THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE rro STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE Volume III] [Number! HISTORY OF ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES CORTLANDT FrBISHOP, PH.D COLUMBIA COLLEGE NEW YORK 1893 JK1? COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY CORTLANDT F. BISHOP. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART I. GENERAL ELECTIONS. PAGE CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF GENERAL ELECTIONS. . . i i. Massachusetts and Plymouth 2 2. New Hampshire 6 3. Rhode Island 7 4. Connecticut and New Haven 12 5. New York 16 6. New Jersey 22 7. Pennsylvania and Delaware 28 8. Maryland 33 9. Virginia. . 35 10. The Carolinas 36 ii. Georgia 43 CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ELECTORS 46 i. Ethnic 51 2. Political 52 3. Moral 53 4. Religious 56 5- Age. . . 64 (Hi) IV TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE 6. Sexual 65 7. Residential 66 8. Property 69 A. The County Franchise 69 1 ) Class of Estate Required 80 2) Length of Possession Required . . 82 3) Proof of Property Qualification . . 83 B. The Town or Borough Franchise . . 86 9. Miscellaneous 90 10. The Admission of Freemen . 92 CHAPTER III. THE MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. . . 98 i . The Calling of an Election 99 2. Publication of the Writ no 3. Hours of Election 113 4. Election Officers 114 5. Nomination of Candidates 120 6. Manner of Voting (Personal or by Proxy) . 127 7. Method of Taking the Vote 140 A. New England 140 1) Election of General Officers. ... 140 2) Election of Deputies 154 B. The Royal Provinces 155 C. The Proprietary Governments. ... 165 8. Count of the Votes 175 9. Return of the Writ 179 10. Provisions against Fraud. 185 n. Contested Elections 187 12. Privileges of Voters . . , 190 13. Compulsory Voting 190 14. Bribery and other Means of Influencing Voters 192 15. Sanction of the Election Laws 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS. V PACK PART II. LOCAL ELECTIONS. CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF LOCAL ELECTIONS . . . . 203 i. Town Elections 204 2. Parish Elections 212 3. Municipal Elections 215 CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE 219 i. Town Elections 219 2. Parish Elections 223 3. Municipal Elections 224 CHAPTER III. THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL ELECTIONS 226 i. Town Elections 226 2. Parish Elections 229 3. Municipal Elections 232 APPENDIX A. WRITS, RETURNS AND OATHS .... 239 I. Writs and Returns 240 II. Oaths 255 i. Freemen and Electors 255 2. Election Officers 268 APPENDIX B. UNPUBLISHED STATUTES RELATING TO ELECTIONS 269 APPENDIX C. AUTHORITIES QUOTED 289 APPENDIX D. TABLES OF REGNAL AND PROPRIETARY YEARS 296 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES, PART I GENERAL ELECTIONS. CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF GENERAL ELECTIONS. Throughout the colonial period of American history, be- ginning at the earliest times and continuing down to the Declaration of Independence, there existed in the various colonies some system of popular elections. Deprived as the colonists were of a voice in the deliberations of the home government, the people of every province, whether royal, proprietary, or chartered, exercised a partial check on the arbitrary rule of the governor and his council, by means of a legislative assembly, whose members were chosen on the basis of a limited popular suffrage. In several of the more northern colonies the people possessed the power of electing their governor and other general officers, while nearly every- where the more local officials held their positions by virtue of popular suffrage. Nor was this system of election by the people entirely confined to English colonies ; for, as we shall see in due course, it obtained a partial foothold in the Dutch province of New Netherland. 2 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS I. Massachusetts and Plymouth. In Massachusetts the election of a Governor, Deputy-Governor and eighteen as- sistants on the last Wednesday of Easter term was authorized by the Charter of 1628, under which the colony was founded. 1 Endicott, the first governor, was chosen by the company in London in April, 1629,* but in October of the following year it was resolved that the Governor and Deputy-Gov- ernor should be chosen by the assistants out of their own number. 3 After 1632, however, the Governor was chosen by the whole body of the freemen from among the assistants 4 at a general court or assembly held in May 5 cf each year. The Deputy-Governor was elected at the same time. The charter, as already mentioned, provided also for the annual election of assistants or magistrates, whose number was fixed at eighteen. 6 This number appears not to have been regularly elected, for in October, 1678, in response to the de- mands of the home government a special election was held in order to bring the assistants up to the required number of eighteen. 7 Besides the officers mentioned in the charter, an order of 1647 declared that a treasurer, major-general, admiral at sea, co'mmissioners for the United Colonies, secretary of the General Court and "such others as are, or hereafter may be, of like general nature" should be chosen annually "by the freemen of this jurisdictiem." 8 The voting took place in 1 I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 10, 12. 2 Ibid., 37 j. *Ibid.,i<). * Ibid., 95. 5 Ibid., 104. 6 See also letter of Charles II. to the colony in 1662, which states that not more than eighteen, nor less than ten assistants were to be annually chosen. (4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. 2, 1 66. 7 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 195. 8 Laws, chap. 45, 4, ed. Cambridge 1660, 28; ed. 1814, 107; 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 220; Commissioners for United Colonies first chosen in 1644, 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 69. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 3 Boston in May, at a " court of election " held annually, and freemen could vote at first only in person, but eventually by proxy also, if they desired to do so. 1 The last election of general officers under the Charter of 1628 was held on May 1 2th, i686, 2 and soon afterward the government passed into the hands of a President and Council appointed by the Eng- lish crown. 3 In Plymouth, as in Massachusetts, general officers were elected every year by the freemen of the colony. The first governor was chosen on January ist, 1620 I, 4 though the existing records do not mention an election before 1632 3.* The other general officers were the assistants. 15 At first but one was chosen. 7 From 1624 till 1633 four were elected and it was not until the latter year that the full number of seven was chosen. 8 The last annual election of governor before the merging of New Plymouth into the province of Massachusetts Bay took place in June, i69i. 9 Besides the governor and assistants, two commissioners for the United Colonies and a treasurer were annually elected. 10 Just before Plymouth was incorporated into the royal province of Mas- sachusetts Bay, a law was passed providing that county magistrates or associates should be elected by the freemen of each county. 11 I See chap, iii, 6, page 1 27, post. * 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 513. 8 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 207. 4 I Palfrey, History of New England, Appendix. 5 I Plymouth Colony Records, 5. 6 Laws, 1636; Brigham ed., 1836, 37; 1 1 Plymouth Colony Records, 7. The laws in the edition of 1 836 are also reprinted in the eleventh volume of the Ply- mouth Colony Records. * 1 Palfrey, History of Nno England, Appendix. 8 Ibid. 9 6 Plymouth Colony Records, 264. 10 Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, 2, Brigham, 257. II Laws, 1691, Brigham, 237. 4 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS In both Massachusetts and New Plymouth all freemen had originally a personal voice in the transaction of public busi- ness at the general courts or assemblies which were held at stated intervals. One of these was known as the Court of Election, and at this were chosen the officers of the colony for the ensuing year. As the number of settlements in- creased, it became inconvenient for freemen to attend the general courts in person and they were allowed to be repre- sented by deputies. Massachusetts provided for this con- tingency by an act of I634, 1 and required all towns contain- ing more than thirty freemen to send not more than two deputies. Towns with less than thirty freemen had the op- tion of sending two deputies, although, if they had less than twenty, they could send but one. In case there were not as many as ten freemen in a town, they could unite with their nearest neighbor in sending a deputy to the general courts. These deputies were to serve for a year and were granted the " full power of all the freemen deputed to them for the making and establishing of laws, granting lands, etc., the matter of election of officers only excepted." 2 In the course of time the number of deputies became so large that several attempts were made to restrict each town to one rep- resentative, but they were unwilling to surrender their privi- lege of sending two if they so preferred. 3 The inconvenience of compelling all freemen to attend the courts of election finally gave rise to the proxy system, by means of which, as will be explained in a later chapter, the deputies carried the votes of their townsmen to Boston. 4 In Plymouth the system of sending deputies originated in 1639, when Plymouth was represented in the general court 1 I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 1 1 8. 1 Laws, chap. 35, I, 2; ed. 1660, 25; ed. 1814, 97. 8 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 3, 88, 209, 217, 231. * I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 166 (1636-7), 188. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES, 5 by four deputies and each of the other towns by two. 1 The function of these deputies was, as in Massachusetts, to assist the magistrates in making laws, but these enactments were for a time subject to the approval of the freemen, who were re- quired to attend the June court for that purpose. 2 It was not till 1652 that the deputies were permitted to carry the proxies of their fellow townsmen to the court of election, 3 though Rehoboth had been granted this privilege five years before. 4 In 1638 a law was passed which gave the general court power to reject deputies who had been sent by the towns for the purpose of assisting the magistrates in mak- ing laws, if they judged them unfit; in such cases the towns were required to elect other representatives. During the rule of Dudley and of Andros, the whole legis- lative power of Massachusetts was lodged in a council, 6 ap- pointed by the crown through its governor, and popular election in the New England colonies was limited to the choice of selectmen at a single meeting held annually in each town, on the third Monday in May. 7 The ultimate result of the revolution of 1688 in England, was to unite Massachusetts and New Plymouth under the Charter of 1691. By virtue of this instrument, "the Great and General Court of Assembly" was to consist of "the Gov- ernor and Council or Assistants for the time being, and such Freeholders of our said Province or Territory as shall be from 1 See I Plymouth Colony Records, 126. 2 Laws, 1638, Brigham, 63; Laws, 1646, Brigham, 88. These deputies were called committees. 3 Laws, 1652, Brigham, 94; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, I; Brig- ham, 256. 4 Laws, 1647, Brigham, 89. 5 Brigham, 112; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, 8, Brigham, 259. 8 2 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 3. 7 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 427. 6 HIS TORY OF ELECTIONS time to time elected or deputed by the Major parte of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the respective Townes and Places." The governor, deputy governor, and secretary and the first assistants were appointed. After the first year, the assistants were to be annually elected by the general as- sembly. 1 The number of deputies to be returned by towns having more than a hundred and twenty freeholders, was fixed at two by a statute passed in 16923. If it had less than this number of freeholders, it could elect but one. Boston alone could return four. 2 Under this charter, with the exception of these deputies, the only elective officers whose functions were at all general in their nature were the county treasurers, and they were chosen upon the basis of the town rather than upon the basis of the provincial suffrage. 3 2. New Hampshire, In the detached settlements which sprang up in the southern portion of what is now New Hampshire, all officers were originally elected. Thus in Dover, after 1633, a governor was annually chosen/ while Exeter 5 and Hampton 6 seem to have had a similar custom. In Portsmouth before 1640, a governor and two assistants appear to have been elected. 7 In 1641 these towns were taken into the colony of Massachusetts, and as such sent deputies to the general court at Boston. 8 The crown, in 1679 constituted a separate government for New Hampshire, claiming that the towns had been un- lawfully taken possession of by Massachusetts. The com- mission of John Cutts as first President of the new province 1 See charter, 3 Will, and Mary; Poore, Constitutions, 949; I Ames and Goodell, ed., 1869, Acts and Resolves, 10, n, 12. 2 Laws, 1692-3, chap. 38; I Ames and Goodell, 88. 3 Laws, 1692-3, chap. 27, I; I Ames and Goodell, 63. 4 I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 119. b 'Ibid., 144, et seq. 6 Ibid., 147. ' l lbid,,\\\. 8 Ibid., 154, 369, etc. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. j ordered him to call a general assembly by summons under the great seal, in such a manner as he and his council saw fit. 1 By virtue of the authority thus granted, the first as- sembly elected by the province met at Portsmouth, on March i6th, 1679-80, and was opened with prayer and a ser- mon. 2 After this, assemblies were to be called annually at Portsmouth, and this appears to have been done except during the years from 1686 to 1692, during a part of which period the power of Andros obtained in New Hampshire. 3 Governor Allen's commission of 1692 again provided for an assembly of the freeholders, 4 and the last assembly elected under the royal government, met in May, I/75. 5 A statute requiring assemblies to be re-elected every three years seems to have been proposed in 1723." 3. Rhode Island. Before the charter of 19 Charles I., the several towns that finally formed the colony of Rhode Island appear to have been independent of one another and to have elected their own officers. The early records are incomplete, but in 1638 we find that Portsmouth established a govern- ment "according to the Word of God." 7 Providence in 1636 also did something similar. 8 In Portsmouth during the year 1638, a chief magistrate with the title of judge and also several elders, a constable, and a sergeant appear to have been chosen. 9 Providence had some part in this elec- tion. 10 The earliest evidence on the subject of elections in the 1 I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 379. 2 I Belknap, History of New Hampshire, 177; I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 395. 3 2 New Hampshire Provincial Papers. * Ibid., 58. 6 7 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 371. 8 4 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 1 14. 1 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 5.5, 85. 8 Ibid., 14. 9 Ibid., 52, 64, 65. 10 Ibid., 64. 8 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS Newport records speaks of the presence of the judge and elders from Portsmouth. A joint government was set up for the three towns and it was determined to have the judge, elders and all other officers of the " Bodie Incorporate " an- nually chosen at a general court or assembly " by the greater body of freemen present." 1 At the first election which took place in the month of March, 163940, the chief magistrate was given the title of governor, and the next that of deputy- governor, the remainder being assistants. Two of the assist- ants and either the deputy-governor or the governor were to be chosen from each of the towns. Two treasurers and a constable for Newport, as well as one for Portsmouth and a "sarjeant" were also chosen. 2 At the election of the follow- ing year the government was declared a democracy and the power of the freemen to make laws and depute officers to execute them was established. 3 The charter of Providence Plantations granted not by the crown but, on account of the civil war which was then raging in England, by Commissioners under authority of Parliament, allowed the inhabitants of the colony power to rule themselves. 4 In addition to the three towns already mentioned, Warwick was taken into the colony. 5 It seems that this town had established no government of its own, not because it was opposed to such a thing, but because it considered legal authority from England necessary. 6 The officers of the colony, chosen at the first election in 1647, were a President, four assistants (one from each town), a recorder, a treasurer and a " general sargant," who seems to have been a sort of high sheriff. 8 One of the assistants often 1 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 90, 98. 2 Ibid., 100, 101, 112, 120, 126, 127. s Ibid., 112. *Ibid., 145. 5 Ibid., 129, 148. 6 Ibid., 129. 1 1bid., 191. * Ibid., 197. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. g held the office of treasurer as well. 1 It was not long before a schism took place in the colony. Portsmouth and New- port, which were situated on Rhode Island, separated them- selves from Providence and Warwick. Each half of the con- federacy had a separate legislative assembly and elected its own governor and two assistants. 2 After various negotia- tions between the opposing factions, the breach was closed in the summer of 1654 and the old form of government re- sumed. 3 About this time an "attorney" and a solicitor were annually elected.* After the accession of Charles the Second, in order to avoid any question of the validity of the first, a second charter was obtained. In the new instrument, under date of i663, 5 the officers of the colony were named, and it was pro- vided that in future a governor, a deputy-governor and ten assistants were to be elected annually by the company, which was composed of all the freemen. 6 By a resolution of the legislature in the following year, it was provided that annual elections should be held for minor officers as under the old charter. 7 A plurality of votes was declared sufficient to elect, but in case the person chosen refused to serve and this happened quite frequently the general assembly was empowered to fill vacancies. 8 Except during the Andros regime, 9 elections were held regularly until the Revolution. 10 The bond of union between the Rhode Island towns was at first very loose, and there seems to have been no occasion for a general legislative assembly. It was not until after the charter of 1644 that steps were taken toward 1 I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 209. 2 Ibid., 233, 244, 262, 265. 8 Ibid., 268, 278, 282. * Ibid., 278, 282. 5 15 Car. II. 6 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 7. 7 /&r the Year Ensuing." 7 The thirty-second chapter of the concessions provided that where "divisions or tribes or other such like distinctions are made " an election should be held annually in each of the one hundred proprieties or parts for a freeholder or proprietor from each, to be deputy, trustee or represen- tative for the "Benefit, Service and Behoof" of the people of the province in a " General and Supream Assembly." This body was to choose ten commissioners to adminster the 1 Learning and Spicer, 227. *\Vhitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, 147, 159. 3 2 New Jersey Archives, 26. * Learning and Spicer, 605. 5 Ibid., 312, 380. 6 Ibid., 382-409; New Jersey Archives, 241-270. 7 Learning and Spicer, 385. 2 6 HIS TOR Y OF ELECTIONS affairs of the province while the General Assembly was not in session. 1 In August, 1680, the Duke of York made another grant of the soil to the proprietors of West Jersey, 2 and in the fall of the following year the deputy-governor who had been ap- pointed in England convoked the first legislature. Ten fund- amental laws were passed, providing among other things for a general assembly to be elected yearly by the free people of the province. This elected body was to choose all officers of state. 3 The members of the next assembly, which met at Burlington in May, 1682, had been returned by the sheriff from the province as a whole. 4 To do away with this, a statute was passed, requiring each of the ten proprieties to choose " their representatives where they are peopled." As new proprieties were settled in the future, each tenth was to choose ten representatives. The members of the next as- sembly were returned by tenths, ten sitting for each tenth. 5 The next year (1683) the assembly debated the question, and decided that it had power to elect a governor. This was done by construing liberally the clause of the constitution permitting changes to be made by six-sevenths of the peo- ple. They accordingly chose a governor " nemine contra- dicente, saue only one member was dubious therein." 6 Free- men were allowed by an act of this year to attend the first meeting of each assembly. 7 From 1685 to 1692, no assem- blies were elected, for though no quo warranto was sought against New Jersey, the proprietors of both provinces joined in the proposd surrender. 8 1 Chap. 38, Learning and Spicer, 385. 2 Learning and Spicer, 412. 3 Ibid., 423. 4 Ibid., 442. * Ibid., 455. 6 Ibid., 471. ''Ibid., 482. 8 Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, 159; 2 New Jersey Archives, 26. The elaborate system of proprieties and tenths seems to have been abro- IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 2 J During the later years of the seventeenth century there was more or less disorder in both of the provinces, and the proprietors of East and West Jersey being for the most part the same, a memorial was addressed to the Lords of Trade and also to the Lords Justices of England, asking that East Jersey be annexed to New York. 1 The Lords of Trade approved of the suggestion, but would not give New Jersey as many representatives as were desired : one-sixth of the whole New York assembly was suggested as the proper proportion for each of the Jersey provinces. 2 At last, in 1701, both sets of proprietors addressed a me- morial to the crown, requesting that an assembly be elected annually and that it sit alternately in Perth Amboy and Bur- lington, two members being elected from each of these towns by the inhabitants, who were householders, and sixteen being chosen by the freeholders of each province. 3 The Board of Trade reported in favor of a form of government consisting of a governor, council and assembfy. 4 A deed of surrender was executed in April, 1702, and accepted by the Queen. 5 Lord Cornbury was appointed the first royal governor, and his commission 6 and instructions 7 required him to call an assembly on the lines suggested by the proprietors, except that there were to be but ten members from each half and only twenty-four in all. In the autumn of 1703 the first royal legislature under this authority was elected. 8 By a gated by the establishment of counties, (Laws, 1694, chap. II, Learning and Spicer, 533,) Burlington being given twenty members, Gloucester twenty, Salem ten, and Cape May five. Each of the first two counties contained two tenths, and the third only one. In 1699 (chap. 3, Learning and Spicer, 567), the representa- tion of each county was reduced by one-half; but the old number was restored two years later (Learning and Spicer, 581). 1 Learning and Spicer, 588, 591. 2 Ibid., 594. * Ibid., 599. * Ibid., 603. 5 Ibid., 609. 8 Ibid., 647. 7 Art. 14, Ibid., 623. 8 I Smith, History of New yersey, 275; Allinson's Laws, I. 28 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS statute of 1767 new assemblies were to be elected at least once in seven years. 1 7. Pennsylvania and Delaware. The country from which the provinces of Pennsylvania and Delaware were formed was conquered by the Dutch from the Swedes, and a portion of it came under the rule of the Duke of York, and the code known as the Duke's Laws probably had effect after 1676. Charles II. by charter of 1681 granted to William Penn a large tract of land between Maryland and the Duke of York's territory. The fourth section of the royal charter gave the proprietor power to make laws " with the advice, assent and approbation of the freemen of the said country or the greater part of them or their delegates or deputies, whom, for the enacting of the said laws," Penn was author- ized to assemble. 2 By a deed from the Duke of York in August, 1682, Penn was enfeoffed with the country lying within a radius of twelve miles from New Castle, while another instrument gave him additional land to the south of that town. 3 In April of the last mentioned year Penn drew up and promulgated a "Frame of Government." This provided that laws should be made by the governor and freemen. The latter were to meet in the month of February, 16823, and elect seventy-two persons of most note for their "wis- dom, virtue and ability," to form the provincial council. One third of this number was to go out of office every year, and their seats were to be filled by vote of the free- men. The first assembly was to consist of all the freemen, but thereafter it was to be representative. The freemen were at first to return two hundred members, though, as 1 8 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 306, 307. - 1 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 19. 3 Laws, Adams ed., New Castle, 1797, i. 7.V THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 29 the country increased in population, the number of assem- blymen might be increased to five hundred. 1 The " Laws agreed upon in England " at this time fixed the qualifica- tions to be possessed by freemen, 2 and Chalmers in his Political Annals? says that Penn derived suggestions in reference to this matter from Harrington's Oceana. The proprietor reached America in the latter part of October, 1682, and convoked at Chester an assembly of as many freemen as saw fit to appear. It met on the fourth day of December. 4 Freemen attended not only from Pennsylvania but from the " territories " recently granted to the pro- prietor by the Duke of York, and which were now an- nexed to the province by legislative action. An act of settlement was passed at this meeting, and from this statute we find that the freemen had been summoned by writs issued by the Proprietary to the sheriffs of each of the six counties (three in the " province " and three in the "territories" as the Delaware country was called), and requested to elect twelve persons from each county to form the first provincial council. The freemen had been re- quested to attend the assembly in person ; but, the act goes on to declare, " the Fewness of the People, their inability in Estate and Unskilfulness in Matters of Government" would render impracticable so large an assembly as had been provided for. Therefore, the statute enacts, that, of the twelve persons returned by each county, three should serve in the provincial council, and nine in the assembly, while the frame of government was declared to be modified in this particular. 1 Articles I, 2, 14, 16; I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 133, et seq. * Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37; Laws, ed. Harrisburg, 1879, 99. s Political Annals, 642. 4 Chalmers, Political Annals, 645; I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 206. s Golden, History of the Five Nations, pt. ii., 245; I Votes, Assembly, 1752, i. 30 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS This meeting having been preliminary, Penn called a regular assembly to meet in Philadelphia the following March. 1 A new charter or frame of government was passed by this body, and approved by Penn. It incorporated the provisions of the act of settlement already given, except that each county was allowed but six assemblymen instead of nine. 2 One-third of the council, that is, one member from each county, was to go out of office each year. Except in 1684* and in .1690,* when the assembly sat in Newcastle, legislatures met every year in Philadelphia, until 1693 when Penn's government was taken away by the crown and given to Governor Fletcher of New York. The com- mission of the latter empowered him to call an assembly elected by freeholders in the same way as the New York body. 5 He did so in 1693," but in the following year Penn's government was restored to him by letters patent from Wil- liam and Mary. 7 Penn appointed William Markham gov- ernor, and the latter caused legislatures to be elected in September 1695 and again in i696. 