resolution were voted upon separately, the House recording itself against the district system by a vote of 90 yeas to 102 nays, but agreed to the second portion of the resolution.'

President Jackson, in each of his annual messages, strongly recommended that the Constitution be so amended, first, that the people should vote for the President and Vice-President directly; "for", said he, "in proportion as agents to execute the will of the people are multiplied there is danger of their wishes being frustrated; some may be unfaithful, all are liable to err;" and, second, as to prevent the election of President devolving upon the House of Representatives, arguing that if the different departments of the Government were to be kept distinct, that the choice of the Executive by either branch of the legislative department must be discontinued or the Execu tive would become the creature of the legislative department.3 Although the President did not designate the specific method by which the direct vote should be given, yet it is known that he favored the amendment championed by his friend and supporter, Senator Benton. Mr. Benton changed the terms of the amendment which he had earlier introduced, to harmonize with President Jackson's views. The first resolution proposed by him retained the provision that in case of no choice the election should devolve upon the House of Representatives, but the amendments presented by him after the election of Jackson stipulated that in the event of no election there should be a second election by the people between the two persons having the highest number of votes. Senator Benton remained true to the pledge he made in 1824,6 and continued to present this same resolution at different times down to 1844.

In the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Congresses select committees reported resolutions containing this provision. In the course of the debate during the Twenty-third Congress, Mr. Benton declared that "the district system would break

1 App., No. 542. See post, par. 50. The speeches of Benton, Dickerson, and McDuffie are all valuable as throwing much light on the workings of the existing system. 2 First Annual Message, App., No. 596.

3 App., Nos. 598, 602, 606, 610, 626, 631, 656, 659. For Madison's opinion, see Works, III, p. 332. For opposite view, held by J. Q. Adams, see Memoirs, VII, p. 301. Post, par. 50. 4 App., No. 526.

5 See post, par. 50.

He said: "He would pledge himself to the Senate and to the American people to continue the subject with all the energy he was master of till he brought it to a conclusion." Gales & Seaton's Debates, p. 693.

7 App., Nos. 630, 656.

the force of the large States;" but the amendment was opposed by John Tyler and other strong State Rights men because, as Tyler said, "it obliterated all State boundaries and dictated a course of action as if we were a nation and not a compact of States." They desired "to preserve the federative principle in the Constitution." In spite of the efforts of President Jackson and Senator Benton, the amendment was never brought to a vote.

1

This proposition was not suggested again until the early "fifties," when Andrew Johnson, then a member of the House from Tennessee, introduced a resolution similar to that of Mr. Benton's, in two different Congresses. At the next succeeding Congress, Mr. Ewing of Kentucky proposed the same amendment. The resolution received considerable discussion in this Congress. In support of the measure, Mr. Ewing said, that "it had been advocated for a period of thirty years by such men as Benton, Van Buren, Dickerson, McDuffie, Hayne, Macon, R. M. Johnson of Kentucky, and recommended time and again by General Jackson, and opposed chiefly by Rufus King of New York."4

In 1860, while a member of the Senate, Andrew Johnson again proposed this method of election, adding to the measure as a sop to the slave-holding States, in addition to the proposition to divide the judiciary equally between the slave and free States, the section that in the elections of 1864 the President should be chosen from one of the slave-holding States and the Vice-President from one of the free States, in 1868 vice versa, and so alternating the President and Vice-President every four years between the slave and free States during the continuance of the Government.5

Andrew Johnson evidently was convinced of the desirability of the election by the direct vote of the people, given in districts, for in 1868, when President, he sent a special message to Congress, proposing, together with other changes in regard to the Executive, such an amendment, and at the opening of the next session of the Congress, in his annual message he renewed his previous recommendation. This amendment was proposed the last time in 1881 by Mr. Wallace of Pennsylvania.

Niles' Register, vol. XLVI, 421. Van Buren favored the district system, O'Neil, p. 253. 2 App., Nos. 762770.

One interesting provision of this resolution was that the vote should be by secret ballot, thus foreshadowing the desirability of methods now in use in the majority of the States.1

44. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT DIRECTLY BY A COMBINATION OF DISTRICTS AND VOTES AT LARGE.

Corresponding to the amendments proposed in an earlier period by Senator Dickerson and others, for the choice of the electors in districts, there were introduced during the early "seventies," in both the House and Senate, propositions of a somewhat similar nature save that the electoral colleges were to disappear.2 Senator Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, who was at this time the most earnest and zealous advocate of the necessity of a change, called up the question through a resolution which he offered in March, 1873. It directed the Committee on Privileges and Elections, of which he was chairman, "to examine and report at the next session upon the best and most practical mode of electing the President and Vice-President, and providing a tribunal to adjust and decide all contested questions connected therewith."3 The committee, in May, 1874, reported, presenting a proposition, in seven articles, as an amendment to the Constitution. It provided that the people should vote directly for the President, each State being divided into districts equal to the number of Representatives to which it should be entitled. The person having the highest number of votes in each district for President should receive the vote of that district, which should count as one Presiden- ¦ tial vote. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the State should receive two Presidential votes from the. State at large. The candidate receiving the highest number of Presidential votes in the United States should be President. In case two persons have the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest number, they should receive each one Presidential vote from the State at large.5

Additional sections of the same article made provision for applying the foregoing provisions to the election of Vice

1 App., No. 1519.

2 Ante, par. 39. (1817-1826.)

3 Cong. Record, Forty-third Congress, special session, p. 30.

4 App., No. 1393. The report of the committee which accompanied the amendment was one of great ability. It was the work of Mr. Morton. Senate Reports, Forty-third Congress, first session, Vol. II, No. 395.

