unconstitutional since it placed another qualification, not 
 named in the Constitution, upon the candidate, namely, that he be 
 an inhabitant of that particular district, or part of the state, from 
 which it was proposed to choose him. If the state were divided 
 into eight districts, each to choose one member, how could any one 
 of them be called a representative of Pennsylvania, or how could 
 confidence be reposed in a person disagreeable to seven-eighths 
 of the inhabitants of the state, — not an impossible case. More- 
 over, when a person so chosen went to Congress, a body which 
 judged the qualifications of its own members, might it not be 
 urged against him that he was not a representative of Penn- 
 sylvania because he had been elected by only one-eighth part of 
 the state, and for this reason the election be declared irregular 
 and set aside.^ These arguments overcame the feeble opposition 
 and the general ticket plan was easily carried.^ The act as passed 
 provided for an election to be carried on in accordance with the 
 general election laws of the state, on the last Wednesday of the 
 following November. Each person voting was to deliver in writ- 
 ing on a slip of paper the names of eight persons to serve as 
 representatives. These were to be selected from the citizens at 
 large who were duly qualified by the United States Constitution. 
 The eight receiving the highest number of votes were to be de- 
 clared elected." 
 
 Two political conventions were held in the autumn of 1788.^ 
 
 * Lloyd's Debates, September 24, 17S8. 
 
 *In proof that this was a political measure, see a letter from Benjamin 
 
 Rush to Jeremy Belknap, October 7, 178S. " Our state has taken 
 
 the lead in making arrangements for setting the new Government in 
 motion. By obliging the whole state to vote in one ticket it is expected 
 the Federalists will prevail by a majority of two to one in the choice of 
 Representatives for the lower house of Congress." Collections of the 
 Massachusetts Historical Society, sixth series, IV. 418. 
 
 'Pennsylvania Session Laws, October 4, 1788. 
 
 *J. S. Walton, Nominating Conventions in Pennsylvania, American 
 Historical Review, II. 262 et seq. 
 
 3 
 
34 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 The first, convened at Harrisburg September 3, a month before 
 the passage of the election law, was called by the Anti federalists, 
 primarily to discuss the revision of the Federal Constitution, but 
 secondarily to nominate a list of persons for representatives and 
 electors. No evidence is at hand to prove that the second object 
 of the meeting was completely carried out, though a tentative 
 list of names may have been agreed upon. Ten weeks elapsed 
 between the meeting and the publication of the nominations, dur- 
 ing which time the ticket was fully and finally decided by cor- 
 respondence. It first appeared in the newspapers of Philadelphia, 
 November 12, in an address to the freemen of Pennsylvania, 
 signed by "A friend to Liberty and Union."^ This address re- 
 ferred to the Constitution, with its lack of amendments, as con- 
 taining two great defects. The first of these was the unlimited 
 power of Congress; the second, the w^ant of provisions securing 
 the rights of the individual. The article went on to say that the 
 writer had learned, from his correspondents throughout the state, 
 of a widespread desire to see the Constitution amended. And in 
 the belief that the new Congress, if properly selected, would take 
 the initiative in securing such amendments, it had been thought 
 wise to place in nomination for representatives the following 
 men: William Findley, Charles Pettit, William In'ine, Robert 
 Whitehill, William Montgomery, Blair McClenachan, Daniel 
 Heister and Peter Muhlenberg. This was known to the Anti- 
 federalist papers as the Whig ticket, but it was not completely 
 Antifederal. Its promoters gave as a reason that a purely party 
 ticket would not represent all classes of the population. The 
 suspicion arose that at bottom it was a scheme to catch votes, and 
 such a charge was later made. 
 
 The second convention was held by the Federalists November 
 3, at Lancaster. Its sole purpose was to nominate electors and 
 representatives. This "conference" had been called immediately 
 
 y Indenendent Gazetteer, November 12, 17S8. 
 
THE TIL\NSIT10NAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 35 
 
 after the passage of the election law, and the party supporters 
 in the different counties had at once held meetings and appointed 
 instructed delegates. In Philadelphia "The Friends to the Federal 
 Government" met at the state house, October ii, and appointed a 
 ward committee to nominate delegates.!^ This committee re- 
 ported on October i8, in favor of James Wilson and George 
 Latimer, who were thereupon elected. The same committee was 
 then further instructed to name six suitable Philadelphians, from 
 among w-hom the city's share of the congressional delegation 
 might be chosen.^^ These names were reported at a third meet- 
 ing October 25.1 - 
 
 In some of the county meetings general requisites rather 
 than specific persons were recommended. The party in Northum- 
 berland, a typical county, gave the following instructions to guide 
 its delegates in choosing congressional nominees : "let integrity 
 and decency of character be considered as the first qualification, 
 industr}^ and application to business as the second. No brilliancy 
 of talents, or show of knowledge, should atone for the want of the 
 above qualities. Thirdly, extensive information, and some degree 
 of practice in agriculture, commerce and manufactures, with a 
 general knowledge of the laws of the land are necessary. But as 
 it may be objected, that men qualified in all the above respects 
 cannot easily be found — and that different men adapted to the 
 different interests might be chosen, we recommend something of 
 the following kind : That two able merchants who may attend 
 to the interest of commerce, one person remarkably attached to 
 the interests of manufactures, and an eminent law character, with 
 four substantial yoemen, should form our representation in Con- 
 
 '0 Pennsylvania Packet, October 13, 1788. 
 " Ibid., October 20, 178S. 
 J2Ibid,, October 27, 1788, 
 " Ibid., October 23, 1788. 
 
36 UXIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 man voters in the state, that a part of the representation be able 
 to do business in the German language. 
 
 The state conference was held at the appointed time and 
 place. Thirty delegates, representing every county in the state 
 except Luzerne, were present and nominated the following men: 
 Thomas Hartley, Henry Wynkoop, George Clymer, Thomas 
 Scott, Thomas Fitzsimons, F. A. Muhlenberg, Stephen Chambers 
 and John Allison.^-* 
 
 The German voters of the state were dissatisfied with both 
 tickets because they included so few men of that nationality. 
 Not having time, however, to form a new ticket, they revised those 
 already in the field in such manner that each German might vote 
 for his own party, and at the same time for three Germans. For 
 Chambers and Allison of the Federal ticket, they substituted 
 Heister and Peter Muhlenberg, two German Federalists on the 
 Antifederal ticket; and the name of Whitehill on the Antifederal 
 ticket they replaced with that of F. A. Muhlenberg, a German 
 Federalist on the Federal ticket.^^ Thus, there were four tickets 
 before the voters, no one completely independent of the others. 
 
 During the next two weeks a vigorous campaign was carried 
 on. The Federalists urged the voters to support the new Consti- 
 tution, the Antifederalists appealed for the protection and preser- 
 vation of the liberties of the people. In the election, held Novem- 
 ber 26, Philadelphia and its surrounding counties returned large 
 Federal majorities, and it seemed that the full Lancaster ticket 
 had been elected. But as the reports from the more distant coun- 
 ties gradually came in, majorities appeared on the other side. 
 Especially was this true of the returns from Cumberland county, 
 which out of a total of about 1850 gave a majority of about 1300 
 to the straight Harrisburg ticket. The final result showed the 
 Federal ticket, as revised by the Germans, to have won, F. A. 
 
 '* Pennsylvania Packet, November 8, 1788. 
 
 i*G. D. Luetscher, Early Political Machinery in the United States, 
 pp. 128-130. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 37 
 
 Muhlenberg leading with 8736 votes, and the other successful 
 candidates running from 450 to 1300 votes behind him. A total 
 vote of about 14615 wlas cast.^*^ 
 
 The general ticket system was put into operation in Con- 
 necticut also, but not as a political move. In that state the twelve 
 assistants or magistrates were chosen annually on a general 
 ticket, and this was the easiest and most natural method for the 
 choice of representatives. The time and manner of proceeding 
 were arranged as follows : the freemen were to meet in their 
 respective towms on November 10, and each was to vote for twelve 
 persons qualified for representatives. The presiding officers of 
 the town meetings were then to send the result of the vote to a 
 committee consisting of one person from each of the eight counties 
 in the state. This committee was to meet November 19, sort and 
 count the votes and publish the names of the twelve persons hav- 
 ing the greatest number. The towns were then to hold a second 
 meeting on December 22, when each freeman was to vote for 
 any five of these twelve persons. The results of this second meet- 
 ing were to be sent to the general assembly which was to meet 
 January i, and the assembly was to sort and count the votes, and 
 declare the five persons elected.^ "^ 
 
 The election was apparently conducted without political 
 excitement.^ ^ The twelve persons nominated November 10, were 
 all men of ability, active in state and continental afifairs, and all 
 were evidently Federalists. At the election on December 22, 
 the voters returned the first five on the list, namely, Jonathan 
 
 '* Independent Gazetteer, January 2, 7, 1789. 
 
 '' This does not appear in the session laws, but was passed as a resolve, 
 and is in the Connecticut Courant of October 20, 178S. The Courant 
 does not give any of the debates of the assembly. 
 
 '^The Connecticut Courant is almost destitute of any news of this 
 election. 
 
38 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Sturges, Benjamin Huntington, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Sher- 
 man and Jeremiah Wadsworth.^^ 
 
 New Hampshire also decided in favor of the general ticket 
 system. By the provisions of an act passed November 12, 1788,2^* 
 the election was appointed for the third Monday of the following 
 December. Each qualified person was entitled to vote for three 
 representatives, the full quota from New Hampshire. In order 
 to be elected, a candidate had to receive a majority of the whole 
 number of votes cast. If there should be failure to elect any or all 
 of the three, the general court was directed by law to make out a 
 list of persons receiving the highest number of votes,— the list 
 to include twice as many as there were representatives lacking. 
 These names were to be sent to the towns, and a second election 
 held on the first Monday of the following February. 
 
 The situation was complicated on Decerriber 15, the third 
 Monday, by an excessive number of candidates. With only three 
 to be elected, votes were cast for seventy .21 As 15377 votes were 
 counted, and each qualified citizen was allowed to cast his ballot 
 for three candidates, 5126 persons must have voted. One over 
 one-half, the necessary majority to elect, would have been 2564, 
 but as no candidate received such a vote, a second election, to 
 take place on the first Monday in February, 1789, was ordered, 
 and a list of the six persons standing highest sent out to the 
 voters.22 On February 21, 1789, the president and council of the 
 
 '3 The remaining seven nominees were S. M. Mitchell, John Chester, 
 James Hillhouse, Erastus Wolcott, Jesse Root, John Treadwell and 
 Jedediah Strong. Massachusetts Centinel, November 29, 17SS. 
 
 2" Laws of New Hampshire, 1789. 
 
 2' Pennsylvania Packet, January 23, 1789. 
 
 22 The vote for the six candidates standing highest at the first trial was 
 as follows: 
 
 Benjamin West, 237^ Samuel Livermore, 2245 Paine Wingate, 2054 
 Abiel Foster, 1236 John Sullivan, 1053 Nicholas Oilman, S61. 
 
 Massachusetts Centinel, January 14, 17S9. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 39 
 
 State, having examined the returns from the second trial, an- 
 nounced that Benjamin West, Samuel Livermore and Nicholas 
 Oilman had been chosen.^^ Mr. West at once resigned, and an 
 election to fill that vacancy was ordered to take place June 22, 
 1789. The New Hampshire delegation was then completed by 
 the choice of Abiel Foster.^-* Party politics had apparently 
 influenced the situation little or not at all. Of the six persons 
 standing highest in the election returns at the first trial, all were 
 Federalists. The seventh on the list, Joshua Atherton, had been 
 opposed to the ratification of the Constitution on moral rather 
 than political grounds, being inimical to its provisions concerning 
 slaves and slavery.^s 
 
 New Jersey, the fourth state to decide in favor of the gen- 
 eral ticket plan, also put into operation a popular nomination 
 system. But this feature of her law was very unlike that in 
 Connecticut, and did not serve so well to eliminate surplus can- 
 didates. It was enacted that any qualified voter might nominate 
 four persons, the quota of representatives to which New Jersey 
 was entitled. These nominations, to be made in writing, were 
 to be deposited, at least thirty days previous to the election, with 
 the clerk of the court of common pleas of the county in which 
 the person making the nomination resided. The clerks in the 
 respective counties were then to transmit the nominations to the 
 governor, who was to publish them in the state newspapers and 
 send complete lists to all the sheriffs. No persons except those 
 on this list could be elected. The election was to be by ballot, 
 and commence on the second Wednesday in the following Feb- 
 ruary. The election judges were to forward the returns to the 
 governor, who, with the assistance of the executive council, was 
 
 23 State Records of New Hampshire, XXI. 257. 
 
 2* Massachusetts Centinel, July 21, 1789. The election of Foster com- 
 pleted the election of representatives to the first Congress from the eleven 
 ratifying states. 
 
 -^Appleton's Cvclopaedia of American Biography, I. 114 
 
40 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 to sum up the whole number of votes cast, and commission the 
 four persons receiving the highest number.^^ 
 
 The law of November 21, 1788, providing for an election 
 in the following February, had scarcely passed before electioneer- 
 ing began. The contest was not one between political parties, 
 but between sections of the state. Before the legislature ad- 
 journed, a complete congressional ticket (later known as the 
 Western ticket), ^^ composed of two persons from East Jersey 
 and two from West Jersey, was formed in a secret caucus of 
 members of the assembly. The origin of this ticket was designed 
 to be a secret, but the truth soon leaked out, whereupon the fol- 
 lowing article appeared. It was published in the New Jersey 
 Journal, was addressed to the inhabitants of New Jersey, and 
 was signed "A Freeholder." 
 
 "Within a few weeks you will be called upon to give your 
 suffrages for four men to represent you in the Congress of the 
 United States. This important privilege ought to be estimated 
 by you at its true value, and your unbiased judgment should be 
 exercised upon this occasion. And now, my fellow citizens, suffer 
 me to warn you from being misguided by some of those who, for 
 quite another purpose, you have placed great trust in. 
 
 "I happened lately to be at Princeton, where a number of 
 great men were sitting, and I discovered that a junto had formed 
 a ticket for you, which is to be secretly ushered into the several 
 counties as if not coming from them;; as I do, from my heart, most 
 cordially abhor and detest all secret cabals and juntos, I think 
 it a duty incumbent upon me to apprize you of their conduct that 
 you may avoid the snare that is privately laid for you, 
 
 "The ticket which they have formed consists of the follow- 
 ing names: Elias Boudinot and James Schureman of East 
 Jersey, and Lambert Cadivalader and Thomas Sinniekson of 
 
 ^Session Laws of New Jersey, November 21, 1788. 
 
 27 It is not easy to explain why this became known as the West Jersey 
 ticket. Perhaps it was because its chief promoters were West Jersey men. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, I789 4I 
 
 West Jersey. Some of these gentlemen, if it had not been for 
 the very improper manner in which they are attempted to be pass- 
 ed on you, might be well entitled to your votes; but under the 
 present circumstances, as we have many as suitable men, it will 
 be proper to reject them; and particularly at this time, as a les- 
 son to our great men not to meddle with matters which do not 
 belong to them. 
 
 "I shall, in a future paper, present you with some strictures 
 upon the conduct of two of those gentlemen, which will, I trust, 
 satisfy you that they ought not to be the men of your choice; at 
 present I shall close, after using a privilege which every citizen 
 is entitled to, that is, of nominating four candidates, who I intend 
 to vote for — Jonathan Dayton and Thomas Henderson of East 
 Jersey, and John Cox (of Trenton) and Joseph Ellis (of Glou- 
 cester) of West Jersey. These gentlemen have at least one ad- 
 vantage over the others — they are not proposed by a secret 
 junto."28 
 
 The following number of the Journal contained a sarcastic 
 reply which, while it virtually admitted that the "Freeholder" 
 was correct in his statements as to the origin of the ticket, de- 
 clared in substance that the "great men" were better acquainted 
 throughout the state than the ordinary citizen, and so better quali- 
 fied to suggest proper persons to send to Congress.^^ No other 
 
 2** New Jersey Journal and Political Intelligencer, December 10,1788. 
 If the author of this public letter was correct, and the result of the election 
 indicates that he must have been, this is the record of a caucus ante- 
 dating by about a month the Maryland caucus, which Luetscher (in his 
 Early political Machinery of the United States, pp. 107-10S), calls the first. 
 It also appears that Luetscher is mistaken in his conclusion, ''the Con- 
 vention was the only state machinery that ever gained a foothold in New 
 Jersey." 
 
 29 New Jersey Journal, December 17, 178S. Considering the later 
 success of this ticket, it is probable that much correspondence and personal 
 work was done to further irs interests. 
 
42 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 defense of the action of the caucus and no address or appeal 
 in behalf of the Western ticket appeared. Newspaper efforts 
 were directed chiefly towards attacking or defending individual 
 candidates rather than complete tickets. The merits of several 
 other tickets were presented from time to time, though appar- 
 ently none became known as distinctively "Eastern" in opposi- 
 tion to the Western ticket. According to the provisions of the 
 election act, the governor was to publish in the newspapers of 
 the state and of Philadelphia and New York, eighteen days prior 
 to the election, the list of persons legally nominated. This list 
 came out January 19, and contained fifty-four names, including 
 all of the chief public men of the state^*^ 
 
 The polls opened, as provided by law, on the second Wed- 
 nesday in February. By the latter part of the month, seven of 
 the eight eastern counties had closed their polls and sent their 
 returns to the governor.^i On February 27 the governor sum- 
 moned the council to meet him at Elizabethtown March 3, but 
 no more returns had been received by that date, and after fixing 
 upon March 10, as the time for closing all the remaining polls 
 of the state, the council was adjourned to March 18.^- In the 
 meantime the eastern counties were becoming incensed at the 
 western counties for not sending in the returns. It was freely 
 declared that the delay was due to a desire to profit by a knowl- 
 edge of the returns from the eastern part of the state.^^ In con- 
 sequence of this hard feeling, Essex, the one eastern county which 
 had not made up its returns, determined to disregard the order 
 of the governor and council to close the polls by March 10, and 
 to simply adjourn the polls until March 18.^^ By the time of the 
 second meeting of the council therefore, while the five western 
 
 ^ New Jersey Journal, January 21, 17S9. 
 
 31 Ibid., February 25, 17S9. 
 
 32 Independent Gazetteer, March 14, 17S9; New Jersey Journal, March 
 18, 1789. 
 
 sspennsyhania Packet, March 16, 1789. 
 «Ibid. 
 
THE TR^VNSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 43 
 
 counties had sent in their returns as ordered, the Essex polls 
 were still open.^^ On March 19, Governor Livingston issued a 
 proclamation reciting the provisions of the election act which 
 authorized him to call a meeting of the council to sum up the 
 results of the election, and declared that the meeting had convened 
 on the 18th, but that one of the thirteen counties was yet to be 
 heard from. As the state might suffer detrim'ent, however, by re- 
 maining unrepresented in Congress, the governor and privy coun- 
 cil thought it for the public good and agreeable to the true intent 
 and meaning of the act, to proceed with the canvass of the votes 
 from the twelve counties. The decision of the legality of the 
 election as thus decided was to be left "to whom it appertains." 
 Whereupon James Schureman, Lambert Cadwalader, Elias Bou- 
 dinot and Thomas Sinnickson were declared to have received the 
 greatest number of votes from the twelve counties. "All those 
 whom it may concern," the proclamation concluded, "are to take 
 notice and govern themselves accordingly. "^'^ 
 
 Rumors to the effect that this did not end the affair, that Con- 
 gress would be asked to interfere, at once began to circulate. It 
 was pointed out that from the whole tenor of the proclamation 
 three conclusions might fairly be drawn. These were that the 
 governor himself entertained strong doubts of the legality of 
 the election and returns ; that he had thought proper to refer the 
 decision thereupon to the House of Representatives ("to whom it 
 
 35 Maryland Journal, March 31, 1789. 
 
 ^Independent Gazetteer, April i, 17S9. 
 
 The returns from the eastern counties gave the four leading places to 
 Schureman, Clark, Dayton and Hoops. With the exception of Schureman 
 the members of the Western ticket received scant support in the east, 
 Boudinot dropping to ninth place, Cadwalader to tenth, and Sinnickson 
 to fourteenth. (New Jersey Journal, February 25, 1789.) But the heavy 
 vote in the five western counties for the caucus nominees overcame the 
 adverse vote of the east. 
 
44 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 appertains") and this in such terms as carried with them a strong 
 recommendation to the House to take it under consideration; and 
 lastly, that bare certificates agreeing in substance with the procla- 
 mation, instead of commissions under the great seal, would be 
 issued to the four gentlemen in question.^? The situation was 
 briefly described by Madison in a letter to Washington, as fol- 
 lows : "In New Jersey the election has been conducted in a very 
 singular manner. The law having fixed no time expressly for 
 closing the polls, they have been kept open three or four weeks in 
 some of the counties, by a rival jealousy between the Eastern and 
 Western divisions of the State, and it seems uncertain when they 
 would have been closed if the Governor had not interposed by 
 fixing on a day for receiving the returns, and proclaiming the 
 successful candidates. The day is passed, but I have not heard the 
 result. The Western ticket is supposed to have pre- 
 vailed, but an impeachment of the election by the unsuccessful 
 competitors has been talked of."38 
 
 This talk soon developed into action. Under the sanction 
 of one of the candidates from Essex (supposedly Abraham 
 Clark), petitions to Congress praying that the election might be 
 set aside were circulated.^^ These petitions were presented to 
 Congress on the 28th of April, and on the following day were 
 referred to the committee of elections. The friends of the 
 Western ticket had not allowed all this activity to pass unnoticed. 
 Counter petitions were circulated through the state and reached 
 Congress May 12 and 15. On the 25th of May the House ap- 
 pointed a special committee before whom the petitioners were to 
 appear and present such proofs and allegations as they might wish 
 to ofiFer in support of their petitions. The committee was also to 
 
 37 New Jersey Journal, April i, 17S9. 
 
 ** Writings of Madison, V. 330. Writing to Jefferson, Madison 
 spoke of the inaccuracy of the New Jersey law as producing a delay 
 almost equal to that in New York. 
 