8 The body last men- tioned enacted a new frame of government which reduced the membership of the council from three to two for each county, making in all but twelve. The total number of as- semblymen was likewise reduced from thirty-six to twenty- four. 9 This frame continued to be the constitution of the pro- vince till 1701, when Penn, just beiore his final departure for England, granted- the Charter of Privileges, which remained in force down to the revolution. This charter provided for an assembly to be annually elected by the freemen, and to 1 1 Votes, Assembly, 7. 2 r Pennsylvania Colonial Records,^. 3 I Votes, 24. * Ibid., 56. 5 I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 378. 6 Ibid., 382. 7 Ibid., 403. 8 Ibid., 405, et seq. 9 1 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 49. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 3 i meet on the 1 4th of October of each year. 1 By another charter a council of state was instituted, and the governor was given power to fill vacancies, so that the assembly was now the only legislative body whose members were chosen by the votes of the people." Except on the two occasions already mentioned, the in- habitants of the " territories " had never favored the sending of representatives to the legislature which sat at Phila- delphia. In 1699 New Castle defied the writ sent out by the governor, and refused to elect assemblymen. In consequence of this action a law was passed imposing a fine of ;ioo on counties which were delinquent in sending re- presentatives, and providing that the members from those counties holding elections should act for all. 3 The Charter of Privileges allowed two-thirds of the counties to act for all, in such a contingency. 4 Penn, fearing that there might at some time be trouble on this point, inserted a clause in the Charter of Privileges giving the province and the territories power to hold separate legislatures, if they saw fit. In that case, each county in Pennsylvania was to be allowed eight members and the city of Philadelphia two. The Delaware counties could have as many delegates to their assembly as they saw fit, and both legislatures, if separated, were to have the same power as if they had remained together. 6 The proprietor had scarcely left America when a dispute broke out, and the territories refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia assembly, and instead held one of their own in October, 1700.* In 1703 the separation permitted tjy the charter was made, and from that time there were two distinct legislatures, one sitting at New Castle for the government of 1 1 Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. * Ibid., 451, note. 3 I Votes, Assembly, xiii. 4 I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. *> Ibid., ^<\, 6 Franklin and Hall ed., Delaware Laws, 1752, I. 3 2 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS New Castle, Kent and Sussex upon Delaware, and the other at Philadelphia for the province of Pennsylvania. Both remained under the proprietorship of Penn and the same governor acted for both. The Charter of Privileges was the constitution in both governments, and we shall see that the legislation of the two in regard to the management of elections was almost precisely identical. 1 Penn expressed a willingness to sur- render the provinces to the crown in 171 2, but on account of a fit of apoplexy he was unable to execute the necessary instruments." He died in 1718, leaving his province to three English noblemen to be by them held in trust and disposed of for the benefit of his heirs. 3 After nine years of litiga- tion on the subject of this bequest it was decided that the grant was void, and the government, therefore, descended to his heirs, who administered it either in person or by deputy, until independence was declared. 4 Besides the members of the legislature as already ex- plained, the frame of government drawn up in the early part of 1683 provided for the- election by the freemen of a double number of sheriffs, justices and coroners. The persons chosen were in each case to be presented to the governor and he could grant a commission to the one he preferred. If within three days he took no action, the person first named on the return received the office. 5 The third para- graph of the Charter of Privileges of 1701 provided in like manner, for the election of a double number of sheriffs and coroners. 6 The idea of giving the governor a partial check on the election of certain officers, by compelling the electors to chose one or more alternates was undoubtedly borrowed 1 I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 454. 2 2 Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 57. 3 Ibid., 105. 'Gordon, History of Pennsylvania, 178. 5 I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 42; Section 16 of Frame, 6 I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. 'IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 33 from Holland, where it had been for many years practiced in the choice of Burgomasters and Schepens, 1 and, as we shall see, it was introduced in New Netherlands 8 8. Maryland. Maryland was settled under a charter granted by Charles I. to Lord Baltimore in 1632. The proprietor was given the power of making laws with consent of the freeholders 3 or freemen. 4 The first legislative as- sembly under this grant was held at St. Mary's on Febru- ary 1 6th, 16345, but all records of its proceedings have been lost. 5 Probably all the freemen attended. The second assembly was called for the early part of i637~8. 6 Certain gentlemen were summoned to this meeting by writs specially 'addressed to them, and all freemen were ordered to attend in person or by proxy. For the latter purpose the freemen were permitted to assemble in their hundreds and elect " one, two or more able and suffic- ient men" to be "the deputies or burgesses for the said freemen, in their name and steed to advise and consult in the same manner as burgesses from an English borough." 7 All freemen not participating in the election of a burgess were required to send a proxy or attend in person. We find 1 See I O'Callaghan, History of New Nethtrland, 392. * For details of the methods used in electing these officers, see Pennsylvania Statutes, 4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed. Laws, 1742, 105; Delaware Statutes, 12 Will. Ill, chap. 2ia; Franklin and Hall, ed. 1752, 29; Adams ed. 1797,63. 3 8, " Liberi tenentes." * 37, "Liberi homines." For a copy of charter in the original Latin, and also a translation, see Bacon's Laws (1765). * See 2 Bozman, History of Maryland, 33, 34. 6 See Maryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, i; 2 Bozman, History of Maryland, 47 ; also Appendix A, to this work, for a copy of one of the writs; Bacon's Laws, ed. 1765, 7 Caecilius Lord Baltimore, chap. I, chap. 26. The pages in Bacon are not numbered. 7 Afaryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 74, 81, 82. 34 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS even as late as 1642 that freemen not represented were fined twenty pounds of tobacco. 1 The reason why the freemen of Maryland were permitted to be represented by proxy and thus apparently act in con- travention to the well known rule of the common law which forbade the exercise of a public franchise by proxy, was that they were supposed to sit in their own right as did the Peers in the English House of Lords. Like the peers, therefore, they could be represented by proxy. 2 It followed from this, and it was so held in an actual case, that freemen represented by proxy were exempt from arrest until a reas- onable time after the dissolution of the assembly, just as if they had actually occupied their seats.' 1 Of course this state of affairs did not continue after the population of the colony became relatively larger. The custom disappeared about 1658. In 1689, because the Baltimore family adhered to the Ro- man faith, the British crown took the government into its own hands and did not restore it until 1715. Then it was given to a member of the family who professed the Protes- tant religion. 4 Assemblies were called, however, at intervals throughout Maryland's colonial history, and the following quotation from a letter of Governor Sharpe to Lord Balti- more, under date of June 6th, 1754, shows that elections were held at intervals of three years : " I will beg leave to submit to your Lordship's Consideration whether it be impracticable or improper to fall on any method to put a Stop to such Perverseness as might generally be perceived in the proceedings of our Lower Houses of Assembly which is in great measure owing to the short Duration of our Sessions which termin- 1 Maryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 169; also 2, 3, et seq. 2 Bozman, History of Maryland, 48, 49. 3 Maryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 8. 4 See Bacon's Laws. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 95 ate at the end of 3 years : few Gent n will submit so frequently to the inconveniences that such as canvass for Seats in that House must necessarily subject themselves to ; by which means there are too many Instances of the lowest Persons at least men of small for- tunes no Soul & very mean Capacities appearing as Representatives of their respective Counties ; As there would be no want I apprehend of Gent n to appear as Candidates if the Drudgery of Electioneering was to return less frequently. I submit to your Lordships Wisdom whether there may be any impropriety (if a more agreeable Choice of Members should be made) in continuing the next assembly for more years than has been lately usual or customary." 1 9. Virginia. The first Virginia Charter (1606) placed the legislative power in the hands of a council whose members were appointed by the crown. 2 The second (1609) made the council a corporation J to meet in England. The third and last charter (161112) provided for four great courts to be held annually in England for managing the affairs of the company. 4 By virtue of this charter, the treasurer, council and company in England issued on July 2ist, 1621, an Ordinance and Constitution which placed the legisla- tive power in Virginia in the hands of a council of state and an assembly. The assembly was to consist of two bur- gesses to be elected by the inhabitants of each hundred, town or other particular plantation, and to be called " once a year and no oftener." 5 But this ordinance had been anticipated, for the first legis- lative assembly of Virginia met " in the church quire " at James City on July 3Oth, 1619. It was called by the gov- ernor, Sir George Yeardley, who " sente his summons all 1 Maryland Archives ; I Correspondence Gov. Sharpe, 68. 2 I Hening, Statutes at Large, 61, 68. 3 Ibid., 90. 4 Ibid., 103. 5 Ibid., 1 10, et seq. See also Sir Francis Wyatt's commission as governor, I Hening, 113; 3 Hening, 236. 36 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS over the country," ordering two burgesses " out of each In- corporation and Plantation freely to be elected by the inhab- itants." This was without doubt the first election held on the American continent by men of Anglo-Saxon lineage under an organized government, and, on that account, is of especial importance. 1 A second assembly was called in November, i62i, 2 but the first legislature whose records are preserved in Hening's Statutes at Large was that of I623-4. 3 The House of Burgesses (as the Virginia assembly was called) met with greater or less regularity until 1773.* Dur- ing Bacon's rebellion in 1676, a house of burgesses, elected by the insurgents, met and passed laws. 5 Throughout the eighteenth century members were returned by the counties, cities and towns, and by the College of William and Mary. 6 According to a statute enacted in 1 763 , 7 elections were to be triennial. 10. The Carolinas. Both North and South Carolina were included in the two charters under which the Carolina proprietors derived their rights. The first charter, that of 1663, gave to the proprietors the fullest power of making laws " with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen of the said province or of the greater part of them or of their deputies." Laws could be made by the pro- prietors themselves until they exercised their power of calling the freemen together." The second charter (1665) 1 New York Historical Society Collections, 2d Series, vol. iii., 331 et seq., 1857, Stith, History of Virginia, 160. 2 I Hening, 119. 3 i Hening. * 8 Hening, 647. 5 2 Hening, 356. 6 4 Anne, chap. 2, 7, 3 Hening, 236. In England it has long been a cus- tom for the two universities to return members to the House of Commons. See Statute, 9 Anne, chap. 5, 3dly. 1 3 Geo. III., chap. I, 3, 7 Hening, 519. 8 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 23. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES, 37 gave similar authority, as well as a limited ordinance power, whenever assemblies could not be called. 1 But the first charter speaks of the whole territory as one province, 2 while the second grants power to divide the country into " counties, baronies and colonies with separate and distinct jurisdictions, liberties and privileges." 3 The latter provision is of importance from our point of view, be- cause from it resulted the final division into two provinces, each with a separate, elective legislature. Before the Lords Proprietors received their charter, some settlers from New England had established themselves in the Carolina territory, and it may not be presumptuous to sup- pose that they chose their own officers. 4 In a "declaration and proposals to all that will plant in Carolina," issued by the proprietors in 1663, it was provided that the under- takers, before leaving for America, should select thirteen persons from among their number, and out of these a governor and six members of the council should be com- missioned. The successors of the governor were to be chosen from the council, while the number of the latter was to be completed from the six persons remaining. On the 25th of March, preceding the expiration of the official terms of these magistrates, a new set of thirteen names was to be presented by the freeholders of the colony, or " by such persons as they shall constitute." By the tenth of the fol- lowing month, the new governor and council were to be commissioned from this list. The freeholders, in person or represented by two deputies from each parish, tribe or division, were to make laws which should be binding, unless 1 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 104. * 5th Paragraph, ibid., 23. 3 4th Paragraph, ibid., 104. 4 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 70, et seq. 3 g HIS TOR Y OF ELECTIONS abrogated by the proprietors within a year. 1 Dr. Hawks 2 states that these proposals were put into force at Cape Fear but not in the settlement at Albemarle, which ultimately developed into North Carolina. If this is true, it is the only instance within the knowledge of the writer, in which the inhabitants of any of the colonies south of New Eng- land had any share in the choice of their governor, or of 1 his council, except, perhaps during the twenty years when the Pennsylvania council was elected by the people, and the occasions on which, as we shall see, the same was done in South Carolina.' The proprietors received at about the same time a letter from certain " gentlemen from Barbadoes," who proposed settling in Carolina, and asked for permission to elect their own officers.* They were told that proposals which we have just described would be fol- lowed. 5 In this same year, the proprietors issued a commission to Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia, empower- ing him to establish a government in Albemarle. He was to have a council which in the making of laws should act with the advice and consent of the freeholders or freemen, of the major part of their delegates or deputies. 6 In the "concessions" of 1 665, 7 and in the instructions issued ten years later to the governor of Albemarle, 8 it was provided that the inhabitants who were freemen or chief agents to others, should choose deputies to cooperate with a governor and council ,in making laws. As soon as the country was 1 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 43; Rivers, South Carolina, 335; 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 27. 2 2 History of North Carolina, 144. s See also as to West Jersey, ante, p. 26. 4 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 40. 5 Ibid., 58. 6 Ibid., 50. t Ibid., 80, 81. 8 Ibid., 1 66. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 39 sufficiently settled, each district was to have a representative. In a book published in London in 1665, and describing the advantages of Carolina, it was stated that the inhabitants would have a governor and council, chosen from among themselves, as well as an annually elected assembly. 1 The instructions of Governor Stephens in 1667, however, gave his council power to fill its own vacancies. 2 We shall at present confine ourselves to the history of the Albemarle settlement, and treat it with particular reference to the subject of elections. The time of the election of the first assembly is not positively known ; it has been placed as early as i663. 3 The legislature of 1670 is the first of which the records remain. 4 The assembly was elected under instructions to the Governor that writs should be sent to four precincts in Albemarle county, commanding each of them to elect four representatives. The assembly so formed was to choose four members of the council. 3 As soon as the government just described had been established, the first edition of the celebrated constitution which the philosopher Locke had drawn up at the request of the proprietors was re- ceived. Four subsequent editions were sent over, and at- tempts were made to enforce it until after 1698. But these were futile, and it had little influence, either in the northern or in the southern part of the Carolinas. The constitution provided for a parliament to be composed of the proprietors or their deputies, the various ranks of the nobility, and rep- resentatives elected biennially by the freeholders of each precinct. As all the members were to sit in one room and each had a single vote, and as one of the chief reasons why 1 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 157. 4 Ibid., 164; Chalmers, Political Annals, 524. 3 See I Moore, History of North Carolina, 17; 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 144, where the various authorities are collected and discussed. 4 I North. Carolina Colonial Records, 183. 5 Ibid., 181, 235, 333. 40 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS the constitution proved impracticable was the lack of a suffi- cient number of persons to form the nobility, it will readily be seen that the freeholders would have a large share in the business of the parliament. 1 Constables and other minor of- ficers were to be annually elected. 2 The governor of Albemarle was known as such until 1690, when the name North Carolina seems to have come into use. 3 In 1691 Governor Ludwell "of Carolina" was empowered to order the election of five delegates from Albemarle county who should join with fifteen from the counties in the more southern settlements, to form one assembly for all Carolina. 4 However, this order was almost immediately rescinded, on account of the impracticability of having North Carolina send delegates to Charleston. 5 Until 1712, there was but one governor for the entire province, though each part elected its own assembly. 6 The last legislature under the rule of the proprietors was elected in I728. 7 The first assembly in North Carolina under royal authority met in April, 1731," and the last in November, 1774." The authority for electing these assemblies is found in the com- mission of Burrington, the first royal governor. 10 He was told to follow the laws and usages of North Carolina on this sub- ject. It is thus presumed that the members of the assembly were to be elected biennially.' 1 The separation between the 1 Arts. 71, 72, 73, 75, etc.; I North Carolina Colonial Records, 199, et seq. 2 Art. 91. 3 " That part of our province that lies north and east of Cape Feare." I North Carolina Colonial Records, xxiv., 360. 4 Ibid., 377. 5 Ibid., 380. 6 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 493. ~ Ibid., 569. 8 I Moore, History of North Carolina, 54. 9 2 Martin, History of North Carolina, .328. 10 Jan'y I5th, 1729-30. 11 3 North Carolina Colonial Records, 68. For the law as to biennial assem- blies, see 2 North Carolina Colonial Reeords, 213. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 4! two Carolinas was not legally recognized until after they became royal provinces, though each of them had always elected its own assembly. The " gentlemen from Barbadoes " already mentioned, settled near Cape Fear under Governor Yeamans, 1 in 1665, at a spot where a New England settlement had once stood. 2 It is said that an attempt was made to introduce the Locke constitutions here, but however that may be, the colony gradually dwindled away, so that in 1690 there was not a settler left. 3 In 1669 the proprietors issued a commission to Governor Sayle for the country south and west of Cape Fear. 4 He was instructed to call together the freemen as soon as he reached Port Royal and cause them to elect four persons to join with him and his council in making laws. He was also to require the freeholders to choose twenty persons to form a parliament ; the other requirements of the first issue of Locke's constitution being dispensed with for the time being. These instructions appear to have been carried into effect, not at Port Royal, but at a new settlement on the Ashley river, near the present site of Charleston. 5 The instructions of Governor Yeamans, two years later, contained similar pro- visions 6 and required a biennial parliament. 7 In 1682 the proprietors ordered ten members of the bien- nial parliament to be chosen at " Charlestowne in Berkly county," and ten at London in Colleton county. 8 The latter had so few inhabitants that this apportionment was considered 1 Chalmers, Political Annals, 523. 2 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 36; see ibid., 95, for Yeamans' commis- sion. 3 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 455^6; Rivers, South Carolina, 71. 4 Rivers, South Carolina, 340. 5 Ibid., 95, 97. * Ibid., 366. 'Ibid., 379. Election of twenty members took place in April, 1672, ibid., 109. 8 Ibid., 406. 42 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS unfair, and at the election of 1683 no attention was paid to the order. 1 About this time a vacancy in the office of gov- ernor was filled by vote of the council, and as some of the members of this body were elected by the parliament, the people had an indirect voice in the matter. 2 Governor Ludwell's instructions of 1691, as already mentioned, gave five of the twenty seats in the parliament to delegates from North Carolina, each of the three southern counties being allowed the same number. 3 When this order was rescinded, Berkeley county was given seven members, Col- leton the same number and the remaining one, six. 4 The ad- mission of Craven county to a share in the election of dele- gates to the parliament is of importance, because this portion of the country was inhabited almost exclusively by Hugue- nots, who had previously had no share in the making of laws. 5 In 1695 the freemen were called together in general as- sembly to decide about the number of representatives. Twenty was the number fixed upon for Berkeley county and ten for Colleton, while Craven was omitted altogether/' Elections after this time do not seem to have been carried on in a very orderly manner. 7 The apportionment of delegates to the commons house of assembly, as the popular branch of the legislature was called, appears to have furnished a subject of contention, and the people were well pleased when an act of 1716 provided tfyat the parish instead of the county should be the election district/ The privilege of fivers, South Carolina, 136. ' 2 Ibid., 141. 3 I North Carolina Colonial Records, 371. * Ibid., 380; Rivers, 160. 5 The journals of the Parliament show that Huguenot members were returned and that they swore allegiance to William III. Rivers, 176. 6 Rivers, 181, 453, et seq. About this time the first mention of the name South Carolina is to be found. Act 1696, 2 Cooper, 124. 7 Rivers, 453, 462, 196, 206. 8 Act no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683, see in particular the preamble; Rivers, 287. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 43 elections was always jealously guarded by the settlers of South Carolina; and when, in 1719, the proprietors re- pealed the last mentioned statute, the people rose in revolt, elected a governor and appealed to the king. 1 The crown sent over a governor in 1721, and his commission authorized him to call an assembly. 2 This royal government was only provisional, pending a settlement with the Lords Proprietors. The latter, with the exception of Lord Carteret, sold out their interest in both North and South Carolina, and the purchase was confirmed by act of Parliament. 3 The undi- vided one-eighth interest of Carteret, Earl of Granville, was set apart by royal charter in 1 744, but as the right of call- ing assemblies to be elected by the freemen was expressly reserved, this does not concern us. 4 Except for a period of two years, from 1745 to I747, 5 when annual assemblies were required, it seems to have been the law that elections must be held every two years, 6 although from 1721 to 1745 the duration of an assembly was fixed at three years. 7 The dissolution of the last royal legislature took place on Sep- tember 1 5th, I775. 8 11. Georgia. The government of Georgia was vested by royal charter of 1732, in the hands of a council whose legal title was the "Trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in America." The trustees filled va- cancies among their own number, but their power was 1 Rivers, 292 to 310. 2 I Ramsay, History of South Carolina, 95. 3 Statute, 2 Geo. II., chap. 34, i Cooper, 60. * 4 North Carolina Colonial Records, 655. 5 Act 1 745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 656. 6 Act 1747, no. 746, 3 Cooper, 692; Locke's Constitution, Art. 75; Act 1694, Trotts' Laws, 36; Act no. 108, 2 Cooper, 80. T Act 1745, no. 556, 3 Cooper, 135. 8 I Ramsay, History of South Carolina, 249. 44 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS limited to twenty-one years. 1 These trustees appointed all the officers of the colony, whether judicial or otherwise. 2 In 1750, the affairs of the colony were in a bad way and the trustees, hoping to provide a remedy, proposed that each town, village or district should depute one delegate if it had ten families or more, and two if it had thirty, to attend an assembly held annually at Savannah. As the whole power of making laws was in the hands of the trust'ees, this assembly could have power only to "propose, debate and represent" their grievances. 3 By virtue of this resolution, the assembly met on January I5th, 1751, elected a speaker, and on the following Sunday listened to a sermon " suitable for the occasion." ' They transacted no business beyond drawing up bills of grievances,* and as the trustees surrendered their charter in June, 1752, no more assemblies were elected, under the authority of the trust. 5 The crown appointed a governor and council, and, as was generally the case, gave the governor 1 Hotchkiss, Digest of Laws of Georgia, 20, etseq.; I Stevens, History of Georgia, 476, et seq. 2 1 Stevens, History of Georgia, chap. vii. 3 3 Minutes of Common Council, 235; I Stevens, History of Georgia, 245, et seq. The qualifications to be possessed by these delegates were so remarkable and therefore furnish so good an example of the absurd theories which the home governments were fond of attempting to put into practice in America, that they are inserted in this connection. From June, 1751, to June, 1753, no person could be a deputy unless he had " a hundred mulberry trees planted and properly fenced upon every fifty acres he possessed." After 1753, a deputy must be a person who had strictly conformed to the limitation of the number of negro slaves in propor- tion to his white servants, who had at least one female in his family instructed in the art of reeling silk, and who yearly produced fifteen pounds of silk upon fifty acres of land, and the like quantity upon every fifty acres he possessed. " But as the Trustees are desirous of seeing some immediate good effects from this as- sembly, and are sensible that at present there are not many in the province who may have the necessary qualifications," the members of the first assembly were wisely exempted from the operation of these rules. 3 Minutes of Common Coun- cil, 235; I Stevens, History of Georgia, 245, et seq. * I Stevens, History of Georgia, 248, et seq. 6 Ibid., 258. LY THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 45 authority to call an assembly. Writs were sent out and the first election held in the latter part of 1754.* The members of the Commons house of assembly continued to be chosen at intervals until 1780. In that year writs were sent to all the provost marshals, but those whose territory was in the hands of the rebels were permitted to prove that fact by affidavits, instead of returning a member.' 2 1 1 -Stevens, History of Georgia, 381-393. 