The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-05-02

ltA DONflnRS tnlb very mpOTbuHb pStS Va
our governmental machinery. 1t Is for
the purpose OF supplying this deficiency that
the book boforo us was prepared. Here, from .
strictly non.partisan standpoint, we have an his
torical account OF the origin and development Of
our nominating system. n description of 1t as It
exists to-day. and, finally. an indication OF the
evils that have arisen under IL and the remedies
that have been suggested for their removal. The
historical sketch preceding the study OF tho ex-
listing system was particularly hard to write,
and some Of tho data presented in connection
with It will DO found of peculiar interest.
When tho foundations of popular government
in England began to be laid on the ruins Of the
feudal system. we encounter q method Of self
nomination or sclf.announced candidacy similar
to the custom which had prevailed in the Roman
republic. This was supplemented by n mode Of
nomination by small cllques Of wealthy land
owners, who at that time. on account of the
limited suffrage, were able to control tho
Parliamentary elections. There existed also the
legal nomination ct the hastings on nomination
day. as II was called, which was open to voters
OF all parties, and. in fact, was simply n sort of
preliminary election. In case no moro persons
were nominated than there were members to
be elected, there was said to be an un.
contested election On the other hand. where
the number OF nominees exceeded the number of
persons to be elected, the election was said 10 DO
Contested" and a subsequent polling" Of
the voters was required to be held. At the time
of the settlement OF the American colonies these
were, practically. the only methods Of nominal
ton In vogue among EnRlish-speaking people,
and, therefore, the only ones with which the
colonists were familiar. An attempt Is made
by Mr.. Dalllnger to show how the colonists,
IT,. - A.
customs which they brought with them
TO the new conditions which surrounded
them here. 1t is, however, to be noted that, In
oil except the three charter colonies. Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, the num-
Der OF elective officers was very small; we are
not surprised, therefore, that only fragment
AIRY information can DO obtained in regard to
the method OF nominating candidates In the
colonial period. The colonial records. 1t seems.
afford little assistance to the student, whilc
neither contemporary historians nor tho diaries
and correspondence OF public men throw much
light upon the subject From the meagre
sources open 10 the inquirer II appears that in
the South candidates. were, as q rule, self
announced, after the English custom. This
method Of REORGANIZATION, often supplemented,
rs In tho mother country, by an agreement
Cmong the leading planters, continued to be the
ordinary method OF nomination for district OFF,
Gers in the Southern and Southwestern States
down to the civil war. The causes of its general
disuse elsewhere are to be discerned in it's
unpopularity in democratic communities and in
its ncompatibility with the unified action which
is essential to party government. In New Eng
land and the middle colonies nominations were.
in some cases, self-announccd; but, more fire.
%cuently. they were made at private conferences
hr at what would now be called parlor caucuses,
X those especially interested in public affairs
That is. by the leading men Of the community.
Although there were no well defined and per.
hanent political parties in the pre-Revolutionary
fcriod. exciting political contests sometimes &C.
'urred, and there existed some sort of an
agreement as to candidates previous to the
election. an agreement corresponding to the
caucus or primary OF later times. There
appears, indeed, occasionally to have been an
agreement extending through the different
towns, and corresponding, roughly, to the
modern State Convention. There had also boon
adopted in some of the colonies a system of
official nomination which was a distinctly
American invention. In New Jersey. for in
stance, there existed, at one time. a system,
under which. In each county twenty-five nomi-
majors were chosen by lot; 1t was their duty to
select candidates for the colonial Legislature to
be voted upon at the regular election. A moro
elaborate method of official nomination and ono
possessing creator vitality Is met with In the
records of the Connecticut colony. By the
provision of the Fundamental Orders of 1880,
a Court Of Election was held annually for
the choice of q Governor and six magis-
trates, at which no person could be voted for
unless he had been previously nominated. Tho
deputies from each town were empowered to
nominate two candidates, and the court itself
was authorized to add as many moro as 1t
ahould find requisite. From tho list of candi-
dates thus nominated the Governor and magis-
trate were elected by tho freemen of the colony.
The charter of 1862 did not follow the Funda-
mental Orders in prescribing tho manner of
nomination and election Of tho colonial officers,
such details being left to statute law. In gen.
eral. the system. as established by various
orders passed at different times, is described by
several towns met on q certain day and voted
for twenty persons to be nominated for assist
ants. {. e., for members of tho council or upper
house Of the Legislature. The result of the
vote of each town was then sent to Hartford,
whore the vote Of the entire colony was counted
IN tho presence of the two houses Of the Legis-
~lature; . list Of the names of tho twenty per-
sons receiving the highest number of votes was
sent to each town, and from this list of officially
nominated candidates each freeman voted for
twelve at the regular election. This unique and
curious system of official nomination, which ex-
listed for q time in Massachusetts, also, survived
In Connecticut down to tho adoption of the
present State Constitution in 1918, and from
1850 to 1918 tho Connecticut members Of the
national House Of Representatives were chosen
by the same general method.