5 If more than two, then no Presidential vote shall be counted from the State at large. If more than one receive the same number of votes in a district, it being the highest, no Presidential vote shall be counted for the district.

President, for conferring upon Congress the power to conduct such election, when it choose to do so, to alter the division of the State into districts, and to establish tribunals for the decision of such election as may be contested.1

The resolution was not brought up for consideration by the Senate until the following January, when it called out an important debate, Senators Morton and Anthony delivering long and valuable speeches. Senator Morton's address especially was a clear exposition of the working of the electoral system up to that date. It is worthy of note that he accurately forecast the contested election of 1876. In opening his remarks he declared it as his conviction that "no more important question can be considered by the Senate at this session of Congress, for, in my opinion, great dangers impend, owing to the imperfection of the present system of electing the President and Vice-President." In support of the district system, hej quoted the figures from the report of the committee, which showed that in the eight Presidential elections between the years 1844 and 1872 four of the Presidents had received less than a majority of the popular vote, while during the same time the district system, as shown by the Congressional elections, approached more nearly by one-third to the whole popular vote than the election by the present method. Two votes by the proposed system were to be given by the State at large, in order that "the autonomy and power of the small States" might be preserved.

In the meantime a very similar resolution was reported to the House by the Committee on Elections, which awakened considerable interest," but neither in the House or the Senate was the proposition brought to a vote, the general opinion being that the greatest danger lay in the matter of the electoral count. Senator Morton introduced the same amendment in the next Congress, but no action was taken beyond its reference."

Post, pars, 53, 54.

2 Cong. Record, Forty-third Congress, second session, pp. 627-634. Senator Anthony declared all the machinery of the existing system is absurd." Senators Thurman and Conkling also spoke agreeing that some change was necessary.

3 See also report of the committee as given on previous page.

4 Polk, 1844, 50 per cent; Taylor, 1848, 47 per cent; Buchanan 1856, 45 per cent; Lincoln, 1860, 40 per cent. Ibid., also report of committee. For a table showing the difference between the popular and electoral vote in all elections from 1832 to 1876, see House Reports, Forty-sixth Congress, first session, Vol. 11, No. 347.

5 App., No 1386. In heu of the section conferring upon Congress power to create tribunals to decide contested elections, was one making it the duty of the Supreme Court. Post, pars. 54, 70. It was recommitted and again reported with Mr. Smith's substitute. No 1393, post, par. 45.

App., No. 1431. For criticism of the district system, see post, par. 51.

45. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT BY A DIRECT VOTE BY STATES.

In the Continental Congress and its successor, the Congress of the Confederation, all officers had been chosen by a vote by States. A similar principle was recognized in the Constitution, which provided in the electoral system that each State should have two votes, corresponding to the number of Senators, besides one for each Representative in Congress; and in case of no choice by the electors, the election should devolve upon the House of Representatives, the vote being taken by States, "the representation from each State having one vote." Thirty-five propositions retaining this federative principle of the Constitution proposed that the President and Vice-President should be elected by a direct vote of the qualified voters, given by States. While doing away with the electoral colleges, the electoral ratio or votes of the States were to be retained. Such propositions were brought forward at two different periods, the first between the years 1826 and 1848, the second since 1875. In their general characteristics they fall naturally into two groups, corresponding very nearly to the periods just mentioned; the one providing that the persons receiving the greatest number of votes in a State should be declared to have received the entire vote of the State; the other that the Presidential vote of each State should be divided among the candidates in proportion to the popular vote received by them in the State.

The earliest of the resolutions of the first group was presented by Mr. Haynes of Georgia, in 1826.3 Eleven similar resolutions were proposed at different times within the next twenty years, the greater number, indeed, within the next ten.* Three of these resolutions, from the general assembly of Georgia and the legislatures of Alabama and Missouri, are interesting as showing with what jealous care the sovereignty and equality of the State was guarded. The general assembly of Georgia declared their concurrence with the legislature of Missouri in the proposal to amend the Constitution so as to

I Constitution, art. 2, sec. 1, cls. 2 and 3, as originally adopted, retained in article XII of the amendments.

A number of votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the State was entitled in Congress.

3 App., No. 559.

4 App., Nos. 560, 583, 594, 600, 609, 641, 661, 663, 683, 735, 741.

App., Nos. 583, 600.

Ante, par. 42, App., No. 601a.