by the President of the Senate, beginning with the State of New Hampshire and going through to Georgia, in the order in which the thirteen original States are enumerated in the Constitution, and afterwards through the other States in the order in which they were respectively admitted into the Union; and, if no exceptions are taken thereto, all the votes contained in such certificates shall be counted; but if any exceptions be taken, the person taking the same shall state it in writing directly, and not argumentatively, and sign his name thereto; and if the exception be seconded by one member from the Senate and one member from the House of Representatives, and each of whom shall sign the said exception as having seconded the same, the exception shall be read by the President of the Senate, and then each House shall immediately retire, without question or debate, to its own apartment, and shall take the question on the exception, without debate, by ayes and noes. So soon as the question shall be taken in either House, a message shall be sent to the other informing them of the decision of the question, and that the House sending the message is prepared to resume the count; and when such message shall have been received by both Houses, they shall meet again in the same room as before, and the count shall be resumed. And if the two Houses have concurred in rejecting the vote or votes objected to, such vote or votes shall not be counted. The vote of one State being thus counted, another shall, in like manner, be called, and the certificate of the votes of the State thus called shall be proceeded on as is hereinbefore directed; and so on, one after another, in the order above mentioned, until the count shall be completed.

The bill was sent to the House for concurrence, where it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and was reported back by Mr. Webster on the 10th of May without amendment. It was then referred to the Committee of the Whole, and was never taken up for consideration.

XI

THE DEFEAT OF "KING CAUCUS "

THE existence of a free government without a division into parties is an impossibility. The "era of good feelings" was a result, not of a radical change in human nature which permitted all Americans to think alike upon questions of national politics, but of a complete settlement of all the matters which had been the basis of party division. We have already seen that new issues began to loom into prominence even before Mr. Monroe's second election. In the latter part of his term they were causing differences, discussions, and divisions which were destined to become more definite and habitual, and eventually to range men on either side of a new party line. All these new issues — internal improvements, the tariff, slavery, and the rest were to be decided one way or the other, according to the view one took of the scope and power of the Constitution. The two views were "strict construction" and "loose construction." Thus, when the Democratic party had substantially adopted the Federalist position in all the matters which pertained to the war of 1812, and the Federalists had crossed over to the position formerly occupied by their political opponents, the old question of interpretation arose in a new form, and ultimately reëstablished parties, greatly changed in personnel, in methods, in motives, and in aims. It will be seen, too, that issues not developed until years afterward were equally to be decided by an application of one or the other principle of interpreting the Constitution, the Bank, nullification, the surplus revenue, the disposition of the public lands, in short, all the questions on which parties differed between 1830 and 1860.

No development of parties took place during Mr. Monroe's administration. In a few States the Federalist organization was maintained; but in no State was it in control of the government, nor did it ever regain control anywhere. It might and did exercise a certain influence by favoring one of two or

more candidates, where the Democrats were divided. Except locally, it had no candidates of its own.

The election of 1824 was pending nearly three years. As early as April, 1822, Niles's Register remarked that there were already sixteen or seventeen candidates for the succession to Mr. Monroe. Soon after that the question how the candidates were to be nominated began to be discussed earnestly. The growth of an opposition to the system of nomination by congressional caucus has already been noted. The opposition was strong in 1816; but, inasmuch as the caucus had a result which a large majority of the people approved, little objection was heard after the nominations were made. No caucus was necessary in 1820. Now a determined resistance to the system was the only possible policy for the friends of all the candidates save one. It was understood universally that Mr. William H. Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury, was the candidate preferred by the President; and, although Mr. Monroe did not obtrude his wishes upon the public in an unseemly manner, the very fact that his official support gave Crawford a larger body of partisans than any one of his rivals had, emphasized the objection to this mode of making nominations. It was foreseen that a caucus, should one be held, would be in Mr. Crawford's interest. Consequently the adherents of all the other candidates were opposed to the caucus.