 ^J Maryland Journal, April 3, 17S9. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 45 
 
 hear the opponents of each petition, and then report to the House 
 all the facts in the case.^*^ 
 
 On July 14, the committee stated to the House that cer- 
 tain allegations in the petition required testimony which they 
 did not consider themselves authorized to collect, as it would have 
 to be taken in New Jersey. The question had also arisen as to 
 whether the petitioners might be aided by counsel, and the com- 
 mittee requested the direction of the House on these matters.*^ 
 A long debate on the proper mode of procedure ensued, but no 
 decision was reached, and the subject was dropped until August 
 18, when the main facts of the New Jersey election were re- 
 ported.-*- This report came up for debate September i and 2, 
 and both petitioners and counter petitioners were well supported 
 on the floor of the House. The main question at issue was over 
 the authority of the New Jersey governor to declare the result 
 of the election before the returns were all in. Upon the premises 
 all were agreed, — the New Jersey law declared the election of 
 Congressmen should be in the same manner as the election of 
 representatives for the state legislature; the law for the elec- 
 tion of the latter fixed no time of limitation for the receipt of 
 returns, but the practice had been to send them in time to de- 
 clare the result before the date of meeting of the legislature; 
 the late law had evident respect to the time at which Congress 
 was to meet, and so by reasonable construction the intention of 
 the law was that the election should be declared before the day 
 appointed for the assembling of Congress. But at this point 
 the arguments diverged. Upon the one side it was held that the 
 result should have been declared on March 3, and that the gov- 
 ernor had no right to extend the time for receiving returns beyond 
 that day. If he could extend the time one day he could do it for 
 an unlimited numiber of days, and so defeat the law. But, ad- 
 
 *> House Journal, First Congress, p. 40. 
 ^' Lloyd's Congressional Register, II. 76. 
 *^ House Journal, p. S3. 
 
46 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 mitting that he had a right, it became a question as to how 
 long he should delay. The law declared that the result was to 
 be fixed by the greatest number of votes from the whole state. 
 Evidently then, the governor would have to wait until all the 
 votes were in. This would put the power of defeating the law 
 into the hands of a single county, but that was the fault of the 
 state assembly in passing such an imperfect law, and the state 
 would have to suffer. 
 
 This construction was pronounced absurd by those who sup- 
 ported the validity of the election. It might have happened, they 
 argued, that no county would have made returns by March 3; 
 would it then have been required that the governor declare the 
 persons elected? On the other hand, to wait until all the re- 
 turns had been made would have placed the power of defeating 
 the election with one county, — a construction foreign to the spirit 
 of the law and disastrous to the state. This was one of those 
 cases in which the executive might properly interpose his dis- 
 cretionary authority where the law was dubious and yet must be 
 carried into operation. Such authority had been properly used 
 to postpone the determination of the results for such a reasona- 
 ble time as would allow the returns to be sent in. At the end of 
 that time twelve of the thirteen counties had actually made re- 
 turns, and Congress was assembling with the state unrepresented. 
 The governor was then justified in announcing the election.-*^ 
 
 After a debate of two days this latter view was accepted, 
 and the New Jersey members were declared to be duly elected 
 and returned.*^ 
 
 Georgia and Maryland each adopted a plan which was evi- 
 dently a compromise between the general ticket and district sys- 
 tems. In the Alaryland assembly a committee which had been 
 appointed to bring in a bill for the election of representatives re- 
 ported November 24, 1788. Its plan was that the people of the 
 
 <3New Jersey Journal, September 9 and 16, 17S9. 
 ** House Journal, p. 95. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 47 
 
 western shore, by an election in each county, elect four repre- 
 sentatives, and the people of the eastern shore in the same man- 
 ner elect two.^5 This was negatived and it was resolved instead 
 that the state be equally divided into six districts. A propo- 
 sition that each district elect one representative was voted down, 
 and then it was resolved that the people of the state entitled 
 to vote should vote for six persons, one to be from each of the 
 six districts, the person in each district receiving the greatest 
 number of votes of all the candidates in that district to be de- 
 clared elected. The bill as finally passed carried out this resolu- 
 tion. In addition it was enacted that the election should be viva 
 voce and should be held the first Wednesday of the following 
 January.^^ 
 
 While the Antifederalists in Maryland were in a decided 
 minority, the feeling between the two parties, owing to the tac- 
 tics of the Federalists in the state convention, was extremely 
 bitter.^" Soon after the passage of the election law, both par- 
 ties took steps to carry their contest to the polls. The ticket 
 of the Antifederalists was announced as coming from "a number 
 of gentlemen who are zealous guardians of the rights of the 
 people, and avowedly opposed to that aristocratic spirit and in- 
 fluence which are dangerous to Public Liberty, and already too 
 prevalent in the councils of this state."'* ^ Its promoters warmly 
 recommended their nominees to the citizens of INIaryland as a 
 respectable and safe representation in that crisis of public affairs. 
 
 The Federal ticket was brought out at Annapolis by a cau- 
 cus of members of the general assembly and friends of the Con- 
 
 ^* Maryland Journal, January 13, 17S9. 
 ^''Maryland Session Laws, December 22, 17S8. 
 ^'Elliot's Debates, II. 547-556. 
 
 *^ Maryland Journal, December 26, 1788. The ticket included George 
 Dent, J. Seney, J. F. Mercer, Samuel Sterett, W. V. Murray and A. Faw 
 
48 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 stitution.-*^ It was imqiediately indorsed at a meeting in Balti- 
 more and a committee to advertise it throughout the State was 
 appointed. An address to be sent to influential men in each dis- 
 trict and to be published in the newspapers was adopted. "With 
 respect to the gentlemen nominated for Representatives," so the 
 address ran, "we have reason to believe that the framers of the 
 ticket were careful to select persons acceptable throughout the 
 state for honor and integrity, unequivocal friends to the new 
 Constitution, of mature experience in governmental concerns, and 
 well acquainted with the general interests of the United States ; 
 and we trust, if elected, that they will so approve themselves 
 to their countrymen and the World. But should the friends of 
 the new government, in the different districts, unfortunately con- 
 ceive that they can find men better qualified for Representatives 
 than the above named, and vote, each according to their several 
 opinions, without concerting a new ticket, the consequence must 
 be, the certain loss of the Federal Ticket, without their carrying 
 the men they vote for. Such a measure, at this juncture, it is 
 justly apprehended, would throw everything into the hands of the 
 Antifederalists, who will, no doubt, on this as on former occa- 
 sions, be unanimous in support of their ticket. 
 
 "The necessity of a strict union of votes among the Federal- 
 ists will further appear from contemplating the Antifederal ticket. 
 The contrivers of that ticket have artfully introduced into it some 
 Federal characters, in the hope that their deserved popularity, in 
 their several counties, would draw to them the votes which 
 would otherwise be given to members of the Federal ticket, ^'^ 
 
 ^9 Maryland Journal, December 30, 17SS. The Federal ticket was as 
 follows: M. J. Stone, J. Seney, Benj. Contee, William Smith, George 
 Gale, Daniel Carroll. 
 
 «« Joshua Seney, W. V. Murray and, probably, A. Faw were the 
 Federalists who were placed on the Antifederalist ticket. This was the 
 same plan, it will be remembered, by which the Pennsylvania Antifeder 
 alists had hoped to win. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 49 
 
 by which means they expect to divide the Federal interest, and 
 thereby increase the chances in favor of the Antifederalists ; for 
 it is plain that whatever will lessen the number of votes for any 
 member in the Federal ticket, will be a decided advantage to some 
 member in the opposition ticket — and this advantage must be in 
 favor of the Antifederalists who will vote alike, and without any 
 division."^^ 
 
 Beyond the issuing of this address, little electioneering was 
 done because of lack of time, for the election occurred January 
 7. The general returns showed that the Federal voters had 
 heeded the above appeal to unite on the caucus ticket, and, as 
 was predicted, the Antifederalists had also voted solidly for their 
 party. Few votes were cast for candidates outside of these two 
 lists."^- The Federalists were completely successful, receiving over 
 
 ^^ Maryland Journal, December 30, 1788. 
 
 5^ Returns given in the Maryland Journal, January 23, 17S9. 
 
 The following extract of a letter from a German farmer in Wash- 
 ington County, Maryland, gives a good description of the manner in 
 which the election was conducted in country districts. Washington 
 County cast 1164 votes for ev^ery one of the successful candidates on both 
 the congressional and electoral tickets, and no votes for any other candi- 
 date. This letter, written to a friend in a less unanimous district, throws 
 light on the reason for the unanimity of Washington County. 
 
 "We had pain when we heard of the people of your district that they 
 were wrong, and we thought it right to call the friends of the new govern- 
 ment to give in their votes at the court-house, so we made out so manv as 
 1 167 [1164] for the Federal ticket, and no man said against it. The last 
 day you would wonder to see so much people together, two or three 
 thousand maybe, and not an Anti. An ox roasted whole, hoof and horn, 
 was divided into morsels, and every one would take a bit. How foolish 
 people are when so many are together, and all good-natured. They were 
 as happy to get a piece of Federal ox as ever superstitious Christians or 
 Anti-Christians were, to get relics from Jerusalem. . . . Much attachment 
 and good will is shown for the cause. I was afraid of mischief by the 
 cannon, and such numbers of folks together; but our people are well- 
 minded, and we hope, under the new government, our happiness will be 
 made secure. ... I am sorry for your differences, but they don't injure 
 us. Even the name Federal vi\\\ soon be forgotten here; there is no Autt 
 to keep it in remembrance." Pennsylvania Packet, January 23, 1789. 
 
 4 
 
50 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 two-thirds of the total vote cast. Political contention did not 
 cease, however, with the election. Newspapers busied themselves 
 at once expressing the dissatisfaction. The election law came in 
 for its share of blame. One writer took up each of the six 
 districts of the state, showed the number of estimated votes, 
 the number of votes actually cast and for whom cast, and reached 
 two conclusions. His first was that of 20700 votes in the state, 
 only 8195 were cast.^^ jjig second was that had the law allowed the 
 people of each district to vote for one representative, not confin- 
 ing them to elect a resident of the district but one of the state, 
 the following persons, on the face of the returns, would have been 
 elected: Joshua Seney, Daniel Carroll, Samuel Sterett,, J. F. 
 Mercer, George Dent and George Gale — that is, three Federalists 
 and three Antifederalists, He characterized the law as unconsti- 
 tutional because it added another qualification for representa- 
 tives.^^ In answer it was acknowledged that since the Feder- 
 alists had been in power in the state assembly, they had con- 
 structed the law in such a manner as to make the success of the 
 Federal ticket most probable. But it was also maintained that, 
 had the opposite party been the stronger, they would have taken 
 that advantage for themselves.^*^ 
 
 Georgia, through its militia organization, was already di- 
 vided into three brigade districts. As the state was entitled to 
 three representatives, it was enacted that each voter, while voting 
 for three persons, must choose one from each of these three sec- 
 tions. Candidates had to be of three years' standing residence 
 in their respective districts, and the election was appointed for 
 February 9, 1789.^® 
 
 ^3 Other writers contended that his estimate of the number of voters 
 was too low, but at any rate the number of votes cast was considerably 
 under one-half the number of electors in the state. 
 
 ** Maryland Journal, February 3, 1789. 
 
 ^Ibid., February 13, 1789. 
 
 ^*"An Act for appointing the time, manner, and places for holding 
 elections for representatives in Congress," January 23, 17S9. The sub- 
 stance of this act is in the Independent Gazetteer, March 11, 17S9. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1788, I789 5I 
 
 Little is known of the Georgia election beyond this date and 
 the names of the candidates chosen. The law was approved Jan- 
 uary 23, leaving little time, even had there been inclination, for 
 electioneering. In the first or eastern district, General James 
 Jackson was chosen over Henry Osborne. The latter had voted in 
 favor of the ratification of the Constitution in the state con- 
 vention, but, so far as is known Jackson was also on that side.^^ 
 In the second or middle district, Abraham Baldwin was returned, 
 and in the third or western, George Mathews. Baldwin had 
 been a member of the Continental Congress from 1785 to 1788, 
 and a member of the Federal Convention at Philadelphia. Mat- 
 hews had been a member of the state convention which ratified 
 the Constitution. 
 
 A still nearer step to the pure district system was taken 
 by the two states of New York and South Carolina. The latter 
 state was divided by the legislature into five districts, each to 
 choose one member, but a candidate did not need to be an in- 
 habitant of the district for which he was chosen. It was pro- 
 vided that if a person was chosen by two diflferent districts, he 
 was to decide within twenty days which he would serve, and a 
 second election was to be held in the district left without a rep- 
 resentative. The election was to be held at the usual time for 
 the election of assemblymen.^^ According to the state constitution, 
 this was the last Monday in November and the day following. 
 
 For the election in that state the records are just as bare 
 as for Connecticut, but from the results it seems that the contest 
 was more exciting. Of the five representatives returned, four 
 
 ''"Georgia had ratified the Constitution unanimously. We are thus 
 left without this means, used in many of the other states, of checlcing off 
 the opponents of the Constitution. U. B. Phillips, in his Georgia and 
 State Rights, American Historical Association Reports, 1901, II. 21, 
 gives the only known records of the Georgia convention. 
 
 ^Statutes at large of South Carolina, V. 84.. November 4, 178S. 
 
52 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 were Antifederalists.^^ From the district of Camden came Gen- 
 eral Thomas Sumter who had endeavored in the state conven- 
 tion to have action on the Constitution postponed. From Ninety- 
 six was returned Aedanus Burke, who had worked and voted 
 against the Constitution. And from the other two country dis- 
 tricts Daniel Huger, and T. T. Tucker, both former delegates 
 to the Continental Congress, but both Antifederalists, were elected. 
 Charleston alone returned a Federalist, William Smith. 
 
 The choice of Smith gave rise in Congress to the first case 
 of contested elections. On April 15, 1789, David Ramsay, of 
 South Carolina, petitioned the House to set aside the election 
 of Smith, alleging that at the time of his election lack of citizen- 
 ship for the requisite seven years had rendered him ineligible. 
 This case was taken up carefully by Congress, as the mode of in- 
 vestigation and the decision might be precedents for all future 
 cases. It was decided on April 18, that the proofs of Smith's 
 ineligibility should be presented to the committee on elections. 
 Smith to have the right to examine witnesses and to introduce 
 counter proofs. A month later, after the committee had presented 
 a statement of facts, a lengthy debate ensued over the question 
 as to whether to continue the proceedings in the House, or to 
 recommit with instructions to read the documents and to present 
 a shortened report. On the grounds that the Constitution had 
 provided that the House should be judge of its own elections, 
 and that it would be very improper to delegate this power of 
 judgment to any group of men, the House decided to examine 
 the evidence and to give decision itself. 
 
 It was shown against Smith that he was born in 1758 while 
 
 ^^Hildreth (IV. ch. i) concludes that "a sudden revolution in the 
 politics of South Carolina" had caused the election of this Antifederal 
 delegation. This is not borne out by the facts for the country districts 
 which elected Antifederalists had voted in the legislature against calling a 
 state convention, and had voted in the convention, though with less 
 unanimity, against the Constitution. Elliot's Debates, IV. 253 et seq. 
 
THE TR,-\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 53 
 
 South Carolina was still a British colony, that his parents had 
 died many years before the Declaration of Independence, that he 
 had resided abroad from 1770 to 1783, and that he had been 
 elected to Congress in 1788, not having been a citizen of the 
 United States the constitutional period of seven years. Ramsay 
 contended that citizenship in the United States could be acquired 
 only by birth or inheritance, by being a party to the Revolution, 
 by taking an oath of fidelity to some one of the states, by tacit 
 consent, or by adoption. By none of these modes, the petitioner 
 alleged, had Smith gained citizenship. 
 
 In reply Smith submitted that South Carolina had in fact 
 considered him a citizen. Under the state constitution, no one 
 was eligible to a seat in the legislature until he had resided 
 three years, nor to a seat in the council until he had resided five 
 years, in the state, yet he had held a seat in both bodies before 
 he had been two years in the state and no one had objected. His 
 parents indeed had died before independence was declared but his 
 guardians, who stood in loco parentis, were residents of Charles- 
 ton. As a member of the society of South Carolina, he owed 
 and paid allegiance to the King of England before the Revolu- 
 tion, but when that society separated from Great Britain his 
 allegiance was transferred with that of the society of which he 
 was a member. The legislature of South Carolina had taken 
 this same position in an act passed in 1779, by which it was pro- 
 vided that young men sent abroad for their education should be 
 allowed to remain until they reached the age of twenty-two, after 
 which, if they had not returned, they should be doubly taxed. This 
 implied that citizenship remained in the state, though there was 
 a penalty to pay for absence. 
 
 Taking these statements into consideration, the House de- 
 cided by a vote of thirty-six to one that William Smith, at the 
 time of his election had been seven years a citizen of the United 
 States.co 
 
 «> Clarke and Hall, Cases of contested elections in congress, 1789-1S34, 
 PP- 23-37- 
 
54 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 In New York, the bill which passed the lower house De- 
 cember 22, 1788, providing for the election of United States 
 senators and representatives and presidential electors, and which 
 afterwards failed in the senate, divided the state into six dis- 
 tricts, each to choose one representative from the state at large. 
 Efforts were made to amend in the house by including the con- 
 dition that the person chosen by a district should be an inhabitant 
 of that district, but this was rejected on the ground that it pre- 
 scribed an additional qualification, and so was unconstitutional. 
 Efforts were also made to amend by a proposal to strike out the 
 district feature because, it was argued, persons chosen by the 
 districts did not represent the state. This was rejected on the 
 ground that the people could not possibly be acquainted with 
 six proper persons throughout the state, and so would not know 
 for whom to vote.*^^ The bill, which finally became a law did not 
 materially differ from the above. Each qualified person was to 
 vote for one representative who should be an inhabitant of the 
 state. The election was to be held on the first Tuesday in March, 
 and the vote canvassed and the successful candidates announced 
 the first Tuesday in April, 1789.^2 xhis was the latest date fixed 
 by any of the eleven states for the election of representatives. 
 
 Judged by the lower house of the assembly of 1788- 1789, 
 the state was clearly Antifederal, and had a general ticket sys- 
 tem prevailed this party would probably have elected the full state 
 contingent. But when it was the district system that went into 
 operation, the Federalists had high hopes of electing two mem- 
 bers from the southern part of the state, the stronghold of their 
 party.*'^ As the campaign progressed, the Antifederalists were 
 seen to be losing ground, and before the returns were canvassed, 
 the Federalists claimed the election of William Floyd from the 
 
 *' Pennsylvania Packet, January 6, 1789. 
 
 8* Session Laws, January 27, 1789. 
 
 63 Alexander Hamilton to T. Sedgwick. Works of Hamilton, IX. 456. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 55 
 
 district composed of the counties of Suffolk, Queens, Kings, and 
 Richmond, of John Lawrence from the New York city district, 
 and of Egbert Benson from the district of Dutchess and Wor- 
 cester counties.64 The final canvass showed not only the election 
 of these three, but also of Peter Sylvester, a Federalist from the 
 strong Antifederal district of Columbia, Washington, and Clin- 
 ton counties.65 The Antifederalists were successful in two dis- 
 tricts. From Ulster and Orange counties they elected John Hat- 
 horn, and from the district of Albany, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer. 
 
 The states adopting a pure district system were Massachu- 
 setts and Virginia. The committee in the Massachusetts general 
 court which had the matter in charge presented a report November 
 4, 1788. In so far as it related to the election of representatives, 
 it provided for the division of the state into eight districts. Each 
 of these districts was to choose one representative, but the in- 
 habitants were not obliged to confine their choice to a citizen of 
 that district. The districts were to be made as nearly equal as 
 possible without dividing counties. An absolute majority vote 
 only could elect. In case no person received such a majority the 
 voters were to decide at a second poll between the two candidates 
 highest on the first returns. Should these two receive an equal 
 number of votes at the second trial, the members of the legis- 
 lature from that district were to choose between the two.^^ 
 
 ^Madison to Washington, March 19, 1789. "The Federalist party 
 calculates on an equal division of the six." Works of Madison, V. 330. 
 
 ^ Life of Peter Van Schaack, by Henry C. Van Schaack, New York, 
 1842, p. 429. 
 
 In Dutchess and Worcester counties, Benson was hard pushed by 
 T. Bailey. The latter received 574 votes while Benson had only ten more. 
 Freeman's Journal, April 15, 1789. 
 
 R. B. Lee wrote to his friend, L. Powell of Virginia, April 13, 1789, 
 "Strange that the sense of the people of this state [New York] should also 
 be contrary to that of the legislature." Branch Papers, I. 220. 
 
 '''' Massachusetts Centinel, November 5, 17S8, et seq. 
 
56 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Against the strong opposition of Berkshire county, the members 
 from which declared it had not received justice in districting the 
 state, the report was adopted, but with important changes. It was 
 decided that each representative must be an inhabitant of the dis- 
 trict from which he was chosen, and no provision was made for 
 Hmiting the number of candidates to two in case a second elec- 
 tion was necessary. If no choice was made at the second election 
 a third was to be held, and so on until there was a choice.*^' 
 
 Political activities in Massachusetts cannot readily be fol- 
 lowed, partly because there was no extra-legal machinery for 
 nominating candidates, and partly because personal electioneer- 
 ing was despised and would have hurt rather than helped the 
 candidates' chances, but chiefly because the district system local- 
 ized party conflicts. Only a few months before, in choosing 
 members of the state convention to act upon the national Con- 
 stitution, the mass of voters had shown itself strongly Antifederal, 
 and it was wholly because of the tact and talent of the Federal 
 leaders that the Constitution had been ratified. Since that time 
 public sentiment had changed considerably in favor of the Con- 
 stitution party,^^ and the state was now so evenly divided that 
 in nearly every district the election was warmly contested. As 
 the resolve of the general court fixing upon December i8 for 
 election day was not passed until November 20, less than a month 
 intervened in which the respective parties might decide upon 
 suitable candidates. In that short time many names were proposed. 
 Without time or machinery for the elimination of surplus aspir- 
 
 *" Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, October Session, 17SS. 
 