2 2 Stevens, History of Georgia, 318. CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ELECTORS. In .the early part of the history of each colony the quali- fications required of electors were neither numerous nor well defined. On account of the small number of inhabitants, it was at first hardly necessary, and perhaps not advisable, to limit the elective franchise to any particular class of individ- uals. Consequently, in the summons that was sent out by the first royal governor or proprietor, the " freeholders " or the " freemen," of a certain district were ordered to elect a certain number of deputies or representatives, as the case might be. 1 In Virginia, on the contrary, the " inhabitants " were to elect the first house of burgesses. 2 In the colonies under royal rule the qualifications of voters were very fre- quently fixed by the commissions of the governors. But in the instructions, as well as in the commissions of the early governors, the definition of a voter rarely went beyond the single word " freeholder," and the fixing of a more precise meaning to this general term seems to have been left for legis- lative action. In the preceding chapter care has been taken to mention in many instances the authority from the crown 1 See for example in Maryland " freemen" (Act of 1637-8, Maryland Archives, I Assembly, I, 27, 28, 87, 88, 114, 121, etc., etc.'); in Pennsylvania "free- holders," writ of 1682 (i Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 234); also in New York, (Introduction to Journal Legislative Council, xiv.) and in New Jersey (l New Jersey Archives, 56). These writs are published in appendix A of this work. a i Hening, no, 113. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 47 through which the qualification of an elector was originally derived. 1 Thus far we have been treating of the elective franchise in the colonies at a time when they were most closely under royal rule. But in New England, while she retained her in- dependence, the case was different, and the right of voting for officers was inherent in all freemen and incidental to membership in the corporation. Thus in the four colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut the word freemen had a special significance, which was taken away when the two former became a royal province by the charter of 1691, and which remained in the two latter until the revolution. A freeman did not become such, unless he possessed certain prescribed qualifications, and until he had been approved, admitted and sworn, in a manner which will be described in a subsequent section of the present chapter. When a man had been admitted to the freedom of one of these colonies, his position was ana- logous to that of a freeman in a city or borough, and as such he became entitled fo the exercise of the elective franchise. That the privilege of voting in the elections of the province was regarded as a right, vesting inherently in the freemen of a corporation, is shown by the New York Charter of Lib- erties and Privileges, and by the election laws of the same province, which contained a clause exempting freemen of the cities of Albany and New York from their operation. 2 1 See references to governors' commissions and instructions mentioned in the previous chapter. New Hampshire (i Provincial Papers, 379) is an example of a province where the governor and his council were originally given full authority to fix the qualifications of an elector, while New Jersey under her first royal gov- ernor in 1702, had the qualifications definitely prescribed (Learning and Spicer, 623). Massachusetts as a royal province had the definition of an elector fixed by the charter of 1691 (Poore, Constitutions, 949). 2 See for instance, Charter of Liberties and Privileges (2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 642) as patesed in 1 683, and again in 1691 (Bradford's Laws 48 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS The fact that qualifications could be imposed on candi- dates for the freedom of a colony enabled Rhode Island 1 and Connecticut 2 to ultimately require the possession of a freehold as a prerequisite to the exercise of the suffrage. In all of these colonies 3 freemen could, under certain conditions, be deprived of their freedom, and incidentally of their rights as voters. In Rhode Island a law passed in 1724 provided that the privilege of electing depu- ties should not be limited to freemen of the colony, to the exclusion of freemen of the town. 4 This seems to indicate a distinction, in Rhode Island at least, between the freedom of the colony and that of a particular town. The i.arm freeman occurs also in the early history of some ed. 1710, i); II Will. Ill, chap. 74, 10, Van Schaack's Laws, 28; 4 New York Colonial Documents, 127. That this was also true with respect to boroughs in England, see Statute 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15; Cox, Antient Parlia- mentary Elections, chap, viii and ix. That the New England colonies regarded themselves as corporations is shown by Laws, 1636, n Plymouth Colony Records, 7, Brigham, 37; Laws, 1658, ibid., 107, 113; Second Fundamental, Book of General Laws, 1671, ibid., 241, 258. Massachusetts was a "company" by its charter (i Massachusetts Colonial Records, 10, 12,) "freemen of this jurisdiction" to elect officers (Laws, ed. 1660, 28; 1814, 105); "freedom of the commonwealth," (ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117; I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 87); " freedom of this body politick" (ibid., 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 208). In Rhode Island "free- men of colony" (i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 236); "free inhabitants of colony" (ibid., 429). The second charter (2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 8,) provided for election of officers out of the company by freemen. In New Haven the term "free burgesses" (i New Haven Colonial Records, 20, 35, 46, etc.") seems to have been used as an equivalent to "freemen" (ibid., 112); in Hart- ford, "freemen of this company" (i Connecticut Colonial Records, 417); in Connecticut, " freemen of this corporation" (Session Laws, 40). These colonies possessed the elements of a corporation such as a common seal and perpetual succession. 1 9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730, 131. 2 Session Laws, 40. 3 Plymouth, Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Book of General Laws, 1671, ibid., 258; Connecticut, Session Laws, 40; Massachusetts, 4 Colonial Records, pt. ii, 143; Rhode Island, I Colonial Records, 125. * 4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 338. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 49 of the southern colonies. But as these were either proprietary or directly under royal rule, there is reason to believe that the word was used in its literal significance oifree man. Thus a Virginia statute, in limiting the elective franchise to free- holders, spoke in its preamble of the election of burgesses having been " by the votes of all persons who haveing served their tyme are ffreemen of this country." 1 Before this date (1670), all free men had possessed the privilege of electing burgesses. 2 On account of there being no evidence of any- thing like the technical freedom which existed, as has already been shown, in the New England colonies and in the Eng- lish municipal corporations, it seems reasonable to infer that the word freeman had no technical meaning here, although the qualifying phrase "of this country" gives color to an opposite belief. In the Carolina charters, and commissions, the word freemen also occurs 3 in its literal meaning, although the contrast between the words freeholders and freemen in Locke's constitution, seems to imply a technical signifi- cance. 4 As only the former could vote, the question does not particularly concern us. Penn's frame of government and the laws agreed upon in England speak of " freemen of the said province " who were to be capable of electing representatives or of being elected to the provincial council or assembly. 5 The charter of Phila- delphia speaks of persons who were free denizens of the province being admitted as freemen of the city; 6 but this is the technical freedom of a corporation on which depended certain rights not connected with the suffrage. As the statutes and charters of this province and of Delaware fix 1 22 Car. II, 2 Hening, 280. * See I Hening, 333, 403; 2 Hening, 356. 3 See I North Carolina Colonial Records, 23,80, 104, 166, 377; Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 347. 4 i Cooper, 43, especially art. 94. 5 I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37, 33. 6 Miller's Laws, 10, n. $0 HISTOR Y OF FLECTIONS the qualifications required of voters with great exactness, the use of this term is not so important from our point of view. In the Maryland charter, which was drawn up in Latin, the terms liberi tenentes^ and lib eri homines' 1 occur in such a connection as to lead to the inference that only free- holders could make laws. 3 But there seems to be a plain distinction between the words. All freeholders are freemen, but a freeman could not possibly be a freeholder, unless he owned a freehold in land. However, when the question came up for discussion, the charter was interpreted in such a manner as to destroy all distinction between the two terms and give the word freemen, in Maryland at least, a technical meaning. At one of the early assemblies when all persons were re- quired to attend either in person or by proxy (which could be done by joining in the election of a representative), and a summons was sent to all delinquents, a " certain Thomas Weston being called, pleaded he was no freeman because he had no land or certain dwelling here, &c., but being put to the question it was voted that he was a Freeman, and as such bound to his appearance by himself or proxie, whereupon he took place in the house." 4 Subsequent Maryland laws gave the franchise to freemen with a certain amount of property in freehold or in personalty. 5 That even the states- men of Rhode Island were not always perfectly clear as to the meaning of the term freeman is shown by the doubts which arose when the question of the interpretation of this word in the charter of 1664 came up. 6 In the preceding pages I have attempted to give some 1 8. * 37, see Bacon's Laws. 3 See Bozman, History of Maryland, 48, note; McMahon, History of Alary- land, 444. * Maryland Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 170. 5 Maryland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60. 8 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 29. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 5 ! idea of the indefinite character which marked the qualifica- tions required of electors in the early history of each colony. Gradually by means of legislative action, additional and more specific qualifications were imposed. The following sections will, therefore, aim to classify the tests required of electors at different times in the various colonies. Every statutory requirement which has come within the knowledge of the author has been included, although all of them may not have been in actual operation, Such, for instance, are those prescribed by constitutions like that of Locke or of the East Jersey proprietors which never went into effect, as well as those contained in statutes repealed by au- thority of the crown or of the proprietors. The qualifica- tions imposed by the latter class of statutes were gener- ally in force, however, until abrogated by the proper au- thority. Only by comparison of dates and examination of the references will it be possible for the reader to ascertain precisely what was the qualification required from a voter in any particular province at a given time. Indeed, the subject is not always free from doubt, because a new statute did not always in terms repeal a preceding one. A law might also fall into disuse through non-user, and we have the reports of very few concrete cases where questions involving the suffrage were decided by competent authority. I. Ethnic. Race qualifications were not prescribed by statute, except in the southern colonies. I know of no law that would prevent an Indian or a negro, if otherwise quali- fied, from voting in the northern colonies. It will be noted that the following provisions are all of a comparatively late date. Thus, in Virginia 1 and North Carolina * no negro, mulatto, *3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 7, 7 Hening, 519. * Laws 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 5 2 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS or Indian could vote, while in the former colony this was declared to be so, even if such persons were freeholders. North Carolina also disfranchised Mustees. 1 In South Caro- lina * and in Georgia 3 the franchise was expressly restricted to white men. Notwithstanding these laws, negroes were sometimes permitted to vote even in South Carolina. A petition to the Lords Proprietors complains of this abuse being practiced in Berkeley county in 1701 and 1703,* when " free Negroes were received and taken for as good Electors as the best freeholders in the province." 2. Political. Qualifications of this sort were rarely pre- scribed by statute. In Pennsylvania, 5 voters were required to be natural born subjects of England ; in Delaware, 6 of Great Britain. Persons naturalized in England or in Penn- sylvania could vote in either colony, while Delaware per- mitted persons naturalized within her own borders to vote. 7 Massachusetts 8 after 1664 required freemen to be Eng- 1 Laws 1715. This law as printed in 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213, omits the word Mustees, which, as we have learned through the kindness of Mr. J. C. Birdsong, Librarian of the State of North Carolina, is to be found in the original act. A Mustee (or Mestee) is the offspring of a white and a quad- roon {Century Dictionary, vol. iv.). 2 Act 1716, no. 365, xx, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1717, no. 373, i, 3 Cooper, 2; Act 1719, no. 394, iv, 3 Cooper, 50; Act 1721, no. 446, iii, 3 Cooper, 135; Act 1745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 657. 3 Act June gth, 1761. * This is given in Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 453, et seq. See also peti- tion to the English House of Lords, ibid., 462. 5 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742,67. 6 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, 2, Franklin and Hall, ed. 1752, 118; Adams, New- castle, ed. 1797, 147. 7 See also act of 1700, chap. 28, referred to in Penn's Charter of Privileges. Recorded A., Vol. I., 15, published in Appendix B of the present work. 8 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 167. Supplement to Laws, ed. 1660, Act 1664, 3; ed. 1814, 117. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 53 lishmen, 1 while in North Carolina there was the peculiar pro- vision that " no person inhabitant of this province, born out of the allegiance of his majesty and not made free," could vote. 2 The Pennsylvania frame of government of 1696 de- clared that electors must be free denizens of the government' and thus anticipated the action of the English House of Com- mons which held in 1698 that no alien, (not being a denizen or naturalized) , had any right to vote for members of parliament.* In this connection it may well be asked what was the position of the Huguenots in South Carolina. Bancroft 5 speaks of an act passed in 1696," by which the suffrage was given to all except Roman Catholics. How far this is true the writer has been unable to ascertain. In 1691, however, Governor Ludwell, acting under instructions from the pro- prietors, called an assembly in which six members were to be returned from Craven county, which was settled almost entirely by Huguenots. The journals of the assembly show that the members returned from this district took the oath of allegiance to William the Third. 7 The petition men- tioned in the preceding section complains that in 1703 "almost every Frenchman in Craven and Berkeley counties came down to elect " and was allowed to vote. 8 3. Moral. Moral qualifications were insisted on only in New England, though Virginia denied the franchise to any " convict or person convicted in Great Britain or Ireland 1 Also New Hampshire, I New Hamphire P. P., 396, but repealed. 2 Laws 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 3 I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 49. 4 12 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 367. 5 3 History of United States, 17, 1 8. 8 This is probably the act mentioned by Cooper (vol. ii, p. 130) and of which it is stated that the original cannot be found. Although diligent inquiry has been made, the writer has not been able to secure a copy of this act. 'Rivers, South Carolina, 160, 176, 181. 8 Ibid., 196, 462, 453, et seq. 54 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS during the term for which he is transported," even though such person might be a freeholder. 1 In the New England colonies moral delinquencies had a double effect. Evidence of a positive character was at one time necessary before a person could be admitted to the freedom of the colony, while the absence of correctness in moral behavior would, in certain cases, lead to the suspension of a freeman from his privileges or even to his total disfranchisement. Under conditions of the former class, Plymouth refused to admit as a freeman " any opposer of the good and wholsome laws of this colonie," or " such as refuse to do the coun- try service, being called thereunto." 2 Some years later a would-be freeman needed the testimony of his neighbors that he was of " sober and peaceable conversation."" Con- necticut required a certificate as to this, and as to hon- est and civil conversation as well, from a majority of the freemen in the town where the candidate lived. 4 A later act made necessary a certificate from the selectmen of the town where the candidate resided, to the effect that he (the candi- date) was of a " quiet and peaceable behaviour and civil conversation." That the selectmen might exercise due care in signing such certificates, they were liable to a fine of $ in case the candidate turned out otherwise than was represented. 5 After 1664 Massachusetts required a certifi- cate from the minister at the candidate's place of residence to the effect that he was not " vitious" in his life. 6 Rhode Island admitted as freemen all persons properly qualified in other respects, if they were " of civil conversation who ac- 1 3 Geo. Ill, 7, 7 Hening, 519. 2 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 113. 3 Book of General Laws, 1671,' chap. 5, 5, Brigham, 258. * I Connecticut Colonial Records, 389. 5 Session Laws, 40; Laws, ed. Cambridge, 1673, 26. 6 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 167. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 55 knowledged and are obedient to the civil magistrate." l This, as well as other provisions of a similar nature first required in the New England colonies about 1665, was probably due to the royal commission sent over at that time, and of which more will be said in the next section. 2 In order to lose the freedom of Plymouth freemen must speak contemptuously of the laws of the general court or of the court itself, or be adjudged by the court to be " grossly scandalouse, or notoriously vitious, as common lyars, drunk- ards, sucarers or doth manifestly appear to be disaffected to this government." 5 The reason given for making this enact- ment was that " some corrupt members may creep into the best and purest societies." Connecticut was less severe, and a "scandalous" freeman could be disfranchised only till " good behaviour shall cause restoration of the privilege." * The code of 1650;* expressed the law on this point in the following forcible language : " It is ordered by this Courte and decreed, that if any person within these Libberties haue beene or shall be fyned or whipped for any scandalous offence, hee shall not bee admitted after such time to haue any voate in Towne or Commonwealth, nor to serue in the Jury, vntill the Courte shall manifest theire satisfaction." The Cambridge edition of the laws, as published in 1673, gave the court of assistants power to disfranchise freemen for scandalous walking. 6 In Massachusetts disfranchisement was authorized as an additional penalty upon conviction of 1 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112; 16 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 1744, 4. 2 A similar rule as to moral qualifications was enacted in New Hampshire in 1680, but soon repealed, (i Provincial Papers, 396) . 3 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, 6, Brig- ham, 258. 4 Session Laws, 40. . 5 Title Voales, I Connecticut Colonial Records, 559. 6 P. 26, title, Freemen ; or this was done by superior court, Session Laws, 8l. 5 6 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS fornication or any "shamefull and vitious crime." 1 There was also a law that no one who was detected and convicted in any court of " any evill carriage agnt ye gouernments or churches, it being intended to be imediately doun" should be allowed to vote until he was restored to liberty by the court that convicted him.'' 4. Religious. In Massachusetts and also in the New Haven colony freemen were required to be church members. This was first ordered in the former colony as early as 1631. "To the end that the body of the freemen may be preserved of honest and good men, it is ordered," ran the statute, "that henceforth no man shall be admitted to the freedom of the commonwealth, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of this jurisdiction."* In 1660, the general court defined the meaning of this enactment to be that " no man whosoever shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politick but such as are members of some church of Christ and in full communion." 4 That this law enabled many persons to escape the liability of serving in an official capacity was shown in 1643 by the court ordering that all members of churches refusing to take their freedom should be summarily dealt with. 5 This law was ineffectual, and four years later it was enacted that all church members should be liable for public service, and fined for delinquency in that respect, just as if they had actually taken their free- dom. 6 This law did not, however, at least in terms, give these non-church members power to vote for general officers. How fully this principle of church membership was carried 1 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 562. 2 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, no. 3 Laws, ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117; I Massachusetts Colonial Records,'?*']. * Ibid.; 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. i, 420. 5 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 138. *Ibid.,20%; Laws,ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 57 out was curiously shown by the answer given to a query from Falmouth as to the best way in which the number of freemen could be increased. " It is the best expedient," said the general court, "to obteine the ends desired that those parts furnish themselues w th an able, pious & ortho- dox minister & comend that to them." 1 The measures taken by Massachusetts to preserve the " honest and good " character of her freemen seem to have attracted the attention of the English government, and in 1662 a letter was addressed to the general court on this sub- ject. The colony was requested to permit all persons with competent estates, not vicious in their conversation, and "orthodoxe in religion (though of different persuasions con- cerning church government)", to vote. In reply, the court declared the law of 1631 in reference to church member- ship to be repealed, and proceeded to lay down a series of qualifications, embodying the requirements of his Majesty's letter, as an alternative to the old rule of "full communion with some church among us." These alternative qualifica- tions included a certificate signed by the minister of the place where a would-be freeman resided, to the effect that he was orthodox in religion and not vicious in his life. As will appear later, these qualifications were possessed by so few persons, that the practical effect of the new law was to leave the religious qualifications of Massachusetts voters where they were before. 1 Soon after this, the royal commission above referred to made an investigation of the governments of the New Eng- land colonies, and, among other things, endeavored to secure a certain amount of uniformity in the qualifications for electors. Their instructions authorized them to see that 1 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 452 (1670). * /UiV., pt. ii, 117, 165, 166, 177; Laws, ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117. t; 8 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS "persons of good and honest conversations, who haue lieued long there may enjoy all the priuledges .... as to choose .... into places of government .... that differences of opinion doe not lessen their charity to each other, since char- ity is a fundamentall in religion." 1 In pursuance of their mis- sion the commissioners wrote to the general court of Massa- chusetts. In reply they received a copy of the law of 1664, already mentioned. This was unsatisfactory, and so the Commission addressed the following letter to the colony: "You haue so tentered the king's qualliffications as in making him only who paieth ten shillings to a single rate to be of compe- tent estate, that when the king shall be enformd, as the trueth is, that not one church member in an hundred payes so much & yt in a toune of an hundred inhabitants, scarse three such men are to be found, wee feare that the king will rather finde himself deluded than satisfied by your late act." 2 The court did not, however, pay any attention to this re- monstrance, and finally the commissioners requested that the phrase " none be admitted freemen but such as are members of some of the churches w lth in the limitts of this jurisdiction, may be explained, and comphend such as are members of y e church of England." The writer has not been able to find that even this was done. 8 Non-church members, however, could still vote under the law of 1662, though they were required to pass through a long period of probation. 4 Under the Massachusetts charter of 1691 there was no rule limiting the exercise of the suffrage to church members. New Haven also insisted upon all freemen being church members. This was decided at the first meeting of the 1 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 192. 2 1665, ibid,, 205. 3 4 Idem, 212. 4 1673, ibid,, 562; 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 385, repealed in 1682-3. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 59 New Haven planters in I639, 1 and again provided for by the constitution of i643. 2 Milford had let in six free burgesses who were not members of " approved churches," and after some hesitation the general court seems to have allowed these six to retain their freedom upon being cautioned, but they were not allowed to vote for magistrates, " neither per- sonally nor by proxi." 3 They might act in town-business "wherein the combination was not interested," and might vote for deputies to be sent to the general court, provided deputies were always church members. The. royal commis- sion of 1665 seems to have addressed the governments of both Rhode Island and Connecticut on the subject of elec- toral qualifications. In the former colony a law was passed requiring a profession of Christianity, 4 though Roman Cath- olics were debarred ; while in Connecticut the request of the commissioners was noted in the records in language similar to that used in the first letter to Massachusetts, and ac- companied only by the simple remark, " our order judged consonant." 5 New Plymouth at about the same time, and possibly because of this royal interference required freemen to be orthodox in the fundamentals of religion." In the South, Locke's constitution provided that "no man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina .... that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshiped." 7 In South Carolina a statute 1 1 New Haven Colonial Records, 15. 2 Ibid., 112. 5 Ibid., no. These six free burgesses of Milford were specially exempted in the provisions of the constitution which required church membership as a qualifi- cation for voters. Ibid., 112. *2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 110-113; J 6 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 1744,4. See p. 63, post. 5 1 Connecticut Colonial Records, 439. 6 Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, 5, Brigham, 258. 1 Art. 94, I Cooper, South Carolina Laws, 43. 60 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS enacted in 1716 required voters to profess the Christian re- ligion. 1 The foregoing pages include all the qualifications of a positive character, so far as the writer has been able to as- certain. Persons professing certain religions were in some cases denied the privilege of voting. For instance, Quakers were strictly debarred from becoming freemen in Massachu- setts, 2 and in Plymouth. 