The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-16

1t will doubtless be remembered that the
mode Of selecting a Chief Magistrate was
the one feature Of the Constitution framed
at Philadelphia which provoked scarcely
any criticism in the State conventions
that were called to ratity or reject the in
strument. Alexander Hamilton, advocat-
ing in the Federdii8t the ratification Of the
Federal Constitution by the people Of the
State Of New York points. out that no part
of the system framed 10y the convention
was attended with greater difficulty than
the determination Of the method of choosing
Z President, and proceeds to praise this
part Of the conventions work as follows:
THE precautions which have been so hap
PLY concerted in the system under CON
sideration promise an effectlal security
against this mischief (the danger OF tn
multi and disordeT); the choice of several
+, TO form an intermediate body Of electors
will he much less apt TO convulse the com
munity with any extraordinary and violent
movement than the choice Of one who
was himself to be the final object of the
public wishes" Some thirty-fve years
later Chancellor Kent, in treating of the
election Of a President. exhibited more
prescience: THE mode Of his. 1.-THE Presi-
dent'sl appointment presented one of the
most difficult and momentous questions
that occupied the deliberations of the
Assembly which framed the Constitution;
and il ever the tranquility Of this nation
is to bp Disturbed and, its liberties en-
dangered by a struggle for power II will
he upon this very subject Of the choice Of
a President. This is the question that is
eventually TO test the goodness and try
the strength Of the Constitution. We need
not say that the prediction was TO he full
filed in the months that followed the Prest-
dental election OF 1876.
We scarcely need remind the reader that
the power of free choice which our Federal
organic law conferred upon the Presidential
electors may he said. even from the outset.
to have lapsed through nnn-nser II is
true that ia 1896 three Democratic electors
passing over the notorious preference and
intention Of their party. voted FOR John
| Adams for the Presidency. Eibridge Gerry
| one of the electors designated 10y the Demuc-
racy of Massachusetts. voted for Adams
instead of for Jefferson. but subsequently
explained his action by a letter TO Jefferson.
apparently 10 the %latter's satisfaction.
! Nr. Dougherty does not fail to note the fact
often lost sight Of. that il at the date
mentioned TWO Of the three Democratic
electors who voted against their party's
ca ndidate had, on the contrary. voted for
him Jefferson would have succeeded TO
the Presidency in 1877 instead Of 1901. II
ia a remarkable fact that at the time II 1891
nobody questioned the propriety Of the
action Of these three electors; whereas
to-day the exercise Of such freedom would
he deemed a breach Of trust. Since 1896
there has been no well authenticated case
of an electors failure TO carry out his party's
expectation. except in 1920, when one of
the Presidential electors whose constitu-
ents had expected him 10 vote for James
Monroe voted against him. on the ground
hat only George Washington deserved The
honor Of receiving the votes of all the Presi-
dental electors. The result was that the
electoral vote in 1870 stood. for James
Monroe. 2SI; for John q. Adams, /, From
the outset. indeed, as we ha We said. the
secret. independent. unpledged Presidential
electors contemplated by the trainers OF
the Constitution became the servants OF
I party. Originally their action was deter
mined hv legislative and Congressional
caucuses, and subsequently. when party
conventions were developed, they beca me
mere registers of the conventions will.
Each elector thus became so completely
an that in ordinary circum-
stances he would not dream Of exercising
! any freedom in the use of his ballot, FOR
violation Of this tacit pledge TO the party
that elected him would bring upon him
all the odium attaching to a traitor.