 ^ "A striking instance of the rapid progress of federal principles was 
 seen at Attleborough .... at the election of a representative for the new 
 federal government. The Hon. George Leonard had 8S votes, the Hon. 
 Phanuel Bishop 12 votes. By the above vote it appears that Attleborough 
 is now more than 7 to i federal, whereas in April, 17S7, said Hon. Bishop 
 had a majority of votes in said town for a senator." Pennsylvania Packet, 
 January 6, 17S9. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1/88, I789 57 
 
 ants, union of party sentiment was impossible, and where such 
 a union would frequently have brought party success, its lack 
 resulted either in defeat or, because the other party was equally 
 divided, at best a draw. 
 
 Four of the eight districts, however, managed to elect rep- 
 resentatives at the first trial. In Suffolk the three leading candi- 
 dates were Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames and General Heath, all 
 Federalists who had supported ratification in the state conven- 
 tion. Adams, known as the "amendment monger," was sup- 
 posed to be only luke-warm in his advocacy of the Constitution 
 and, while strongly defended by a few of his Federalist friends, 
 was supported mainly by the Antifederalists. Ames, on the other 
 hand, had debated eloquently for the Constitution, and although 
 he had seen far less public service than Adams or Heath, was 
 more popular at the moment. In spite of the deflection of votes 
 to Heath, Ames prevailed in the election by a narrow majority. 
 The southern district (Plymouth and Barnstable) easily returned 
 George Partridge, a Federalist and a former member of the Con- 
 tinental Congress, who ran against James Warren, prominent in 
 the Revolution. The district composed of Bristol, Dukes, and 
 Nantucket elected General Leonard, and the eastern or Maine 
 district returned George Thacher, both Federalists.**^ For the 
 four remaining districts a second election was ordered, to take 
 place January 29. 
 
 In Middlesex at the first trial, Elbridge Gerry, conspicuous 
 in public service for years, but one of the three delegates at the 
 Philadelphia Convention who at the last minute had refused to 
 sign the Constitution, was pitted against Nathaniel Gorham, a 
 staunch Federalist and supporter of the Constitution as well as 
 a colleague of Gerry at Philadelphia. Gorham would probably 
 have been chosen had not J. B. Varnum and General J. Brooks, 
 two members of the state convention who had favored the Con- 
 
 ** Pennsylvania Packet, January 20, 17S9. 
 
58 UNIV^ERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 stitution, also been candidates.'*^ Gorham withdrew before the 
 second trial "^ and Gerry was elected, but only after he had 
 published an address to the electors declaring his opinion that 
 as the new system had been adopted, every citizen of the ratifying 
 states was in duty bound to support it, and that opposition to a 
 due administration of it would not only be unjustifiable, but highly 
 criminal.'^ 
 
 The contest in Essex at the first trial was between men rather 
 than parties, for the two principal candidates were both Federal. 
 Neither was able to score a victory because over one-third of the 
 total vote was scattered among the large number of other can- 
 didates entered. At the second election, January 29, Benjamin 
 Goodhue, an able merchant and a state senator, was chosen by 
 a large majority."^ 
 
 The greatest struggle in Massachusetts took place in the two 
 western districts, the chief seat of Shays' Rebellion. Neither of 
 these districts was able to make a choice at the first or second 
 poll, and a third was accordingly ordered for March 2. In Wor- 
 cester district the two foremost candidates, Jonathan Grout and 
 Timothy Paine, were both Antifederalists. Artemas Ward was 
 their chief opponent. A union of Antifederalists would have re- 
 sulted in an election at the first trial, but it was not until the third 
 that the friends of Grout by a great effort succeeded in electing 
 him. Grout had been a Shays partisan in 1786, and at the state 
 convention had voted against the Constitution. In the district 
 composed of Hampshire and Berkshire counties, Thomas Sedg- 
 wick, a Federalist of Berkshire, was opposed to William Lyman 
 an Antifederalist of Hampshire. The local feeling between the 
 
 '"The result of the first trial was as follows: total vote cast 1473, 
 necessary for a choice 737, Gorham received 536, Gerry 384, Varnum 254, 
 Brooks 106, and scattering 193. Pennsylvania Packet, January :o. 1789. 
 
 "Pennsylvania Packet, January 19, 1789. 
 
 "Austin's Gerry, II. 93. 
 
 "'Massachusetts Centinel, February, 1789. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 59 
 
 two counties became almost as bitter as the party feeling."^ To 
 complicate the difficulty there were several other candidates; 
 Skinner of Berkshire, a Federalist who had voted for ratification 
 in the state convention drew many votes from Sedgwick, while 
 Whiting of Hampshire lessened the Lyman vote. A fourth trial 
 and following that a fifth were necessary before Sedgwick was 
 chosen May ii, by a majority of eight in a total vote of four 
 thousand and ninety-five.'^^ This finally completed the Massa- 
 chusetts delegation, six of her representatives being Federal and 
 two Antifederal. 
 
 In Virginia it was the part of political wisdom for the Anti- 
 federalists, who controlled the legislature, to divide the state 
 into districts. In that way they were sure to elect a part of the 
 state quota of ten members — and politically diplomatic, to say 
 the least, was the districting they did. To the constitutional 
 qualifications for representatives were added the further require- 
 ments that the candidate be a "discreet and proper person" who 
 was a freeholder and had been a bona fide resident of his district 
 for twelve months."*^ Within seven days after the election, which 
 
 '* Hampshire Gazette, May 6, 1789. 
 
 "The towns were allowed two weeks in which to send in their returns. 
 Owing to the negligence of returning officers, seventeen towns favorable to 
 Lyman were unreturned at the last election. Had the vote in these towns 
 been properly sent in, Lyman would have been elected. Massachusetts 
 Centinel, May 30, 1789. 
 
 The vote tor Sedgwick and Lyman at the different trials was as 
 follows: 
 
 To'al vote. Sedsjwick. Lyman. 
 
 December iS, 2201 8oi 330 
 
 January 29, 2513 716 717 
 
 March 2, 4731 1449 1557 
 
 March 30, 3328 1564 i."J09 
 
 May II, 4095 -056 1958 
 
 Massachusetts Centinel, May 30, 1789, and previous numbers. 
 
 "^Hening. XH. 653 et seq. 
 
60 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 was to be held, February 2, 1789, the sheriffs in each district 
 were to meet, canvass the vote and issue a certificate to the can- 
 didate standing highest. 
 
 The majority in the assembly "^ was well organized and well 
 directed, ready to make the most of its advantage. Certain 
 parts of the state were known to be strongly Federal, and other 
 parts as strongly Antifederal. In districting, the latter party en- 
 deavored to group the counties so as to secure the greatest pos- 
 sible benefit to themselves, and several remarkable contests re- 
 sulted.'^^ In the eighth district, composed of the counties in 
 the southeastern part of the state, Thomas Matthews, the prin- 
 cipal Federal candidate, was opposed to Josiah Parker. The 
 district was normally Federal, and in the election of members of 
 the state convention Parker had been badly beaten,'^^ But in 
 the congressional election Matthews was handicapped by the 
 appearance of other Federal candidates, and Parker managed to 
 squeeze in.^o The sixth and ninth districts, situated in the south- 
 ern part of the State, the center of Antifederal strength, also 
 elected party exponents, Isaac Coles and Theodoric Bland. 
 
 " See page 70. 
 
 ^"Rives' Madison, II. 654. 
 
 O. G. Libby, in his Distribution of vote on the Federal Constitution, 
 p. 34, shows that the state was divided politically into four sections. In the 
 eastern counties eighty per cent of the vote had favored the Constitution; 
 in the middle district seventy-four per cent opposed it; the West Virginia 
 section stood ninety-seven per cent for, while the Kentucky district was 
 ninety per cent against. 
 
 ™R. A. Brock, History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 17S8, II. 
 376. 2 Vols., Richmond, 1891. 
 
 ^Before his election Parker was a naval officer at Norfolk, Virginia. 
 He wrote to Governor Randolph, February 9, 17S9, that he was probably 
 elected but would not resign his office yet, as a disputed election might 
 deprive him of the honor of taking his seat in Congress. He did send in 
 his resignation a few days later, however. Calendar of Virginia State 
 Papers, IV. 561, 566, 56S. 
 
THE TIL\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, 1789 61 
 
 The great contest in Virginia took place in the fifth or cen- 
 tral district, where two future presidents, James Madison and 
 James Monroe, were pitted against each other. Madison had 
 originally intended to become a candidate for representative, but 
 at the solicitation of friends had relinquished this desire and en- 
 tered the senatorial race. The Virginia legislature, however, 
 was too thoroughly opposed to the new government to allow itself 
 to be represented by the state's chief exponent of the Consti- 
 tution, and defeated him. Thus he was left free to pursue his 
 original object, but the political enmity of the assembly still fol- 
 lowed him. His district was made to consist of the counties of 
 Amherst, Albemarle, Louisa, Culpeper, Spotsylvania, Goochland 
 and Fluvanna, in addition to his home county of Orange.^^ His 
 friends in the assembly endeavored to include the Federal county 
 of Fauquier, which both from geographical position and habitual 
 intercourse fell naturally into association with Orange, and to 
 exclude Amherst and Goochland, two remote southern counties 
 which were strongly Antifederal, but the effort was vain.^^ 
 Writing to Jefferson of Henry's measures to defeat him for the 
 Senate, Madison said : "He has taken equal pains in forming the 
 Counties into districts for the election of Representatives to asso- 
 ciate with Orange such as are most devoted to his politics, and 
 most likely to be swayed by the prejudices excited against me.''^^ 
 The provision in regard to a candidate's residency within the 
 district seemed also to be aimed at Madison. Many of his friends, 
 believing the requirement unconstitutional, desired him to ignore 
 
 *' Of the eight counties in the district, five had given an undivided 
 vote in the convention against the acceptance of the Constitution, one had 
 divided its vote, and two only, including Orange, had given an undivided 
 vote for ratification. Rives' Madison, II. 654, note. 
 
 82 Colonel Carrington to Madison, November 15, 17S8. Rives' Madison, 
 II. 654. Rives calls this the first case in which the device, later known by 
 the name of gerrymandering, was put into operation. 
 
 ^ Writings of Madison, V. 313. 
 
62 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 it and to appear as a candidate for an unquestionably Federal 
 district, but he decided to stand in his hornte territory. 
 
 The Antifederal organization decided upon James Monroe 
 as its candidate,^* and the situation was simplified by the absence 
 of any others from either party.^^ Both candidates spent the 
 month of January electioneering — making public addresses, writ- 
 ing letters to friends and to the papers, and even appearing in 
 joint debate.^*^ The contest terminated with the election of Mad- 
 ison by a considerable majority. His home county gave him a 
 practically unanimous vote, Culpeper, the critical county, over 
 seventy per cent of its vote, and Spotsylvania, Monroe's home 
 county, thirty-eight per cent.^'^ In the other six districts of 
 the state, the Federalists were also uniformly successful, even 
 Kentucky returning a friend to the new government.*^ 
 
 8<Monroe to Jefferson, February 15, 1789. Monroe's Writings, I. 199. 
 ^Madison to Washington, January 14, 1789. Madison's Writings? 
 
 V. 319- 
 
 ^Two letters from Madison defining his position on the question of 
 amendments, appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet of February 10, 1789. 
 Rives, II. 656 gives an account of an open air debate between the com- 
 petitors on a bitter cold day, from which Madison retired with a frost-bitten 
 ear. 
 
 ^"^ Pennsylvania Packet, February 17, 17S9. 
 
 The writer has not seen the returns from the other counties. Monroe 
 wrote to Jefferson that Madison's total majority was about 300. Both 
 candidates testified that their personal relations were not affected by the 
 political contest. Monroe's Writings, I. 199. 
 
 i^That is, the Federalists elected seven representatives and their 
 opponents three. This is the classification which Madison gave to Jef- 
 ferson in a letter dated March 29, 1789. Madison's Writings, V. 334. 
 
 It is frequently difficult to determine the precise political standing of 
 public men in 1788-17S9 who never became very prominent. The brevity 
 of the reports of congressional debates, the questions between North and 
 South, and the early formation of the Republican party, all render at- 
 tempts at classification confuting. The Federalism of R. B. Lee, from 
 
THE TR,\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 63 
 
 Delaware, entitled to only one representative, could not 
 be districted for the election, even though the tendency of the 
 state ^vas toward such a system.so The election act had one 
 striking feature, evidently designed to prevent one county from 
 controlling the situation. Each qualified person was to have two 
 votes, one of which was to be cast for a candidate not an in- 
 habitant of the county in which the voter lived. The man re- 
 ceiving the highest number of votes was to be declared elected.'^ 
 As a "result of this provision, each county gave a full vote to 
 one of its own number, and divided up the vote which went to 
 outside candidates.9i Whether this was spontaneous, or the result 
 of pre-election political activity, can not be determined from the 
 
 the fourth Virginia district, is shown in letters written by him to Leven 
 Powell. The John P. Branch Historical Papers of Randolph-Macon Col- 
 lege, I. 219-223. Richmond, 1901 — . 
 
 The situation of the several districts in the state, with the successful 
 candidate in each, follows: First district, north-west part of Virginia, 
 Alexander White; Second, Kentucky, John Brown; Third, south-west 
 Virginia, A. Moore; Fourth, north-east section of state, R. B. Lee; 
 Fifth central and south central section, James Madison; Sixth, south 
 section, east of third district, I. Coles; Seventh, north of York River to 
 the Potomac River, John Page; Eighth, south-east section includmg the 
 peninsula east of the Chesapeake Bay, J. Parker; Ninth, south section, 
 next to the Sixth, T. Bland; Tenth, between the James and York Rivers, 
 Samuel Griffin. 
 
 «9This was shown in the choice of electors, for which the state was 
 
 divided into three districts. 
 
 90 Session Laws, October, 1788. 
 
 ••'iThus the electors of Newcastle united on Gunning Bedford. Jr., an 
 inhabitant of that county. For second choice they favored Allen McLane 
 and John Vining, both of Kent county. The voters of Kent united on 
 their fellow inhabitant, John Vining, and for second choice they divided 
 between Bedford and Joshua Clayton of Newcastle county. The returns 
 for those two counties are given in the Pennsylvania Packet, January 15. 
 1789. The writer has not seen the returns from Sussex. 
 
64 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 too meager records. Party politics, considered as such, played 
 little part in the election, for all the principal candidates were 
 Federal. The important point for a voter to ascertain of his 
 candidate was place of habitation rather than party politics. Kent 
 county, though not having a much larger population than New- 
 castle or Sussex, was able to get out a greater proportion of its 
 voters and so elected its resident, John Vining. 
 
 The two other states of the original thirteen. North Carolina 
 and Rhode Island, did not ratify the Constitution in time to send 
 representatives to the first session of the first Congress, but North 
 Carolina was in part of the second session and both were in 
 the third. The second convention of the latter state ratified 
 the Constitution November 21, 1789. The assembly w-hich met 
 immediately afterwards passed an act directing the manner of 
 electing representatives, by which the State w^as divided into five 
 districts or "divisions," each formed by the union of two of the 
 ten superior court districts.^- Each division was entitled to elect 
 as its representative one of its inhabitants who must have resided 
 within the division for the year just preceding. The election was 
 to be held on the first Thursday and Friday in the following 
 February (except in the western district, where it was to be a 
 month later), and was to be conducted as were the annual elec- 
 tions of members of the general assembly. In case of a tie vote, 
 the returning officers were to decide the election, or in the event 
 of their failure, the decision was to be made by drawing lots as 
 for the grand jury. 
 
 The election was held in accordance with this act, the suc- 
 cessful candidates taking their seats in Congress in March and 
 April. The divisions of the state with their successful candi- 
 dates follow : the first or Roanoke division, formed by the su- 
 perior court districts of Hillsborough and Halifax, returned J. 
 B. Ashe, probably a Federalist; the second or Edenton division, 
 formed by the districts of Edenton and Newbern, Hugh Wil- 
 
 92 Laws of North Carolina, December 22, 17S9. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1/88, 1 789 65 
 
 liamson, a strong Federalist; the third or Cape Fear division, 
 formed by the districts of Wilmington and Fayetteville, Timothy 
 Bloodworth, a strong Antifederalist ; the fourth or Yadkin di- 
 vision, formed by the districts of Salisbury and Morgan, John 
 Steele, a Federalist; the fifth or western division, formed by the 
 districts of Washington and Mero (the Tennessee country), John 
 Sevier, ex-governor of the state of Franklin. 
 
 Rhode Island ratified the Constitution May 29, 1790. At the 
 session of the general assembly held immediately afterward an 
 act was passed providing for the choice of the single Rhode 
 Island representative by the freemen assembled in town meetings 
 on the last Tuesday of the following August.^^ j^ case no per- 
 son received a majority, a second election was provided, the can- 
 didates at which were limited to those persons standing highest 
 in the first election, the whole number of whose votes made a 
 majority of all the votes cast. If no one secured a majority of all 
 the votes cast at the second election, a third was planned to 
 try the strength of the two most popular candidates at the second. 
 A rather bitter contest ensued, the two principal candidates being 
 Job Comstock and Benjamin Bourne.^^ Comstock was advocated 
 chiefly because he was opposed to the slave trade. A second 
 reason for selecting him was that he was a Friend and it was 
 urged that some one of that faith should hold office. The per- 
 son elected was to serve only until the following March, 
 and Comstock's friends demanded that his abilities be given a 
 trial for that length of time.^^ fhe chief argument in Bourne's 
 favor was that he was a successful lawyer. The vote in Prov- 
 idence gave Bourne a majority of two hundred and eighty, and 
 
 *•" Rhode Island, Session Laws, June, 1790. 
 
 '♦Of the two important newspapers in Providence the Gazette and 
 Country Journal apparently favored Bourne, and the United States 
 Chronicle, Comstock. Bourne had worked and voted for the adoption of 
 the Constitution, while Comstock had voted against it in the state con- 
 vention. Staples, Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, pp. 672-673. 
 
 9^ United States Chronicle, August 26, 1790. 
 
 5 
 
66 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 though outside of that city he did not run so well, he was elected 
 with a total majority of two hundred and thirty-nine.^^ 
 
 Reviewing the provisions made by the thirteen states for this 
 first election of representatives, the lack of uniformity is at once 
 apparent. A rough division of five groups may be made. Four 
 states, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Con- 
 necticut, adopted the general ticket system, but in nearly all other 
 particulars their laws were different. Georgia and Maryland, 
 while allowing the entire voting population to vote for the full 
 congressional quota, required one representative to be chosen from 
 each district. New York and South Carolina required just the 
 reverse — the voters in each district choosing only one represen- 
 tative, who, however, might come from the state at large. Mas- 
 sachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina, the fourth group 
 adopted the district system, their laws varying in other respects. 
 Delaware and Rhode Island, with their single representative, were 
 untroubled by questions which disturbed other states, but enacted 
 systems which had peculiarities of their own. 
 
 New Hampshire and Massachusetts required majorities to 
 elect, while the other states only asked for pluralities. The time 
 of elections varied in eleven different states from November 
 24, 1788, when South Carolina cast its ballot, to March 10, 1789, 
 when New Jersey finished the election.^" Only two states, Del- 
 aware and Maryland, elected on the same day and that was de- 
 termined by the time for choosing presidential electors. 
 
 ®^ Providence Journal, August 28, 1790. The detailed vote is not 
 extant. 
 
 ^The time of election of representatives in the different states was as 
 follows: 
 
 South Carolina, November 24-25, 1788. 
 
 Pennsylvania, November 26, 1788. 
 
 New Hampshire, December 15, 1788. 
 
 Massachusetts, December i8, 17S8. 
 
 Connecticut, December 22, 1788. 
 
 Delaware and Maryland, January 7, 1789. 
 
 Virginia, February 2, 1789. 
 
 Georgia, February 9, 1789. 
 
 New Jersey, February 11 — March 10, 1789. 
 
 New York, March 3, 17S9. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS 
 
 The Constitution was clear enough in saying that United 
 States Senators should be chosen by the respective state legis- 
 latures, and that representatives should be chosen by the people. 
 But a new and important question had reference to presidential 
 electors. Should they be appointed by the legislature or elected 
 by the general body of voters? If by the former, should it be by 
 joint or concurrent ballot — a question also involved in the choice 
 of senators. If by the latter, should it be by the district or by the 
 general ticket system — an important question in the election of 
 representatives. Congress had gone to its constitutional limit 
 in fixing the time for the choice of electors, and the time for 
 them to cast their votes. 
 
 A newspaper correspondent at Philadelphia, October i, 1788, 
 maintained that Congress had construed the Constitution to mean 
 that the legislatures should make the appointment. "For if 
 the people, as hath been asserted, are to choose the electors, is 
 it possible that in the large states of Massachusetts, Virginia, etc., 
 the returns can be made for the choice, notice given to the persons 
 chosen, and the persons thus chosen have time to meet together 
 in the short space of one month? No, it is impossible, and can 
 only be remedied by the legislatures, who, in fact, are 'the 
 States' making the choice."^ This view was not shared uniformly 
 throughout the Union, however, for the ten states which took 
 part in the first presidential election were nearly evenly divided 
 in actual practice. The two secondary questions, relating to a 
 concurrent or joint ballot and to a general ticket or district sys- 
 
 ' Edward Stanwood, A history of the presidency, p. 21. New York, 
 1904. 
 
 (67) 
 
68 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 tern, were the excuse for elaborate constitutional debates in the 
 various state assemblies, but were really decided by such other 
 considerations as state politics, election habits or compromises 
 over the relative importance of the upper and lower houses of 
 assembly. These two questions will be further discussed in 
 connection with state cases coming under them. 
 
 The first state to enact the necessary laws was Pennsvlvania. 
 The twelfth general assembly of that state met in its third ses- 
 sion Sepember 2, 1788. On September 17 the action of Con- 
 gress of the thirteenth was officially received, and the following 
 day it was referred to a special committee with instructions to 
 draft a bill if necessary.-' On the twenty-third a bill was reported 
 providing for the election of both United States representatives 
 and presidential electors on tlie first Wednesday in January, 
 1789. One section of this bill specified that every qualified voter 
 was to write the names of ten persons to serve as electors, upon 
 a slip of paper. The ten receiving the highest number of votes 
 were to assemble at Reading on the first Wednesday in Feb- 
 ruary and cast their ballots for president and vice-president. 
 When the bill came up for discussion the following day, atten- 
 tion was confined almost exclusively to the provisions in regard 
 to representatives.^ It seemed to be taken for granted that the 
 choice of electors lay with the people. One speaker, indeed, de- 
 clared that while the Constitution left the appointment of elec- 
 tors to the legislature or to the people, according as the former 
 directed, yet in such a case the legislature ought not, in delicacy, 
 to decide in its own favor. On the question of district versus 
 general ticket elections, a long debate took place. But when the 
 decision to elect representatives rested with the advocates of the 
 general ticket system it was taken for granted that the choice 
 of electors should be by the same plan. The editor of the Penn- 
 sylvania Packet wrote that when it was once decided to allow 
 
 -Minutes of the Assembly of Pennsvlvania. 
 ^ Lloyd's Debates. 
 