3 In Rhode Island, the principles of religious toleration were practiced, and Quakers were ad- mitted as freemen. The commissioners of the United Colo- nies tried to prevent this, 4 but their efforts were futile. This is shown by the king's commissioners, who reported in 1665 that all religions, even Quakers and Generalists, were ad- mitted to this colony. 5 Although Quakers were not in terms disfranchised in the other colonies, their scruples against taking oaths often de- barred them from voting. In order to permit them to take part in elections, clauses enabling Quakers and others to affirm or declare the effect of the oaths required of voters 6 were frequently inserted in the statutes. " Ranters or any such corrupt persons," " manifest opposers of the true wor- ship of God," "manifest encurragers " of Quakers "soe 1 Act 1716, no. 365, xx; 2 Cooper, 683. 2 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 88; Laws, ed. 1814, 107. 3 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 113. 4 I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 374 etseq. 5 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 128. 6 So, for example, New York (" Quakers or one of Unitas Fratrum," 1 1 Geo. Ill, chap. 1490, Van Schaack's Laws, 620) ; Rhode Island (20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13); New Jersey (12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Allinson's Laws, 69, Nevill's Laws, 142); Pennsylvania (4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1752, 67); Dela- ware (7 Geo. II, chap. 6 1 a, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, no, Adams ed., 1797, 147) ; Maryland (here Quakers were declared liable to affirm as to all oaths to be taken by others, but they were not to be debarred for not swearing: 1724, 10 Charles, Lord Baltimore, chap. 7, Bacon's Laws') ; Virginia (n Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172 ; 10 Geo. II, chap. 2, vii,4 Hening, 475); South Carolina (Act 1704, no. 227, v, 2 Cooper, 249). IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 6 1 judged by the court," could not be freemen in Plymouth, although this colony did not in so many words require church membership. 1 " Apostates from the fundamentals of reli- gion" could be disfranchised. 2 In England the right of Quakers to vote upon declaring the effect of the elector's oath on their affirmation was recognized by the statute of 10 Anne, chap. 23, 8. In 1690, however, the House of Commons had decided that the refusal to take the oath rendered Quakers incapable of voting for knights of the shire. 3 Just before yielding to the royal commands, under the pretense of permitting non-church members to become freemen, Massachusetts, in furtherance of her laudable desire to preserve the "good and honest character" of her freemen, had passed a law which recounted the dangers she had found by experience to exist within her boundaries from those of her inhabitants who were " enemies to all government, civil and ecclesiastical, who will not yield obedience to authority, but make it much of their religion to be in opposition thereto," and who carried out their designs by electing wicked per- sons, and so forth. . In consequence of all these evils, it was enacted, that " all persons, quakers or others, which refuse to attend upon the public worship of God established here ; that all such persons, whether freemen or others, acting as afore- said" should be incapable of voting "during their obstinate persistency in such wicked ways and courses, and until cer- tificate be given of their reformation." This law, it may be remarked, was not repealed 4 while the colonial charter re- mained in force. It seems to have been the rule in most of the American col- onies that Roman Catholics could not vote. They were spe- 1 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 113. 2 Book of General Laws, 1671, Brigham, 258. 8 IO Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 396. * 1663, /^Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 88; Laws, ed 1814, 105. 62 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS cifically disfranchised by the statutes of New York ' and Maryland. 2 In these two governments persons suspected of popish beliefs were required, before being permitted to vote, to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and to sign the test and association. Popish recusants were disfranchised in New York 3 and Virginia.* An early law of New Hamp- shire, which was repealed immediately after it was enacted, required freemen to be Protestants. 5 In the absence of further information the writer does not feel justified in asserting that Roman Catholics were debarred from voting in all the colonies. The laws just cited were enacted dur- ing the eighteenth century, and were confined to four pro- vinces. The provisions in regard to church membership in Massachusetts during the government under the charter of 1628, would doubtless have excluded Roman Catholics. On the other hand, the religion of the Baltimores and the general character of their government would see'm to justify the belief that before the royal regime commenced in 1689 papists could vote in Maryland. On general principles it would seem that every man could vote, unless he was specifi- cally debarred by statute. Possibly there never were enough Roman Catholics outside of the colonies mentioned to make special legislative action necessary. Nothing can be as- sumed from the analogy of England, for the writer has there found no law depriving papists of the suffrage. They could not, it is true, hold office, 6 possess, inherit or purchase 1 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, Van Schaack's Laws, 40. See also Leisler's illegal election in New York City, " by Protestant freeholders" (3 New York Colonial Documents, 675), which took place ten years before the statute of 13 Will. III. 2 3 Charles, Lord Baltimore, chap. I, 3(171 8) Bacon's Laws; "Profest Papists." 3 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, I, Van Schaack's Laws, 40. 4 "Recusants convict," n Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; "recusant," 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, 7, 7 Hening, 519. 5 I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396. 6 Statute 30 Car. II, Stat. 2, chap. i. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 63 land, 1 and they were forbidden the king's or queen's pres- ence ;* but it does not necessarily follow from those facts that they could not vote for members of the House of Com- mons. They might not have been permitted to exercise their suffrage if they had tried, but that does not mean that they were disfranchised. There has been a great deal of discussion in regard to the statute of Rhode Island which debarred Roman Catholics. The first printed edition of the laws, published in- 1719, con- tained the phrase " all men professing Christianity though of differing judgements in religious affairs (Roman Catholicks only excepted.y^ The marginal note states that this law was passed in 16 Charles II. As a matter of fact neither the original copy of the statute enacted at that time, nor the letter from the King of England, in consequence of which that law was passed, contains the words italicised in the above extract. 4 If we believe that the inhabitants of Rhode Island acted consistently with their second charter, there can be no doubt that they would not have dared to pass a law abridging the exercise of a particular religion. It is therefore gener- ally believed, at the present time, that the words in regard to religious te.sts were interpolated at some later date, possi- bly not till 1 7 19 when they first appear and then perhaps with the hope of currying favor with the home government. The clause in regard to Roman Catholics again appeared in the editions and digests published in 1730, 1745 and 1767. As the law was not repealed until 1783, there can be no doubt that persons professing this religion could not vote during the greater part of the eighteenth century. At 1 1 1, 12, 13 Will. Ill, chap. 4, 4; I Geo. I, Stat. 2, chap. 55. * 30 Car. II, Stat. 2, chap. 2. s Page 3. 4 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 1 10-1 13. 64 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS any rate the founders of the colony seem to be exculpated from the charge of inconsistency. 1 The writer has found in two colonies evidence tending to prove that Jews could not legally vote. The first authority is the decision of the New York assembly, when it set- tled the contested election case of Philipse vs. Van Home, in 1737. The language employed by the house in rendering its decision, indicates that Jews were debarred from voting in England also. 2 The petition of the South Carolina as- semblymen, which has already been referred to, complains that Jews were illegally permitted to vote. 3 The absence of further mention of the Jewish race is perhaps sufficiently accounted for by the conjecture that its numbers were few in the American colonies. 5. Age. It may be stated as a general proposition that electors were required to be twenty-one years of age.* That 1 The whole subject is treated exhaustively in S. S. Rider, An inquiry concern- ing the origin of the clause in the laws of Rhode Island (17191783) disfranchising Roman Catholics (1889). W. E.Foster, Esq., Librarian of the Providence Pub- lic Library, furnishes the following additional references on the subject : Chalmers, Political Annals, 276 et seq.; I Arnold, Rhode Island, 488 et seq.; Walsh, Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain, 430; Proceedings of the Rhode Island His- torical Society, 1872-3, 64; 2 Douglass, Summary, 83; 3 Narrative and Critical History of America, 379-80; 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 36 note. 2 " Resolved that it not appearing to this House that Persons of the Jewish Religion have a right to be admitted to Vote for Parliament men in Great Brit- ain, it is the unanimous Opinion of this House that they ought not to be admitted to vote for Representatives in this colony. Die Veneris, Sept. 23, 1 737. I Jour- nal New York Assembly, 712; 6 New York Colonial Documents, 56. 'Rivers, Sorith Carolina, 206, 453 etseq., 462. 4 Plymouth: Laws,\d"j\, Brigham, 258; Connecticut: I Connecticut Colonial Records, 382; 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, n; Session Laws, 40; New York: 1 1 Will, III, chap. 74, 9, Van Schaack's Laws, 28, " No infant under twenty- one shall elect;" Pennsylvania: Frame of Government, 1696, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 49, Laws 1700, chap. 28, referred to in Charter of Privileges; chap. 129, 4 Anne, Franklin ed., 1742,67; Delaware: 7 Geo. II, 2, Franklin and Hall, ed. 1752, 118; Adams, 1797, 147; Virginia: " infants under 21 " disquali- IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. gtj minors did sometimes vote, though illegally, appears from the account of an eye-witness of an election in North Carolina about 1 70S. 1 In England by the statute of 7 & 8 William III, chap. 25, 8, minors were forbidden to vote for members of Parliament. To this rule there are very few exceptions. The act of Massachusetts which provided a substitute for the one single qualification of church membership de- clared that freemen must be at least twenty-four years old. 2 This was copied in an early New Hampshire law. 3 In Rhode Island the only statement in regard to an age qualification was that made in 1665 in reply to the letter of the royal commission. After mentioning an oath to be taken by freemen, and stating that if they did not take it, they could not vote for officers, the records go on to say that the oath was taken by all housekeepers aged eighteen or more. This does not, however, necessarily mean that persons of that age could vote. 4 Plymouth had a peculiar law that " in reference to military concernments noe single persons under twenty years of age either children or serv- ants shall voate as to that accompt." 5 6. Sexual. There seems to have been no women's rights party in the colonies ; it was thus not found necessary to ex- pressly debar women from the privilege of voting, except in Virginia. In that colony it was enacted that " no woman, sole or covert," even though a freeholder, should have a fied, 7 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 7, 7 Hening, 519; North Carolina: 33 Geo. II, chap, i, 4, Davis ed., 1773, 247; South Carolina: Act 1716, no. 365, 20, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 657; Georgia: Act June 9th, 1761. 'Pollock's Letter Book, I North Carolina Colonial Records, 696; 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 511. 2 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 166; ed. Laws, 1814, 117. 8 I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396. 4 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112. 5 Laws, 1667, Brigham, 151. 66 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS voice in the election of burgesses. 1 In New England the restriction of the suffrage to freemen of a colony would necessarily debar women. In a statute prescribing the qualification of voters from the town of Wilmington, North Carolina, the word man was several times used in describ- ing an elector. 2 7. Residential. In the early history of each colony there was, as has already been explained, very little definite- ness in regard to the qualification of voters. The warrants or the royal commissions by virtue of which the earlier elections were held are full of such expressions as the "freeholders of the province," 3 "the freeholders in thy bailiwick," 4 "free- holders of your county," 5 " inhabitants," 6 or "freemen in- habiting" a certain place. 7 Such phrases, vague as they may seem, undoubtedly imply residence in an elector. The writer conceives it to be true, though he cannot show a great deal of authority, that residence within the government, province or territory, was generally required. 8 1 II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, 7 Hening, 519. 2 Act 1740, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 114. 3 3 North Carolina Colonial Records, 68. 4 Pennsylvania, 1682, i Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 234. 5 N. Y., 1 683, Introduction to Journal of Legislative Council, xiv. 6 Virginia, 1621, I Hening, no; North Carolina, 1667, I North Carolina Colonial Records, 80. 7 Maryland Archives, i Assembly, 27, 28. 8 In support of this view may be cited the expressions : those that " do cohabit within this jurisdiction," as expressed in the first American constitution, that of Hartford in 1638 (i Connecticut Colonial Records, 21); the limitation to those " cohabiting upon the island" at Newport, before the formation of the Confed- eracy (i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 125), and "inhabitants within the col- ony," afterward (Franklin ed., 1730, i); "every planter and inhabitant dwelling and residing within the Province" (East Jersey Concessions, 1683, Learning and Spicer, 153); "inhabitants, freeholders or proprietors resident upon the said province" (West Jersey Concessions, chap. 32,- Learning and Spicer, 385; also Pennsylvania Laws, 1682, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37) ; "freemen of IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 67 'In four colonies the length of residence within the govern- ment was defined. This was two years in Pennsylvania, 1 and Delaware, 2 and six months in Georgia. 3 In North Carolina, a full year's residence in the government was at one time necessary, 4 but before 1734 this was reduced to six months' residence within the precinct. 5 Other provinces had more specific provisions on this subject. Thus, in Rhode Island, no person could vote except in the town where he lived, 6 and New Jersey under the royal government, required a residence of one whole year in the county, city, or town, 7 where the voter was polled. In South Carolina the necessity for a period of residence as a qualification for voters seems to have been fully appreciated. In 1693, the proprietors disallowed an act giv- ing the privilege of electing representatives to persons worth 10. One of the re'asons for their action was because "these act not mentioning how long any person worth ten pounds must have been an Inhabitant of the Country before he be admitted to vote for members of the assembly, it is so loose that by this act, all the Pyrates that were in the Shipp that had been pilundering on the Red Sea had been quali- fied to vote for representatives, which being of dangerous this province" {Maryland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60) ; " settled inhabitants in this jurisdiction" as used in Massachusetts (4 Massachusetts Colonial Records,^. ii, 117, 167; Laws ed., 1814, 117 [also in Plymouth, Laws, 1667, Brigham, 151]) and New Hampshire (i New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396). 1 Frame of Government of 1696, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 149; Laws 1700, chap. 28, referred to in Charter of Privileges; 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 2 7 Ceo. II, chap. 6ia; Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams, 1797, 147. "Act June gth, 1761. * Laws, 1715, chap. 10; 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 5 8 Geo. II, chap. 2; 17 Geo. II, chap. 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. For the first act see appendix B. 6 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 7 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 68 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS consequence to the Inhabitants we have dissented." 1 In 1704 a personal residence in the county and precinct for three months next preceding the date of the writs for the election was required, 2 possibly with a view of remedy- ing the abuses at a recent election, when it is said, strangers and sailors had been allowed to vote. 3 Twelve years later this was replaced by six months' residence in the province and parish,* and seafaring and other transient men, not owning freeholds or liable to pay taxes on personal property, were debarred from voting. In 1721 the time of residence was finally fixed at one year within the county. 5 In New York and Virginia the laws appear to be silent as to general resi- dence qualifications, but persons voting in New York City and Albany in their capacity of freemen must have resided there three months,* while in Williamsburg, Virginia, holders of the town franchise must have had an actual residence of twelve months. 7 The former provision was probably aimed at the practice, which seems to have existed, of giving free- doms to sailors and other non-residents, in order to let them vote for assemblymen. 3 In some colonies the elector voted solely by virtue of his freehold, and in such cases residence was not considered of any importance. Thus New Hamp- shire passed a law enabling property holders, though non- 1 April loth, 1693, Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 437. This is probably the act mentioned in 2 Cooper, 73, act no. 78, of which it is stated the original is lost; this act was, however, to be temporary. 2 Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 149. 3 Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 462, 453 et seq. * Act 1716, no. 365, xx, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1717, no. 373, i, ii, 3 Cooper, 2. 5 Act 1721, no. 446, iii, 3 Cooper, 135. 6 ii Will. Ill, chap. 74, 10, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 7 15 Geo. II, chap. 26, 11,5 Hening, 204. The act of 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hen- ing, 236, required an elector to be a resident of the county in which he voted. * 4 New York Colonial Documents, 127-9. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 6 9 residents, to vote, 1 and in New York a complaint against the sheriffs for conspiring to hold all the elections on the same day, so as to prevent freeholders having estates in several counties from voting in each, shows that it was a common practice for non-resident freeholders to exercise the elective franchise. 2 In 1737 this was decided by the legislature in the contested election case of Philipse vs. Van Home to be a legal usage. 3 The writer has found no trace of a system of plural voting in any other colony. In England the question of residence was treated as early as 1413, by the statute of i Henry V, chap I, (3). This enacted that " the knights and esquires and others which shall be choosers of these knights of the shires, be also resi- dent within the same shires in manner and form as afore- said ;" that is, "at the day of the date of the writ of the summons of the parliament." + The laws requiring electors to reside within the counties in which their freeholds were situated, were repealed in 1774.* 8. Property. A. THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. The property qualification in the American colonies is a subject of great importance. The qualifications mentioned in the preced- ing sections were for the most part confined to particular portions of the continent. For example, the religious 1 i Geo. II, chap. 107, 2; Fowle ed., 1771, 166. *4 New York Colonial Documents, 127-9. 8 6 New York Colonial Documents, 56. 4 Troward, Elections, London, 1790, 5; Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elec- tions, 109, quotes this statute and uses the word chosen instead of choosers ; Gneist, History of the English Constitution, vol. ii, chap. 25, 5 (p. 35), says that by this act electors were to be resident in the county. This seems more reasonable as the word chosen would merely repeat another clause of the same act in slightly different language. The question was, however, settled in favor of residence within the county where the freehold lay, by the statutes of 8 Henry VI, chap. 7, and 10 Henry VI, chap. 2. 5 Statute 14 Geo. Ill, chap. 58. 70 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS and moral qualifications, which were predominant during the seventeenth century, were practically limited to the colonies most directly under Puritan influence. When Massachusetts and Plymouth lost their independent status by their union under the charter of 1691 property replaced religion as the main test of a man's right to vote. In every province, whether royal or proprietary, there was introduced, beginning in the latter part of the seventeenth century, some sort of property qualification, and the tend- ency during the middle of the eighteenth century, was toward a certain amount of uniformity in this respect throughout the colonies. In Rhode Island there were, as we shall see, violent fluctuations in the property qualifica- tion, and at one time the enormous sum of four hundred pounds or twenty pounds a year, was required. In considering the history of the property qualification in this country it will be well to examine at the outset the development in the oldest of the colonies, namely, Virginia. By the constitution and ordinance of 1621, as issued by the treasurer and company in England, all inhabitants of the colony were to have a vote in the choice of burgesses. 1 For upwards of thirty years this was the rule, until in 1655 a law was passed limiting the franchise to " all housekeepers, whether ffreeholders, leaseholders or otherwise tenants." ' 2 But in less than a year this statute was repealed, because, said the house of burgesses, "we conceive it something hard and unagreeable to reason that any persons shall pay equall taxes and yet have no votes in elections." 3 It was not long, however, before the harshness of this rule was lost sight of, and the house of burgesses in 1670 dis- 1 Art. iv, I Hening, 112. ' 2 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii, I Hening, 411. 3 6 Commonwealth^ Act xvi, I Hening, 403. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. ji covered that the voting " of all persons, who haveing served their tyme are firemen of this country, who haveing little interest in the country doe oftner make tumults at the election to the disturbance of his majesties peace, then by their discretions in their votes provide for the conservasion thereof, by making choyce of persons fitly qualifyed for so greate a trust." Besides this, they remembered that " the lawes of England grant a voice in such election only to such as by their estates, real or personall have interest enough to tye them to the endeavour of the publique good." Therefore, they enacted that only " ffreeholders and house keepers who are answerable to the publique for the levies, shall hereafter have a voice in the election of any burgess in this country." 1 That the people did not look with unmixed satisfaction upon this limitation of tjie suffrage is shown by the action of the assembly called during Bacon's revolt in 1676, which repealed the law of 22 Charles II, and admitted all freemen to a share in the choice of burgesses, 2 When the rebellion was put down th'is act was repealed, and as far as Virginia was concerned, non-free- holders were permanently deprived of the privilege of voting. Turning now to England, we find that the history of the county franchise, which corresponds to what we are at pres- ent considering in the American colonies, was similar to the development in Virginia. We have the authority of that learned scholar, William Prynne, for the statement that origi- nally " every inhabitant and commoner in each county had a voyce in the election of knights whether he were freeholder or not, or had a freehold only of one penny, sixpence or twejvepence by the year." 3 But early in the fifteenth cen- tury the famous statutes of 8 Henry VI, chap. 7, and 10 Henry VI, chap. 2,* were enacted, and in accordance with 1 22 Car. II, Act iii, 2 Hening, 220. * 2 Hairing, 425. 3 revia Parliamentaria JRediviva, 187. * 143 and 1432. 7 2 'HIS TOR Y OF ELE CTIOA'S their provisions the elective franchise was limited to holders of "free land or tenement to the value of forty shillings by the year, at the least, above all charges." Notwithstanding the statement in the preamble of the Virginia statute' just quoted, a freehold was necessary to qualify county electors in England all through the colonial period, and no amount of personal property would serve as a substitute. In America the forty shilling freehold franchise was recog- nized in Massachusetts by the charter 1 of 1691, as well as in Rhode Island, 2 and Connecticut. 3 In all of these colonies, however, the forty shilling freehold was merely an alternative qualification. In New England, as in Virginia, there was no property qualification required at first, and the writer is of the opinion that with the possible exception of Connecticut its introduction was due solely to the interference of the Crown, already mentioned under the subject of religious qualifications. 4 In support of this view it can be shown that upon receipt of the royal mandate that electors should be "men of competent es- tates" 5 some sort of property qualification was adopted or declared by the general courts of the four colonies affected. Thus Plymouth* 5 allowed holders of " twenty pounds rate- able estate, at the least, in the government" to be made free- men, and Massachusetts embodied in the qualifications offered as an alternative to church membership, a clause giving the suffrage to freeholders, " for their own proper es- tate (without heads of persons), rateable to the country in a single country rate, after the usual manner of valuation in the 1 I Ames and Goodell, n. S 4 Geo. I, Fianklin ed., 1730, 131; Kail, Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 3 Session Laws, 40. 4 See p. 57 ante. 5 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 166; 2 Rhode Island Colonial Rec- ords, no; I Connecticut Colonial Records, 439. 6 Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, 5, Brigham, 258. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES, 73 place where they live to the full value of ten shillings," and who were householders as well. 1 When these two colonies were united the qualification of voters was fixed by the charter in the following language : "Noe Freeholder or other person shall have a vote in the Eleccon of Members to serve in any Create and General Court or Assembly to be held as aforesaid who at the time of such Eleccon shall not have an estate of freehold in Land within Our said Province or Terri- tory to the value of Forty Shillings per Annu at the least, or other estate to the value of Forty pounds SterF." 2 In accordance with the proposals of the crown, Rhode Is- land in 1665 enacted simply that electors should be men of " competent estates." 3 The property qualification remained thus indefinite until 1723 when it was decided that a " freeman must be a freeholder of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments in such towns where he shall be admitted free, of the value of one hundred pounds or to the value of 40 shillings per a."' In 1730 the requirement was raised to two hundred pounds or ten pounds a year, 5 and in 1747 it was still further increased to four hundred pounds or twenty pounds a year. 6 In 1767 the real estate of a freeman must be worth forty pounds or 1 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 167; Laws, ed. 1814, 117. 