Sedition Laws from our statute-book," which embodies a historical blunder; for as a matter of fact the Sedition Law was temporary and expired by its own limitation, as did also the greater part of the Alien Law: the rest of the latter act is still the law of the land. No act of repeal of either was ever passed. Opposition to these two acts, however, was very bitter in 1798 and the following years. But in spite of it the elections for new members of Congress, which took place in the autumn of 1798 and the following spring, were very favorable to the administration.

The measures of Congress having consolidated the opposition, Mr. Adams's own act alienated a large body of his friends. In spite of the insults to which the former embassy to France had been subjected, and in the face of his own assertion that he would make no more attempts at negotiation, he determined, in 1799, to send other agents to France and renew the efforts to make a treaty. He reached this determination without consulting his cabinet, and deeply offended Mr. Pickering, the Secretary of State, and Mr. McHenry, the Secretary of War, who were strongly opposed to the step. The Federalists were still disposed to support him in the election which was to take place the next year, but they had lost their enthusiasm for him.

As most of the electors were to be appointed by the legislatures, the contest for the Presidency virtually began with the election of the members of those bodies, and the contest was really decided when the legislature of New York, chosen in May, 1800, was found to have a Repub lican majority. New York had voted for Mr. Adams in 1796. Had it continued to support him in 1800 he would have had six more electoral votes than he received in 1796, and sixteen more than were given to Jefferson and Burr.

Mr. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a brother of Thomas Pinckney, who had been the candidate most voted for with Mr. Adams in 1796, was associated with Adams on the Federal ticket. Aaron Burr was second on the Jefferson ticket. The manner in which these tickets were formed is involved in much obscurity. Mr. Hezekiah Niles, whose "Weekly Register" is a treasury of facts for students of our early political history, tried to clear it up, but acknowledged his failure. Very early in the year 1800 a meeting of a few Federalist members of Congress, for the purpose, as was said at the time, of influencing the Presidential election, was held in the Senate Chamber. No account of its proceedings, so far as is known, was ever printed, but it was probably called for the purpose of strengthening Mr. Adams's cause; for Mr. Niles says in another place ("Register," vol. 24, p. 277) that "it was well understood that many of the Federalists were opposed to the taking up of Mr. Adams for the Presidency, that they had nearly fixed on another person;" and it may be also for naming a candidate for Vice-President. But it is all a matter of conjecture and uncertainty. Whatever may have been its object, it excited the wrath of the Republicans, and was denounced in the Philadelphia "Aurora" as a "Jacobinical conclave," for which and other insulting remarks the editor of the paper was arraigned before the bar of the Senate.

The Republican members, however, held a caucus somewhat later, probably in February or March, 1800; also a secret meeting, and attended by a small number of members, not so much for the purpose of nominating Mr. Jefferson, who was designated by the unanimous voice of his party as the natural candidate, as with the idea of causing a union upon Burr, as well as upon Jefferson.

Burr's friends complained that in 1796 he had not been supported, particularly in the South, as he should have been. But, as the Constitution then stood, Burr was nominated and voted for as the equal of Jefferson on the ticket, and this was the basis of the claim which was set up in his favor a year later.

Pending this election, a serious, and at one time a most promising, attempt was made to remedy the deficiencies. in the Constitution in the matter of the electoral count, by a law. As the legislation then proposed subsequently formed the basis both of the "twenty-second joint rule," so famous in the counts of 1869 and 1873, and of the electoral commission law of 1877, it becomes necessary to notice the proceedings at some length. A resolution introduced in the Senate Jan. 23, 1800, by Mr. Ross of Pennsylvania, directed the appointment of a committee "to consider whether any, and what, provisions ought to be made by law for deciding disputed elections of President and Vice-President of the United States, and for determining the legality or illegality of the votes given for those officers in the different States." The committee reported a bill, February 14, of which the provisions were, in brief, as follows:

On the day before the second Wednesday in February of any year when there was to be a count of electoral votes, each House of Congress was to choose by ballot six of its own members, who, with the Chief Justice of the United States, or, in case of his disability from any cause, the next senior justice, were to form a "grand committee," with "power to examine, and finally to decide, all disputes relating to the election."

Each House was next to elect two tellers, to whom the certificates of the electors, after they had been opened and read, were to be delivered; and the tellers were to

note the dates of the certificates, the names of the electors, the time and place of their meeting, and the governors' certificates accompanying, these minutes to be read to the two Houses and entered on the two Journals.

After the certificates had been opened, read, and min uted, the President of the Senate was to administer to the members of the grand committee an oath to examine the certificates impartially, "together with the exceptions and petitions against them, and a true judgment give thereon, according to the evidence." All the certificates, papers, petitions, and testimony were then to be delivered to the chairman of the grand committee, which was to meet every day, sit with closed doors, have ample power to send for persons and papers, compel attendance of witnesses, and punish contempts. The powers of the grand committee were stated in the following section:

SEC. 8. That the grand committee shall have power to inquire, examine, decide, and report upon the constitutional qualifications of the persons voted for as President and Vice-President of the United States; upon the constitutional qualifications of the electors appointed by the different States, and whether their appointment was authorized by the State legislature or not; upon all petitions and exceptions against corrupt, illegal conduct of the electors, or force, menaces, or improper means used to influence their votes; or against the truth of their returns, or the time, place, or manner of giving their votes: Provided always, that no petition or exception shall be granted, allowed, or considered by the sitting grand committee, which has for its object to dispute, draw into question the number of votes given for an elector, or the fact whether an elector was chosen by a majority of the votes in his State or district.

The committee was to make a final report on the 1st of March, stating the number of legal votes for each person, the number rejected, and the reason for rejection; such reasons to be signed by those who agreed to them. A

majority of the committee was to decide finally all questions submitted, and on the day after the report was made the two Houses were to meet again in joint convention, when the result was to be declared, and, if no person had been chosen President, the House was to proceed immediately to make a choice according to the Constitution.

When the bill came under discussion, a motion was made to strike out the first ten sections of the bill - being all which contained any reference to a grand committeeand to insert instead of them a single section, providing that when the two Houses should be assembled for the purpose of having the certificates of electors opened and counted, the names of the States should be drawn in order by lot; that all petitions and exceptions should be read as well as the certificates themselves; that, if no ob jection should be made, the votes should be counted; but that "if the votes, or any of them, shall be objected to, the members present shall, on the question propounded by the President of the Senate, decide, without debate, by yea or nay, whether such votes are constitutional or not; " and so on, each question being decided before the name of another State was drawn. This proposition was rejected. Various other amendments were offered, some of which were adopted, and the bill was passed substantially as it was reported, except that the constitution of the grand committee was changed so as to relieve the Supreme Court from any duty in connection with the electoral count. Each House of Congress was to choose six of its members for this service, and the Senate was also to select three others of its members, of whom the House was to choose one by ballot as the thirteenth member of the grand committee.

The whole subject was considered with extreme care by the House of Representatives. After much dehate