of industry the organization of labor has kept pace. Both of these interests avoided separate political action. Later, labor sought independent action and pronounced against monopolistic tendencies. The Greenback party went on record in opposition to banks and the issuance of bonds, on the ground that it fostered a money class to the detriment of the general welfare. The Democratic party charged the Republican party repeatedly with fostering class legislation in its tariff policy. It held the Republican party responsible for the existence of trusts built up by legislation of favoritism. On the other hand, the Republican party enacted both in State and nation anti-trust legislation, such as the Sherman AntiTrust law and the Elkins law. The People's party, better known as the Populist party, and the various Labor and Socialist parties have pronounced in favor of Federal control, if not Federal ownership, of the productive utilities. This position has been greatly strengthened by the Rooseveltian régime, which has placed many interests under Federal regulation. During this régime a new force has come into politics making partizan affiliation count for less and less, while independent politics has taken on a new life, necessitating other alignments.

CHAPTER XXI

OBSERVATIONS UPON THE ELECTION OF PRESIDENT

Strong Executive feared. Few subjects discussed in the Federal convention offered a wider variety of opinion than that of the Federal Executive. The experience of the framers of the Constitution had been with governmental despotism in the executive head of the nation. George III was not the anachronism modern opinion regards him. He well represented the ruling heads of nations in that era. The experience of the American colonies under his régime prepared the colonists to suspect the purposes of their king. It was but natural that their first step toward continental government here in America ignored the single executive idea. From 1774 to 1781, the period of the Continental Congresses, no such head was recognized, aside from the military dictatorship accorded to Washington as a personal compliment. From 1781 to 1789, the period of the old confederation under the Articles of Confederation and our first governmental experiment of organic character, no single head of government was recognized. Its nearest approach was the Executive Committee, composed of one member from each colony, or rather State, to act during the recess of the Congress.

Coercive power necessary. In the Federal convention which met in response to the urgent demands for a stronger government, after incalculable suffering under eight years of notorious weakness due in large part to the absence of an executive head with some coercive power, the need of such

head of government was generally recognized and urged. Just what he was to be, and how he was to be secured, were among the problems of that great body. There were some who desired a life Executive; others, a long-term; while still others desired the shortest possible term consistent with the executive function.

Opinion in Federal convention. There were those who desired the Executive elected by the national legislature, others by the Senate, still others by the States; a fourth class believed he should be elected by the people, while still another class insisted that he should be chosen by an electoral college created for the specific purpose with discretionary powers. This last plan prevailed, as a compromise between the advocates of the extreme views of restricted elections and the advocates of popular elections. However, the original idea of discretion was at once abandoned. Not since the election of John Adams has an elector exercised such discretion, except in the case of William Plumer of New Hampshire in 1820, when he refused to vote with the college for Monroe, on the ground of Monroe's unfitness. This lawful right of an elector to exercise his discretion to vote in the college for whom he will, without reference to national campaigns or candidates nominated by national conventions, has in one hundred years given way to the unwritten law of voting for the candidate nominated by the party in convention.

Method of choosing the electors. The electoral college having been decided upon, the next thing to claim the attention of the framers was the method of choosing the electors. Various methods were proposed and after lengthy consideration the controversy ended in a victory for the States, by leaving the question to the judgment of the State legislatures. The section is worded as follows: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.'

It will readily occur that the framers desired to guard well the rights of the States and at the same time balance the executive function by the legislative function, and permit the choosing body, limited in size to offset any danger of democratic tendencies, to safeguard the welfare of the people. The object sought was an Executive, effective but not dangerous, with as much authority vested in him as would be consistent with the liberty of the citizen. The consensus of opinion united upon a single Executive to be elected by a select body for a short term, thus centering responsibility in one head and subjecting that head to the frequently expressed will of the people.

Lack of uniformity. The latitude accorded to the States in the choice of electors was a guaranty against uniformity. Thirteen States acting independently, with freedom to employ any method suited to their convenience, are apt to employ different methods of procedure. The Constitution left the legislatures free to choose electors for President and Vice-President while acting in the capacity of a legislature, or permit the voters of the State to make the choice, or to constitute some intermediate body to perform the duty. Since the adoption of the Federal Constitution there have been employed three ways of selecting the electors: (1) By the legislature of the State acting as such; (2) By the people of the State voting on a district ticket, and (3) By the people of the State voting on a general ticket.

First election. In the first presidential elections, the legislature method obtained quite generally. It was employed by Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The district ticket was employed by Maryland and Virginia, while Pennsylvania adopted the general ticket. Massachusetts and New Hampshire combined the methods. Rhode Island and North Carolina took no part in the first election, neither having ratified the Constitution. New York had not agreed upon the

method of choice of electors and consequently it took no part in the first election.

Method employed down to 1816. In the second election Vermont, Rhode Island, New York and Kentucky adopted the plan of States allowing the legislature to choose the electors. Massachusetts and New Hampshire permitted the people to make the choice, the former on the district, and the latter on the general, ticket plan. In the third election Tennessee adopted the legislature plan, while North Carolina adopted the district plan. But little change was made down to 1816, when Rhode Island adopted the general ticket and was followed by North Carolina and New Jersey later.

Legislature method and King Caucus. The Congressional Caucus at this time was coming into bad repute. It was referred to as "King Caucus" by its enemies, led by the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke. The career of James Monroe was linked with the opposition to this method of nomination. It was revealed that all the electoral votes cast against him in 1816 came from the States whose electors were selected by the legislatures. The fact that the anticaucus leaders had favored Monroe against Madison in 1812, and the caucus leaders had favored Crawford against Monroe in 1816, viewed in the light of the Monroe opposition being confined to the States selecting electors by the legislatures, tended to identify the ill-repute caucus with the legislature method of choosing electors for President. This circumstance brought the method into disfavor. The last congressional caucus was held in 1824. In the election of that year twenty-four States participated. Only six of that number employed the unpopular legislature method. Except Virginia's vote, the only votes received by Crawford, the caucus candidate, were cast by these six States. By 1828 only three States, Delaware, Vermont and South Carolina, retained the legislature method. Delaware and Vermont abandoned it by 1832, and South Carolina not until 1864.