3 1 Ames and Goodell, II. There has been considerable doubt as to whether forty or fifty pounds is the correct version of the last clause. It appears from the report of the Attorney General and the acceptance of the Colonial agents, as con- tained in the minutes of the Plantations committee of the Privy Council that fifty is correct, but it is said that the copy of the charter sent to Massschusetts con- tained the word forty. The Boston government seems to have acted on the latter assumption and the home government on the former, for it disallowed several laws because they contained the word forty, which was the qualification in New York and in Rhode Island. In the printed editions of the acts, the word forty is men- tioned three times, and fifty occurs four times. See I Ames and Goodell, 249, 282,315,363. 3 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 1 1 2. 4 9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730, 131. 5 3 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1 730, 206. 6 20 Geo. II., Franklin ed., 1 752, 1 3. 74. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS else must bring in a yearly rental of forty shillings. 1 Rhode Island was .the only American colony which per- mitted a man to vote by virtue of his birth. This franchise was given in 1723 to the eldest son of a freeman, 2 and it seems to have existed for a number of years. If a freeman, who was such by virtue of his being the eldest son of a free- holder qualified to vote, died with issue, the second son of the freeholder was not to be made a freeman because of his father's freehold. 3 This franchise was doubtless derived from the English rule permitting the heir apparent of a peer or of a freeman to vote. 4 In 1658, just before the royal interference, Connecticut had prescribed a qualification of thirty pounds proper personal estate, (those who had held office were exempt from this quali- fication,) and in 1662 had changed this to " twenty pounds es- tate beside the person in the list of estate," so that the request of the royal commissioners was dismissed with the words " our order judged consonant." 5 If the qualification of 1662 was meant to be realty and in the light of a subsequent enact- ment, 6 the writer believes it was not the " order " of Connec- ticut could hardly be "consonant." The Cambridge edition of the Laws of Connecticut speaks of the property qualifica- tions of freemen as being "willed by our Royal Soveraign " to be "twenty pownd Estate in Housing or Land, besides their personal Estate in the Common List." 7 In 1675 a statute provided that in addition to " these other qualifications 1 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 2 9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730,131; also 209, 252; Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 3 Hall's Code, Title Elections, 78. 4 See Troward, Eleclions, 76, 1 67 ; Statutes 9 Anne, chap. 5 ; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15. 5 1 Connecticut Colonial Records, 331, 389, 439. 6 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 253. 7 Title Freemen, 26. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 75 expressed in the former law" a freeman must have in the " List of Estates ten pownd estate in land beside their personal es- tate." 1 In 1689* a freehold estate of forty shillings in county pay was prescribed, while the session laws finally placed the property qualification at a " freehold estate to the value of forty shillings per an., or forty pounds personal estate." 3 The first provision in regard to property qualifications in New Hampshire is found in a law passed by the first Assem- bly, but soon repealed. This simply provided for " a ratable estate of twenty pounds without heads of persons."* An act of 1691 probably copied the Massachusetts charter when it required voters to be freeholders of the value of forty pounds a year, or worth fifty pounds in personal estate. 5 After 1729 only freeholders with an estate of fifty pounds in the town, parish or precinct in which they voted could elect representatives. 6 In New York the first Charter of Liberties declared that all freeholders in the province had a voice in the election of representatives, and a freeholder was defined to be " every one who is so understood according to the laws of England." 7 The second charter explained that a freeholder was a person who had forty shillings a year in freehold." A later general act limited the county franchise to persons holding " Land or Tenements, improved to the Value of Forty pounds in Freehold, free from all encumbrances." 9 When we come to consider the more southern colonies we 1 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 253. The royal proposals as expressed to Massachusetts certainly required voters to be freeholders, and the quotation just given from the Cambridge edition of the laws bears out this view. The language of the law of 1675 seems to imply that no estate in land had been required before this time. So, on the whole, the meaning of the earlier enactments seems doubtful. *4 Connecticut Colonial Records, n. 3 Session Laws, 40. 4 1680, I Provincial Papers, 396. 5 n Will. Ill, 3 Provincial Papers, 216. 6 i Geo. Ill, chap. 107, Fowle ed., 1761, 142; ed. 1771, 166. 7 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 659. "Bradford ed., 1710, I. s II Will. Ill, chap. 74, I, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 76 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS find that the general criterion for determining the amount of the real estate qualification was not so much its value as its area. So in East Jersey, 1 Pennsylvania, 2 Delaware, 3 Mary- land, 4 North Carolina, 5 and Georgia, 6 fifty acres was the re- quired amount of land. Of these fifty acres East Jersey re- quired ten acres to be cultivated ; in Pennsylvania the same number must have been " seated and cleared," though after 1700 twelve acres must be "cleared an an d fearing lest his action might not be approved, he inserted the clause giving the general court power to pre- scribe the method to be followed in elections. This suppo- sition, as well as the language employed in the New Haven statute, confirms the belief already expressed, 1 that in Massa- chusetts, as well as in New Haven, the identical corn and beans cast in the town "proxings" were sent to the general court of election. The Hartford Constitution of 1638 expressly provided that the written ballot should be used in the election of offi- cers. Each elector brought to the teller a single piece of paper with the name of his choice for governor written on it, and the candidate receiving the greatest number of such votes was declared elected. 2 With the exception of the as- sistants, the other general officers were elected by ballot, and no change appears to have been made in the practice. For the election of magistrates or assistants a peculiar method was followed both in the general court and in the town " proxings." As has been above explained, all candi- dates for the office were nominated in advance. 3 When the governor and deputy governor could be chosen only from those in nomination, each freeman could vote for any name on the list. As soon as these two officers had been chosen, the secretary read the names of those in nomination, and then " severally nominated them distinctly." As each name was put up, the freemen handed to the teller pieces of paper. Those papers upon which something had been written (not necessarily the name of the candidate) were votes in favor of the nominee ; the blanks were votes against him. All per- sons having more written papers than blanks were elected, but in case less than six were chosen, then a sufficient num- 1 See p. 143, ante. 2 I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 3 See p. 121, ante. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. i 5 i ber of those having the most written papers were taken to fill up the quota of six. 1 This was the method laid down by the constitution of 1638 and it was doubtless modelled after the Massachusetts law of i635. 2 Under the charter of 14 Charles II, the same plan was fol- lowed with some elaborations. The general court seems to have arranged the list of persons in nomination, and this came to be of importance, for it was required that the names should be proposed in the order in which they were placed on the list, and as soon as the number of assistants allowed by the charter had been chosen the election was to cease."' In the town " proxings," however, the names of all the nom- inees were proposed in turn, so that a freeman could always vote for any one he pleased, so long as his name was on the list/ The rule prevailing in the town " proxings" seems to have been extended to the general court in 1692, when it was ordered that the proceedings should be as formerly, " onely all those that stand for nomination shall pass through the election;" 5 and that those having the most votes should be elected. 6 After 1750, when freemen could no longer attend the general court, it was provided that no elector could vote for more than twelve assistants. 7 Before this he could vote on the whole list, and if he were opposed to any particular candidate he could signify his dislike by putting a blank bal- lot into the hat. Under the new system, however, he could still vote against the nominee, but at the price of forfeiting a vote in favor of some one else, for all his ballots both affirm- ative and negative must not exceed twelve in number. The effect of this method of choosing assistants appears to 1 I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. * See p. 142, ante. 3 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 133. 4 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1 1 ; "a white piece'of paper " to be a blank vote. 5 Ibid., 8l. 6 Session Laws, ed. 1715, 30. 7 Ibid., ed. 1750, 45. 152 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS have been to make few changes among the incumbents of these offices. The names of those already in office. were generally placed at the head of the list of the nominees, and for that reason they were nearly always elected. A contem- porary writer 1 says that many electors usually retired be- fore the close of the voting, but that the expectation of reelection was not strong enough to remove all fear of popu- lar restraint from the court of assistants. Accordingly, the power of the legislature to arrange the order of the names of the eight nominees not in office, had a considerable influence which could be exerted in the direction of maintaining the court of assistants on a footing representing the conserva- tism of twenty years back, as was indeed actually the case. The two houses of the legislature had separated in 1698, and the lower house always contended that when a vacancy occurred in the office of Governor, the two houses should sit in convention in order to exercise their power as conferred by charter, of choosing a person to serve during the unexpired term. But the houses appear to have sat separately on such occasions, and while in 1707, their votes were combined.' 2 in 1724 the candidate having a majority of the votes of each house was declared elected. 3 In order to be elected during the later years of the colonial government, a candidate was required to receive a majority of all the votes cast. If this did not happen, the assembly elected the officer. 4 The commentator who has already been quoted, gives an account of the proceedings at Hartford on election day, during the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the freemen took no part in the proceedings except to look on and listen. The representatives met in their chamber at 1 I Swift, System of the Laws of Connecticut, 84. * 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 38. . 3 Ibid,, 484. See also 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 416. * 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 453. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. JEJ3 eight o'clock and elected their speaker and clerk. Creden- tials were then presented, and the members sworn. A mes- sage was sent to the outgoing governor and council, who had meanwhile met in the council chamber. Both houses then marched in procession to the meeting-house, where the elec- tion sermon was preached. This done, the houses retired to their apartments and appointed committees to count the votes that had been cast in the towns more than a month before. When the canvass was completed, the persons elected were publicly proclaimed and sworn into office. 1 Coming as it generally did in the spring time after the rigors of winter had departed, we may believe that the day of the general court of election was the New England holiday. In two of the colonies a typical feature of the celebration was the preaching of an election sermon. Gov- ernor Winthrop tells us in his Journal that the position of preacher was regarded as one of very great honor, and that the freemen strictly insisted on the privilege of selecting the clergyman who was to deliver the discourse, and claimed it as a part of their liberty. The magistrates do not seem to have dared to openly contest the question with the freemen or with their deputies.' 2 In the colonial records of Connecticut, we find continual references to the subject of election 'sermons, and they were preached down to the very close of the colonial period. 3 This custom was found to be so effectual for the promotion of honesty in elections, that in 1708 the general court re- solved to send a letter to all ministers of the gospel resident in the colony, asking them to preach on election day before 1 I Swift, System of the Laws of Connecticut, 70. 2 I Winthrop's New England, 31, 218. 3 1775, 15 Connecticut Colonial Records, 271. An extract from one of them is given in 3. Connecticut Colonial Records, 179. 154 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS the freemen of each plantation, a sermon " proper for direc- tion in the choice of civil rulers." 1 Feasting also seems to have formed a part of the pro- gramme, and, strange as it may seem, in a colony so strictly governed " according to the word of God," as was New Haven, we find the following entry in the records under date of 1653 : " Ordered that a dinner should be provided at y e ordinary for the court and whom they shall invite, vpon the election day, at the publique charge of the jurisdiction, but after euery towne is to pvide for theire owne magistrates and deputies." 2 2) Election of Deputies. The course of procedure to be followed at the town courts where deputies were chosen does not seem to have been regarded as a matter of great import- ance, because very little general legislation bearing on the subject is to be found. For instance, it is not entirely clear whether, in case a town was entitled to more than one representative, each elector placed the names of all the per- sons he voted for on a single ticket, or on several. We shall see that the written ballot was generally used in New England even under the royal governments. Thus in Mas- sachusetts, after 1635, deputies were elected "by papers as the Gou'n r is chosen," 3 while the laws of Plymouth and New Hampshire contain no provisions on this subject. The writ- ten ballot was so firmly established in Massachusetts that it continued to be used under the charter of 1691, by virtue of a statute which required electors to hand in their votes un- folded. 4 In Rhode Island it was enacted that the free inhabitants of the towns should elect committees of six to represent 1 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 61. 2 2 New Haven Colonial Records, 52. 3 I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 157; Laws, ed. 1660, 25; ed.,i8i4, 97. 4 Laws 1693-4, chap 14, 7, I Ames and Goodell, 147. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 155 them at the general court, and that if the number were in- complete, the men of the town, if freemen of the colony, should fill vacancies by an election to be held at the town where the court sat. 1 But this custom seems to have fallen into disuse, for we find that the Earl of Bellmont complained that deputies were chosen by the town council rather than by the inhabitants. 2 By the Hartford Constitution of 1638, it was provided that the election of deputies should be by ballot, and voters were required to "bring in written on severall papers" the names of those they desired chosen. The three or four having the greatest number of papers were to be deputies to the next general court. 3 In this case it seems plain that each freeman cast as many ballots as there were deputies to be chosen. After the grant of the charter no particular mode of election seems to have been prescribed. 4 Swift in 1790, wrote that deputies were elected by ballot, 5 while a recent writer states that it became customary after the con- solidation with New Haven, to elect them by acclamation. 6 B. THE ROYAL PROVINCES. For want of a better name we have grouped under the title of the royal provinces all those colonies which followed in substance the course of procedure customary in choosing the members of the House of Com- mons in England. The title is somewhat misleading, for Maryland will be included in this group, although for the greater part of her history she was under proprietary rule ; 1 i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 236. 1 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 385, et seq. 3 I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. * See Session Laws, 30; "first they shall choose," etc. 6 I System of Ike Laws of Connecticut, 66. 'Judge Baldwin, Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut; 4 American His- torical Association, pt. iv, 90, Series of 1890. i S 6 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS while the Carolinas and Massachusetts Bay are excluded notwithstanding the fact that during the eighteenth century they were governed directly by the British crown. In New- York, New Jersey (after 1701), Maryland, Virginia and Georgia, the English method was introduced, generally, it is believed, on account of the influence of the home government. In the royal provinces the ballot was unknown ; in fact, it was not used in England until after 1872. Under this sys- tem secrecy does not appear to have been sought, and it certainly was not attained. For this reason the written ballot of New England was a far superior method and one better calculated to preserve the purity of elections. Although the records of the Puritan colonies show that fraud was sometimes practiced, it is difficult to understand, from a modern point of view, how a system more open to abuse than the English could be devised. In order to fully under- stand the manner in which elections were carried on in the group of colonies we are about to consider, it will perhaps be advisable to review briefly the development in England from the first parliamentry election in the reign of Edward the First, down to the declaration of American Independence in 1776. The procedure at the parliamentary elections of the thir- teenth and fourteenth centuries is involved in obscurity. " It would be a waste of ingenuity" says Bishop Stubbs, "to speculate on the different courses that a sheriff unguided by custom, may have adopted." 1 The statute of 7 Henry IV' provided that the election should take place at the next county court, to be holden after the delivery of the writ. After proclamation, all persons, as well as " suitors duly summoned for the same cause as other," proceeded " freely and indifferently" to the election. This power of citing 1 3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 417. 2 Chap. 15. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 157 voters was open to great abuse, and made it possible for the sheriff to do about as he pleased. 1 The will of the electors was expressed by show of hands, or by a viva voce vote. The sheriff decided who had been elected "by taking a view," and the legality of such a pro- ceeding was affirmed in 1554 by the courts of law. In a contested case decided that year the plaintiff contended that because no poll had been taken, the sheriff could not deter- mine the exact number of electors in favor of any particular candidate. But the judges decided that this was not neces- sary. 2 In the twenty-first year of the reign of James I, the House of Commons established the right to a poll by ordering a new election, and declaring the previous one void, although three successive views had been taken.'* A debate held in the House in 1625, shows that the method of taking the poll was very crude. At the trial of a disputed election it was shown that the sheriff closed the front entrance to the place of election and stood at the postern gate in order to count the electors as they passed out. While he was thus engaged the front gate was forced open. He thereupon stopped tak- ing the poll, acting on the theory that only those present at the view should be counted. The House of Commons, however, decided that a new election must be held.* This decision upholds the position that the poll was continued for some days, so that all who desired might have an oppor- tunity of voting, even though they had been absent from the view. In the latter part of the seventeenth century the court of 1 3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 419. 2 Plowden, Commentaries, 129. * 3 I Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 729. * Ibid., 80 1, 804; Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 123. I S 8 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS hustings for the election of members to the House of Com- mons was held in the open air or in a public building. After proclaiming silence, the returning officer read aloud his writ and announced the penalty imposed by law upon illegal voting. 1 After being proposed in his turn by an elector, each candidate addressed the assembled voters from a raised platform. Then, if the number of candidates did not exceed the number of members to be returned, the elec- tion was made by acclamation. If not, a show of hands was called for, in order to assist the sheriff in determining "the choice by the view." Any one who chose to be present could participate in the election and raise his hand or his voice. It may, therefore, be imagined that the proceeding was far from orderly. Any candidate had the right to contest the decision of the sheriff by demanding a poll, which was taken by that officer or by his deputy, assisted by a suitable number of clerks. Only those qualified according to law could be entered in the poll list, which contained the name of each freeholder, the place of his freehold and the name of the person for whom he voted. 2 A statute passed in 1711, required the place of abode to be set down and the word jurat in case the freeholder was sworn. In Yorkshire and Cheshire the sheriff was compelled to provide seven " convenient tables or places" to be "made at the costs and charges of the candidates, and to be placed within the shire hall 3 in the fol- lowing manner : Two each side, two at the upper and one at the lower end." This provision was probably intended for 1 See Statute 2 Geo. II, chap. 24, 9; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, 7. 2 Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, 3. This statute was enacted in some form in Virginia, New York, New Jersey and Georgia. 2 De Franqueville, Le Gouvernment et le Parliament Britannique, 417. 3 This applied only to Chester. IN THE AMES 1C AN COLONIES. j 59 the convenience of the voters, and for the same reason it was customary to continue a poll for several days. 3 By 1745 the number of electors in each county seems to have grown so large that a more elaborate method of taking the poll was necessary. Within three days before the com- mencement of the poll, the sheriff was required to erect at the expense of the candidates as many booths as he thought proper. These booths were not to exceed fifteen in number, and were conspicuously labeled with the name of the rape, wapentake, tathe, ward or hundred for which the use of which the booth was designed. At each booth were placed a clerk with a poll book, and also an inspector for each can- didate. The inspectors were provided with cheque books in which to enter the names of the freeholders voting. Each clerk was given a list of all the towns, villages, parishes and hamlets situated in the division whose name was on his booth. Copies of these lists were furnished to the candidates or their agents at the price of two shillings apiece, and only inhabitants of the places mentioned in the lists could vote at any particular booth, unless the estate of the voter lay in some district not entered on any of the lists. The compen- sation of the clerks was fixed at not less than a guinea a day and this was paid by the candidates.- Except perhaps in Pennsylvania and Delaware the system of booths does not appear to have been introduced into this country, and there is no evidence that the representatives of the colonial candi- dates were expressly authorized to use cheque books. In regard to adjourning or closing the poll, the English law was as follows : No adjournment to another town could be had without the consent of the candidates, nor was any unnecessary delay permitted. Unless the candidates con- sented, the returning officer must proceed from day to day, 1 Statute 10 Anne, chap. 23. a Statutes 18 Geo. II, chap. 18, 7, 8, 9; 19 Geo. II, chap. 28, 6. 1 60 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS and from time to time, until all the freeholders present were polled. Elections were held at the next regular county court after the receipt of the writ, unless the court met with- in six days thereafter. If so, the sheriff gave ten days notice and adjourned to some convenient day, which could not be a Monday, a Friday, or a Saturday. But county courts of election beginning on a day other than those men- tioned, could be adjourned to these days, and from day to day until the election was completed. 1 On the western side of the Atlantic we find that it was customary in early times for the sheriffs of Virginia to go from one plantation to another and collect the votes of the inhabitants. 2 A law passed by the House of Burgesses in 1639 ordered the sheriffs "not to compel any man to go off the plantation where he lives to choose burgesses." 3 That it was customary for the electors to exercise their franchise, either by signing a paper which the sheriff carried about, or else by sending their votes by proxy, is shown by a statute of 1646 to the following effect: " Whereas divers inconveniences are likely to ensue by disorderly and illegal election of Burgesses by subscribing of hands contrary to the warrant directed for the sayd election, by which means it also happeneth that few nor none doe appeare personally according to summons, Be it therefore inacted that noe election shall be made of any Burgesse or Burgesses but by a plurality of voices, and that noe handwriting shall be admitted." 4 In the future personal attendance of all voters was required under penalty. Less than ten years after the act just quoted we find that the sheriff was required to determine the election by taking the view, 5 but two statutes passed a little later seem to hint 1 Statutes 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25 ; 6 Geo. II, chap. 23. 2 1 Hening, xix, xx. 3 14 Car. I, Act xix; I Hening, 227. 4 21 Car. I, Act xx; i Hening, 333. 5 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii; I Hening, 411. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. jgj at something resembling the former custom by using the words : " Provided always that they fairly give their votes by subscription, and not in a tumultuous way." ' Whether or not there may have been a tendency towards a written form of ballot, the question was effectively put to rest in Virginia by the statute of 1 1 William III, chap. 2, which, like the law enacted in New York during the course cf the same year, was modelled on the English statute of 7 and 8 William III, chap. 25, from which we have already quoted. 2 In case the election of any burgess could not be "determined upon the view by the consent of the freeholders then present, but that a poll shall be required for determination thereof," the sheriff was empowered to take one with the assistance of clerks to be appointed for that purpose. The name of each freeholder and that of the person for whom he voted were entered in writing. 3 It will be noticed that the language of this statute* gives any candidate or freeholder power to de- mand a poll. Later enactments elaborated in several particulars the method of taking the poll. Books were to be provided for the purpose, and first of all the name of each candidate was written on a separate page or in a particular column. Then, as each freeholder voted, his name was fairly written in the proper pages or columns under the names of the persons for whom he voted. No freeholder who had once voted for two persons, could afterward poll for any more. The poll could not be concluded until all present had voted, or until after proclamation had been made three times from the court house door, and no more freeholders appeared. 5 Toward the close of the colonial period we find that 1 6 Commonwealth, Act xvi; I Hening, 403; 9 Commonwealth, Act xciii; ibid, 473. 2 See p. 158, ante. 3 3 Hening, 172. 