Before the close of the year 1822, the minor candidates for the presidency had dropped out of the contest, and six only were left, for four of whom electoral votes were cast two years later. They were, in alphabetical order, John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Henry Clay, who had been Speaker of the House of Representatives most of the time during the previous ten years, but was just then in private life; De Witt Clinton, also in private life at that time; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; and Andrew Jackson, who had been a representative and senator during Adams's administration, but who derived his fame and his prominence from his military achievements.

The first candidate who was put in formal nomination was Mr. Clay. The members of the Kentucky legislature, on the 18th of November, 1822, recommended him as "a suitable person to succeed James Monroe as President." In support of their resolution they issued an address to the people of the

country in which they placed their preference upon "a warm affection for and a strong confidence in their distinguished fellow-citizen;" and their feeling that the time had come "when the people of the West may, with some confidence, appeal to the magnanimity of the whole Union for a favorable consideration of their equal and just claim to a fair participation in the executive government of these States." They nevertheless made the first consideration much the more prominent and important. The members of the Missouri legislature held a meeting about the same time, and adopted a resolution recommending Mr. Clay. Similar action was taken in Illinois and Ohio in January, 1823, and in Louisiana in March of the same year.

General Jackson seems first to have been nominated formally although it was well understood long before that he was a candidate by a mass convention of the people of Blount County, Tennessee, in May or June, 1823, and afterward by numerous conventions in all parts of the country. Mr. Adams was nominated by the legislatures of most of the New England States early in 1824; Mr. Clinton, by several counties in Ohio; Mr. Calhoun, by the legislature of South Carolina; Mr. Crawford, by the legislature of Virginia.

It will be seen that the situation closely resembled that, within each party, with which we of the present time are familiar at the beginning of every recurring presidential canvass. All the candidates professed the same political principles, at least to such an extent that any one of them might be heartily supported by the whole party, the only party in the country which had more than a local existence. A preference of one before the others might rest upon a conviction that he possessed superior qualifications; upon a personal liking for him; upon local pride; upon a disposition to be on good terms with the administration, a consideration which helped Crawford only. Similar differences within a party. are met nowadays, and they do not prevent a full and enthusiastic union of the whole organization in support of him whom the general voice of the party designates as the candidate. There then existed no body of men, and there was no way of forming a body of men, who could take the case in hand and determine which of the six candidates should be the candidate of all. The advocates of Mr. Crawford urged that the congressional caucus was the tried and approved mode, not a

perfect mode, but one which had previously harmonized differences and united the party. The adherents of all the others knew that a caucus would inevitably result in the choice of Crawford, and they were too wary to be drawn into that trap.

It thus became evident, a long while before the canvass should properly have begun, that the great question to be settled was whether or not a caucus should be held. It was discussed in every newspaper and in every political gathering. The state legislatures were a common means of expressing local sentiment. The first declaration in favor of a caucus was, it is believed, made by the legislature of New York, on May 23, 1823, when the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:

That although a nomination by the Republican members of Congress is not entirely free from objections, yet that, assembled as they are from the different quarters of the Union,-coming from the various classes of community, elected during the pendency and discussion of the question and in a great degree with reference to it, they bring into one body as perfect a representation as can be expected of the interests and wishes of all and of each; and that a nomination made by them in a manner which has heretofore been usual is the best attainable method of effecting the object in view which has yet been suggested.

That we fully believe that a convention thus constituted will be less liable to be influenced by those sectional jealousies against which the Father of his Country has so solemnly and justly cautioned us; more likely to cherish those purely national feelings which it is the interest and should be the pride of every State to protect; and better calculated to preserve unbroken those political ties which bind together the Republicans of the North and the South, the East and the West, and are consecrated by the recollection of times and events dear to the Democracy of the nation which triumphed in the election and prospered under the administration of the illustrious Jefferson.

A few months later the legislature of Tennessee adopted a set of resolutions against the caucus, and instructing its members in Congress to use their influence to prevent the holding of such a meeting. The resolutions were sent to all the States for their approval. They were considered at the sessions of many legislatures in the earliest months of 1824. Maryland alone gave a cordial assent to them. Mr. Tyler, afterward President, offered resolutions in the Virginia House of