to the votes received at the election ranged between 37.8 and 88.6. The following table summarizes the results of Votes in the Nomination of Magistrates in the years covered by the eight returns, of the Shire Commissioners, described above: Votes cast... 16,924 15,874 21,048 225,60 22,509 23,208 18,126 14,522 940 882 810 868 866 725 697 558 1,271 1,320 1,163 1,246 1,269 1,203 972 749 391 441 211 128 409 99 271 156 The foregoing statement shows a marked falling off in the maximum and average votes cast at the primary elections for Magistrates from 1676 to 1692. The lesser degree of interest shown after 1684 was doubtless owing to the uncertainty consequent upon the revocation of the charter in 1684. It should be noted, too, that in April 1692, when the last primary election was held, the early arrival of the new charter was expected. Still, inasmuch as the General Court in February 1690 had materially reduced the onerous restrictions on the suffrage, that had obtained since 1631, and had admitted over 900 freemen in the years 1690 and 1691, the size of the votes at the primary elections of 1690 and 1692 affords indubitable evidence of apathy among the freemen in both those years. A very large proportion of elections to the magistracy were reelections. Thus out of a total number of 145 nominees elected Magistrates, the table shows that 131 or 93.6 per cent were re-elected from the previous year. The figures for 1684 challenge attention. In that year out of 20 chosen, five were new men. This was a larger number of new men than in any year excepting 1680, when 8 new men were chosen, in order to bring the full number of Magistrates up to 20 in compliance with the commands of Charles II. Comparison of the nominations for 1684 with those of 1683 discloses: (1) the names of four men (two of whom were elected Assistants) who had not been nominated previously; (2) the disappearance of two unsuccessful candidates for nomination in 1683; (3) the election in 1684 of three nominees who had failed of election in 1683; (4) failure on the part of three nominees who had been elected in 1683 to secure re-election in 1684. Moreover two of the Magistrates of 1683 had died in office. One of the most striking facts regarding the incumbents of the Magistracy is their long tenure of office. In the period 1630-1692 there were 76 individuals chosen to the Magistracy for 821 terms in the aggregate. In 744 cases, or 90.6 per cent, the elections were reelections. Occasionally candidates for the Magistracy were "left out." Of the 76 individuals chosen to the Magistracy in the period 16301692 only one declined to serve. Thirteen, originally elected in England, served in 1630. Their aggregate terms amounted to 213 years or 16 years per man on the average. In 1630, two died and two removed from the Colony. Deducting their aggregate terms, viz., 10 years, leaves 203 for 9 men, whose service equalled 22,5 years on the average. One of the nine, Simon Bradstreet, served 61 years, 49 as Assistant and 12 as Governor and was named a Counsellor, although he did not serve, in the Province Charter. John Endicott, who died in 1665, outlived all the Magistrates of 1630, excepting Bradstreet. Endicott served 36 years in all, viz., 15 as Governor, 5 as Deputy Governor and 16 as Assistant. Others whose term of service amounted to 30 years or more were (1) Richard Bellingham, who died in office in 1672, having served continuously for 38 years, viz., 15 years as Assistant, 13 years as Deputy Governor, and 10 years as Governor; (2) Samuel Symonds, who died in office in 1679, having served 36 years, viz., 6 years as Deputy Governor and 30 years as Assistant, (3) Daniel Gookin, who died within a year of leaving office, was an Assistant for 34 years; (4) Thomas Danforth served 20 years as Assistant and 12 years as Deputy Governor, or 32 years in all; (5) Daniel Denison who died in office in 1682, had served continuously as Assistant for 30 years. The aggregate terms for which the 75 Magistrates who served were chosen amounted to 838, or 11 terms per man on the average. Of the 75, however, there were 30 who served for 10 or more terms. The aggregate of their terms was 623, or 21 terms per man, on the average. Or differently stated, 40 per cent of the individuals chosen to the Magistracy filled 74.3 per cent of the terms of service for which they were chosen. In the course of 62 elections 8 men were chosen Governor and 9 were chosen Deputy Governor. To the establishment of the Colonial system of direct nominations, the following results may be fairly attributed: First, the general system of choosing Magistrates, at large, was so supplemented by the holding of primary elections as to make the final choice by the freemen at the election itself, more deliberate, free and intelligent. Second, the primary elections resulted in the nomination of a relatively large number of candidates who had attained prominence as members of the House of Deputies and thereby commended themselves to the