4 Also 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, 10; 7 Hening, 519. s 4 Anne, chap. 2, 4; 3 Hening, 236. ! 62 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS every person having the right to vote for two burgesses must name them both when he first presented himself to be polled, or else forfeit his privilege of voting for a second candidate. As far back as 1705, the English House of Commons had declared that a person having the right to vote for two mem- bers could not vote for one and then come back again and vote a second time if he had named but one candidate at first. 1 In case more freeholders appeared on the first day of an election than could be polled before sunset, and if the can- didates or their agents so requested, the sheriff could adjourn the poll to the following day. Notice of such an adjourn- ment must be posted on the court house door. After mak- ing the three proclamations required, the returning officer must wait at least an hour before closing the poll. 2 The writer has been unable to ascertain how elections were managed in Dutch times, but when the first legislative assembly was called in the province of New York in 1683, a form of indirect election seems to have been used. Thus in Long Island the freeholders of each town chose a committee of four to meet at the sessions house of each riding and se- lect two representatives for the assembly. A similar course was followed in Esopus, but everywhere else the counties as a whole met and elected assemblymen. 3 Besides this single instance, there is no case of the town being recognized as an election district in New York. Under the first general law, the cities, counties and manors in the province elected repre- sentatives, and the procedure was much the same as that existing at the time in Virginia. The language of the stat- ute seems to leave the question whether or not there should be a poll somewhat within the discretion of the sheriff. 4 1 15 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 135, 137. 2 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, 9, 10; 7 Hening, 519. 3 Introduction to tke Journal of the New York Legislative Council, xi. * II Will. Ill, chap. 74; Van Schaack's Laws, 28. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. jg^ Copies of the polls for the election of the representatives from New York City in 1761, 1768 and 1769 were reprinted in 1880 from the original manuscript. The poll of 1769 was printed soon after the election, and a copy of it is preserved in the library of the New York Historical Society. The poll list of the first of these years contains the names of the electors arranged under the various letters of the alphabet, though not in exact alphabetical order. There are six col- umns on every page, and each of these is headed with the name of a different candidate. Each elector could name four persons, and a check mark was placed in the column, answer- ing for the candidate for whom he voted. It is worthy of notice that a man did not always cast as many votes as he was entitled to, and we find some instances where but one candidate was named. The pages are not very large in size, and the total number of votes cast for each candidate is given at the end of the book. In 1768 there were seven candidates, and two additional columns were provided, the one headed Freeholders and the other Freemen, The abbreviation do is placed in the columns in order to designate in which capacity an elector voted. Sometimes we find that the same individual possessed both qualifications. An extra column contains the initials N R l or S' opposite the names of one or two electors. In this poll book there is no summary of the total number of votes cast. The poll of 1769 differs in some particulars from those already described. The columns headed Freeholders and Freemen are placed before those containing the names of the candidates instead of after, and a check mark is used instead of the abbreviation do. There were eight candi- dates, and their names are given in full on the first page, the 1 Non-resident. 2 Sworn. 1 64 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS columns being headed merely by the initial letters of their surnames. The electors are arranged according to the days on which the poll was taken. Mr. Richard Mercer is stated to have been the first voter, while James Jauncey, Esq., is declared to have been the last. On the final page there is an analysis of the number of votes cast on each day for each candidate, while the total number of electors is 1 5 1 5 . In a few cases the occupations of the voters are stated, and the whole list is further explained by the following series of symbols : q. Signifies the Person qualified (sworn] with Respect to his Freehold. Voted in his Right in the Seceder 1 s Meeting. * Stands for Scrutiny. N. R., For Non Resident. The general election law of New Jersey was chiefly note- worthy for its provision that the sheriff should not declare the choice upon the view without the consent of the candidates- The proceedings were begun by the reading of the writ and the poll was taken from day to day until the names of all the electors had been entered. The residences 'of the electors, as well as theirjnames and those of the candidates for whom they voted, were placed on the list. 1 In Maryland no particular method of conducting an elec- tion was prescribed. "The safest and best rule for the pro- vinces to follow in electing such delegates and representa- tives," was declared to be " the presidents of the Proceedings in Parliament in England as neare as the Constitution of this Province will admitt."" Accordingly, the sheriffs were merely directed to hold the elections " in such manner and forme as y e laws of England and this province doe direct and provide." 3 1 12 Geo. I, chap. 40; Nevill's Laws, 142; Allinson's Laws, 66. - Act 1678; Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60. 3 8 Geo. I, chap. 42; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. II, Bacon's Laws. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I6 5 When we come to Georgia we find no authorization of the determination of an election either by show of hands or by ac- clamation. The returning officer was simply commanded to attend the place of election, and enter the names of every person presented or presenting himself as a candidate, in a book or roll, leaving a fair column under each for the names of the voters. As each elector came up to be polled, the re- turning officer repeated distinctly the name of the candidate voted for, before recording it in the proper column of his book. No elector was allowed to alter his vote after it had once been entered, or to vote twice at one and the same elec- tion. Upon adjourning the poll at convenient times during the days of election, the returning officer first added up the votes cast and declared the total to the candidates present. Upon reopening the poll he again announced the number of votes received by each candidate. The limit of an election was fixed at two days unless a scrutiny were demanded. Upon waiting two hours after the last vote had been given, or at any time if the candidates present consented, the poll could be closed. 1 C. THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENTS." The six colonial govern- ments whose method of taking the vote remains to be con- sidered were all proprietary in their origin and the pro- cedure followed at elections appears to have combined the best features of the Puritan ballot and the English poll. From this combination a general system was evolved which ought to have been less liable to abuse than those prevailing in the other colonies. Under the proprietary governments, whenever an elector was entitled to vote for more than one candidate, it was customary to place on the same ticket the names of all officers having similar functions. In this and other respects the ballot in this group of colonies bore a 1 Act June gih, 1761. Published in A'ppendix B to this work. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS strong resemblance to those in common use in the United States just before the introduction of the Australian ballot. The earliest mention of the ballot in this group of colonial governments appears in 1676 in the Concessions and Agree- ments granted by the proprietors of West Jersey. It should be remembered in this connection that the word ballot did not occur in New England ; the term papers being always used instead. The writer is therefore inclined to believe that this is the first appearance in America of the ballot under its later and specific name. The language of the West Jersey constitution with refer- ence to the subject was as follows : " And the said elections shall be made and distinguished by bal- lating Trunks, to avoid noise and confusion and not by holding up of the hands or otherwise howsoever." 1 "And also that all such elections as aforesaid be not determined by the common and con- fused way of crys and voices, but by putting Balls into Balloting Boxes to be provided for that purpose for the Prevention of all Partiality and whereby every MaA may freely choose according to his own Judgement and honest Intention." 2 These two passages are also noteworthy for their distinct repudiation of the system then in vogue in England of elec- tions by acclamation or by show of hands. The Concessions and Agreements went into operation, but the writer has not been able to discover anything which throws light upon the modtis operandi of these balls and boxes. In East Jersey the paper constitution of 1683 went no further than to provide in general terms that all elections should be by ballot. 3 Whatever may have been the manner of voting under the Jersey proprietary governments, their 1 Chap. 3, Learning and Spicer, 385. 2 Chap. 32, Learning and Spicer, 405. 3 Fundamental Constitutions, chaps. 2, 3,5, etc.; Learning and Spicer, 153; I Xew Jersey Archives, 397. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 167 surrender to the crown in 1701 caused the introduction of the English poll. 1 It is believed that the ballot as it appeared in the Jerseys and in Pennsylvania under its earlier frames of government was derived from Harrington.' In his description of the ideal commonwealth of Oceana, the English philosopher made provision for an elaborate and complicated system of balls and boxes, 3 modelled upon what he had seen in Venice. A recent writer seems to derive the written ballot in New England as well as Pennsylvania from the town of Emden in Friesland, where Penn had resided for a short time. 4 In support of both views it may, however, be stated that the Dutch system and that of the Oceana were in essence some- what similar, and both may, therefore, have had an influence on the institutions of the American colonies. But in the Jersey and Pennsylvania plans all of the cumbersome details that characterized the European systems were omitted, so that nothing more than the germ appears to have been trans- planted to America. When we come to Pennsylvania we find something more substantial than the vague language of paper constitutions. By his first frame of government, as well as by the act of settlement, William Penn provided that all elections should be by ballot. 5 How this provision was construed is shown by a debate which took place in April, 1689, in the Provin- vincial Council. The matter under discussion was a disputed election. One of the members stated that the election was attended by great disorder and that many persons came over from Jersey and voted in Chester County. As the " Poll 1 See p. 164, ante. 2 See Chalmers, Political Annals, 642. 3 See Harrington's works, ed. Toland. 1771, 80, 83, 103 et seq. 4 2 Campbell, Puritan in Holland, England and America, 431 et seq. 5 20 of Frame, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 33 : 18 of Act of Settle- ment or Charter of 1682-3, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 42. 1 6 8 HIS TOR Y F ELE CTIONS and Ballot" had not been used, he argued that it could not be known whether these persons were really residents or not. The return made by the sheriff was exhibited, and it stated on its face that the electors were not willing to vote by ballot. Some of the councillors seemed to think that a balloting box was used in only one county and that unless there was doubt as to who had been elected, the delegates should be chosen by " votes," meaning we suppose a viva voce election. Another member of the council declared that the ballot was used at Upland and in all the lower counties, " by black and white beanes put into a hatt, wch is balloting in his sence and cannot be denyed by the charter, when it is demanded." 1 This debate is of the* utmost importance* as throwing light upon the course of procedure prevailing in Pennsyl- vania during the earlier years of her history. The phrase " Poll and Ballot," as here used, aptly characterizes the sys- tem of elections in the proprietary governments during the eighteenth century. The bean ballot may possibly have been borrowed from Massachusetts, although we should imagine that her influence among the Quakers of Pennsyl- vania would be very slight. The fact that the beans were put into hats, added to what has already been stated in re- gard to some of the New England colonies, 2 shows that arti- cles of head gear were' used as balloting boxes in America as well as in ancient Greece. The doubt as to the proper course of procedure which seems to have prevailed in the minds of the councillors, indicates that in the earlier times the returning officer was free to act as he pleased in regard to matters of detail. If there is any general principle to be gathered from the debate in the Pennsylvania Council, it is that the ballot took the place of the poll in the English sys- 1 I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 279. 2 See pp. 142, 147, 148 ante. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. ig tern of elections. Unless, therefore, the ballot was demanded, or the returning officer was in doubt, elections were decided by show of hands or by acclamation. No further action, whether by legislation or otherwise, ap- pears to have been taken on the subject of elections until 1706, when the poll and ballot was introduced by a statute which prescribed in detail every step in the process of vot- ing. On the day of election 'the clerks were first sworn " Truly and indifferently to take the said Poll, and set down the names of each Freeholder and Elector and the Place of his Freehold or Estate, and to poll no Elector who is not attested, if so required by the Inspectors of such Clerks." This oath explains the entries in the poll books, for the pages of these books were divided into as many " distinct col- umns on- fair Paper as there shall be candidates voted for." As each elector came to the polls he delivered to the sheriff or judge of election a piece of paper on which were written the names of the persons for whom he voted. 1 If the elector was illiterate, the judge was required to open the paper and read aloud the names of the persons written therein, and ask the elector if those were the candidates for whom he voted. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the judge put the paper, as well as all other ballots handed to him, into a box which the sheriff was required to provide. In case, however, a voter brought no tickets, or an illiterate elector did not wish to vote for the persons whose names were written on his paper, he could give verbally the names of the candidates he " mostly desired should be chosen," and the clerks were required to make entry accordingly.' 2 The element of secrecy in Pennsylvania elections depended, there- fore, upon the option of the individual voter, who could use the simple English poll if he saw fit. This recognition of 1 Each county, it will be remembered, returned eight members. 2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. I 70 HIST OR Y OF ELECTIONS the illiterate voter is not found outside of the proprietary do- minions of Penn, and it would seem to have been necessary wherever it was not desired to confine the suffrage to persons who could read and write. In New England, for example, except in the election of assistants which an unlearned man could easily understand, it would seem that the written bal- lot tendered it extremely difficult for an illiterate freeman to vote as he desired. A friend or a neighbor might prepare his ballot, but then he could not be sure whether it contained the names of those for whom he wished to vote. The Penn- sylvania statute met this difficulty and electors could be rea- sonably certain that they voted as they desired. Of course the honesty of the election officers was an important factor in bringing about this result. After 1718 each elector handed a second ticket to the judges and on this were written the names of six persons for assessors of the county taxes. 1 Seven years later the additional ballots also contained the name of a candidate for the office of county commissioner. 2 In this province the poll could be closed as soon as the electors who appeared had cast their votes. It could not, however, be delayed in any way or ad- journed from place to place. 3 The official report of a riot which took place at the regular election of 1742 in Phila- delphia gives us a picture, although an imperfect one, of the manner in which the voting was conducted under the law of 4 Anne. The poll was taken in a public street or square and the freeholders were twice attacked by a mob of sailors and roughs. In the first instance the electors were engaged in chosing inspectors, and in the second the voting proper was in progress. 4 1 4 Geo. I, chap. 213, Franklin ed., 1742, 156. 2 II Geo. I, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 131. 3 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 4 4 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 620. /A' THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I/I In the latter part of the colonial period another general election law was enacted which further elaborated the course of procedure. Before nine o'clock on the morning of the regular day for choosing representatives, the judges of election met and "with all expedition," allotted to each township, ward or district a separate door, window or other convenient place of the house where the election was to be held. At each of the places so designated was written or printed " in large Characters or Letters the Names of each Township, Ward or District whose Inspectors shall attend to receive the Tickets of that Place." An inspector was al- lowed to receive only the votes from the district which he represented. As an elector came up, his name and residence were called out in a voice loud enough to be heard by the inspectors and clerks of the other divisions. The inspector checked off the name of the voter by writing the word voted, ,or, if qualified, by adding the word sivorn or affirmed on the margin of the list of taxables of the township from which he came. Meanwhile, two clerks took down in writing the names and residences of the electors and the number of votes received by each candidate as they were called out by the inspectors. The ballots were placed in a box which the inspector bound and sealed with tape and gave to the sheriff as soon as the voting was over. 1 Elections were conducted in Delaware in substantially the same way as in Pennsylvania. The statute of 4 Anne in the latter government was reenacted with a few changes in the former." So also was that of 6 George III, with the addition of a provision requiring the sheriff to purchase at the expense of the county a ballot box for each hundred. These boxes had the name of the hundred printed on the cover and were 1 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, 3, c, 8, 10; 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 13; Hall and Sellers ed., 1775. 323- - : 7 Geo. II. chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 172 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS delivered to the inspectors who could put only the ballots received from their own hundred into the proper box. 1 The Pennsylvania method of dividing each county into districts and providing a separate polling place for the electors of each division was doubtless necessary on account of the great size of the counties, and it was also due to the system of inspectors chosen, as has already been shown," from the various divisions of the county. It is, moreover, highly probable that the English statute of 18 George II, chap. 1 8, which provided separate booths for each district, 3 had some influence on the Pennsylvania statute of 6 George III. Although by the act of settlement of 1682-3,* the in- habitants of Penn's dominions were given the privilege of electing a double number of sheriffs and coroners who were to be presented to the governor for confirmation, it was not until 1706 that a statute explained how the franchise was to. be exercised in Pennsylvania. This law provided that after the election of the members of the assembly had been com- pleted, the coroner or the judge of election should cause a double number of sheriffs to be chosen in each county. The persons selected were ordered to present themselves before the governor within two days after their election, and if he refused to commission either of them, the candidate first named in the return was to hold the office for one year."' After the sheriffs had been chosen, the sheriff or judges pro- ceeded in a similar manner to choose a double number of coroners. Some years afterward, however, the procedure was greatly simplified by requiring electors to hand in with their ballots for assemblymen and assessors a third ticket 1 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 2 See pp. 116 et seq., ante. 3 See p. 159 ante. 4 16, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 16. 5 4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 173 containing the names of two persons for sheriff and two for coroner. 1 Delaware had anticipated her neighbor by enacting in 1700 a law similar to that of 4 Anne, except that the gov- ernor was allowed six days within which to commission a a sheriff. 2 A later act provided that the under-sheriff must never be the person chosen but not commissioned, and that a sheriff could not have another term until he had been three years out of office. 3 Locke's Constitution contained no provision in regard to the method of voting in the Carolinas and, on account of his inability to obtain copies of the earlier election laws, the writer has no positive information about the condition of af- fairs there in the seventeenth century. The revised statute of 1715 in North Carolina merely required that all persons offering to vote for members of the assembly should bring to the marshall or deputy a list containing the names of the persons he voted for. That this law \yas not framed with a view to secrecy is shown by the subsequent clause requir- ing the voter to subscribe his own name or cause the same to be done. 4 In 1744, however, North Carolina adopted the secret bal- lot. The election was commenced at or before ten o'clock on the morning of the appointed day by the sheriff making three proclamations. Each voter handed to the sheriff in the presence of the inspectors " a Scroll of Paper rolled up with the Name or Names of the Person or Persons he votes for written therein." The sheriff put all scrolls so received into " a small Box with a Lid or Cover having a Hole in it 1 II Geo. I, chap, 269, Franklin ed., 1742, 293. 2 12 Will. Ill, chap. 2ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 29; Adams ed., 1797, 63. 3 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 65, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 133; Adams ed., 1797, 164. 4 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 174 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS not exceeding Half an Inch in diameter; which said cover shall be sealed and secured on the Box in the Presence of the Inspectors." A list of all the persons who voted was taken in writing by the sheriff and by each of the inspectors. The hole in the box was first sealed when the poll was ad- journed from one till " Half an Hour after Two of the Clock." 1 The law just quoted continued in force for about sixteen years. In 1760 a statute was enacted which, after declaring that there was no election law then in operation, substituted for the secret ballot the English method accord- ing to which the sheriff took the poll in the presence of the inspectors. The provision requiring all the votes to be given openly and leaving to the sheriff the duty of recording them," seems from a modern point of view, to indicate a backward tendency. Possibly the ballot was too far ahead of the times to be practicable in North Carolina. In South Carolina the complaint of the lords proprietors in reference to the practice of allowing one elector to bring in the vote of another seems to indicate that some form of written ballot existed as far back as i683. 3 The election law of 1704 seems to recognize the ballot as well as the viva voce method of voting. According to it the returning officer was to open the election by reading aloud his precept. All voices or votes given before the reading of the writ were void, and the electors might afterwards alter their votes, if they saw fit, or make a new election. Whenever the poll was adjourned the returning officer was required " to seal up in a paper bag or box all the votes given in that day in the pres- ence of, and with the seals of two or more of each contend- ing party." At the commencement of each session procla- mation was made, and the sheriff broke the seals " in the 1 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 1,2, n; Davis and Swanned., 1752, 177, 233, 312. 2 33 Geo. II, chap. I, I, 2; Davis ed., 1773, 247. 8 Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 406. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 175 presence of the parties with whose scales they were sealed up, if they will and do attend to see it done." l After the parish became the election district, the names of all the voters were " fairly entered in a book or roll, to pre- vent voting twice. >f The electors brought to the church wardens scrolls containing in writing the names of the per- sons they voted for. These scrolls were rolled up, and when the poll was closed they were placed in " some box, glass or paper, sealed up with the seals of any two or more" of the electors present. When the poll was re-opened the box was unsealed. 2 After 1719, however, it seems to have been the duty of the elector to place "in a box, glass, or sheet of paper prepared for that purpose a piece of paper rolled up, whereon is written the name of the Representatives he votes for."'* It is important to note that in South Carolina the secrecy of the ballot seems to have depended upon the option of each individual voter, for the statutes of both 1716 and 1719 expressly declared that electors should not be obliged to subscribe their names to the papers they handed in. 8. Count of the Votes. It is scarcely necessary to state that when an election was made by show of hands, no partic- ular method of counting the vote was needed. Whenever a poll was taken the mere addition of the names or marks in the particular column or page assigned to each candidate would suffice. In North Carolina we find that the number of votes given for each candidate must be cast up by the sheriff in the presence of the inspectors, 4 while in Georgia a simple addition and declaration was required. 6 1 Act 1704, no. 227, 8, 10, 2 Cooper, 249. 2 Act 1716, no. 365, 2, 3, 2 Cooper, 683. s Act 1719, no. 394, 5, 3 Cooper, 50. * 33 Geo. II, chap, i, i, Davis ed., 1773, 247. 5 Act June 9th, 1761. 6 Virginia, " Examination," 3 Hening, 236. 1 7 6 HIST OR Y OF ELECTIONS In New England where the general use of the ballot would seem to have required some special method of counting the votes, there was very little legislation on the subject. During the later years of the first Massachusetts government the ballots cast at the general election were counted by tellers, and these officers as well as all the other persons present at canvass were under oath. 1 The Hartford Constitution pro- vided that the " papers should be received and told by one or more chosen by the court." 2 Three of the proprietary governments prescribed a detailed course of procedure which was to be followed in counting ballots. In Pennsylvania the ballot box was opened as soon as the poll had been closed and the papers were taken out in the presence of the inspectors. The ballots were then delivered one by one to the clerks who entered the names " therein expressed, in Columns or otherwise, so that they shall cast up how many times each person's name is repeated in the same and set it down, and shall then pronounce pub- licly to the people, him whose name is oftenest mentioned in said Papers to be first elected," and so on until the regular number of eight had been chosen. 3 When there were separate ballot boxes for each division of the county, it was provided that the jud'ges should proceed to "read, count and cast up" the votes, contained in the boxes which the in- spectors had delivered to them "bound with tape and sealed up." The clerks and inspectors were liable to a penalty of 10 for not delivering their lists and tallies to the sheriff. 