THE TR.\NSIT10NAL PERIOD, I788, I789 69 
 
 the people at large to choose electors, a new argument was fur- 
 nished for the general ticket system. "For were we to go into 
 district elections we must have ten districts for electors of pres- 
 idents, and eight for the Federal representatives, which wiould 
 oblige us to hold the elections on different days, at the expense 
 of double cost and time, and with a repetition of the confusion 
 that attends an election.''-* As a matter of fact, however, just 
 before the passage of the bill on September 29, it was decided to 
 hold the elections on separate days; for representatives on the 
 fourth Wednesday in November, for electors on the first Wed- 
 nesday in January. The bill was finally enacted October 4. 
 
 A method similar to the one just described in that the 
 choice was left to the people, but different in that the district 
 system prevailed, was followed in Delaware. That diminutive 
 state had no excuse for the appointment of electors by the leg- 
 islature, especially since that body had met in October, leaving 
 ample time to make arrangements for a popular election. It was 
 entitled to appoint three electors. Being already practically di- 
 vided into three districts (as the state consisted of three coun- 
 ties) it was naturally suggested that each be allowed one elector. 
 It was therefore enacted that an elector be chosen by the qual- 
 ified voters of each county, such person to be an inhabitant of 
 the county from which he was chosen.^ 
 
 Maryland, although providing for popular choice of electors, 
 differed in the details of her arrangements from both Penn- 
 sylvania and Delaware. Section VI of her act for carrying the 
 government into operation provided ^' that every qualified person 
 
 * Pennsylvania Packet, September 27, 17S8. 
 5 Session Laws of Delaware, October, 17S8. 
 
 * "An Act directing the time, places and manner of holding elec- 
 tions" etc. Session Laws, December 22, 17SS. 
 
 Stanwood (on page 22) and Dougherty (page 282) are both mistaken 
 in saving that the Delaware legislature chose the first electors in 
 Delaware. 
 
70 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 vote for eight electors, five from the western and three from 
 the eastern shore. The five on the western shore and the three 
 on the eastern having the greatest number of votes were to be 
 declared elected. This was nothing less than dividing the state 
 into two great districts and prescribing the number of electors 
 from each, but allowing the whole body of voters to cast their 
 ballots for the full number. 
 
 Of all the ten states, Virginia, it would seem, had the most 
 reason for appointing electors by the legislature. The majority 
 in that body was Antifederal and could have chosen men of its 
 own political views, whereas a popular election might result oth- 
 erwise, for it was well known that the state was much more 
 Federal than the legislature." And should the popular election 
 be held by the district system, several if not a majority of Fed- 
 eral electors were sure to be returned. Again, if the counties 
 lying far beyond the mountains had to hold their elections on the 
 first Wednesday in January and send the returns to Richmond, 
 how could electors of these frontier districts receive official noti- 
 fication in time to meet the other electors at some eastern point 
 by the first Wednesday in February? In the face of these prac- 
 tical as well as political arguments, however, the choice of electors 
 was left to the people,^ and more than that, a complete district 
 system was put into operation. As the state was entitled to 
 twelve electors, it was therefore divided into that many districts.^ 
 Persons who were qualified to vote for assemblymen wiere al- 
 lowed the suffrage at this election. The elector was to be "a 
 
 ' Maryland Journal, December 12, 17S8. 
 
 8 Probably one reason why the election was referred to the people was 
 because the legislature would not have been in regular session on January 7. 
 
 9 Each of these districts was composed of two senatorial districts. 
 "This mode, although unequal and unjust, was adopted on account of the 
 shortness of time for promulgating the law," Maryland Journal, No- 
 vember 28, 17S8. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 71 
 
 discreet and proper person, being a free-holder and boiia fide 
 resident in such district for twelve months." ^<* 
 
 The provisions for the appointment of electors thus far de- 
 scribed left the choice simply and solely to the people. The 
 alternative, or what was generally considered as such, was for 
 the legislature to make the appointment. But two states. New 
 Hampshire and Massachusetts, put into operation an intermediate 
 system by which the legislature shared the privilege of appoint- 
 ment with the people. The general court of New Hampshire, by 
 an act of November 12, 1788, provided for the election of both 
 representatives and electors on the third Monday in December. 
 The persons qualified to vote for the former, were to bring in 
 also their ballots for five electors, the full number to which the 
 state was entitled. Electors were to be inhabitants of the state 
 who w^ere not continental senators, representatives or persons 
 holding offices of trust or profit under the United States. The 
 votes were to be returned to the general court which was to 
 be in session at the beginning of January, and the persons having 
 a majority were on the first Wednesday in January to be duly 
 declared elected. In case five persons or less should not be chosen 
 by a majority, then the general court was to choose from double 
 that number of candidates having the highest number of votes, 
 as many as might be lacking.^ ^ Had the election resulted in five 
 
 '•"'An act for the appointment of electors to choose a President, 
 pursuant to the constitution of government for the United States," passed 
 November 17, 178S. Hening, XII. 648. 
 
 ''Each elector chosen pursuant to this act, and failing to attend and 
 vote for a president at the time and place herein directed, and moreover 
 to send and certify the same in manner directed by the constitution of 
 government, shall, except in cases of sickness or any other unavoidable 
 accidents, forfeit and pay two hundred pounds, to be recovered by the 
 solicitor general, to the use of the commonwealth, by action of debt, bill, 
 plaint or information, in any court of record." Hening, XII. 651. 
 
 " "And in case it shall so happen, that the whole, or any part of the 
 number of electors, are not chosen by the people, then the general court 
 shall take a number of names out of the candidates who have the highest 
 number of votes, equal to double the number of electors wanting, from 
 which the senate and house shall, ;« sr/c/i -way a>i(i maufter as may be by 
 them agreed on, proceed to appoint the electors wanting." 
 
"22 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 persons receiving a majority, the legislature obviously would 
 have had nothing to do but canvass the returns and declare the 
 result — barely enough to meet the requirement that the appoint- 
 ment be made on the first Wednesday in January. But, as will 
 be seen, no elector received a majority and it became the duty 
 of the general court to choose the full list. 
 
 In Massachusetts the subject of electors was closely con- 
 nected with that of representatives. For the election of the latter 
 the state was divided into eight districts, each to choose one rep- 
 resentative on December i8, 1788.^- On the same day each dis- 
 trict was to choose also two persons, inhabitants of the district, 
 to be candidates for electors. From the two persons receiving 
 the highest number of votes in each district, the general court in 
 joint session on the first Wednesday in January, was to appoint 
 one. In addition to the eight thus chosen, the general court 
 was to appoint two electors at large. 
 
 Thus Massachusetts put into operation a district system 
 while New Hampshire had a general ticket system. Further, it 
 was not meant in Massachusetts that the system should be any- 
 thing more nor less than a nomination by the voters, while the 
 system in New Hampshire provided an actual election, subject 
 to the condition that the persons so elected secure a majority. 
 Finally, definite provision was made in Massachusetts that the 
 action of the general court on the first Wednesday in January 
 should be in joint session of the two houses, while the New 
 Hampshire law made no provision on this point — an omission 
 productive of trouble later. ^^ 
 
 ^- Resolve for organizing the federal government, November 20, 17SS. 
 
 '3 According to the N. H. constitution of 1784, the delegates to Con- 
 gress were to be elected by the senate and house "in their separate 
 branches." The president of the state was elected by popular vote, but if 
 no person received a majority, the house was to elect two persons, out of 
 the four highest, and the senate one from these two. The council (two 
 members from the senate and three from the house), as well as the secre- 
 tary, treasurer and commissary general, was to be chosen annually bv joint 
 ballot. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 
 
 73 
 
 In three of the remaining four states, the appointment of 
 electors was made by the legislature. Two, Georgia and Con- 
 necticut made no previous provisions by law for the appomt- 
 ment but South Carolina, in the same act prescribing the manner 
 of choosing representatives- provided that electors should be 
 chosen bv the legislature on the first Wednesday m January. 
 In the fourth state, New Jersey, it was arranged ^^ that the 
 governor and council meet at Princeton on the required day 
 and choose six persons to be electors, ''being freeholders and 
 residents in the State."i« 
 
 New York had ratified the Constitution, but owing to a 
 deadiock between the upper and lower houses did not provide for 
 the appointment of electors and so had nothing to do with Wash- 
 ingto^s first election. The legislature of that state met ordi- 
 narilv in January, but the importance of giving prompt atten- 
 tion 'to the necessary arrangements for starting the new govern- 
 ment caused it to be convened early in December, 1788. The 
 senate in its address to the governor declared that the appoint- 
 ment of electors was a matter of such magnitude that if suffi- 
 cient time had intervened for a general election, it would rather 
 
 "Passed November 4, 17S8. 
 
 15 An Act for carrying into effect the Constitution of the United 
 States, November 21, 178S. 
 
 'estanwood, in his History of the Presidency, page 22, says that for 
 this first election, the governors of five states, Connecticut, New Jersey, 
 Delaware, South Carolina and Georgia, did not summon the legislature m 
 time to provide for an election by the people. He is mistaken, however, for 
 Delaware did hold a popular election for electors, while the legislatures of 
 Connecticut. New Jersey and South Carolina were holding sessions in 
 October and November of 1788 and could have provided for popular elec- 
 tions as well as Virginia and the other states. 
 
 Dougherty, in his Electoral system of the Uniied States, page 282, 
 falls into the same error. Stanwood's statement might possibly apply to 
 Georgia, but certainly not to the other states. 
 
74 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 have referred the choice to the suffrage of the people. To which 
 the governor answered : ''I regret that the legislature could 
 not have been convened at so early a period as to have afforded 
 time to have made and carried into effect the arrangements neces- 
 sary for appointing electors in the manner which, it seems, you 
 would have preferred. But, since this was impracticable, you 
 will, I am persuaded, perceive the propriety of pursuing your 
 principle, as far as circumstances will permit, and of adopting such 
 mode of appointment as shall appear most nearly to app^roach an 
 election by the people."^' It was thus understood at once that 
 the choice was not to be referred to the people. By the last sen- 
 tence of his message Governor Clinton apparently meant that 
 the house of assembly, as it stood nearer to the people, should 
 have more influence in appointing electors than the senate. This 
 brought into prominence the respective politics of the two houses. 
 A large Antifederal majority (Governor Clinton's party) con- 
 trolled the assembly; the senate had a small Federal majority. If 
 the appointment were made by joint ballot, eight Antifederal 
 electors would be chosen, if by concurrent vote, probably four 
 Federalists and four Antifederalists.^^ This was the situation 
 which produced a struggle attracting attention throughout the 
 Union. 
 
 The senate took first action by passing a bill on December 
 i8, which provided that each house choose four electors. ^^ On 
 the twenty-second the assembly rejected the senate bill without 
 debate, but passed instead a sort of omnibus bill of its own, pro- 
 viding for the choice not only of electors, but also of senators 
 and representatives. Senators and electors were to be chosen as 
 were the New York members of the Continental Congress,^^ 
 
 "Massachusetts Centinel, January 14, 1789. 
 
 18 Dougherty, in his Electoral system of the United States, page 20. is 
 mistaken in saying that New York was entitled to ten electors. 
 '"Pennsylvania Packet, December 25, 1788, et seq. 
 2" Section 30 of the state constitution. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 75 
 
 — each house was to nominate separately the number of persons 
 needed, and if, on comparing the lists, the same men were named 
 by both houses, they were to be declared elected. In case no 
 electors were thus concurrently named, the election was to pro- 
 ceed by joint ballot, the office going to the persons receiving the 
 highest number of votes. The senate passed this bill, but 
 amended it so as to secure the appointment of senators and 
 electors by concurrent rather than joint vote. The assembly dis- 
 agreed with the amendments, and on January 5, 1789, in ac- 
 cordance with provisions governing such cases, the two houses 
 met in "conference'' to discuss the senate amendment.-^ But 
 neither house would recede from its position and the bill was 
 lost. 
 
 Several days later another bill was introduced into the lower 
 house and passed that body January 2^, twenty days after the 
 choice of electors should have been made, according to the re- 
 solves of Congress. It seemed that the assembly majority still 
 hoped the state would take part in the first election.22 The mode 
 of appointment provided in the new bill was exactly similar to 
 that which had been rejected after the conference of January 
 5, and the fate of the bill was the same. It was amended by 
 the senate, a conference was held, neither side would recede, 
 and the bill was lost. 
 
 On February 4, the day fixed by Congress as the time for 
 electors to meet and vote, Mr. B. Livingston, in the assembly, 
 moved that electors be chosen by concurrent resolution. The 
 
 -' See the chapter on the election of senators where these arguments 
 are given in detail. 
 
 22 Alexander Hamilton to Sedg^vick, January 29, 17S9. Hamilton's 
 Works, IX. 456. Speaking of the day for the appointment of electors 
 having gone by with no action on the part of the assembly, he said: "I 
 am not sorry, as the most we could hope would be to balance accounts and 
 do no harm. The antifederalists incline to an appointment notwith- 
 standing, but I discourage it with the federalists." 
 
7(i UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 joint ballot plan was promptly substituted by the usual majority, 
 and the whole resolution as promptly rejected by the senate. 
 The upper house then sent to the lower the proposition that each 
 body choose four persons to serve as electors, but it met with 
 the usual rejection. As a last effort, Mr. Watts, in the assembly, 
 introduced a resolution that a committee to consist of five mem- 
 bers from each house, be appointed to select eight proper per- 
 sons to be approved as electors by the two houses. This last 
 proposition was lost by a strict party vote.23 If any one of the 
 attempts which were made after January 7 to appoint electors in 
 New York had been successful, it would surely not have been 
 regarded as legal. Just what action Congress would have taken 
 when the electoral vote came to be counted under these circum- 
 stances it would be interesting to know. But at that particular 
 crisis, it was probably fortunate that it did not become necessary 
 to throw out the whole electoral vote of a large state. 
 
 Turning from this diversity of legislation to the political 
 conditions preceding the actual election of January 7, 1789, a 
 rather chaotic situation discloses itself. Politics as well as gov- 
 ernment was in a transitional stage. The struggle of the past 
 year over the adoption of the Constitution had drawn a sharp 
 line between its supporters and opponents, but with the victory 
 of the former new questions were coming up to cause a different 
 political alignment. For the ensuing year, three parties were 
 rather vaguely outlined, namely, the supporters of the Consti- 
 tution as it stood, the advocates of a new convention to amend 
 or recast the Constitution, and the advocates of amendments to 
 be proposed by Congress. The last party, indeed, was a com- 
 promise party made up in part of former opponents to the Con- 
 stitution, such as Edmund Randolph, and in part of former 
 supporters forced into an advanced position to carry the election, 
 as was the case of Madison. It was the program of the radical 
 party to secure control of the government in the fall and winter 
 
 28 Pennsylvania Packet, February i6, 17S9. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 JJ 
 
 elections and to force Congress into calling a new convention. 
 It was even rumored that, contrary to the generally expressed 
 desire of making Washington president, the Antifederalists of the 
 three large states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia would 
 support Patrick Henry for chief executive and Governor Clin- 
 ton for vice-president. Such reports called forth warm expostu- 
 lations 2-i and brought on sharp party conflicts at various places. 
 
 The actual result of the election showed that the danger 
 was not so great as the Federalists had feared. New York, a 
 stronghold of the opposition, as we have seen, because of the 
 quarrel in the legislature took no part in the presidential elec- 
 tion. Of the ratifying states, Virginia would probably have ap- 
 pointed the electors most to be feared by the friends of the new 
 government had the appointment been made by the legislature. 
 But with the choice by popular election, the Federalists had 
 more than an even chance, and after an active canvass elected 
 nine of the twelve electors, Patrick Henry being one of the three 
 successful Antifederalists. According to Madison, the sole object 
 of the election, in the eyes of the mass of the people, was the 
 choice of a president, little attention being paid to the second 
 office.-'"' Thus in Amherst county, Colonel Cabell, the Anti- 
 federalist candidate, received a unanimous vote simply because 
 he had made a previous declaration which satisfied the Federal 
 party as to the disposition of his vote for president. That the 
 district of which Amherst was a part gave a small majority to 
 General Stevens, the Federal candidate, was due solely to a sim- 
 ilar coalition in another county.-*^ 
 
 In Pennsylvania, where the general ticket system had been 
 adopted, two complete electoral tickets were put forth, one by 
 the Federal convention at Lancaster, November 3, and the other 
 
 2* New Jersey Journal, January 14, 17S9. 
 
 ^Madison to Washington, January 14, 1789. Writings of Madison 
 V. 318. 
 
 2«Ibid. 
 
78 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 as a result probably of the Antifederal convention in Harrisburg 
 September 3.2^ The election of representative^ came several 
 weeks earlier than that for electors, unfortunately for the latter, 
 for one result was a perceptible decrease in interest and a consid- 
 erably smaller vote. From Fayette county, for instance, came the 
 disheartening news, "no election has been held in this county 
 for the election of electors. The number of persons who attended 
 on that day was not sufficient to have filled the necessary offices of 
 such an election.''^^ A writer in the Pennsylvania Packet ^^ com- 
 plained bitterly of the laxity of the returning officers, and asked 
 if Pennsylvania, like New York, was to look on as a silent spec- 
 tator, and be made the scoff of the Union because a few Anti- 
 federal county officers trampled with impunity upon the laws. 
 The Supreme Executive Council had taken steps to prevent such 
 a defeat of the law by employing two express riders to bring the 
 returns from the ten counties situated furthest away.^*' Even 
 then it was not until Tuesday, February 3, that the returns from 
 the several counties were inspected by the Council, and the names 
 of the ten successful persons were proclaimed.^^ These men 
 had all been elected from the Federal ticket.32 
 
 In Maryland the election of representatives and electors 
 came on the same day, with the chief interest centering in the 
 
 27 For a description of these conventions, see J. S. Walton, Nominating 
 conventions in Pennsylvania, American Historical Review, II. 262 et seq. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Archives, XI. 535. 
 
 ''S February 2, 1789. 
 
 ^ Colonial Records, XV. 633, 634, 637. Pennsylvania Archives, XI. 430. 
 
 31 Colonial Records, XV. 655. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Packet, January, 1789. For the election of January 7, 
 only the vote cast for the Federal candidates was seen by the writer, but 
 this was much smaller than the corresponding Federal vote for representa- 
 tives in the previous November. It is probable that the Antifederalists 
 were discouraged by the result of the first election, and cast even a com- 
 paratively smaller vote than the Federalists at the election of January 7. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 79 
 
 former. Both parties had put forth complete electoral tickets. 
 That of the Federalists was formed in the latter part of December 
 by a legislative caucus j^^ that of their opponents was announced 
 as the work of a number of gentlemen, "zealous guardians of 
 the rights of the people."^'* Two of the Federal candidates were 
 included in the Antifederal ticket, placed there, the Federalists 
 charged, "in the hope that their deserved popularity in their 
 several counties, would draw to them the votes which would 
 otherwise be given to members of the federal ticket, by which 
 means they expect to divide the federal interest and thereby in- 
 crease the chances in favor of the antifederalists."^^ The re- 
 turns from the election came in rapidly and showed that the 
 entire Federal ticket was elected by majorities ranging from two 
 thousand to five thousand.^^ 
 
 From the little available material on the political conditions 
 in Delaware it seems that both campaign and election passed off 
 very quietly, with little or no contest. Indeed, in Kent county, 
 John Banning was chosen elector by a unanimous vote, and in 
 Newcastle, the vote for G. Bedford was practically so.^'^ 
 
 Turning to Massachusetts, with its system of district nomi- 
 nation by popular vote, one finds no evidence of any active can- 
 vass in behalf of electoral candidates. As in Maryland, the elec- 
 tion of representatives was absorbing all the attention. More- 
 over, there was no extra-legal machinery by which the number 
 of candidates could be reduced, and this made the striking feature 
 of the election, as compared with the middle states, the large num- 
 ber of persons who received votes. This is well illustrated by a 
 
 '3 See page 47. 
 
 3< Maryland Journal, December 26, 17S8. 
 35Mar>']and Journal, December 30, 1788. 
 *Ibid., January 23, 1789. 
 '^Pennsylvania Packet, January 15, 1789. 
 
 The writer was unable to discover anj complete files of Delaware 
 newspapers for this period. 
 
80 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 news item from Worcester, in which it was said, "We learn that 
 the inhabitants of this county were so well united in the choice 
 of electors of president and vice-president of the United States 
 that there were only between forty and fifty candidates voted for. 
 "Behold hozv good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dzvell 
 together in unity."^^ From these large lists the names of the 
 two persons standing highest in each district were returned to 
 the general court, and on January 7, in accordance with the 
 previous arrangements, the two houses met in joint session and 
 appointed one elector from each district and two electors at 
 large.^^ It is needless to say that all were Federal. 
 
 In New Hampshire, as in Massachusetts, the vote was scat- 
 tering, and as no one person received a majority, the election 
 of the complete list devolved upon the legislature.^^ But suffi- 
 cient provision had not been made for such a contingency. Just 
 as the legislature was ready to proceed to the election on Jan- 
 uary 7, the question suddenly arose as to whether it should be 
 done in joint session or by concurrent vote, and a disagreement 
 followed which lasted almost until midnight. From all accounts, 
 
 38 Ibid., February 7, 1789. 
 
 39 Pennsylvania Packet, January 20, 22, 1789. 
 
 The resolve for putting the general government into operation had 
 provided that the general court appoint two electors at large "not voted 
 for by the several districts." But it was found that over 200 persons had 
 received votes in the district nominations, and the legislature felt so 
 restricted that it passed a resolve on January 6, that any citizen of the 
 state not appointed an elector from one of the districts, and not otherwise 
 disqualified should be considered as eligible for an elector at large. 
 