Freemen, as candidates for the magistracy. Thus the Freemen kept on hand a sort of preferred list of Deputies and Ex-Deputies from which they were accustomed to fill vacancies caused by death, disfavor or removal from the Colony. The following facts support this view. Of the ten men in the first list of candidates nominated for the magistracy, viz., that of October 7, 1640, eight were Deputies in the General Court at the time of their nomination. Of that eight, six were subsequently elected Assistants, four of them within three years; although none of them received an election in 1641. The eight returns of votes in Nomination of Magistrates summarized above, contain the names of 57 several nominees, of whom 45, or 78.9 per cent were or had been Deputies at the time of their nomination. Of the 57 nominees, 46 were chosen to the magistracy. Of the 46, no less than 78.3 per cent had served in the House of Deputies. Further evidence that the system of direct nominations led to a considerable admixture of democratical leaven in the ranks of the magistracy is found in the fact that of the 55 new men elected to the magistracy in the period 1634-1692 inclusive, 45, or 81.8 per cent, had been members of the House of Deputies. At least 6 of the number had been Speakers of the House. Again, of the 8 new men chosen Assistants in 1680, 4, and of the 5 new men chosen Assistants in 1684, again 4 had been Deputies. It is sufficiently clear, witness the utterances of Winthrop and Cotton, Dudley and Ward, that the leaders of the Puritan Exodus were not enamored of democratic ideals in respect to civil government. The speedy and decisive challenge to their oligarchical tendencies by an electorate, strictly limited to their church brethren, must have caused them not a little surprise,-a surprise as unpleasant as it was unexpected. The polity of the Bay Colony never became a pure democracy. But the dispassionate student of political institutions can hardly withhold a large measure of praise from the little band of British emigrants who, in the course of a single generation, through the invention of new and the adaptation of old devices gave form and body to political ideals that many professed believers in democracy still hold to be impracticable or of little worth. It is well nigh marvelous that a few pioneers battling with the wilderness and beset by enemies at home and abroad were able to achieve so large a measure of success in developing the initiative, the referendum, proxy voting, and a well-devised system of primary elections. The Freemen of Massachusetts Bay may have been religious enthusiasts and narrow idealists, but it cannot be denied that they were very practical idealists as regards political institutions. It is hardly too much to say that the foundations upon which the present constitution of the State of Massachusetts, has been raised were laid by the Freemen of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in the fifty years which elapsed between the demand "to see the Patent" in 1634, and the revocation of that Patent by the Crown in 1684. The achievements of the Freemen in that pregnant and fateful half-century foreshadowed and prefigured our American predilection for written constitutions, the American constitutional convention, and the separation of governmental powers according to the American plan into legislative, judicial and executive, all of them deriving their sanction from the "common assent" of the people. INDEX Bates, Dr. F. G., Commission Government in Kansas.. 111 Beard, Prof. C. A., The Direct Primary Movement in New York.. 187 41 Census Bureau of our Cities, The National, By Mr. Ernest C. Meyer... 126 111 Considerations on the Settlement of International Disputes by Means 199 Constitution..... 5 Delays and Reversals on Technical Grounds in Civil and Criminal Trials, 97 Elections in Iowa, Primary, By Prof. F. E. Horack.. 175 210 Flack, Dr. H. E., Recent Tendencies in Municipal Legislation........ 117 202 Haines, Prof. Charles C., Is Sufficient Time Devoted to the Study of 202 Hartwell, Dr. Edward M., Primary Elections in Massachusetts, 1640- 210 Horack, Prof. F. E., Primary Elections in Iowa.. 175 Hourwich, Dr. I. A., The Russian Duma.. 53 Illinois, The Direct Primary in, By Hon. W. Clyde Jones. 138 Iowa, Primary Elections in, By Prof. F. E. Horack..... 175 Is Sufficient Time Devoted to the Study of Government in Our Colleges, By Prof. Charles C. Haines..... 202 Jones, Hon. W. Clyde, The Direct Primary In Illinois. . 138 Kansas, Commission Government in, By Dr. F. G. Bates. 111 List of Members. 9 Loeb, Prof. Isidore, Direct Primaries in Missouri. 163 65 Marburg, Mr. Theodore, A Few Considerations on the Settlement of Inter- 199 Massachusetts 1640–1694, Primary Elections in, By Dr. Edward M. Hart- 210 Members, List of.. 9 Missouri, Direct Primaries in, By Prof. Isidore Loeb. 163 Moran, Prof. T. F., The British House of Lords... 41 Municipal Court, The Proper Organization and Procedure of a, By Hon. Harry Olsen.. 78 |