4 The method of counting the votes in Delaware under the district system was more complicated. The boxes were 1 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262, 292. See pp. 132, 141, ante. 2 I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 3 4 Anne, chap. 129. Franklin ed., 1742, 67. Similarly, Delaware: 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118. 4 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, 10, Hall and Sellers ed., 1 775, 323. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 177 opened in succession, and the tickets contained in each one were counted separately. When the ballots had been com- pared with one another, and the names of the persons voting in each hundred had also been ascertained, all the ballots were placed in one large box and thoroughly mixed ; "after which no more tickets or votes shall be received on any pre- tence whatever." Then the sheriff or coroner took the tickets out of the larger box, and after reading them aloud handed them one by one to the clerks. The inspectors and clerks were required to deliver to the sheriff their tax lists and tallies undefaced "with the number of persons voting ascertained in words at length in a certificate thereof on the said lists signed by them respectively." The lists of the clerks were required to be " cast up and the number of votes for each candidate mentioned in words at length," and signed by the clerks and two or more inspectors,. 1 The thorough- ness of the Delaware method of counting the votes ought to have reduced to the lowest limit any possibility of fraud or collusion on the part of the election officers. As long as North Carolina used the ballot she also pre- scribed a tegular method for conducting the canvass. At sunset the ballot box was opened by the sheriff in the pres- ence of the candidates and the inspectors. The scrolls were then taken out one by one and the names written on them were read aloud, while each inspector kept a tally of the number of votes received by each candidate. 2 In most of the proprietary governments there were provi- sions in regard to defective ballots. Thus, in Pennsylvania,' 5 Delaware, 4 North Carolina, 5 and South Carolina, 6 ballots con- 1 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, 5, 7, Adams ed., 1797, 500. * 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 3 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 4 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 5 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 6 Act 1716, no. 365, 3, 2 Cooper, 683. I 7 8 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIOXS taining more than the proper number of names were declared void. Delaware also rejected those containing less than the required number. 1 In Pennsylvania ballots found " deceit- fully folded together," so as to contain the names of more candidates than a single elector was entitled to vote for, were thrown out. 2 The laws of both the Carolinas provided that if two or more scrolls were rolled together and put in the box as one, they must " be cast away as useless and void. 3 In a few instances we find that official notices of their elec- tion were given to the successful candidates. Thus, in South Carolina the wardens were required to notify them in writing at the church door or at some other public place, and that within seven days after the ballots had been counted. 4 In Maryland the sheriffs were merely required to notify the per- sons chosen in case they should have been absent from the court of election. 5 The laws did not definitely fix the proportion of votes cast which should be required to elect a candidate. A clear dis- tinction was not in all cases drawn between the meaning of the words majority and plurality, and this is shown by at least one statute which uses the two words synonymously. 6 In the middle of the eighteenth century Connecticut declared that all officers must receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected. If this did not occur the election must be decided by the assembly. 7 In Massachusetts, 8 New 1 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, 4, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; Delaware: 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 3 North Carolina: 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177; South Carolina : Act 1716, no. 365, 3, 2 Cooper, 683, " invalid and of no effect." 4 Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 5 8 Geo. I, chap. 42; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. II, Bacon's Laws. 6 See 4 Geo. II, chap. 3, Nevill's Laws, 200. 7 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 453. This is the law in Connecticut at the present day. "Charter 1691, I Ames and Goodell, n. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. l 79 York, 1 New Jersey, 2 South Carolina 3 and Georgia, 1 a majority seems to have been required. In the other colonies as a rule a simple plurality was sufficient. Thus Rhode Island enacted that inasmuch as there might " happen a division in the votes soe as the greater half may not pitch directly on one certaine person, yett the person which hath the most votes shall be declared elected." 5 There can be no doubt that the passages just quoted from the Connecticut and Rhode Island colonial records place those colonies squarely in opposition to one another on this point, but as to other provinces the writer does not feel so sure of his position. 9. Return of the Writ. In order to fully understand the subject of the return of the writ, it is necessary to consider the history of England with reference to this question, for it was there that the custom originated-, and the American colonies merely adopted with a few modifications the practice *of the mother country. In the earliest times the return was effected by the sheriff simply appending to the writ the names of the persons chosen and those of the sureties for their attendance at the parlia- ment. 6 This method rendered false returns so easy that a statute was passed in 1405, requiring the names of those chosen to be written in an indenture " under the seals of all them that did choose them and tacked to the same writ of the parliament, which indenture so sealed and tacked shall be holden for the sheriff's return of the said writ touching the knights of the shire." 7 But long before this time returns '3 William and Mary, Bradford ed., 1710, 17. 2 Act 1704. 3 Act 1716, no. 365, 3, 2 Cooper, 683. 4 Act 1761. 5 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 83. See also Pennsylvania, 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; "fair majority," ibid., 346; 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 8; Virginia: 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236; North Carolina: 17 Geo. II, chap. I, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 6 Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 125. 7 Statutes 7 Hen. IV, chap. 15, 5; 6 Hen. VI, chap. 4, 4. HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS were occasionally made by indenture. Prynne refers to such a document as early as the twelfth year of Edward the First. 1 In 1444 a statute was enacted which required the sheriff to issue precepts to the mayor or bailiff of every city or borough within his county, and ordered them to return the precepts by indenture to the sheriff, so that the latter might make return of the writ. 2 Although the statute of 7 Henry IV seems to require the indenture to be signed by all the voters participating in the election, the custom soon arose of hav- ing a few of the electors sign in behalf of the rest. 3 This practice has been continued almost down to the present day, although in recent years the original method of return by endorsement of the sheriff on the back of the writ has been revived. 4 In the general elections of the Puritan colonies there was no necessity for any form of return, unless the sending of the proxies to the capital town may be regarded in that- light. Still in Massachusetts, although no writs were issued for the election of deputies, we find that the constables of the towns were required to make return under their own hand. 5 As a natural consequence of the writ and precept system of the provincial government, the selectmen of the towns made their returns to the sheriffs of the counties, and the latter in turn notified the secretary at least one day be- fore the sitting of the general court. 6 Unlike her northern neighbors, Hartford provided for the 1 Prynne, Brevia Parliamentaria, 190. 2 23 Hen. VI, chap. 14. 3 See Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 131, and preceding pages, where the subject is thoroughly discussed and the above view supported. * 2 De Franqueville, Le Gotwernment et Le Parlement Brittaniques, 446. 5 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. i, 326; 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 356; Laws, ed. 1660, 25, ed. 1814, 97. Also I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 408. 6 Laws, 1692-3, chap. 38, I Ames and Goodell, 89. For forms, see Appendix A of this work. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. t 8i issue of writs, and under the Constitution of 1638 returns were made by the constable endorsing on the back of his warrant, under his own hand, the names of those, elected. 1 Among the colonies which followed the English method of elections, the earliest statutory provision in regard to returns is found in Virginia. By this the sheriff was simply directed to make a return before the sitting of the assembly by sub- scription and " the major part of the hands oi the electors." '* Subsequent laws required the return to be made by endorse- ment on the back of the writ, according to a specified form. 3 The law in Georgia was similar, except that an election officer was forbidden to return himself. 4 In Maryland the earlier returns were signed by all the freemen participating in the election. 5 The general election law of 1678 provided that the four persons elected in each county should be re- turned by four separate indentures made between the sheriff" on the one hand and the freemen electing on the other. It was required that these indentures should bear the date of the day of election, and mention the time and place of the same. 6 After 1715 two indentures were provided for each candidate, each instrument bearing the hands and seals of both the sheriff" and the electors. 7 The writer has found no legislation on this subject in New York beyond that con- tained in the law of 1 1 Will. Ill, which provided that the 1 1 Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 2 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii, I Hening, 411. See also 14 Car. II, Act i, 2 Hening, 82. 3 ii Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, 7, 3 Hening, 241. 4 Act 1761. 5 See Maryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, where a number of these are given. 6 Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Act; of Assembly, 60. Also 4 William and Mary, chap. 76; 4 Anne, chap. 35; Appendix A of this work. 7 8 Geo. I, chap. 42, Baskett ed., 1723, 121 ; 2 Charles Loid Baltimore, chap. 1 1, Bacon's Laws. 1 82 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS persons elected should be returned "by Indentures sealed betwixt the said sheriffs and the said Chuser so to be made." 1 Returns were made in Pennsylvania by a pair of indent- ures sealed between the sheriff or the judges.and six or more of the electors." 2 Such was the rule for assemblymen, com- missioners and assessors, as well as in regard to the double number of persons chosen for the offices of sheriff and coro- ner. 3 This, as we have seen, was substantially the practice in England at that time. Toward the close of the colonial period a law was enacted requiring that as soon as all the votes had been counted, the sheriff should call in four repu- table freeholders as assistant judges. Indentures were then sealed between the assistant judges and the sheriff as one party, and at least six inspectors as the other. 4 Six years after this law, a Delaware statute provided that indentures should be sealed between the sheriff or coroner and at least two inspectors together with four of the electors. 5 In a few of the colonies the laws required that returns should be addressed to a particular office or officer. Thus, in Maryland, sheriffs were directed to certify one part of each indenture " and transmit it to the Chancellor, close sealed up under his hand and seal, and directed to the Lord Proprietary of this Province and alsoe the said Chancellor."' A subsequent statute ordered that the return should be ad- dressed to the governor or to the keeper of the great seal of the province. 7 The other part of the indenture was always 1 Chap. 74, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 3 Ibid., chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105; 2 Geo. I, chap. 269, Franklin ed., 1742, 293. 4 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, II, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 5 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 6 Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60. 7 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. II, Bacon's Laws. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 183 kept by the sheriff for his justification. In Virginia, how- ever, returns were made to the secretary's office at James City, 1 at least one day before the date mentioned in the writ. 2 In South Carolina returns were made to the master in chan- cery within ten days after an election." 3 In Pennsylvania the practice in this matter was slightly different. One of the two indentures used in certifying the return of assemblymen was delivered to the governor and the other to the assembly, 4 while the returns of the double number of coroners and sheriffs were sent to the governor, who had the power of appointing these officers. 5 But in the case of the commissioners and assessors the returns were ad- dressed to the justices at the general sessions of the peace, 6 and entered on the records in the sessions' minute book by the clerk of the justices. The reason why the indentures of assemblymen were thus addressed seems to be that they served a twofold purpose, viz., as a certificate of election, and as a power of attorney enabling the newly chosen mem- bers to act for their constituents. It may be inferred that the provisions just enumerated in regard to the transmission of returns were derived from stat- utes in force at that time in the mother country. Doubtless many of the details not covered by the colonial statutes were regulated according to the English custom. Some time be- fore the date set for the assembling of the newly chosen par- liament, and with all convenient expedition within a period of fourteen days after an election, the sheriff was required to make return, either in person or by deputy, to the clerk of the crown in the high court of chancery. For the entry of 1 14 Car. II, Act 1, 2 Hening, 82. 2 4 Anne, chap. 2, 9, 3 Hening, 236. 3 23 Geo. II, no. 885, 6, 4 Cooper, 98. 4 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin eel., 1742, 67. 5 4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105. 6 II Geo. I, chap. 269, Franklin ed., 1742, 293; Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 131. I 84 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS the return the sheriff was to pay the ancient and lawful fees of four shillings for every knight of the shire, and two shill- ings for every citizen, burgess or baron" of the Cinque Ports whom he returned. The charges were paid by the king out of his account in the exchequer. 1 The clerk of the crown was required to enter every return and amendment within six days after receiving the same, in a large book to which all persons had free access at reasonable times. 2 It might sometimes happen that two or more candidates received exactly the same number of votes, and the question would then arise as to which one should be returned. In Eng- land the solution of this problem caused considerable difficulty to the returning officers. In 1625, for example, the mayor of New Lymington made return that two candidates had re- ceived the same number of voices, and he would therefore leave the decision to the House of Commons. This seems to have been usually done, but at the present day the ques- tion is settled so far as the United Kingdom is' concerned by the act of 1872. It gives the sheriff, who is generally dis- qualified in other cases, a casting vote if there is a tie be- tween two or more opposing candidates. 3 This question seems to have arisen in but two of the Amer- ican colonies, and in both of them it was decided that the sheriff could return whichever one of the candidates he thought fit. In Virginia his casting vote was at first made conditional on the fact of his being a freeholder, 4 but after 1763 this was not necessary. 5 If it appeared on a scrutiny before the House of Burgesses that the petitioner and the sitting member had an equal number of votes, and if the officer who took the poll declared on oath that if the votes had been found equal at the time of the election he would 1 Statute 10 and II Will. Ill, chap. 7. ' 2 Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 7. 3 2 De Franqueville, Le Gouver'nment et Le Parlement Brittaniques, 444. 4 4 Anne, chap. 2, 4, 3 Hening, 236. 5 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 7 Hening, 519. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. have returned the petitioner, then the petitioner was declared to have been chosen. 1 The privilege of a casting vote was also granted in North Carolina, but it was expressly pro- vided that in no other case could the sheriff have a voice in the election of a burgess.' 2 10. Provisions against Fraud. Many of the provisions that were framed for the express purpose of preventing fraud have been enumerated in other parts of this work. Some of the special provisions which did not conveniently fall under any of the preceding subdivisions will be considered in the present section. For example, in New York the court of election was required to be held in the most public and usual place in the county. The poll could be taken only at the place of election, and could be neither delayed nor protracted until all the electors had voted. 3 Returning officers were forbidden to take any reward or fee for their services. 4 A case which occurred in New Jersey in 1725 affords a good example of the abuses which the law requiring the con- sent of the candidates to an adjournment of the poll 5 was aimed to prevent. It appears that the sheriff of Burlington in his desire to favor a particular candidate kept a poll open for a fortnight and adjourned it to the very edge of the county without the consent of the other candidate, who was a Quaker. So gross was the partiality of this action that both parties united in passing a law against similar occur- rences in the future. 6 In none of the American colonies has the writer found a trace of the English custom of allowing the justices of the assize to take inquest against a sheriff in order to test the 1 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 12, 7 Hening, 519. s 17 Geo. II, chap. I, n, Davis and Svvann ed., 1752, 177. 3 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 74, 4, 7, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 4 Ibid., 3. 5 For example, New Jersey; 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, NevilFs Laws, 142. 6 Governor Burnet to the Lords of Trade; 5 New York Colonial Documents, 767. : 86 IIISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS truth of his return and permitting the latter to traverse an office found. 1 As a further means of preventing fraud a few of the colon- ies followed the English precedent, 2 by requiring that copies of the poll must be delivered on demand to persons who were willing to pay a reasonable charge for the labor of writing them. This was the rule in Rhode Island," New York, 4 and New Jersey. 5 Attested copies of the poll could be obtained on demand of the candidates in both Virginia 6 and North Carolina. 7 Subsequent legislation, in Virginia at any rate, seems to have done away with the practice of requiring copies of the poll to be delivered to the candidates. Instead, the sheriff was required within twenty days after the election to faith- fully deliver upon oath " unto the clerks of the same county court attested copies of the original poll of such election, without any embezzlement or alteration, to be recorded among the records of such county court." 8 A similar plan had been adopted in England some years previously, except that in the mother country the poll books were to be pre- served among the records of the sessions of the peace. 9 In 1763 and thereafter the sheriff was ordered to deliver to the 1 See Statutes 1 1 Hen. IV, chap. I ; 6 Hen. VI, chap. 4. 2 See Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, 6. 3 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 4 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 74, 8, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 6 I r Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, 7, 3 Hening, 236. " The sheriff shall, as soon as may be, cause a true and perfect copy " to be made, and shall deliver it with his own hand " to the candidate or other person applying for it on his behalf." 7 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 9, Davis and Swann ed. 1752, 177; 33 Geo. II, chap, i, 9, Davis ed., 1773, 247. By this act the attested copy must be delivered within ten days to the candidates or to persons applying for it in their behalf. 8 10 Geo. II, chap. 2, 8, 4 Hening, 475. 9 Statute 10 Anne, chap. 23, 5. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. jg/ county clerk, on oath, an attested copy of the poll, and a list of those not sworn, with the names of the persons for whom they had voted. 1 In Pennsylvania just before the Revolution, sheriffs were ordered to return on demand to the House of Assembly the list of the taxables and the lists and tallies of the clerks. 2 A similar rule had been introduced in South Carolina a few years before the date of the Pennsylvania statute. The church wardens were required to attend the assembly with the master, in chancery, who was to carry the return and leave with the clerk of the house a list of the persons that had voted. 3 In the former of these colonies there were ex- press statutory provisions to the effect that the votes and tickets of all such as refused to take the oath should be openly rejected. The ballots of every person swearing or affirming were to be put in a box, and a ticket so received could not be suppressed. 4 11. Contested Elections. At the meeting of His Majesty's Privy Council in 1684, when the New York Charter of Liber- ties was under discussion, the clause of that instrument which gave to the assembly with the consent of the governor power to judge of undue elections and the qualifications of mem- bers, was objected to on the ground that " It may be incon- venient and is not practised in some other Plantations." 5 Notwithstanding the opinion of the Privy Council, the present writer believes that he has found sufficient evidence to justify him in stating as a general rule that contested elections in the American colonies were everywhere decided by the body to 1 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 15, 7 Hening, 519. This seems to supersede the act of 10 Geo. II. 2 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, 9, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 3 23 Geo. II, no. 885, 4 Cooper, 98. 4 13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 356. 5 3 New York Colonial Documents, 359. ! 8 8 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS whose membership the candidate aspired. Thus Massachu- setts by the very law which authorized the sending of depu- ties to the general court, gave them power to hear and de- termine among themselves any differences that might arise as to the election of any of their number. 1 The general court of Plymouth reserved to itself the power of rejecting unfit deputies and of directing the towns to make a new choice. 2 New Hampshire nearly a century afterwards gave to the town officers the power of settling disputes in regard to elections, and in case of their failure to agree the de- cision was left to the house of representatives. 3 The Hartford constitution conferred upon the deputies the power of judg- ing of thek own elections, 4 and it may be conjectured that when the general management of elections was delegated to a grand committee of both houses in Rhode Island, the deci- sion of contests was included as well as control over other matters. 5 The various provisions we have enumerated refer, it will be noticed, only to the elections of members of the lower houses of the New England legislatures. The writer has found nothing which would tend to show how contests con- cerning the election of governors and other general officers were decided. The rule in regard to contested elections in the Puritan colonies was equally true in both the royal 6 and the proprietary governments. The laws of 1682 recognized the right of both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature to judge of the elections of their own members, 7 although when the up- 1 1634-5; 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 119. '* Brigham, 109. 3 I Geo. II, chap. 107; Fowle ed., 1771, 142; ed. 1771, 166. 4 1638; I Connecticut Colonial Records, 24. 5 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 6 See in particular the Georgia law of June gth, 1761, published in Appendix B, post. 7 Laws agreed on in England, chap. 3, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37. L\ r THE AMERICAN COLONIES. igg per house ceased to be an elective body its power in this respect was necessarily abolished. The method of trying a contested election case was by a scrutiny or examination of the votes cast, for the purpose of correcting any errors that might exist in the poll. In 1737 the New York legisla- ture spent a month in making a scrutiny. 1 Virginia recog- nized the English method of contest by petition of the de- feated candidate as well as the scrutiny, 2 before the house of burgesses. In the three most southern colonfes there were more spe- cific provisions in regard to contested elections. Thus in North Carolina, sheriffs were required to attend the assembly for the first three days of its sitting (unless previously dis- missed), for the purpose of giving information in case of con- tested elections, and also of showing the assembly a list of the votes cast for every person. 3 The sheriffs, and afterwards the church wardens, were ordered to attend the assembly of South Carolina during the first two days of the session, for the same purpose as in the northern province, although the wardens were accompanied by the master in chancery. 4 In Georgia a scrutiny must be made if it were demanded, while returning officers were compelled upon summons from the commons house of assembly to attend and give informa- tion to the best of their knowledge of any matters or disputes that arose about the election of members returned by them. They were also required to show the poll, and were liable to a fine of fifty pounds sterling for refusal to do so. 5 1 6 Neisj York Colonial Documents, 56.. The proceedings are given in full in the first volume of the journal of assembly, circa page 700. Also South Carolina, Act 1716, no. 365, i, 4, 2 Cooper, 683. - 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 12, 14, 7 Hening, 519. 3 Laws 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 4 Act 1704, no. 227, 4; Act 1716, no. 365, 22, 2 Cooper, 227, 683; 23 Geo II, no. 885, 6, 4 Cooper, 98. s Act 1761. i go HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 12. Privileges of Voters. In three of the southern col- onies electors were granted certain privileges, in order, it may be supposed, that they might be the more willing to exercise their franchise. The writer has been unable to find any provisions of this sort among the statutes regulating elections in England during the colonial period. In Virginia, for example, no arrests were permitted on election days except for felony and breach of the peace, and processes executed at the election of burgesses were void. 1 In South Carolina an elector was exempt from the serving of writs or processes eundo, manendo, redeundo, that is to say, during his journey to and from the polls, or during his stay there for the purpose of voting, or for forty-eight hours after the scrutiny was finished. The penalty for breach of this law was a fine of twenty pounds paid to the aggrieved party by the officer offending, and the nullity of the writs.' The rule in Georgia was similar to that in South Carolina, and civil officers were forbidden to execute writs or other processes upon the body of the elector, provided he did not consume more than forty-eight hours upon his journey. 