operation in Massachusetts. The State having been divided into districts for the choice of representatives in Congress, the people were directed to bring in their ballots for two candidates for electors in each district. On the first Wednesday in January, the votes having been previously canvassed, the legislature chose one of these two for each district, and also two electors at large.

The vote of New York was lost. A contest similar to that in New Hampshire took place, but one much more bitter than the latter. The Assembly was willing to elect by a joint ballot of the two branches, or to divide the electors with the Senate. The Senate would assent to nothing short of a complete negative upon the action of the Assembly, which was not yielded, and the time for election passed.

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia passed laws providing for popular elections, which took place without great excitement. Not only in these States, but in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the vote was very light. The two parties were made up of those who favored the Constitution on the one hand, and those who opposed it on the other. Political sentiment seems to have been largely one way or the other in each community. Here the Federalists comprised nearly the whole population; there, scarcely a Federalist was to be found. There were thus present none of the elements necessary for a great political contest. The majority cast perhaps a half of their possible vote, the minority hardly appeared at the polls; in fact, they often had no candidates in the field.

Meantime, who were to be voted for when the electors should meet? Washington, of course, was to be one of the two persons equally to be voted for by the electors, he who had the highest number, being a majority of all

the electors, to be President, and the candidate receiving the next highest number to be Vice-President. But there was no formal nomination and no agreement among the electors, even among those belonging to the Federalist party, that Washington should be chosen. It was simply regarded as the obvious and proper course to make him the first President. Nor did the Anti-Federalists at any time come to the point of deciding to oppose him. Prob ably they never even seriously considered the propriety of so doing. It was charged that they did so, but the accusation was never supported by any evidence. For example: it is said in the life of Alexander Hamilton, by his son, that "for a time the pretensions of Franklin were discussed in private circles. But the incomparably superior claims of Washington silenced this purpose, which there is no evidence was encouraged by Franklin, whose extreme age would alone have presented an insuperable objection." As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that Franklin was even aware of any such purpose, if it ever existed. There is too good reason to believe that the alleged disposition to pass by the claims of Washington was a figment of the imagination,—an invention for the purpose of forming the basis of an intrigue either to control the vice-presidency, or to make the vote for John Adams so small as to exhibit him to the country as a most unpopular candidate.

Public opinion had, indeed, concentrated itself upon Mr. Adams as Vice-President almost as decidedly as it had fixed upon Washington for the first place in the new government. The propriety of taking the VicePresident from New England was recognized by alì Federalists. The names of Governor Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and General Knox, were canvassed. The last named was a soldier, like Washington, and he

was speedily rejected. It was deemed necessary that Hancock should remain in the position of Governor of Massachusetts. Samuel Adams had been opposed to the new Constitution at the outset, and although he had subsequently advocated it, his early position rendered him an unsuitable candidate. /John Adams, on the other hand, had written a book in defence of the Constitution, and it was deemed on many accounts best that he should be chosen. Yet his relations to Washington had been such during the Revolutionary war that there were doubts whether he would be acceptable to the latter. In answer to an inquiry on this point, Washington had cautiously replied that, —

Having taken it for granted that the person elected for that important place would be a true Federalist, in that case he was altos gether disposed to acquiesce in the prevailing sentiments of the electors, without giving any unbecoming preference, or incurring any unnecessary ill-will.

Both Hamilton and Madison were doubtful about taking Mr. Adams, but the former wrote, after full consideration, that, "on the whole, I have concluded to support Adams." The people had decided that before him. Most of the newspapers, in the Northern States at least, which were friendly to the new government, expressed themselves strongly in favor of him. One extract from a Philadelphia paper, under date of Oct. 8, 1788, will suffice for all:

The electors of President of the United States on the part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are to meet in the borough of Reading, where it is universally hoped and expected that one more tribute of merited approbation will be given to George Washington, Esq., by their unanimous suffrages. Of the several respected tandidates in nomination for Vice-President, circumstances seem most in favor of John Adams, Esq. While the conciliating talents ɔf Governor Hancock, and the attachment to him that prevails in

Massachusetts, render him necessary to the peace of New England, Mr. Adams is perfectly at leisure to fill a seat for which nature, education, and the experience of several years and various courts in Europe have eminently and peculiarly qualified him.

Under such circumstances the choice of electors took place. There was an understanding for whom they were to vote, but probably not one of the electors in any State had given a pledge. Then occurred an incident which has given rise to much discussion, and widely different views of it have been taken by the partisans of Mr. Adams and of Mr. Hamilton. It is to be remembered that at that time the electors voted for two persons for President. He who had the highest number, being a majority, was to be President, and the second highest was to be Vice-President. There is little doubt that the Anti-Federalists inclined at one time to concentrate upon George Clinton for one of the two places, in the hope of making him VicePresident. It is doubtful if they ever conceived of the possibility of choosing him a President, if they desired to do so, and there is no evidence that they intrigued to compass that end. But Hamilton either believed that they did so, and feared they would succeed, or he saw in the situation a chance to injure Adams. His conduct may be explained on either hypothesis. He seems to have intimated in various quarters a fear that Washington would fail to receive some votes, and that the unanimity in favor of Adams would make the latter President and Washington Vice-President. It was said, too, that the New York electors—as it turned out, New York chose none - would support Clinton and Adams, in the hope that Massachusetts and New England generally would do the same.

Whatever Hamilton's motive may have been, there is no doubt that he did send special messengers to two or three of the States which would have given a unanimous

Vote to Washington and Adams, advising that one or more votes be withheld from the latter so as to ensure Washington's election for the first place. The acceptance of his advice is the explanation of the scattering votes in Connecticut and New Jersey at least. (The result was the election of Washington by a unanimous vote, and of Adams by less than a majority. The detailed vote was as follows:

It

may

be well to repeat here that Rhode Island and North Carolina did not vote, not having ratified the Constitution, and that the vote of New York was lost in a quarrel between the two branches of the legislature. The popular vote in the few States where the people chose the electors signified nothing, and no attempt has been made to collect the returns.

The counting of the electoral vote took place on the 6th of April, 1789, more than a month later than the time fixed by the Congress of the Confederation. On that day, 1 quorum of senators having appeared in their seats, John