 ■•"The total vote cast was 20142. State records of New Hampshire, 
 XXI. 25S. 
 
 As each voter was authorized to vote for five persons, there were evi- 
 dently 4029 persons who voted, and the necessary majority would be 2015. 
 General Bellows, who received the highest popular vote, fell short of the 
 necessary majority by over 250 votes, 1759 being given him. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 81 
 
 contrary to the New York situation, no political question seems 
 to have been involved. It was a disagreement on purely consti- 
 tutional grounds, a question of rights and privileges as between 
 the two houses. The senate insisted that the appointment was 
 a legislative action, and that the upper house had its constitutional 
 right of a negative upon the action of the lower. The latter 
 replied with equal insistence that the senate had no right to con- 
 trol the choice of the house, and that the appointment should be 
 effected by joint ballot. "The contest terminated in the lower 
 branch's acceding to the proposal of the upper, and the choice was 
 happily effected — the house 'at the same time solemnly protest- 
 ing against the said mode of choice, and declaring that in the 
 opinion of this house, the present mode of appointing electors 
 ought not to be considered as establishing a precedent, or drawn 
 into example, or insisted upon as a rule, in any future appointment 
 of electors.' What rendered the above circumstance more delicate, 
 and greatly heightened the anxiety of the spectators, was the 
 knowledge that if a compromise did not take place before the close 
 of the day. New Hampshire would lose the honor of giving her 
 suffrages for a president of the United States."^ ^ It is worthy 
 of remark that though the legislature could have chosen any 
 five from the ten persons who had received the greatest number 
 of votes in the popular election, it disregarded this prerogative 
 and simply named the five who stood highest. 
 
 For the other four states which appointed electors, the 
 records are very meager and show little of interest. The Con- 
 necticut general assembly, on the specified day,^^ appointed the 
 full list — all being Federalists. The governor and council of 
 New Jersey, by proclamation dated January 7, named the six 
 electors for that State^^ The Georgia legislature consisted of 
 
 ^'Freeman's Journal, February 4, 17S9. 
 
 <- Pennsylvania Packet, January 23, 27, 1789. 
 
 *3New Jersey Journal and Political Intelligencer, January 14, 17S9. 
 
62 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 but one house, and the appointment was a simple matter."*^ 
 The legislature of South Carolina *^ had been summoned to meet 
 on January 5, but it was January 7 before a quorum of the house 
 was present, and January 12 before a quorum of the senate 
 appeared. On Wednesday, January 7, however, all of the sen- 
 ators present (being ten) met with the house and the electors 
 were chosen by joint ballot.^^ Although done without a quorum 
 of the senate^ the election was legal and in accordance with the 
 act of the previous November. The fourth section of that act 
 declared that the appointment should be by such members of 
 the legislature as should attend on the first Wednesday in Jan- 
 uary. 
 
 Notices of the appointment of electors in the different states 
 had not ceased appearing in the newspapers before accounts of 
 the casting of electoral votes on February 4 began to come in. 
 It was reported that the Massachusetts electors proceeded to 
 business "without a single debate on the subject,"^^ and the 
 same comment would probably apply to the proceedings in the 
 nine other states. Only ten of the twelve Virginia electors 
 voted,^^ and of the eight for Maryland, only six voted. In the 
 latter state, it was explained, "Mr. Plater was confined by the 
 gout, and Mr. Richard prevented from attending by the ice in 
 the river and bay."-*^ The Pennsylvania electors, after going 
 
 *» Pennsylvania Packet, February 23, 17S9. 
 
 ^November 4, 1788. ''And be it further enacted bv the authority 
 aforesaid, That Electors of a President of the U. S. shall be appointed by 
 the legislature of this state on the first Wednesday in January next, or by 
 such persons as shall be returned members thereof, and shall attend on 
 that day " 
 
 ^6 Independent Gazetteer, February 16, 17S9. 
 
 <^ Pennsylvania Packet, February 16, 17S9. 
 
 <*Ibid. The two who did not vote were Samuel Kello from the south- 
 eastern part of the state, and Warner Lewis from the eastern part of the 
 state. No explanation of their absence has been seen. 
 
 *9Ibid., February 21, 17S9. 
 
THE TRi\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 83 
 
 throug-h the routine of casting their ballots, repaired to the Fed- 
 eral Inn, where, it was reported, they dined with great hilarity.^" 
 In nearly every case the result of the ballot was soon made 
 known. Thus from Georgia came the news that after the ballots 
 were counted "the electors politely acknowledged that General 
 Washington had the unanimous vote of the state." ^^ 
 
 Summing up the provisions made by the several states for 
 the appointment of electors in 1788- 1789, it is found that in 
 four states the choice was made entirely by the qualified voters, 
 in three by the legislatures, in two by the voters indirectly, and 
 in one by the governor and council.^^ ^ classification politically 
 of the seventy-three electors chosen by the ten states which par- 
 ticipated in the election is impossible to make, but it can at least 
 be said that probably seventy were "friends of the Constitution." 
 The list of persons for whom votes were cast for the vice-pres- 
 idency shows only one avowed Antifederalist, George Clinton, 
 of New York, who received the vote of the three Anti federalists 
 elected in Virginia. 
 
 5" Ibid., February 7, 17S9. 
 
 51 Ibid., March 17, 17S9. 
 
 *2 Dougherty, in his Electoral system of the United States, page 303, 
 gives an interesting though slightly inaccurate table, showing the lack of 
 uniformity and the frequent changes in the modes of appointment of 
 electors in the various states prior to 1832. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ADJUSTMENT OF VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE RELATIONS IN I789 
 
 Immediately after the organization of the new Federal gov- 
 ernment a general constitutional and legal re-adjustment took 
 place throughout the Union. The rather unstable equilibrium in 
 the relations between state and national governments, prevailing 
 under the Articles of Confederation, had been swept away by the 
 Constitution, which clashed with, and rendered obsolete many of 
 the provisions of the state constitutions and laws. For this 
 reason the effort to bring state and nation into proper relations 
 again often took the form of a movement to re-codify the whole 
 system of state laws, or to substitute new and revised state 
 constitutions. 
 
 Some states w,ere loath to admit, however, that the new order 
 did render obsolete conflicting state provisions. In some quar- 
 ters it was rather regarded as an act of grace for the legislature 
 to revise its laws so as not to "interfere" with the execution of 
 federal statutes. Proposed revisions encountered legislative oppo- 
 sition, an opposition which hindered and in some cases entirely 
 prevented any thing like a thorough overhauling of state laws 
 and constitutions. In these cases the friends of revision were 
 fortunate if they obtained amendment or repeal of only certain 
 specific acts plainly incompatible with federal enactments. 
 
 Of such conflicting nature were the state revenue laws. 
 Previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, each state 
 had established its own commercial system, levying import duties 
 and enforcing shipping regulations. Each pursued its own policy, 
 regardless of the effect upon neighboring states, and the result, 
 bewildering to foreign importers, and ruinous to the prosperity of 
 the country. Was a medley of contradictory laws. 
 
 (84) 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 85 
 
 Of the thirteen states, Delaware and New Jersey were the 
 only two which allowed free trade. The former had not levied 
 any duties at all since the separation from England, while the 
 latter had abolished her system by act of June ii, 1783.^ All 
 the other eleven states had enacted tariff laws varying from low 
 revenue to high protective systems. Thus the Massachusetts act 
 of November, 1786, was "to raise a public revenue by impost ;"2 
 the Virginia act of October, 1782, "for establishing a permanent 
 revenue ;"3 the North Carolina act of November, 1784, "in aid 
 of public finances,"^ On the other hand, the preamble to the 
 New Hampshire act of March, 1786, declared that it was meant 
 not only to produce a revenue but to encourage manufacturing as 
 well,^ while the Pennsylvania act of September 20, 1785, was 
 passed as a protective measure pure and simple.*' It recognized 
 that goods might be imported more cheaply than manufactured 
 in Pennsylvania, but this it declared was poor policy, fatal to home 
 industries. 
 
 In retaliation for the royal proclamation of July 2, 1783, con- 
 fining the West Indian trade to British shipping, several of the 
 states adopted a special discriminating schedule against Great 
 Britain. Maryland levied a duty of two per cent ad valorem, over 
 
 iNew Jersey Session Laws, 1783, Ch. 27. This was the act author- 
 izing on the part of New Jersey the revenue amendment to the Articles of 
 Confederation, proposed by Congress April 12, 1788. It recited that it 
 was not to go into effect until all the other states in the Union had passed 
 a similar measure, and enacted "that in the meantime all the Ports in this 
 State be, and they are hereby declared free and open for the Importation 
 and Exportation of any Goods, Wares and Merchandise whatsoever, clear 
 of all Duties, Customs or Impositions, of any Species or Denomination." 
 
 2 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, November 17, 17S6. 
 
 ^Hening, XI. 112. 
 
 <Laws of North Carolina, 1779-178S, p. 549. 
 
 * Session Laws of New Hampshire. 
 
 * Session Laws of Pennsvlvania. 
 
86 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 and above all other specific and ad valorem duties, on goods imr 
 ported by British subjects,"^ while Rhode Island levied a duty of 
 seven and one-half per cent ad valorem above the ordinary rates 
 on such importations.^ In South Carolina, where specific duties 
 were levied in most cases, the schedule for British importers 
 was from one-third to tw:o-thirds higher than the schedule for 
 other foreign importers.^ 
 
 In a number of cases the express provision was made that 
 the duties levied were not to apply to goods or merchandise pro- 
 duced by the sister states, but in other cases two schedules were 
 adopted, one applying to foreign the other to domestic shipping. 
 Rhode Island offered a reciprocity plan to her neighbors. By 
 act of June, 1783,^" she levied a two per cent ad valorem duty 
 on all goods imported from foreign countries. But if imported 
 by citizens of other states into their native state, and then re- 
 shipped to Rhode Island, such goods were to be exempt from 
 the impost, provided a duty of two per cent had been paid in 
 the other state upon arrival from the foreign country, and pro- 
 vided the other state gave reciprocal privileges to citizens of 
 Rhode Island. The schedules of the different states in nearly 
 every case included a number of articles upon which specific 
 duties were levied, with an ad valorem duty upon all remaining 
 imports. Massachusetts, the exception, had adopted a pure ad 
 valorem system. 
 
 In addition to the duties on imports eight of the states had 
 placed in operation previous to 1788 some system of tonnage 
 duties, varying from four pence to six shillings per ton. Dis- 
 crimination was usually made in favor of American bottoms, 
 though Georgia levied a flat rate of two shillings per ton, in ad- 
 
 ^ Session Laws of Maryland, 1783, 1784. 
 
 8 Session Laws of Rhode Island, May, 1785. 
 
 9 Statutes of South Carolina, Act of March 27, 1787. 
 '0 Session Laws of Rhode Island, 1783. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 87 
 
 dition to one shilling per ton for the support of a seamen's hos- 
 pital. ^^ 
 
 It seemed to have been well understood in the autumn of 
 1788 that all of these state laws must soon come to an end, but 
 it was a debated question whether such laws should be specifi- 
 cally repealed by the legislatures, or whether they should be al- 
 lowed simply to be superseded by the action of the new govern- 
 ment. If the latter, would they cease to be operative on the 
 fourth of March, or would they continue in force until a new 
 general impost system went into operation? According to the 
 Constitution, Congress was to have power to levy duties and 
 imposts, though it could not tax exports; on the other hand the 
 states were forbidden, without consent of Congress, to lay any 
 duties on imports, except those absolutely necessary for the ex- 
 ecution of the inspection laws, or to levy any tonnage duties. This 
 apparently bore out the contention that the state impost laws 
 would come to an end, unless previously repealed by the leg- 
 islatures, on the fourth of the following March. "A kind of 
 interregnum," wrote a newspaper correspondent who accepted 
 this interpretation, "will take place on the first Wednesday in 
 March, w-ith respect to duties on imports; as on that day the 
 power of an individual state to collect such duties, 'except what 
 may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws,' 
 will cease; and it must require some time for Congress, after 
 having made the arrangements necessary for proceeding to busi- 
 ness, to form and put in execution a system of revenue. This will 
 be rather an unfavorable circumstance for public credit; but in- 
 dividuals, who may be so fortunate as to make importations during 
 that interval of free trade, will no douljt make a considerable sav- 
 ing by it."^2 
 
 '^ Act of February i, 17S9. 
 
 '2 Independent Gazetteer, February 27, 1789. Similarly a writer in the 
 Virginia Independent Chronicle, December 24, 1788, on the subject of the 
 public debt of Virginia, took it for granted that the impost of the state 
 would cease after March 4, 1789. 
 
88 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 The same view was taken by the Pennsylvania Assembly com- 
 mittee of ways and means. Estimating the revenues and expen- 
 ditures for the year 1789, it reported, "as the government of the 
 United States have, by their Constitution, the exclusive right of 
 levying imposts, of course that part of the revenue of Pennsyl- 
 vania will immediately cease."^^ 7^^ impost had produced in 
 1788 £52,000, which, added to £3,200 produced by the duty on for- 
 eign and domestic tonnage made a reduction of the revenue to 
 the amount of £55,200 for the year 1789. 
 
 In Virginia the opinion was expressed in the summer of 1788 
 that the state impost laws had been annulled the moment the Con- 
 stitution was ratified. Several prominent and influential shippers 
 of Accomac County, alleged Antifederalists, insisted that so much 
 of the law as required vessels trading between the states to pay 
 duties was totally abrogated by the new Constitution, and threats 
 were made against any officer who should attempt to enforce that 
 provision of the state act. In this dilemma, a naval officer wrote 
 to George Corbin, the Attorney-General of the state, asking 
 specifically whether or not the new Constitution annulled the pro- 
 vision of the state law in question. Corbin replied as specifically : 
 "I am of opinion it does, being now the supreme Law of the 
 Land."^* In the face of this opinion the naval officer could not 
 enforce the law but at once appealed from the decision of Corbin 
 to Governor Randolph. The latter turned the question over to 
 the general assembly, which met soon afterward. It apparently 
 decided that the state law would be in force until the following 
 March. Its general attitude is indicated in a letter written by 
 Monroe to Madison, November 22, 1788. "It is generally 
 agreed," he said, "to make no other alteration in the revenue sys- 
 tem than by such change in the appropriation as will supply the 
 defect of the impost wh. will belong to the U. S. after March. 
 Whether the impost system of the state shall cease then, or con- 
 's Minutes of the Assembly of Pennsylvania, February 17, 17S9. 
 '^Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 470, 500. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 89 
 
 tinue until contrary provisions are made, seems to be a doubtful 
 question. An apprehension that other states may lay theirs 
 aside and open their ports free from duty in the interval, has 
 weight on the minds of some and disposes them for a similar 
 measure, especially as they suppose the amt. will belong to the 
 U. S., but I rather believe ours will be continued until Congress 
 directs otherwise, let the revenue accrue to whom it may."^^ 
 Before the assembly adjourned it passed "An Act concerning cer- 
 tain public establishments,"^^ the first article of which recited 
 that the operation of the government of the United States would 
 render unnecessary several public establishments which existed 
 under the laws of the state. Therefore it was provided "that 
 so soon as it shall be notified to the executive by Congress, that 
 measures have been by them taken concerning duties or imposts, 
 all laws concerning naval officers, collectors of duties and search- 
 ers, and their salaries, and concerning duties and imposts of every 
 denomination whatsoever, shall cease and determine; except the 
 duty of six shillings per hogshead on tobacco exported, reserved 
 for inspection duties." Upon receiving notification of such action 
 by Congress, the Governor was to announce it by proclamation, 
 the revenue officers were to balance and close their accounts, 
 and the revenue cutters were to be discontinued and sold. 
 
 The thing of which the Virginia assemblymen were appre- 
 hensive, according to Monroe's letter, actually occurred in Con- 
 necticut. In January, 1789, the general assembly of that state 
 passed an act by which all laws, "so far as they relate to the 
 levying and collecting a Duty on Articles imported into this 
 State, by Land or Water, shall from and after the first Day of 
 February next, as relative to Articles thereafter imported, cease 
 and determine."^^ Evidently then, Connecticut had free trade 
 
 ^* Writings of Monroe, I. 197. 
 
 '* Hening, XII. 779. 
 
 "Acts and Laws of Connecticut, p. 377. 
 
90 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 from the first of February, 1789, to the time in August when the 
 national tariff law went into effect. 
 
 The Georgia assembly apparently took the ground that reve- 
 nues arising under state laws accrued to the state as long as the 
 law was in force, and that it required special action of the legis- 
 lature to repeal such laws. By section three of an act of Feb- 
 ruary I, 1789, amendatory of a previous revenue law, it was pro- 
 vided: "This act shall be in force and virtue immediately from 
 the passing of the same until the United States in Congress as- 
 sembled shall by their act order otherwise, and no longer."^^ 
 
 While the Pennsylvania assembly did not specifically repeal 
 the state impost laws, it was recognized, in an act of March 2^, 
 1789, relative to the monetary engagements of the state, that 
 an act of Congress would soon displace the state law.^^ The 
 report of the committee of ways and means of the previous Feb- 
 ruary 17, that the revenue arising from the state impost would 
 immediately cease (see above), was known by this time to have 
 been partially incorrect, for such revenue was still coming into 
 the treasury of that state. 
 
 Massachusetts was the last state to pass any repealing pro- 
 visions before the Federal statute went into effect. Late in 
 June the general court enacted that the state impost law should 
 be annulled at the time the act or law that should be made by 
 Congress, for the purpose of raising a public revenue by impost, 
 should begin to operate.^o But in order to prevent any misunder- 
 standing, a resolve was passed to continue in office the impost 
 collectors until further orders.^i 
 
 At the time of the passage of this Massachusetts repealing 
 act, Congress had almost completed the formation of a general 
 
 18 Iredell's Laws of Georgia, p. 383. 
 18 Session Laws of Pennsylvania. 
 
 20 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1788-1789, p. 41 v Act of 
 June 25, 1789. 
 
 2' Massachusetts Centinel, June 27, 17S9. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL TKRIOD, I788, I789 9' 
 
 tariff system for the new government. The creation and execu- 
 tion of a scheme for producing a sufficient national revenue had 
 invoked the earliest attention of the national Legislature and 
 as soon as the organization of the two houses was completed th.s 
 important subject was submitted to the cons.derafon of the 
 House of Representatives - On April 8. in Committee o the 
 Whole on the State of the Union, Madison introduced tlte subject 
 by proposing that, in order to supply immediate financial needs, 
 the recommendations by Congress in 1783 for establishing a 
 national revenue be tal<en as the basis of a temporary system 
 leaving a permanent system to be worlced out later. This did 
 not meet the approval of the majority of the members of Con- 
 gress, and after a delay of nearly four months a fairly com- 
 plete and permanent system, consisting of three separate meas- 
 ures, was evolved.^s 
 
 The last thing necessary to be done before this series of reve- 
 nue laws could go into operation was the appointment of the va- 
 rious revenue officials to enforce the tariff regulations and make 
 the actual collections at the ports. An army of office-seekers had 
 been besieging Washington by correspondence and personal inter- 
 view even as early as the previous autumn, but he had repeat- 
 edlv declared that he would enter his work free from promises or 
 engagements of any kind." There were certain guiding principles 
 which he necessarilv followed in making his appointments.-' He 
 probably shared in a prevailing sentiment of that time that a man 
 
 » I, is not the intention to give a complete account of the action of 
 congress in the formation of this fits, tariff act under the Constitution. 
 
 'au act for laying a duty on Goods, Wares and Merchand.ses tn,- 
 ported into the United States, An Ac. imposing duties on Tonnage, An Act 
 ,0 regulate the Collection of the Duties Statutes at Large, I. -4, 
 
 27, 29. 
 
 2^ Writings of Washington, Ford's Edition, IX. 349- 
 .^Seeon this point, Office-seeking during Washington's admm.stra- 
 tion, bv G. Hunt, American Historical Review, I. 270-283. 
 
92 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 had a property right in the retention of his office. This is well 
 illustrated in a letter he wrote to Benjamin Harrison of Virginia. 
 Colonel Parker had resigned his position as naval officer of Nor- 
 folk in order to take his seat in Congress, and the Council had 
 chosen William Lindsay to succeed him. In the meantime Harri- 
 son applied to Washington for the office as soon as a Federal law 
 should commence operation, and in reply Washington said, in 
 part: "I wish you had pursued the policy which the gentlemen 
 who now occupies it [the office] has done, of obtaining the ap- 
 pointment from the executive of this State. Although that gentle- 
 man was an officer, yet he is quite unknown to me, and therefore 
 1 cannot speak at all upon the ground of comparative claims of 
 personal merit. I conceive, however, it will be found no pleasant 
 thing, possibly very much the reverse, to displace one man under 
 these circumstances of actual occupancy, merely to make room for 
 another, however considerable his abilities, or unimpeached his 
 integrity may appear to the public eye."^^ 
 
 The list of appointments was received by the Senate on 
 August 3. A majority on the list had been in service under the 
 state governments and formed exactly what was needed to carry 
 out the new regulations, a trained body of officials. Within the 
 next two days the Senate approved nearly all the appointees, 
 delaying action upon three for want of more information, and 
 flatly rejecting only one, Benjamin Fishbourn of Savannah. For 
 the last the President promptly supplied a substitute.^' 
 
 It was obviously impossible for the impost law to go into 
 operation on the day prescribed in the act, August i. But begin- 
 ning with the organization of the New York custom house on 
 August 5, the national system was extended as rapidly as news 
 
 26 Writings of Washington, XI. 367. Lindsay was later continued by 
 Washington. 
 
 27 Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, I. 9 et seq. 
 The President defended Fishbourn vigorously, giving reasons for his 
 appointment. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1/88, 1 789 93 
 
 could be received of the appointments, the time varying from the 
 fifth to the last of August.-*^ In the interval, from the beginning 
 of the month to the time when the notice was received in the 
 respective states, several importations took place upon which in 
 some cases duties were paid under the state laws while in others 
 none at all were paid. The question arose as to whether the 
 United States, having no officers to make the collections at the 
 time, could collect later. Hamilton, placed at the head of the 
 Treasury Department in September, believed it to be a clear 
 point that the duties on all goods imported after August i, accrued 
 as debts to the Federal government, the regulations prescribed 
 by the collection law for securing the payments being merely 
 auxiliary guards, not essential pre-conditions. Accordingly, not 
 feeling at liberty to waive the claims for such duties, he insti- 
 tuted proceedings some months later, with a view to a legal de- 
 cision.29 At the same time he suggested to Congress the advis- 
 ability of relinquishing these claims. It had not been expected by 
 importers that the payment of duties during the transitional period 
 would be demanded. The claim could be enforced only after 
 favorable legal decisions in nearly every specific case, a proceeding 
 which generally would be regarded as quite rigorous. Further- 
 more, in some cases, actual injury would result if the claims were 
 pressed. For instance, merchants had sold their goods without 
 
 ® A short report by Hamilton dated March 4, 1790, containing an 
 abstract of the net proceeds for the duties on imports and tonnage to 
 December 31, 1789, gives the time at which the law went into operation in 
 each of the eleven states. According to this, the collections began in 
 New Jersey and Delaware August i (plainly a mistake, as the appointments 
 were not sent to the Senate until August 3), in New York, August 5, in 
 Maryland, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, August 10, in New Hampshire 
 and Connecticut, August 11, in Virginia, August 17, in Georgia, August 22, 
 and in South Carolina, August 31. 
 
 -^Report of Hamilton, April 23, 1790, On the Operations ot the Act 
 laying Duties on Imports. 
 
94 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 reference in the price to the duty; agents had settled accounts 
 and paid over the proceeds of goods to their principals ; and duties 
 had been paid in some cases under state establishments. Finally, 
 even if the justice and legality of the claims were established, it 
 would still be difficult to determine the exact sums due on importa- 
 tions which had occurred several months before the claims were 
 presented. 
 
 Congress took no action on the Secretary's recommendation, 
 but these demands seem never to have been pressed. The difficul- 
 ties were evidently too great, and the compensation too slight 
 to carry to a judicial decision so unpopular a claim. At most 
 the returns would not have exceeded a few hundred dollars — 
 far too small a matter for which to risk the good will of the im- 
 porters at the very commencement of the new system.^o 
 
 There were other questions which caused considerable vexa- 
 tion to the merchants and which the states themselves had to 
 settle. Two such questions came before the Supreme Executive 
 Council of Pennsylvania for decision. On August 4, the state 
 collector, Sharp Delany, laid before the Council a statement of 
 the various limitation provisions in the impost and tonnage acts 
 passed by the assembly since 1783. It appeared that some of the 
 acts were without limitations, while some were limited "until 
 that part of the resolve of Congress of April 18, 1783, be ac- 
 ceded to by each and every of the thirteen United States, and from 
 thence to the End of the next Sitting of the Assembly and no 
 longer"3i — a condition never fulfilled. The collector now wished 
 
 * In New Hampshire the revenue from the imposts went into the state 
 treasury until August 11, the collector being allowed ten per cent of the 
 duties to that date. New Hampshire State Papers, XXI. 735. Had 
 Hamilton pressed the United States government claims, petitions would 
 have been presented to the state government for rebate, but no such peti- 
 tions appear to have been made. 
 
 31 Act of September 25, 1783. Session laws of Pennsvlvania. See 
 also act of September 20, 17S5. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 95 
 
 for directions as to how far these acts were superseded by the 
 laws of the United States, though at the same time he called 
 attention to the fact that should the state laws remain in force, 
 there would be no benefit to the state treasury, for according to 
 the new Constitution the proceeds of the collection would go 
 into the treasury of the United States. But admitting that the 
 state laws were superseded by the Federal law, there was a second 
 matter upon which the collector was not sure of his position. The 
 state laws had provided that if goods upon which duties had 
 beeen paid should be re-exported within a certain time and under 
 certain conditions, the whole of the duty would be returned. The 
 merchants of Philadelphia had imported goods before the first 
 of August upon which they had paid state duties, and, in the 
 course of their business were daily exporting such goods after the 
 first of August and demanding drawbacks. The question was, 
 under these circumstances were they entitled to drawbacks P^- 
 
 These questions were at once referred by the Council to a 
 special committee with instructions to consult the judges of the 
 Supreme Court and the attorney general.^^ Four days later the 
 committee reported the following opinion from the judicial offi- 
 cers : 'Tn answer to the first question, we conceive that all the 
 acts and parts of acts of Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania, 
 so far as they authorize or require imposts or duties to be paid to 
 the use of the said commonwealth, upon goods, wares and mer- 
 chandize imported within the said State, have ceased to have any 
 legal operation or binding force. 
 
 "To the second question, as the authority and powers of the 
 Collector and Naval Officer of the State of Pennsylvania have 
 ceased with respect to any future act to be done by them, as such 
 it appears to us, that no drawback or return of the duties paid, 
 or secured to be paid, can be made to the merchants or persons 
 who may propose to export the goods, etc., agreeably to the pro- 
 
 3^ Pennsylvania Archives, XI. 597. 
 
 35 Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XVI. 124. 
 
gS UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 visions made by the said acts of Assembly, without the aid of the 
 legislature. "3^ 
 
 This opinion was accepted and concurred in by the Council, 
 and sent to Sharp Delany as an answer to his questions. It 
 was satisfactory to the merchants in so far as state duties were 
 concerned, but not in regard to drawbacks, and so, taking the 
 hint from the judges' answer that the legislature might be able 
 to offer assistance, they petitioned the assembly a few days later 
 for relief. After considerable opposition, favorable action w^as 
 taken by the close vote of twenty-five to twenty-three. Delany 
 was declared to be state collector still on all goods imported before 
 August I and as such was bound to account for all duties or 
 bonds for duties received before that time, and to pay drawbacks 
 on any goods exported which had been imported previous to 
 August 1.2^ 
 
 In Virginia Governor Beverley Randolph issued a proclama- 
 tion July 21, commanding the state revenue officers to cease the 
 exercise of their powers from and after the first of the following 
 August. The books and papers of the local officers were to be 
 sent to Richmond for preservation. At least one collector how- 
 ever, Charles Lee of Alexandria, interpreted this not to include 
 bonds which he held against merchants for duties on goods im- 
 ported before August i. He decided to retain such bonds and 
 make the collections himself as they fell due after August i, 
 for, as he wTote the governor, by so doing he w^ould receive a 
 commission of one per cent, the merchants would pay the bonds 
 more conveniently there than at Richmond, and the duties would 
 be received at the state treasury more promptly.3<5 This was 
 evidently satisfactory to everyone concerned. 
 
 As compared with the lax enforcement of the various state 
 laws, the strict observance required of the Federal law gave 
 
 3* Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XVI. 128, 129. 
 3* Session Laws of Pennsylvania, September 29, 17S9, 
 ■^ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, V. iS. 
 
THE TR/\NSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, 1 789 97 
 
 an air of rigor to the new system. A good example of this is 
 furnished by contrasting the different poHcies pursued in regard 
 to the payment of bonds. Under the old system when bonds be- 
 came due, the time of payment was frequently extended, or 
 partial payments received, at the convenience of the debtor. But 
 under the new system this was changed. Shortly after taking 
 office, Hamilton sent out a circular letter to the revenue officers 
 directing them to immediately put in suit bonds which were not 
 paid as they fell due. On this point, he wrote, "the most exact 
 punctuality will be considered as indispensable."^" H,e regarded 
 this strictness as not only necessary to the public business, but 
 as also eventually most convenient to importers, for, according 
 to the act to regulate the collection of duties, no person against 
 whom there was an unsatisfied bond could be allowed future 
 credit until such bond was fully paid. 
 
 Smugglers, too, soon came to realize the energetic character 
 of the new administration. Accustomed to ply their trade al- 
 most with impunity, they now found that infractions of the law 
 were followed by vigorous prosecution. Before the first month 
 of the new regime had gone by several of these offenders were 
 caught and heavily fined.^s 
 
 Another effect of the federal Constitution upon state laws 
 passed during the period of the Confederation is presented in 
 the discontinuance of the state admiralty courts after 1789. 
 
 During the colonial period, vice-admiralty courts had been 
 established in the different colonies, the commissions emanating 
 from the crown. They had, added to the usual jurisdiction, the 
 cognizance of all cases of seizure afloat for the violation of the 
 revenue laws. For this reason they were very unpopular at the 
 outbreak of the Revolutionary war. Nevertheless the need of 
 some such court was patent, and upon the recommendation of 
 
 ^Maryland Journal, January 12, 1790. 
 
 ** American Museum, VIII. Appendix 4, p. 4. The newspapers also 
 speak of the activity of the government in this respect. 
 
 7 
 
98 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Congress of November 25, 1775,^^ admiralty courts were gen- 
 erally erected by the states. In some instances there was merely 
 a change in the personnel of the judges, the old courts being re- 
 tained. In others, new courts were established with well de- 
 fined powers. Amendments were passed from time to time until 
 by 1789 much dissimilarity existed in the jurisdiction exercised 
 in different states. But no matter what the provisions 
 of the various laws, they were alike forceless after the organi- 
 zation of the new government."*^ 
 
 One of three courses was open to the state legislatures. They 
 might take no action whatever upon the subject, in which case 
 their admiralty laws would become obsolete through the preced- 
 ence of the Federal Constitution and laws; they might omit to 
 make provision for the admiralty courts in the re-codification of 
 the state laws or in the revised state constitutions, which omis- 
 sion would amount to a repeal ; or they might specifically repeal 
 parts or all of their admiralty laws. As it turned out, each of 
 the three courses was followed by about an equal number of 
 states. 
 
 Pennsylvania, one of the states which adopted the last method, 
 apparently feared that the judge of the admiralty might be legally 
 able to hold the state for his salary even after he no longer had 
 any court over which to preside. At any rate the act of December 
 7, 1789, recited the fact that the United States District Court had 
 exclusive jurisdiction of admiralty causes and declared it inex- 
 pedient to continue a salary after the duties of the office had 
 ceased. Francis Hopkinson was the last judge of the admiralty 
 of Pennsylvania, but upon the passage of the United States judi- 
 ciary act in September, Washington appointed him United States 
 district judge for the district of Pennsylvania. He himself had 
 
 39Journal of the Continental Congress, new ed.. III. 373. 
 
 ■•0 Article III, section 2, of the Constitution, provides that the judicial 
 power of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and 
 maritime jurisdiction. 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1 788, 1 789 99 
 
 evidently come to the conclusion that the state law was superseded 
 and void even before the passage of the act of Decemebr 7, for 
 under date of November 6, 1789, he advised the Council to take 
 some measure for the safe keeping of the records of the "late 
 court of admiralty." The last recorded payment of salary to 
 Hopkinson as judge of the admiralty was for the quarter ending 
 September 13, 1789. 
 
 In Virginia an act of December 22, 1788, provided that the 
 cases in which the court of admiralty had jurisdiction, and which 
 were not taken away by the Constitution of the United States, 
 were to be transferred to the district courts of the state. Another 
 act, a few days later, discontinued the salaries of the admiralty 
 judges, and the court of admiralty, after March 4, 1789.^ ^ 
 
 The naturalization clause of the Federal Constitution trans- 
 ferred also to the central government power which the states had 
 exercised under the Articles of Confederation. The provision of 
 the Articles that the free inhabitants of each of the states be en- 
 titled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the 
 several states, had only rendered more chaotic a condition already 
 bad enough. States with stringent naturalization rules soon had 
 cause for complaint against the states with easy admission re- 
 quirements. It was felt that there ought to be a uniform practice, 
 and this feeling, expressed in the Convention, led to the provision 
 in the Constitution that Congress should have power "to estab- 
 lish a uniform rule of naturalization." Nothing was done in the 
 first session of Congress to provide such uniformity, but in 1790, 
 following a recommendation in Washington's first annual mes- 
 sage, the first Federal law upon the subject was passed.^- "The 
 governing ideas," says Maclay in his report of the debate in the 
 Senate over the bill, "seemed to be the following : That the hold- 
 ing property w^as separable from and not absolutely connected with 
 naturalization ; that laws and regulations relating to property, not 
 
 <' Hening, XII. 769. 
 
 <- United States Statutes at Large, I. 103. 
 
100 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 being among the powers granted to Congress, remained with 
 the different states""*^ There is no record of any of the states 
 specifically repealing their old naturalization laws upon the pas- 
 sage of the national act, but, exercising the right which Maclay 
 says remained to them, several of them did pass acts prescribing 
 the terms upon which foreigners could hold property w^ithin their 
 boundaries. 
 
 Again, under the Articles of Confederation, the states shared 
 with Congress the power of coining money, of emitting bills of 
 credit, and of making their promissory notes a legal tender for 
 debts, while the new Constitution placed such powers in the 
 hands of Congress alone.^"* Those states which had established 
 mints were forced to suspend operations,^^ while at the same time 
 provision had to be made to take the state paper money out of 
 circulation.^^ Hamilton's funding measure, too, upset the states' 
 financial legislation. All had taken some action to provide for 
 their public indebtedness, but after the passage of the assumption 
 measure in 1790 they were enabled either to repeal these special 
 measures or to turn the proceeds arising from this legislation to 
 other accounts. Massachusetts had passed an excise act in 
 March, 1790, the revenue from which it was proposed to appro- 
 priate to the payment of interest on the debt of the commonwealth. 
 But in the following June the probability of the success of the 
 national funding scheme was so great that the legislature was 
 
 ••3 William Maclay, Sketches of Debate in the First Senate of the 
 United States, p. 181. 
 
 << Art. I, section S, clause 5; and section 10, clause i. 
 
 ••* Thus the legislature of Connecticut in May, 17S9, suspended a 
 license previously granted to certain persons in New Haven to manufacture 
 copper coin. Gazette of the United States, July 8, 1789. 
 
 ^8 A correspondent of the New Jersey Journal and Political Intelligencer, 
 October 7, 1789, concluded that the New Jersey paper money had not had, 
 since the previous March 4, any legal tender value in compulsory payments 
 of debts. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 lOI 
 
 induced to repeal conditionally the act of the previous March.*'^ 
 When the legislature met again the following September, the 
 funding scheme was an assured fact, and so the state excise 
 law was finally and unprovisionally repealed. North Carolina, 
 in December, 1789, as a means for the payment of the state 
 debt, levied a tax of two shillings per hundred acres of land, five 
 shillings per £100 value of town lots with their improvements, 
 and five shillings per poll. This was to be in force till the state 
 debt was paid, but the passage of the national assumption act a 
 few months later rendered this tax unnecessary, and it was re- 
 pealed in December, 1790,^^ In New Jersey an act passed in 
 1787 to raise £12,500 per annum for twenty-two years to pay 
 interest on the state debt was repealed November 18, 1790. 
 
 The old Congress had, in 1785, taken advantage of its right 
 to regulate the coinage, and had adopted the decimal system, but 
 had taken no action to displace the worn out currency with 
 coinage of the new system. As a result the states simply kept 
 their old systems in force. This chaotic condition of the currency 
 existed until 1792 when Congress passed remedial legislation. 
 The decimal system w^as definitely established, and provision made 
 for the coinage of a large amount of new currency. It thus be- 
 came a matter of convenience for the states to have the same 
 legal money of account as the United States, and one after an- 
 other they gradually adopted the decimal system. 
 
 In two additional ways the central government after 1789 
 lessened the expenditures of the state governments— by its main- 
 tenance of lighthouses and by its payment of military pensions. 
 By act of August 7, 1789, Congress provided that the expenses of 
 keeping lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers in order 
 should be borne by the United States after August 15, 1789, 
 provided cessions of such should be made to the United States 
 wnthin one year. The measure w^as so obviously calculated to 
 
 ••' Laws of Massachusetts, II. S7, June 24, 1790, Ch. xiv. 
 ■"* Laws of North Carolina, Iredell's ed., 1791, pp. 666, 701. 
 
102 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 produce more uniformity in the regulation of commerce, at the 
 same time considerably reducing the running expenses of the 
 states, that nearly all such places were ceded to the central gov- 
 ernment within a few months. The acts of cession were usually 
 short and to the point, containing little beyond the mere transfer- 
 ence of the place in question. The Pennsylvania act declared 
 it was necessary to make the cession in order that the power of 
 Congress over commerce might be carried into effect. The 
 preamble to the Delaware act reported that Delaware was "de- 
 sirous to promote general regulations respecting lighthouses, 
 beacons, boys [sic] and public piers." New York and New 
 Hampshire provided that if the United States should make any 
 compensation to other states for like cessions, such compensation 
 should be made to them in proportion to the respective values. 
 
 The payment of military pensions had been made, during and 
 after the war, by the various states, the laws of which on this 
 subject had been as varied as could possibly be the case with thir- 
 teen distinct legislatures struggling with the question. But by 
 a resolution of June 7, 1785, Congress had recommended to tlie 
 states definite and uniform provisions for officers, soldiers and 
 seamen disabled in the service of the nation. Regulations for 
 carrying out these provisions were to be left to the legislatures, 
 and state officers rather than national officers were to pass upon 
 the eligibility of persons applying for pensions. The total 
 amount paid out by a state for such purposes was to be deducted 
 from the requisitions of Congress upon that state. It is to be 
 noticed, however, that this "deduction" did not lessen a state's 
 expenses, for the requisitions against it had to be increased pro- 
 portionately. Instead of being a party to the transaction, and of 
 making payments directly to the pensioners, the states in theory 
 now passed the money over to Congress, which handed it back to 
 be distributed. In this, as in other matters, the states became 
 the agents of Congress simply because the Articles of Confedera- 
 tion provided no point of contact for the central government with 
 
THE TR.\NSITIONAL PERIOD, 1/88, 1789 IO3 
 
 the individual. This defect was remedied in the Federal Consti- 
 tution, and an act was passed in the first session of Congress pro- 
 viding that these military pensions should now be paid by the 
 United States under such regulations as the president might di- 
 rect.*^ In the middle of October, 1789, Secretary of War Knox 
 sent out a circular containing the regulations under which the 
 payments were to be made. The pensions for the year beginning 
 March 4, 1789, were to be paid in two instalments, — March 5, 
 1790, and June 5, 1790.^*^ States were to furnish lists of their 
 pensioners before the first payment w(as due. A second circular 
 was issued January 28, 1790, giving more detailed information 
 as to the places of payment, and naming the persons who were to 
 make the disbursements.^^ 
 
 Both by the maintenance of lighthouses and by the adminis- 
 tration of these new pension laws did the new central govern- 
 ment impress the individual. It not only encountered the 
 individual at more points than had the government un- 
 der the Confederation, but it demanded a greater respect than 
 had been shown its predecessor. It was to be satisfied with no 
 divided allegiance. Its Constitution and laws were to be supreme 
 over state constitutions and laws, and to insure supremacy state 
 officers were to be bound by oath to give proper support. The 
 first act passed by Congress^^ prescribed the form of the oath 
 and enacted that it should be administered to persons in office 
 within one month after the first of the following August, and 
 
 ^'♦This law provided for the payment only from March 4, 17S9, to 
 March 4, 1790, but subsequent laws extended the time indefinitely. 
 
 ^This long delay probably produced considerable suffering, to alle- 
 viate which at least one state, Pennsylvania, advanced monthly sums to 
 the pensioners during the winter 17S9-1790. These were to be re-paid 
 to the state March 5, 1790. Act of November 20, 1789. 
 
 51 Maryland Journal, February 12, 1790. 
 
 *2June I, 1789. An act to regulate the time and manner ot adminis- 
 tering certain oaths. Statutes at large, I. 23. 
 
104 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 to persons thereafter filling the offices before they entered upon 
 their duties. 
 
 Five months before the passage of this act the Connecticut 
 assembly had taken the initiative and had prescribed an oath of 
 fealty to the new Constitution. This was the only legislature 
 to take action before the passage of the Congressional act. The 
 Connecticut act was repealed the following October without any 
 explanation, but possibly it was felt that the act of Congress was 
 all-sufficient, possibly also because the oath prescribed by the state 
 was slightly different from that of Congress. In May a grand 
 jury of Washington county, Virginia, had presented as a griev- 
 ance the want of a law giving the form of an oath of fidelity to 
 the federal government. According to the jury, the existing offi- 
 cers had been placed in a serious position; no oath or affirma- 
 tion had been provided by the last assembly, and no future 
 assembly could remedy the evil because, they said, "we find they 
 are precluded by Article ist where it is said, 'no ex post facto 
 law shall be passed.' "^^ No remedy was suggested, but the publi- 
 cation of the Act of Congress in the Virginia papers early in the 
 following July probably eased the minds of those sticklers of 
 form. 
 
 The Act of Congress, in itself, without state action, was 
 sufficient to carry the provision of the Constitution into efifect. 
 But the idea that the state governments were intermediary be- 
 tween Congress and the people could not be uprooted at once. 
 The states may also have felt that no outside government should 
 be permitted to prescribe a form of oath for state officers without 
 consent of the legislature. Whatever the cause, the majority of 
 the legislatures re-enacted the federal law. New York made the 
 neglect or omission of the oath a misdemeanor, indictable and 
 punishable by fine and imprisonment. On the other hand, the 
 legislature of North Carolina in 1790 refused by a large niajority 
 to take the oath to the national Constitution. The New Hamp- 
 
 ^ Pennsylvania Packet, June 30, 17S9. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I788, I789 I05 
 
 shire legislature in June, 1789, re-enacted the Congressional law. 
 In the following January the same body passed an interesting 
 resolution, showing that it recognized an important change in 
 the character of the state government, in consequence of the 
 change in the national government. This resolution, after stating 
 that the adoption of the Federal Constitution had made necessary 
 some alterations in the oath of allegiance to the state, prescribed 
 by the state constitution, directed that in the future administra- 
 tion of the oath, the word "confederated" be substituted for the 
 words "sovereign and independent."^^ A related subject to the 
 foregoing was the question of the eligibility of persons to hold 
 ofifice simultaneously under both state and national governments. 
 Each one of the thirteen states, with the exception of Rhode 
 Island, passed laws or resolutions, or incorporated provisions in 
 the state constitutions upon this subject, and usually such eligi- 
 bility was denied. In agitating the question it was observed that a 
 person could not serve "two sovereign organizations" at the same 
 time. It was felt too that certain departments of government 
 should be kept separate, and the danger of collision between the 
 state and national governments was dwelt upon. Of more opera- 
 tive influence was the simple reason that a man could not be in 
 two places at once — the duties of one office would interfere with 
 those of the other. Two or three examples of state action will 
 suffice to illustrate the general feeling. The New York assembly 
 passed a series of resolutions in January, 1790, taking the singular 
 and untenable position that it was incompatible with the United 
 States Constitution for any person holding an office under the 
 United States government to have a seat at the same time in 
 the state legislature. This action rendered vacant the seats of 
 four state senators, among them United States District Judge 
 James Duane. and United States Senator Philip Schuyler. The 
 mischievous effect of this form of plural office holding was ex- 
 perienced by the first Congress in the case of Charles Carroll, 
 
 *^ State Papers of New Hampshire, XXI. 726. 
 
I06 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Senator from Maryland. Carroll was also a member of the 
 state senate, and during 1790 and 1791 absented himself from 
 Congress during the early winter until the adjournment of the 
 state legislature. Notwithstanding his vigorous opposition, the 
 state legislature passed an act in December, 179 1, incapacitating 
 United States officers and members of Congress from holding 
 office under the Maryland government. From Massachusetts one 
 of the first representatives to Congress was a probate judge, an- 
 other was a sheriff. Governor Hancock, at a loss as to the proper 
 mode of procedure in such cases, sent a special message to the 
 legislature asking its advice. The latter replied that if the probate 
 judge continued to hold both his offices a future legislature would 
 authorize the governor to name some other person to execute the 
 duties of the office of probate judge. As to the sheriff, such offi- 
 cers were removable at the pleasure of the executive, and there- 
 fore the legislature declined to advise the governor on that 
 point.^^ In January, 1790, after a long debate occasioned by a 
 specific case, it was voted by a large majority that persons holding 
 government offices, similar in nature to those state offices declared 
 by the constitution of Massachusetts incompatible wuth the hold- 
 ing of seats in the legislature, could have no constitutional right to 
 retain their seats. ^^ Perhaps the most interesting debate occurred 
 in 1 79 1, when David ScAVall, United States District Judge, ap- 
 peared to claim his seat as a duly elected member of the legisla- 
 ture from York. In the course of the consideration of his 
 eligibility, it was held that he occupied a place of profit and trust 
 under a foreign government, and for this reason, and the addi- 
 tional one that the legislature and judiciary should be kept separ- 
 ate, Sewall was excluded by an almost unanimous vote.^~ 
 
 ''•"'Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 17S8-17S9, p. 744. 
 
 *6 Massachusetts Centinel, January 23, 1790. 
 
 •'•^Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 14, 17, 1791. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 SOURCE MATERIAL 
 
 I. Laws. First in importance, as furnishing the background for the 
 monograph, were the Session Laws of the several states. Of these, the 
 Charlemagne Tower Collection in the Library of the Historical Society of 
 Pennsylvania contains the most complete file for this period and was used 
 constantly. The Law Division of the Library of Congress was also used ex- 
 tensively. Other collections which afforded material were the Law Librarv 
 of Philadelphia, the Library of the Law School of the University of Chi- 
 cago, aud the Law Institute of Chicago. 
 
 II. Official publications exclusive of laws. These include the Jour- 
 nals and Minutes of the several state assemblies, reports of state legislative 
 committees, Journals of the two Houses of Congress, and reports of various 
 officials and committees to Congress. Not all of the state legislatures 
 printed their Journals from session to session, but more recently several of 
 the states have printed large collections of invaluable historical material, 
 including legislative Journals, calendars of documents, official letters, etc. 
 
 III. Newspapers. The contemporary newspapers of the transitional 
 period have furnished the writer much of his illustrative material. In ad- 
 dition, the newspapers frequently contain fuller reports of legislative meet- 
 ings than can be found in official publications. The writer has examined 
 the files in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society at Worces- 
 ter, those of Harvard University Library, of the Boston Public Library, of 
 the Library of the Rhode Island Historical Society, of the New Jersey State 
 Library, of the Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and of 
 the Library of Congress. 
 
 IV. Collections of Correspondence. Valuable additions to the illus- 
 trative material and explanations ot various political activities were obtain- 
 ed from this source. The principal collections used were as follows: 
 
 Conway, Moncure Daniel. Omitted chapters of history disclosed in 
 the life and papers of Edmund Randolph. New York, i88S. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander (Complete works of). Edited by H. C. Lodge. 
 12 vols. New York, 1904. 
 
 King, Rufus (Life and correspondence of). Edited by C. R. King. 6 
 vols. New York, 1S94-1900. 
 
 Madison, James (Writings of). Edited by Gaiilard Hunt. vol. i. New 
 York, 1900, etc. 
 
 Monroe, James (Writings of). Edited by S. M. Hamilton. 7 vols. New- 
 York, 1898-1903. 
 
 Washington, George (Writings of). Edited by W. C. Ford. 14 vols. 
 1889-93. 
 
 107 
 
I08 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 V. Manuscript Material. Unpublished letters in the Treasury De- 
 partment at Washington threw additional light on the revenue affairs of 
 1789, and on the finances during the few months of transition. The report 
 of the Board of Treasury to Washington, (called for in June, 1789), 
 is among the Washington papers in the Division of Manuscripts of the 
 Library of Congress, and shows the condition of the finances at the be- 
 ginning of the first administration. 
 
 VI. Miscellaneous. A number of works which cannot be classed 
 among the foregoing, but which have been of value in furnishing source 
 material, are in part the following: 
 
 Lloyd, Thomas. Congressional register. New York, 1789. 
 
 Lloyd, Thomas. Debates of the general assembly of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Maclay, William. (The journal of). Edited by Edgar S. Maclay, 
 New York, 1S90. 
 
 Street, Alfred B. The Council of revision of the state of New 
 York, Albany, 1859. 
 
 United States. Annals of Congress. 
 
 SECONDARY WORKS (In part) 
 
 Bayley, Rafael A. National loans of the United States. 2nd Ed. 
 Washington, 1882. 
 
 Dougherty, J. H. The electorial system of the United States. New 
 York and London. 1906. 
 
 Hammond, J. D. History of political parties in the state of New York, 
 1 788-1840. 2 vols. Buffalo, 1850. 
 
 Staples, W. R. Rhode Island in the continental congress. Providence, 
 1870. 
 
 Sumner, W, G. The financier and the finances of the American revo' 
 lution. 2 vols. New York, 1S91. 
 
 TowNSEND, W. K. Admiralty, 1701-1901. Yale bi-centennial publi" 
 cations. Two Centuries Growth of American Law. New York. 1902. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, John, 2 (note). 
 
 Adams, Samuel, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 57- 
 
 Adgate, , member of New York assembly, 24. 
 
 Admiralty courts, 97-99- 
 
 discontinued by Pennsylvania, 98. 
 discontinued by Virginia, 99. 
 Allison, John, nominee tor Congress from Pennsylvania, ^6. 
 Ames, Fisher, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 57- 
 Annapolis, proposed seat of federal government, 6. 
 
 Federal caucus at, 47. 
 Antifederal party, gains advantages from delay in 17S8, S. 
 elects senators from Virginia, 17, iS. 
 strong in sections of Pennsylvania, 32. 
 
 holds state convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17^6, 34, 7S- 
 in minority but active in Maryland, 47-49- 
 Maryland law works against, 50. 
 
 elects four representatives from South Carolina, 51, 52- 
 controls lower house of New York legislature in 1788, 54, 74- 
 loses ground in the New York elections, 54, 55- 
 controls Virginia assembly, 59, 70- 
 nominates Monroe to oppose Madison, 62. 
 strength declines in Massachusetts, 56. 
 
 supposed plan to carry presidential election, 77- , • ,0 
 
 discouraged by result of congressional election tn Pennsylvania, 78 
 (note). 
 Appointments of revenue officials, 91, 92. 
 Articles of Confederation, attempts to amend, 1,2. 
 
 relations between states and central government under, 84. 
 and naturalization, 99. 
 monetary provisions, 100. 
 
 provide no contact of central government with md.v.dual, 102. 
 Ashe, J. B., elected to Congress from North Carolina, 64. 
 Atherton, Joshua, candidate for Congress from New Hampshire, 39- 
 Bailey, T., candidate for Congress from New York, 55 (note). 
 (109) 
 
no UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Baldwin, Abraham, 3. 
 
 elected representative irom Georgia, 51. 
 Baltimore, proposed seat of federal government in 17SS, 4, 5. 
 
 Federal meeting at, 48. 
 Banning, John, presidential elector from Delaware, 79. 
 Bartlett, Josiah, elected senator from Xew Hampshire, 18. 
 
 declines to serve, 18. 
 Basset, Richard, elected senator from Delaware, 16. 
 Bedford, Gunning, nominee for senator from Delaware, 16. 
 
 candidate for Congress from Delaware, 63 (note). 
 
 presidential elector, 79. 
 Belknap, Jeremy, 33. 
 Bellows, General, candidate for presidential elector in New Hampshire, 
 
 80 (note). 
 Benson, Egbert, elected to Congress from New York, 55. 
 Berkshire county, Massachusetts, opposes mode of congressional election, 
 
 56. 
 Bishop, Phanuel, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 56 (note). 
 Bland, Theodoric, elected to Congress from Virginia, 60, 63 (note). 
 Bloodworth, Timothy, elected to Congress from North Carolina, 65, 
 Boudinot, Elias, nominee for senator from New Jersey, 20, 21. 
 
 elected to Congress from New Jersey, 40-43. 
 Bourne, Benjamin, elected to Congress from Rhode Island, 65, 66. 
 Brooks, General J., candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 57, s^ 
 
 (note). 
 Brown, John, elected to Congress from Kentucky district, 63 (note). 
 Burke, Aedanus, elected to Congress from South Carolina, 52. 
 Butler, Pierce, elected senator from South Carolina, 22. 
 
 Cabell, Colonel (Samuel J.), candidate for presidential elector from Vir- 
 ginia. 77. 
 Cadwalader, Lambert, candidate tor Congress on West Jersey ticket, 40, 
 43 (note). 
 
 declared elected, 43. 
 Camden district. South Carolina, elects Thomas Sumter to Congress, 52. 
 Carrington, (Edward), member of Congress, 3. 
 
 friend of Madison, 17. 
 Carroll, Charles, elected senator from Maryland, 21, 22. 
 
 plural office-holder, 105, 106. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 17SS, 1 7S9 III 
 
 Carroll, Daniel, candidate for Congress from Maryland, 48 (note), 
 elected, 49. 
 probable election even had the law been changed, 50. 
 
 Caucus, secret, in New Jersey, 40. 
 
 antedated Maryland caucus, 41 (note). 
 in Maryland, 47. 
 Chambers, Stephen, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 36. 
 Chester, John, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 fnote). 
 Citizenship in the United States, methods of acquiring, 53. 
 Clark, Abraham, nominee for senator from New Jersey, 20, 21. 
 in the congressional election, 43 (note), 
 contests the New Jersey election, 44. 
 Clayton, Joshua, candidate for Congress from Delaware, 63 (note). 
 Clinton, Governor George, re-elected governor of New York, 17S9, 26. 
 convenes assembly in special session, 26. 
 message to assembly relative to presidential electors, 74. 
 mentioned for the vice-presidency, 77. 
 receives three votes, 83. 
 Clymer, George, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 36. 
 
 elected, 36, 37. 
 Coleman, Robert, nominee for senator from Pennsylvania, 15. 
 Coles, Isaac, elected to Congress from Virginia, 60, 63 (note). 
 Comstock, Job, candidate for Congress from Rhode Island, 65. 
 Congress, under the Confederation, fails to secure right of taxation, 2. 
 attitude towards the new Constitution, 2 (note), 
 transmits the Constitution to the states, 2. 
 
 provides details for putting the new government into operation, 3-9. 
 poor method of voting, 4. 
 
 method of election of members from New York, 24. 
 from New Hampshire, 72 (note), 
 power over monetary matters, 100, loi. 
 recommends military pensions, 102. 
 Con-ress, under the Constitution, should decide on permanent capital, 5- 
 tttempt to force a call for a second general convention, i6. 
 judges the qualifications of members, 32. 
 
 proposed qualifications of members from Pennsylvania, 35, 3^'- 
 proper persons to send to, 41. 
 
 asked to throw out the New Jersey election, 43-46. 
 case of Smith vs. Ramsey, 52, 53. 
 and the appointment of presidential electors, 67. 
 probable attitude toward New York election, 76. 
 
112 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 power over revenue, S7-90. 
 
 passes first national revenue measures, 90, 91. 
 
 passes naturalization law, 99, 100. 
 
 monetary powers, 100, 101. 
 
 passes act relative to light houses, loi. 
 
 provides military pensions, 103. 
 
 prescribes form of oath for officers, 103, 104. 
 Connecticut, election of United States senators, 16. 
 
 election of members of Congress, 37, 38. 
 
 scant material on the congressional election, 37, 51. 
 
 appointment of presidential electors, 73, 87. 
 
 has free trade after January, 1789, 89. 
 
 national tariff goes into effect in, 93 (note). 
 
 suspends license to manufacture coin, 100 (note). 
 
 prescribes a form of oath to the federal Constitution, 104. 
 Constitution of the United States, provision for ratification, 2. 
 
 is transmitted to Congress, 2. 
 
 supporters promote delay, 4- 
 
 not ratified by North Carolina in 1788, 6. 
 
 attempt to thwart by calling a second general convention, 16. 
 
 provision as to choice of senators, 19. 
 
 carried into effect in New Jersey, 20. 
 
 favored by new senators from South Carolina and Georgia, 22. 
 
 ratified by North Carolina, November 21, 17S9, 28. 
 
 provisions as to choice of representatives, 31, 32. 
 
 revision discussed, 34. 
 
 defects of, 34. 
 
 opposed because of slavery provisions, 39. 
 
 ratified unanimously in Georgia, 51 (note) 
 
 how ratified in Massachusetts, 56. 
 
 question of adoption, 76. 
 
 changes relations between states and general government, 84. 
 
 revenue provisions, 87. 
 
 effect on state revenue laws, S7-89, 95. 
 
 effect on state admiralty courts, 97. 
 
 provision as to naturalization, 99. 
 
 monetary provisions, 100. 
 
 supreme over state laws and constitutions, 103. 
 Contee, Benjamin, elected to Congress from Maryland, 48 (note), 49. 
 Contested elections. New Jersey case, 43-46. 
 
 William Smith case, 52, 53. 
 Conventions, political, in Pennsylvania, 33-36. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I7S8, 17S9 II3 
 
 Convention of 17S7, i. 
 
 transmits Constitution to Congress, 2. 
 Convention, movement for a second, 16. 
 Corbin, George, friend of Madison, 17. 
 
 attornej-general of Virginia, SS. 
 Council of Revision of New York, 26, 27. 
 Cox, John, candidate for Congress from New Jersey, 41. 
 Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, in the congressional election, 36. 
 Dalton, Tristram, nominee for senator from Massachusetts, 19. 
 
 elected senator, 20. 
 Dane, Nathan, nominee for senator from Massachusetts, 20. 
 Dawes (of Massachusetts), member of assembly, 19. 
 
 Dayton, Jonathan, candidate for Congress from New Jersey, 41, 4"^ (note). 
 Deadlock in Pennsylvania assembly over election of senator, 11-16. 
 
 in Massachusetts assembly, 19. 
 
 in New York assembly, 32-25. 
 
 in New Hampshire assembly. So. 
 Decimal system in coinage of money, loi. 
 Delany, Sharp, revenue collector in Pennsylvania, 94-96. 
 Delaware, first state to ratify Constitution, 3. 
 
 on the location of a national capital, 4, 7, 8. 
 
 election of senator from, 16. 
 
 election of representative from, 63, 64. 
 
 appointment of presidential electors, 69, 73 (note), 79. 
 
 free trade in, after separation from England, 85. 
 
 national tariff act goes into effect in, 93 (note). 
 
 cedes light houses to central government, 102. 
 Dent, George, candidate for Congress from Maryland, 47 (note), 50. 
 District vs. general ticket systems for the election of United States 
 
 representatives, 31. 
 Duane, James, member of New York assembly, 24. 
 
 nominee for senator from New York, 28. 
 
 excluded from state senate, 105. 
 Edwards (Pierrepont), in Congress, 3. 
 Election of United States senators, 10-30. 
 Election of United States representatives, 31-66. 
 
 variety of laws for, 32. 
 
 time in the several states, 66 (note). 
 
 law for, in Pennsylvania, 33. 
 
 in Connecticut, 37. 
 
114 UNIVERSITV' OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 in New Hampshire, 3S. 
 
 in New Jersey, 39, 40, 
 
 in Maryland, 47. 
 
 in Georgia, 50. 
 
 in South Carolina, 51. 
 
 in New York, 54. 
 
 in Massachusetts, 55, i)6. 
 
 in Virginia, 59, 60. 
 
 in Delaware, 63. 
 
 in North Carolina, 64. 
 
 in Rhode Island, 65. 
 
 summary of laws, 66. 
 Electioneering despised in Massachusetts, 56. 
 Electors, presidential, (^see presidential electors). 
 Eli2abelhtown, meeting-place of New Jersey council, 42. 
 Ellis, Joseph, candidate for Congress from New Jersey, 41. 
 Ellsworth, Oliver, elected senator from Connecticut, 16. 
 Elmer, Jonathan, elected senator from New Jersey, 20, 21. 
 Essex county. New Jersey, in the congressional election, 42, 43. 
 Faw, A., candidate for Congress from Maryland, 47 (note). 
 
 probably a Federalist, 48 (note). 
 Fayette county, Pennsylvania, has no interest in presidential election, 7S. 
 Federal party, nominates Madison as senator from Virginia, 16. 
 
 is strong in Pennsylvania in 1788, 32. 
 
 holds state convention in Pennsylvania, 34-36. 
 
 wins election in Pennsylvania, 36, 37. 
 
 manipulates election law in Maryland, 50. 
 
 elects four congressmen from New York, 55. 
 
 stronger over Virginia than in the state assembly, 70. 
 
 holds majority in New York senate, 74. 
 
 Lancaster convention, 77. 
 
 Few, William, elected senator from Georgia, 22. 
 
 Findley, William, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34. 
 
 Fishbourn, Benjamin, non-confirmed by United States Senate, 92. 
 
 Fitzsimons, Thomas, elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, 36, 37. 
 
 Floyd, William, elected to Congress from New York, 54, 55. 
 
 Forrest, Uriah, nominee for senator from Maryland, 21, 22. 
 
 Foster, Abiel, candidate for Congress from New Hampshire, 38 (note). 
 
 elected to fill vacancy, 39, 39 (note). 
 Foster, Theodore, elected senator from Rhode Island, 29. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 17SS, 1 789 I15 
 
 Free trade, in Delaware after separation from England, 85. 
 
 in New Jersey since 1783, 85. 
 
 an interval of, 87. 
 in Connecticut in 1789, 89. 
 Gale, George, nominee for senator from Maryland. 21, 22. 
 
 elected to Congress from Maryland, 48-50. 
 Gallatin, Albert, in the Pennsylvania assembly, 12. 
 
 elected senator from Maryland, 15. 
 
 declared ineligible to sit in Senate, 15. 
 General ticket vs. district systems for the election of United States 
 
 representatives, 31. 
 Georgia, proposed time for the appointment of electors in, 3. 
 
 attitude of delegates in 178S on location of national capital, 6, 8. 
 
 election of senators, 22. 
 
 assembly composed of a single house, 30. 
 
 election of representatives, 50, 51. 
 
 unanimous ratification of the constitution, 51 (note). 
 
 passes no law for the appointment of presidential electors, 73. 
 
 appointment of presidential electors, 81, 82. 
 
 casting of electoral vote, S3. 
 
 tonnage duties, 86, 87. 
 
 revenue law, 90. 
 
 national tariff act takes effect in, 93 (note). 
 German voters in Pennsylvania, 36, 37. 
 
 Gerry, Elbridge, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 57, 58. 
 Gerrymandering in Virginia, 61 (note). 
 
 Gilman, Nicholas, elected to Congress from New Hampshire, 38, 39. 
 Goodhue, Benjamin, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 58. 
 Gorham, Nathaniel, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 57, 58 
 (note). 
 
 withdraws candidacy, 58. 
 Grayson, William, elected senator from Virginia, 17, 18. 
 Great Britain, tariff discrimination against, 85, 86. 
 Griffin, Samuel, elected to Congress from Virginia, 63 (note). 
 Grout. Jonathan, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 58. 
 Gunn, James, elected senator from Georgia, 22. 
 Hamilton, Alexander, on the location of the seat of government, 7. 
 
 on the appointment of electors in New York, 75 (note). 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury, 93. 
 
 enforces revenue laws, 97. 
 
 funding measure, 100. 
 Hancock, Governor John, asks advice of assembly as to plural office- 
 holding, 106. 
 
Il6 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Antifederal convention held in 178S, 34, 78. 
 
 ticket is beaten, 36. 
 Harrison, Benjamin, application for office, 92. 
 Hartley, Thomas, elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, 36, 37. 
 Hathorn, John, elected to Congress from New York, 55. 
 Hawkins, Benjamin, elected senator from North Carolina, 29. 
 Heath, General, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 57. 
 Heister, Daniel, elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, 34, 36, 37. 
 Henderson, Thomas, candidate for Congress from New Jersey, 41. 
 Henry, John, elected senator from Maryland, 21, 22. 
 Henry, Patrick, and the election of senators from Virginia, 16-1S. 
 
 attempts to defeat Madison for Congress, 6r. 
 
 elected presidential elector from Virginia, 77. 
 
 mentioned for President, 77. 
 Hillhouse, James, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 (note). 
 Hoops (of New Jersey), votes received in the congressional election, 43 
 
 (note). 
 Hopkinson, Francis, judge of Pennsylvania admiralty court, 98, 99. 
 Huger, Daniel, elected to Congress from South Carolina, 52. 
 Huntington, Benjamin, elected to Congress from Connecticut, 38. 
 Instructions to United States senators, Madison might not obey, 17. 
 Inter-state trade, 85. 
 Irvine, General William, nominee for senator from Pennsylvania, 11. 
 
 candidate for Congress, 34. 
 Izard, Ralph, elected senator from South Carolina, 22. 
 Jackson, General James, elected to Congress from Georgia, 51. 
 Jarvis, Charles, nominee for senator from Massachusetts, 19, 20. 
 Jefferson, Thomas, 44 (note). 
 
 Joint organization of the New Jersey assembly, 20. 
 Johnson, William S., elected senator from Connecticut, 16. 
 Johnston, Samuel, elected senator from North Carolina, 28. 
 Jones (of New York), in the assembly, 24. 
 Kello, Samuel, elector for Virginia, 82 (note). 
 Kentucky district, against the constitution, 60 (note). 
 
 elects a Federalist to Congress, 62. 
 King, Rufus, elected senator from New York, 28. 
 Knox, Henry, sends out pension circulars, 103. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, I7S8, 1 7S9 II7 
 
 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, proposed seat of federal government in 1788, 4, 6. 
 
 political convention at, in 178S, 34-36, 77- 
 Langdon, John, elected senator from New Hampshire, iS. 
 Latimer, George, 35. 
 
 Lawrence, John, elected to Congress from New York, 55. 
 Lee, Arthur, 2 (note). 
 
 collector at Alexandria, Virginia, 96. 
 Lee, R. B., Federalism shown by private letters, 62 (note). 
 
 elected to Congress from Virginia, 63 (note). 
 Lee, R. H., nominee for senator from Virginia, 17. 
 
 elected, iS. 
 Leonard, George, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 56, 57. 
 Lewis, Warner, elector for Virginia, 82 (note). 
 L'Hommedieu, Ezra, in the New York assembly, 24. 
 
 nominee for senator from New York, 28. 
 Lighthouses to be maintained by general government, loi, 102. 
 Lindsay, William, succeeds Parker as naval officer, 92 (note). 
 Livermore, Samuel, candidate for Congress from New Hampshire, 38 
 (note), 
 elected, 39. 
 Livingston, B., member of New York assembly, 75. 
 Livingston, G., member of New York assembly, 24. 
 
 Livingston, Governor William, instructs delegates to Congress on location 
 of capital, 7. 
 issues proclamation declaring results of Congressional election, 43- 
 Lowell, John, nominee for senator from Massachusetts, 19. 
 Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, unrepresented in state convention of Fed- 
 eralists, 36. 
 Lvman, William, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 58, 59 
 
 (note). 
 McClenachan, Blair, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34. 
 McLane, Allen, candidate for Congress from Delaware, 63. (note). 
 Maclay, William, elected senator from Pennsylvania, 178S, 11. 
 successor to be chosen, 11-16. 
 nominated for second term, i v 
 on the naturalization law, 99, 100. 
 Madison, James, on the location of the national capital in 17SS, S 
 nominee for senator from Virginia, 16-1S. 
 prefers House of Representatives to the Senate, 17. 
 
Il8 UXIVERSITO OP^ MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 on the New Jersey congressional election, 44. 
 
 defeated in the senatorial race, 18, 6r. 
 
 candidate for Congress from Virginia, 61, 62. 
 
 elected, 62, 63 (note). 
 
 supporter of the Constitution, 76. 
 
 letter from Monroe to, 88, 
 
 proposes a temporary tariff act, 91. 
 Martin, Alexander, governor of North Carolina, 28 (notej. 
 Maryland, delegates in Congress withdraw *'in a temper," 7. 
 
 not voting in location of capital, 8. 
 
 election of senators, 21, 22. 
 
 election of representatives, 46-50. 
 
 committee plan of election of representatives, 46, 47. 
 
 state convention, 47. 
 
 analysis of the vote for congressmen, 49. 
 
 method of appointment of electors, 67, 70. 
 
 choice of electors, 78, 79. 
 
 casting of electoral vote, 82. 
 
 revenue law, 85. 
 
 national tariff act in effect in, 93 (note). 
 
 forbids plural office holding, 106. 
 Massachusetts, proposed time tor the appointment of electors in, 3. 
 
 election of senators, 18-20. 
 
 senators chosen by concurrent action of the houses of assembly, 30. 
 
 election of representatives, 55-59. 
 
 report of assembly committee, 55. 
 
 method of appointment of electors, 72. 
 
 comparison with New Hampshire method, 72. 
 
 choice of electors, 79, 80. 
 
 casting of electoral vote, 82. 
 
 revenue law, 85, 86, 90. 
 
 national tariff act in effect in, 93 (note). 
 
 excise act, 100, 101. 
 
 forbids plural office-holding, 106. 
 Mathews, George, elected to Congress from Georgia, 51. 
 Matthews, Thomas, candidate for Congress from Virginia, 60. 
 Mercer, J. F., candidate for Congress from Maryland. 47 (note). 
 
 candidacy affected by peculiar law, 50, 
 Mifflin, Governor, and the senatorial situation in Pennsylvania, 14. 
 Miller, Colonel Henry, nominee for senator from Pennsylvania, 15. 
 Mitchell, S. M., candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 (note). 
 Monetary changes in 17S9, 100, loi. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD I788, 1 7S9 119 
 
 Monroe, James, candidate for Congress from Virginia, 61, 62. 
 defeated by Madison, 62. 
 on the state revenue law, 88, 89. 
 Montgomery, William, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34- 
 Moore, A., elected to Congress from Virginia, 63 (note). 
 Morris, Robert, elected senator from Pennsylvania in 1788, n. 
 Muhlenberg, F. A., candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 36' 
 
 elected, 36, 37. 
 Muhlenberg, Peter, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34. 36. 
 
 elected, 36, 37. 
 Murray, W. V., candidate for Congress from Maryland, 47 (note). 
 
 probably a Federalist, 48 (note). 
 Naturalization, 99. 
 
 New Hampshire, ninth state to ratify Constitution, 3. 
 election of senators, 18. 
 
 choice of senators is by concurrent action, 30. 
 
 election of representatives, 38, 39- _ . .«, ^Wnnte^ 
 
 method of certain elections under state constitution ot 1784, 7^, (note), 
 method of appointment of electors, 71, V- 
 comparison with Massachusetts method, 72- 
 deadlock in assembly over choice of electors, 80, 81. 
 revenue law, 85. 
 
 national tariff act in effect, 93 (note), 94 (note), 
 lighthouses in, 102. 
 
 changes form ot oath of allegiance to the state, 105. 
 New Jersey, attitude of delegates in 1788 on location of national capital, 6, 
 
 7- 
 
 election of senators, 20, 21. 
 
 election of representatives, 39-46. 
 
 method of appointment of electors, 73. 
 
 choice of electors, 81. 
 
 allowed free trade after 1783, 85. 
 
 national tariff act in effect in, 93 (note). 
 
 paper money not legal tender, 100 (note). 
 
 levies tax to pay debt, loi. 
 Newspapers, clamor over delay in 1788, 8, 9. 
 
 activity in the New Jersey election, 42. 
 New York, election of senators, 22-28. 
 
 Dolitical complexion of assembly, 1788, 22, 74. 
 
 constitutional provision for conferences between the two houses of 
 
 assembly, 24. , ,, 
 
 debate in assembly over method of appointment of senators, 24, -v 
 
I20 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 State election of 1789, 26. 
 
 composition of Council of Revision, 26, 
 
 Council of Revision vetoes act of the assembly, 27. 
 
 choice of senators is by concurrent action, 30. 
 
 election of representatives, 54, 55. 
 
 assembly in deadlock, 74-76. 
 
 assembly fails to provide for choice of electors, 73-76. 
 
 no part in first presidential election, 77, 78. 
 
 custom house organized, 92. 
 
 national tariff act in effect, 93 (note). 
 
 lighthouses, 102. 
 
 assembly re-enacts federal law proscribing form of oath of allegiance, 
 104. 
 
 assembly against plural ofiice-holding, 105. 
 New York city, seat of Congress, 1787, 2. 
 
 candidate for seat of government in 1788, 4-7. 
 
 advantages and disadvantages of, 5. 
 
 accepted as temporary seat of government, 8. 
 
 repugnance of Virginia delegates to, 8. 
 Ninety-six district, South Carolina, elects Aedanus Burke to Congress, 52. 
 Nomination system of Connecticut, 37, 39. 
 Nomination system of New Jersey, 39. 
 Northumberland county, Pennsylvania, 35. 
 
 North Carolina, attitude of delegates in 178S on location of national capi- 
 tal, 6. 
 
 state convention in 178S fails to ratify federal Constitution, 6. 
 
 not voting in location of capital, 8. 
 
 unrepresented in first session of Congress, 28, 64. 
 
 ratifies federal Constitution, 17S9, 28, 64. 
 
 election of senators, 28, 29. 
 
 districts for first congressional election, 64, 65. 
 
 election of representatives, 64, 65. 
 
 revenue law, 85. 
 
 levies tax to pay debt, loi. 
 
 assembly refuses the oath to the federal Constitution, 104. 
 Oath prescribed by Congress for officers, 103. 
 
 prescribed by Connecticut, 104. 
 
 lack of, a grievance in Virginia, 104. 
 Orne, Azor, nominee for senator from Massachusetts, 19. 
 Osborne, Henry, candidate for Congress from Georgia, 51. 
 Otis, (Samuel A.), in Congress, 3. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD l7Si>, 1 789 121 
 
 Page, John, friend of Madison, 17. 
 
 elected to Congress from Virginia, 63 (note). 
 Paine, Timothy, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 58. 
 Parker, Josiah, elected to Congress from Virginia, 60, 63 (note). 
 
 resigns position as naval officer, 60 (note), 92. 
 Partridge, George, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 57- 
 Paterson, William, elected senator from New Jersey, 20, 21. 
 Peabody, Nathaniel, candidate for senator from New Hampshire, 18. 
 Pendleton, (Edmund), 8. 
 
 Pennsylvania, attitude of delegates in Congress on location of national, 
 capital, 17S8, 7. 
 
 unicameral legislature, 10, 22, 30. 
 
 political complexion of assembly, 1791-1794. H (note). 
 
 election of senators, 10-16. 
 
 constitution of 1790, n- 
 
 deadlock in assembly, 11-16. 
 
 political complexion of state, 1788, 32. 
 
 election of representatives, 32-37. 
 
 method of appointing electors, 6S, 69. 
 
 choice of electors, 77, 78. 
 
 casting of electoral vote, 82, 83. 
 
 revenue law, 88, 90, 94-96- 
 
 national tariff act in effect, 93 (note). 
 
 discontinues admiralty court, 98, 99. 
 
 lighthouses, 102. 
 
 advances money to pensioners, 103 (note). 
 
 Pensions, military, 101-103. 
 
 Pettit, Charles, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34. 
 
 Philadelphia, proposed capital in 17S8, 4. 
 
 delegates appointed to Federal state convention, 35. 
 gives Federalist majority in congressional election, 1788, 36. 
 importations of merchants, 95, 96- 
 Plater, (George), presidential elector for Maryland, 82. 
 Plural office-holding, 105, 106. 
 Political parties, difficulty of classification, 62 (note). 
 
 in 17S9, 76. 
 Potomac river, Virginia delegates favor location of capital on, 7. 
 Poughkeepsie, New York, seat of state convention, 4- 
 Presidential electors, proposed time for appointment of first, 3. 
 final arrangements for first appointment, 8. 
 
123 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 questions involved in the choice of, 67. 
 
 method of appointment in Pennsylvania, 68. 
 
 in Delaware, 69. 
 
 in Maryland, 69, 70. 
 
 in Virginia, 70, 71. 
 
 in New Hampshire, 71, 72. 
 
 in Massachusetts, 71, 72. 
 
 in Georgia, 73. 
 
 in Connecticut, 73, 
 
 in South Carolina, 73. 
 
 in New Jersey, 73. 
 
 summary of provisions for election of, 83. 
 
 Princeton, meeting place of New Jersey assembly in 17S8, 40. 
 Ramsay, David, contests William Smith's election to Congress, 52, 53. 
 Randolph, Governor Beverley, proclamation relative to import duties, 96. 
 Randolph, Governor Edmund, letter from Madison to, 17, 
 
 describes senatorial nominations in Virginia, 17. 
 
 at first opposes federal Constitution, 76. 
 
 and the state revenue laws, 88. 
 Reed, George, elected senator from Delaware, 16. 
 Representatives, United States, distribution of membership, 5. 
 
 methods for the election, 31, 32. 
 
 constitutional provisions relative to the election, 31, 3:. 
 
 first election of, in Pennsylvania, 3^-37. 
 
 in Connecticut, 37, 38. 
 
 in New Hampshire, 38, 39. 
 
 in New Jersey, 39-46. 
 
 in Maryland, 46-50. 
 
 in Georgia, 50, 51. 
 
 in South Carolina, 51-53. 
 
 in New York, 54, 55. 
 
 in Massachusetts, 55-59. 
 
 in Virginia, 59-62. 
 
 in Delaware, 63, 64. 
 
 in North Carolina, 64, 65. 
 
 in Rhode Island, 65, 66. 
 
 summary of first elections, 66. 
 Revenue laws of the states before 1789, 84-90. 
 
 of Massachusetts, 85, 86. 
 
 of Virginia, 85, 87 (notej . 
 
 of North Carolina, 85. 
 
 of New Hampshire. 85. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 1788, 1 7S9 123 
 
 of Pennsylvania, S5. 
 of Maryland, 85. 
 of Rhode Island, 86. 
 of South Carolina, 86. 
 Revisions of state laws and constitutions, 84. 
 Rhode Island, delegates leave Congress, 6. 
 
 has no vote on location of national capital in 1788, 8. 
 unrepresented in first and second sessions of Congress, 28, 64. 
 political complexion of assembly, 29 (note), 
 election of senators, 29. 
 ratifies federal Constitution, 65. 
 election of representatives, 65, 66. 
 revenue laws, 86. 
 
 fails to forbid plural office-holding, 105. 
 Richard, Mr., presidential elector for Maryland, 82. 
 Richmond, Virginia, place of deposit for state papers, 96. 
 Root, Jesse, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 (note). 
 Ross, James, nominee for senator from Pennsylvania, 14, I5- 
 
 elected, i.S- 
 Rush, Benjamin, 33 (note). 
 
 Schureman, James, candidate for Congress on West Jersey ticket, 40, 43 
 (note), 
 declared elected, 43. 
 Schuyler, Philip, nominee for senator from New York, 22, 23. 
 in a conference of the two houses of assembly, 24. 
 elected senator from New York, 28. 
 excluded from state senate, 105. 
 Scott, Thomas, elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, 36, 37- 
 Sedgwick, Thomas, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 58, 59 
 Senate, United States, distribution of membership, S- 
 declares Gallatin ineligible to a seat, 15. 
 approves list of appointments, 92. 
 Senators, United States, first election, 10-30. 
 election attracts little attention, 10. 
 methods of election, 10. 
 first election, in Pennsylvania, 10-16. 
 in Connecticut, 16. 
 in Delaware, 16. 
 in Virginia, 16-18. 
 in New Hampshire, iS 
 
124 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 in Massachusetts, iS-20. 
 
 in New Jersey, 20, 21. 
 
 in Maryland, 21, 22. 
 
 in South Carolina, 22. 
 
 in Georgia, 22. 
 
 in New York, 22-2S. 
 
 in North Carolina, 28, 29. 
 
 in Rhode Island, 29. 
 Seney, Joshua, candidate for Congress from Maryland, 47 (note). 
 
 a Federalist on the Antifederalist ticket, 48 (note). 
 
 elected, 49. 
 
 candidacy unaffected by peculiar Maryland law, 50. 
 Sevier, John, elected to Congress from North Carolina, 65. 
 Sewall, David, excluded from Massachusetts assembly, 106. 
 Shays' Rebellion, 58. 
 
 Sherman, Roger, elected to Congress from Connecticut, 38. 
 Sinnickson, Thomas, candidate for Congress on West Jersey ticket, 40. 
 
 declared elected, 43. 
 Sitgreaves, Samuel, nominee for senator from Pennsylvania, 15. 
 Smith, William, elected to Congress from Maryland, 48 (note), 49. 
 Smith, William, elected to Congress from South Carolina, 52. 
 
 contest over his seat, 52, 53. 
 Smugglers convicted, 97. 
 
 South Carolina, attitude of delegates in 178S on location of national cap- 
 ital, 6. 
 
 election of senators, 22. 
 
 scarcity of material on political situation in 178S, 51. 
 
 first election of representatives, 51-53. 
 
 election of Antifederalists not the result of a sudden party revolution, 
 52 (note). 
 
 mode of appointment of electors, 73. 
 
 choice of electors, 82. 
 
 revenue law, 86. 
 
 national tariff act in effect, 93 (note). 
 Stanton, Joseph, elected senator from Rhode Island, 29. 
 
 probable politics, 29 (note). 
 Stevens, General, elector for Virginia, 77. 
 Steele, John, elected to Congress from North Carolina, 65. 
 Sterett, Samuel, candidate for Congress from Maryland, 47 (note). 
 
 candidacy affected by peculiar Maryland law, 50. 
 
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD I78S, 1789 ^-5 
 
 Stone, M. J., elected to Congress from Maryland, 4S (note), 49- 
 
 Strong Caleb, elected senator from Massachusetts, 19. 
 
 Strong! Jedediah, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 3S (note). 
 
 Sturges, Jonathan, elected to Congress from Connecticut, 37, 38- 
 
 Sullivan, John, candidate for Congress from New Hampshire, 3S (note). 
 
 Sumter. General Thomas, elected to Congress from South Carolina, 52. 
 
 Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, 78. 
 
 revenue questions settled by, 94-96- 
 Sylvester, Peter, elected to Congress from New York, 55- 
 Tariff act, first national, passed, 91. 
 
 in effect in the various states, 93 (note), 
 strictly enforced, 96, 97. 
 Thacher, George, elected to Congress from Massachusetts, 57- 
 Tonnage duties in Georgia, 86, 87. 
 Travelling accommodations poor in 1788, 5. 
 
 Treadwell, John, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 (note). 
 Treasury department, Hamilton placed at head of, 93- 
 Trumbull, Jonathan, elected to Congress from Connecticut, 38. 
 Tucker, T. T., member of committee in Congress, 3. 
 
 elected to Congress from South Carolina, 52. 
 United States Congress, (see Congress). 
 
 United States House of Representatives, (see Representatives). 
 United States Senate, (see Senate). 
 
 Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah, elected to Congress from New York, 55- 
 Varnum, J. B., candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 57, sB (note). 
 Vining, John, candidate for Congress from Delaware, 63 (note). 
 
 elected, 64. 
 Virginia, attitude of delegates relative to location of capital, 178S, 7. 
 delegates dislike of New York city, 8. 
 election of senators from, 16-18. 
 method of voting for senators, iS (note), 
 election of representatives from, .'59-^2. 
 political sections of the state, 60 (note), 
 districting for the first congressional election, 63 (note), 
 mode of appointment of electors, 70, 71. 
 choice of electors, 77. 
 casting of electoral vote, 82. 
 revenue laws, 85, 87 (note), 89, 96- 
 effect of federal Constitution upon revenue laws, 88. 
 
126 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI STUDIES 
 
 national tariff act goes into effect, 93 (note). 
 
 admiralty courts discontinued, 99. 
 Wadsworth, Jeremiah, elected to Congress from Connecticut, 3S. 
 Ward, Artemas, candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, 58, 
 Warren, James, candidate for Congress from iMassachusetts, 57. 
 Washington, George, points out danger of delay in 17SS, S. 
 
 receives letter from Madison describing the New Jersey election, 44. 
 
 is the general choice for president, 77. 
 
 Georgia electors favor, 83. 
 
 besieged by office-seekers, 91, 92. 
 
 submits a list of appointments, 92. 
 
 appoints Hopkinson district judge, 98. 
 
 recommends a naturalization law, 99. 
 W^ashington county, Maryland, 49 (note). 
 Washington county, Virginia, 104. 
 Watts, (John), member of New York assembly, 76. 
 West, Benjamin, candidate for Congress from New Hampshire, 38. 
 
 elected but resigns, 39. 
 West Indian trade, confined to British shipping, 85. 
 West Jersey ticket, 40-44. 
 
 Whig ticket, name given the Antifederalist ticket in Pennsylvania, 34. 
 White, Alexander, friend of Madison, 17. 
 
 elected to Congress from Virginia, 63 (note). 
 Whitehill, Robert, candidate for Congress from Pennsylvania, 34, 36. 
 Williamson, Hugh, elected to Congress from North Carolina, 64. 
 Wilmington, Delaware, proposed seat of federal government in 1788, 4, 
 Wilson, James, delegate to a state convention, 35. 
 Wingate, Paine, elected senator from New Hampshire, 18. 
 
 candidate for Congress, 38 (note). 
 Wolcott, Erastus, candidate for Congress from Connecticut, 38 (note). 
 Wynkoop, Henry, elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, 36, 37. 
 Yates, Robert, nominee for senator from New York, 23. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 ru'r^^^ ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 W.LL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOUR^ 
 
 oCerdue; "^^ *'°° °^ ^"^ ^— » -V 
 
 FE2 m 1939 
 
 ^o^r^ Lr 
 
 iN STACKS 
 
 -fEfr4r«4956 — 
 
 ^.^rTTI^S^^ 
 
 40V^ 
 
 -Wr 
 
 -tWBffHj^ 
 
 .^ LL> - 
 
 Ul 
 
 MAR 
 
 l6Mo\' 
 
 ;'57J 
 
 RFC^D_.^ 
 
 :TTB?^iJ^ir 
 
 WV— §T95: 
 
 
 ^^iRf 
 
 OCT 24 1960 
 
 jjec^eowr 
 
 LD 21-95to.7,'37 
 
23387.4. 
 
 yo 01677 
 
 J-K 131 
 
/ ,' 
 
 
 
 ■JO *A->i., V- -J ^O,^^^ JLXXTo. „ 
 
 .^" C.*vJ,, 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i-ft lilS/ ?:-y)yi:ft /cf ;./v 
 
 wV;v^U'/-v!^'^';'v'^;V^c^ 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 y'i£0tsM?ts 
 
 ws 
 
 ".' '' <{ 
 
 
 '-s^'^M^^" 
 
 ,'srs'''"- 
 
 
 
 
 '.A'X'AA?\ 
 
 '. '•■-:-^Vi'.?«>^Wli^i 
 
 liHaHiiatti