3 13. Compulsory Voting. Probably the earliest law enacted in the American colonies on the subject of compul- sory voting was that passed by the general court of Plymouth in 1636. It provided that " for default in case of appearance at the election before mentioned without due excuse, each delinquent to be amerced in 3 s ster." 4 Compulsory voting in this colony was required as late as 1671, if not later. In the revision of the laws published in that year it was pro- vided that " whosoever of the' Freemen do not appear at Election in Person or by Proxy, he shall be for such neglect 1 14 Car. II, Act Ivii, 2 Hening, 86; 4 Anne, chap. 3, 6, 3 Hening, 248. 2 Act 1716, no. 365, 24, 2 Cooper, 683. 3 Act 1761 * II Plymotilh Colony Records, IO; Brigham, 37. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 191 amerced to the Treasury Ten Shillings." 1 Virginia was the only other colony which insisted upon compulsory voting throughout her history. The earliest statute bearing on the subject was passed in 1646, and it speaks of the small num- ber of persons who attended the elections. In order to remedy the evil it was then enacted that all freemen absent without lawful cause should be fined one hundred pounds of tobacco. 2 After 1662 the amount of the penalty was in- creased to two hundred pounds of the same staple. 3 The law as to compulsory voting was reenacted in 1705,* and again in I763. 5 In a previous chapter it has been explained that from the earliest times in Maryland attendance in person or participa- tion in the election of a representative to the assembly was required of all freemen. 6 Later on the rule in this colony as to compulsory voting seems to have fallen into disuse until 1715, when it was revived, and all electors were compelled to attend the court of election under penalty of one hundred pounds of tobacco, 7 unless they could show sufficient cause for their absence. Whether this provision remained in force until the Declaration of Independence, or whether it fell into disuse, the writer is not prepared to state. Nothing that would prove the repeal of the law has been found. In Delaware, by a statute of 7 George II, it was enacted that every elector convicted at the next quarter sessions on the oath of one credible witness of having absented himself from 1 Book of General Laws, chap. v. 4, Brigham 258. 2 21 Car. I, Act xix, I Henirg, 333. 3 14 Car. II, Act 1, 2 Hening, 82. 4 4 Anne,, chap. 2, 3, 3 Hening, 236. 5 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, 9, 7 Hening, 519. 6 See p. 34, ante. "8 Geo. I, chap. 42, Baskett ed., 1723, 121; also 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 1 1, 6, Bacon's Laws. 192 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS an election should be fined twenty shillings, unless he had been detained by sickness or unavoidable accident. 1 Outside of the four colonies already mentioned, compul- sory voting at general elections does not appear to have existed. North Carolina, we shall see, introduced the prin- ciple in parish elections. 2 In a Massachusetts statute the following permissive clause has been found which might possibly have reference to compulsory voting at the election of assistants, the principle being applied when the names of the candidates were in turn balloted upon. " In all cases where any freeman is to give his vote, be it in court of elec- tion or the like, if he cannot see light or reason to give it positively one way or the other, he shall have liberty to be silent and not pressed to a determinate vote, which yet shall be interpreted and accounted as if he voted for the negative. " d Under the head of compulsory voting it is perhaps well to include a few laws which were in force in several of the northern settlements during the earlier years of their history. Thus in Providence, under the date of 1636, we find a pro- vision that any one not appearing at the town meeting within fifteen minutes after the time mentioned by the person who gave warning, should be fined one shilling sixpence. 4 In a similar way Portsmouth fined freemen who were more than a half hour late, 5 and New Haven imposed a mulct of one shilling upon all the planters who came in after their names had been called. 6 14. Bribery and Other Means of Influencing Voters. It is a remarkable fact that with one exception, and that of comparatively late date, there are absolutely no statutes in 1 7Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Kail ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 2 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 3 Laws, ed. 1660, 78; ed. 1814, 200. 4 i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 13, 15. 5 Ibid., 8l. 6 I New Haven Colonial Records, So. AV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 193 any of the New England colonies on the subject of bribery. Whether the reason of this was that elections were really purer in that part of the continent, or because the Puritans considered it beneath their dignity to speak of the sale or purchase of votes, the writer does not venture to decide. The absence of such laws should speak for itself. The single exception referred to was in Rhode Island, where a general act against bribery and corruption was passed in 1737. Judging from the provisions of the statute, this evil must have been prevalent to an alarming extent in that colony. Persons offering bribes were declared liable to forfeit double the sum offered and persons accepting them were to be similarly punished besides being incapitated for voting for any officer during the space of three years. When there was insufficient proof the accused could purge himself by oath, but in default of this he was adjudged guilty. 1 Ten years later a more stringent law was passed. By this all persons were required to take an oath that they had not been bribed, while the officers and justices were or- dered to swear that they "justly and truly abhorred the most detestable crime of Bribery," and that they would do their best to expose all persons guilty of such practices. Upon proof to the assembly that a single vote had been un- lawfully obtained by the " procurement, knowledge and con- sent " of any successful candidate, his election was to be de- clared null and void. The oath of a person giving a bribe was to stand against that of a person receiving one, and upon conviction a freeman who had been bribed was forever ex- cluded from voting, acting as a freeman, holding office, or giving evidence in a court of justice. 2 It is difficult to imagine how bribery could exist under laws as stringent as these. 1 10 Geo. II, Franklin ed, 1744, 193. 2 20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 194 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS Passing beyond New England, we find that the laws of New York and Maryland were silent'on the subject of brib- ery, but that those of all the remaining colonies had some- thing to say on the subject. Thus, in East Jersey, notwith- standing the careful methods provided by the constitution of 1683, it was thought well to order that all elections should be free and voluntary, and that whenever any bribe or indi- rect means could be proved both the giver and the receiver were to forfeit forever their privilege of voting or being voted for. 1 West Jersey was almost as severe, and no person could be elected if he gave, bestowed or promised " directly or in- directly to the said parties electing ; any Meat, Drink, Money or Moneys worth for procurement of their Choice and Con- sent." Persons receiving bribes could neither elect nor be elected for seven years, nor could they execute any office of trust during that period. 2 New Jersey merely prohibited bribery in any form, and disfranchised all offenders. 3 The aim of one of the earliest of the Pennsylvania laws was to prevent the crime of bribery, and its provisions were similar to those of the West Jersey constitution, except that the person bribed was also deprived of his right to vote. 4 In the Delaware government candidates bribing or treating electors were let off with a fine of ten pounds, while a voter accepting a bribe was fined half that amount. A bribe was defined to include a " Gratuity, Gift, Bribe, strong Drink, Treats, Entertainments or other Reward." Virginia 6 and 1 Learning and Spicer, 153. 2 West Jersey Concession and Agreement, chap. 33, Learning and Spicer, 405. 3 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, 3, 4, NevilPs Laws, 142; Allinson's Laws, 69. 4 Laws agreed upon in England, 1682; also chap. 58; chap. 36, Petition of Right, 1693; Markham's Frame of Government, 1696; Laws, ed. Harrisburg, 1879, 99, 122, 203, 249; 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 5 13 Geo. II, chap. 65, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 133; Adams ed., 1797, 164. 6 II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, 10, 11,3 Herring, 236; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 19, 7 Hening, 519. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. IO/ 5 North Carolina 1 merely declared that the elections of persons who offered bribes should be null and void. 2 The two southernmost colonies had laws framed with the idea of putting a stop to all forms of influencing voters. Thus in South Carolina, persons coercing or bribing voters, or abusing or menacing them afterward because they had voted in a particular way, were taken before a justice of the peace and bound over in the sum of fifty pounds, with two sureties of twenty-five pounds. If convicted at general ses- sions, such offenders were fined fifty pounds. 1 The provi- sions of the Georgia statute were more stringent than those of the South Carolina law. Any person violating the free- dom of the day of election by arresting, menacing or threat- ening, or attempting to overawe, affright or force any per- son, properly qualified, to vote against his inclination or 1 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 8, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. ' 2 The language of the law respecting bribery in the former colony is so care- fully framed with a view of covering the entire field that it has seemed proper to publish it in full. " And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no person or persons hereafter to be elected as a burgess shall directly or indirectly, by any ways or means at his or their proper charge, before his or their election, give, present or allow to any person or persons haveing voice or vote in such election any money, meat, drink or provision, or make any present, gift, re- ward or entertainment, or any promise, ingagement or obligation to give or allow any money, meat, drink or provision, present, reward, or entertainment in order to procure the vote or votes of such person or persons for his or their election to be a burgess or burgeses, and every person or persons soe giveing, presenting or allowing, makeing, promiseing or engageing any money, meat, drink or provision in order to procure such election being elected shall be disabled and incapable to sit and act as a burgess in that assembly, but that such election shall be void to all intents and purposes as if the said returne or election had never been made. 1 ' II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172. As though the above provisions were not sufficient, the act of 4 Anne added a clause forbidding the bribery of persons in particular, or " any such county, town or corporation in general, or to or for the use, advantage, benefit, imploiment, profit or preferment " thereof. 3 Act 1716, no. 365, 23, 2 Cooper, 683. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS conscience, or obtaining any vote by bribery, or who should, after the election was over, menace, "despightfully use" or abuse any person for voting as he desired, such persons, upon sufficient proof presented before two justices of the peace, should be bound over to the next general sessions. If con- victed at his trial, the offender was to forfeit not more than twenty pounds. Returning officers were forbidden to influ- ence, or even attempt to influence or persuade, any elector so as to prevent him from voting as he had first intended. 1 In addition to the provisions already enumerated concern- ing attempts to influence voters by means other than bribery, we find that in New Jersey a fine of ten pounds was imposed on persons who " Either by Assertions or False Reports of any of the Candidates, either in Words of Message or Writ- ing, or in any other Manner, and endeavour to frighten or by indirect Means persuade any Elector to give or dis- suade any Elector from giving his Vote." 2 In Pennsylvania persons were forbidden to disturb the freedom of an election day by menacing voters or by threaten- ing them with force of arms. Candidates offering to serve for nothing or for less than the law allowed in order to influence voters, were liable to a fine of five pounds. 3 In this province the elections of sheriffs and coroners furnished an excellent opportunity for influencing voters. We learn from a law passed with a view of preventing bribery and corruption on these occasions that it was a common practice to make electors vote in a particular manner " by giving them strong Drink and using other Means inconsistent with the Design of voting freely at Elections by Means whereof many un- guarded Persons" are unwarily drawn in to engage their Votes and rendered altogether incapable of discharging their Duty 1 Act June 9th, 1761. 2 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, 5, Nevill's Laws, 142. :< 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 197 in that sober and weighty manner the Occasion requires, but become more particularly disorderly at these Times whereby great Confusions and Mischiefs arise." With a view of put- ting a stop to these abuses a fine of five pounds was imposed on persons bribing or bribed. Candidates guilty of such practices could not be elected to office for a year, and were also subject to a fine of ten pounds. 1 In England the laws against bribery were almost as strin- gent as those in the colonies. A resolution of the House of Commons in 1677 touched upon the subject with special ref- erence, to excessive treating of voters. It was forbidden that after 'the test of a writ any meat or drink exceeding " the true value " of ten pounds should be given to electors in any place except at the dwelling place or habitation of a candi- date. That was defined to be the place where he had lived for six months previous to the election. The election of a person offering bribes in this or any other way was declared void. 2 In 1700-1 the lending of money to a corporation without interest with intent to influence the election of such corporation was declared to be an unlawful and dangerous practice. 3 General statutes on the subject of bribery were en- acted some years afterward. 4 Both the electors and the re- turning officers were required to take an oath that they had not been bribed ; if they had been, they were declared guilty of perjury, and were rendered forever afterward incapable of voting or holding office or franchise, and forfeited the sum of five hundred pounds as well. Offenders were indem- nified if within a year after the election they turned king's evidence against a person who had taken a bribe. Under ' l 25 Geo. II, chap. 6, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 237. 2 9 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 41 1. 3 13 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 400. 4 Statutes 2 Geo. II, chap. 24; 9 Geo. II, chap. 38. IO/ 8 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS this law an attempt to make an elector promise that he would refrain from voting was just as much an act of bribery as was an attempt to influence him to vote in any particular way. 15. Sanction of the Election Laws. Without exception the American colonies enforced their election laws by means of a series of penal sanctions. The crimes punished by these provisions were numerous and included any neglect, omission, or failure of duty upon the part of the persons or officers intrusted with the execution of the election laws. The admission of the vote of an unqualified person, the mak- ing of a false return, or the failure to make any return' at all, were some of the offenses which rendered a sheriff liable to a penalty. On the part of an elector, illegal voting, fraud, re- peating, the putting of more than one vote into a ballot box and voting for a candidate known to be unqualified,' were among the crimes reached by the punitive sanctions of these laws. 2 The penalties were almost always of a pecuniary nature, and it seems unnecessary to go into the subject at any great lerTgth. Suffice it to say that the fines ranged in amount from a few shillings* to three hundred pounds or more. 4 Usually ster- ling was meant, but in some instances, in the more southern colonies, "current money" 1 or "proclamation money" 6 1 Massachusetts, Laws, ed. 1660, 25. 2 North Carolina, 17 Geo. II, chap. I, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. It is not possible to give references to all provisions relating to this subject, as they are contained in almost every statute which has been mentioned in this work. In the laws the subject was treated in much the same way as in England. The index to Troward, Elections, gives a list of the various offenses which were punishable in the mother country. 3 Plymouth, Laws, 1636, II Plymouth Colony Records, 10. It is worthy of note that the fines in New England were much smaller than in the other colonies. 'New Jersey, 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 69. 5 Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, 2, 3 Hening, 236. 6 North Carolina, 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 6, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 199 were specified as the rates at which the payments of fines should be made. In Virginia, and also in Maryland, the fines were usually payable in kind, ranging in quantity from one hundred 1 to thirty thousand pounds of tobacco. 2 This last penalty was imposed by the Bacon Assembly upon sheriffs making false returns. Although thirty thousand pounds was an extraordinarily large amount, there seems to have been some need of it, for more than twenty years before, in 1676, an assembly had found it necessary to inflict a fine of ten thousand pounds of tobacco upon sheriffs neglecting their duty. 3 The proceeds of these fines were applied to a great variety of uses. As a general rule one-half went to the sovereign for the support of the government/ or in the proprietary colonies to the lords proprietors 5 or to the governor. 6 In many cases the other moiety went to the person informing and suing for it. 7 New Jersey divided one particular fine into thirds, giv- ing one portion to the king, another to the aggrieved party, and the remaining third to the poor, 8 while Massachusetts assigned one moiety to the poor and the other to the in- former. 9 In cases of bribery in South Carolina the fines went to the benefit of the poor of the parish. 10 In Georgia the proceeds of fines were used to defray the expense incurred by the sessions of the general assembly, 11 1 21 Car. I, Act xx, I Hening, 333. 2 Bacon's Laws, Act vii, 2 Hening, 356. 3 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii. I Hening, 411. * Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236. 5 South Carolina, Act 1704, no. 227, 4, 2 Cooper, 249. 6 Pennsylvania, 4 Anne, chap. 1 29, Franklin ed., 1 742, 67. 7 Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236. An earlier statute gave the ag- grieved party the first claim on the second moiety. 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hen- ing, 172. 8 12 Geo. I, chap, 40, 2, Nevill's Laws, 142. 9 Laws, 1 738-9, chap. 26, 2 Ames and Goodell, 980. 10 Act 1716, no. 365, 23, 2 Cooper, 683. u Act 1761. 2 00 HIST OR Y OF ELE CTIONS while the neighboring colony of South Carolina punished a sheriff guilty of an untrue return by making him forfeit ten pounds to the lords proprietors for each false vote and a hundred pounds to the persons who should have been re- turned. 1 North Carolina applied the proceeds of penalties for false returns towards the building of any court house, church or chapel which the governor should designate. If however, no such building was needed, then the lords pro- prietors and the aggrieved parties were the beneficiaries. 2 The method to be employed in recovering a fine was not always specifically described. When an informer sued, the form of action was stated to be a qui tarn action, in which the plaintiff described himself as suing for the commonwealth as well as for himself. 3 Virginia prescribed the means of re- covery to be " with full costs of suit by action of debt, byll, plaint, or information in any court of record in his majesties collony and dominion wherein noe essoigne, protection or wager of law, privilege or imparlance shall soe be admitted or allowed." 4 This provision was modelled upon the phrase which appears in a similar connection in almost all the Eng- 1 Act 1704, no. 227, 3, 2 Cooper, 249. 2 Laws, 17,15, 2 North .Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 3 I Salkeld, J 29, n; I Viner, Abridgement, 197. South Carolina, 23 Geo. II, no. 885, 4 Cooper, 98. * II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172. This statute contains the following com- prehensive definition of a violation of duty on the part of an election officer : " If any sheriff or his officer, before the returne be endorsed on the writt, shall deny and refuse to take the poll in writeing as aforesaid if it be demanded by any . candidate or freeholder, or shall refuse to give copyes of the poll to such candi- date or candidates, if by them required, or shall neglect to give legall notice of the election time and place of election, or shall make a false or double returne of those who are not duly elected burgesses as aforesaid, or who shall not make any re- turn, or shall make returne in any forme then is herein expressed, he or they so offending in any one or the premises, and being thereof lawfully convicted, shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of fforty pounds sterling money." IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 2OI lish statutes passed during the colonial period. The only difference was that in the mother country the courts of record were limited to those at Westminster Hall, and one impar- lance was sometimes permitted. 1 In nearly all the colonies the method of recovery was by " bill, plaint or information." 2 In actions for recovery of penalties for illegal voting, two colonies placed the onus probandi on the defendant. 3 Rhode Island enacted that certain fines incurred by towns were to be recovered by an action on the case brought by the treasurer and the proceeds devoted to the use of the colony. 4 Other fines were levied by warrant of distress. 5 Delaware enforced judgments against persons incurring fines of twenty shillings for making a second attempt to vote, by seizing their goods, or in case they had none, by putting them in gaol until the judgment was satisfied. 6 Besides the punishments inflicted on persons convicted of bribery, which have been enumerated in the preceding sec- tion 7 there were several instances, where the penal sanctions of the election laws amounted to more than a fine, and in- volved physical punishment of'some sort. These sanctions, however, applied to delinquent electors rather than to offend- ing officials. Rhode Island with her usual severity did not spare voters guilty of fraud. They were at first liable to a fine of five pounds or twenty-one stripes upon their naked backs, or im- 1 See, for example, Statutes I Geo. I, Stat. 2, chap. 56: 6 Anne, chap. 7; 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25; 12 and 13 Will. Ill, chap. 10. 3 For example, Massachusetts Bay : I Ames and Goodell, 88 ; Pennsylvania : 25 Geo. II, chap. 6, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 237; Delaware : Adams ed., 1797, 429; Maryland: 8 Geo. I, Baskett ed, 1723, 121; North Carolina: Laws, 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213; Georgia: Act 1761. 3 Virginia: 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 7, 7 Hening, 519; North Carolina: 17 Geo. II, chap. I, 7, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. * 6 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 323. 5 12 Geo. II, Franklin ed., .1744, 217. 6 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, 6, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 7 See p. 192 etseq.,ante. 2Q2 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS prisonment for a month. 1 The -penalty was soon increased to forty stripes or imprisonment in the stocks, and conviction was secured upon confession or upon the testimony of two witnesses that the voter had put more than one paper in the hat. The governor and council could inflict these punish- ments at the general court of election, but the assistant justices and wardens had jurisdiction at town or quarter meetings. The latter officers could not subject an offender to a fine of more than forty shillings or to more than twenty- one stripes. They could, however, set him in the stocks. 2 In 1739 the penalty for putting in more than one ballot was a fine of forty shillings with disfranchisement for three years. 3 South Carolina punished persons voting illegally by six months' imprisonment without bail. 4 In default of payment of a fine imposed on conviction for an attempt to illegally influence a voter, Georgia provided for imprisonment with- out bail or mainprize. 5 1 4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 195. 2 Ibid., 207. 3 12 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 217. 4 Act 1/04, no. 227, 6, 2 Cooper, 249. 5 Act 1761. PART II. LOCAL ELECTIONS. CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF LOCAL ELECTIONS. Under the subject of general elections it has been found expedient to touch upon the manner of choosing some of those colonial officers whose functions were local rather than general in character. Such for example were the associates in Plymouth, and the sheriffs, coroners, commissioners and assessors in Pennsylvania, whose duties were confined to the county in which they were elected. The reason for treating these officers in that connection was that they were chosen by persons possessing the county franchise rather than the town franchise, and also because in the latter colony they were voted for at the same time and place as the members of the legislature. In Pennsylvania and Delaware the in- spectors were essentially local officials chosen by the hun- dreds of each county ; but their duties were so intimately connected with the management of general elections that it was deemed advisable to consider them in that connection. It is not my intention to give the subject of local elections a treatment so exhaustive as has been bestowed on those at which the general officers of the colonies were chosen. The reason for this is that although the various town, vestry, manor, city and borough elections were to some extent gov- erned by statutes general in their nature, it is none the less reasonable to suppose that each locality followed its own judgment in regard to matters of detail. To engage in a thorough investigation of the subject would, therefore, ne- 2O4 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS cessitate greater labor and more extended research than is at present within the power of the writer. Accordingly, in the following pages no attempt will be made to give more than a rough sketch of the methods of conducting local elections, as laid down by statutes of general import. This will be done in the hope of furnishing a basis of comparison with the system of choosing general officers, rather than with a view of exhausting the subject. Neither has it been thought necessary to consider in detail the subject of military elec- tions, in which the citizens at large had sometimes a voice. For example, in Massachusetts an order of the general court gave all the freemen of the colony a vote in the election of the officers of the trainbands. 1 This proves that the suffrage for military officers was not always restricted to enlisted men. 2 Outside of the Puritan colonies the officers of the militia were generally appointed, and when they were elected it was probably by the soldiers themselves. i . Town Elections. It may perhaps be stated as a gen- eral proposition, that so far as the election of local officers is concerned, the New England town of to-day does not differ very much from its predecessor of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. From the earliest times the more im- portant town officers have been elective, and that by a popular suffrage. Thus, for example, an early enactment of the general court of Plymouth required " constables for each part and other infefiour officers " to be chosen annually by the free- men. 8 A law passed in 1658 would seem to indicate that 1 1647, 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 191. 2 See also Plymouth Laws, 1667, Brigham, 151 ; I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 98, 121 ; 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, no; I Connecticut Colonial Records, 409; 3 New York Colonial Documents, 655. 3 Laws, 1636, ii Plymouth Colony Records, 7; Brigham, 37. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 205 the town officials had to be confirmed by the general court.- 1 An order of 1652 commanded that "in every town three or five Celectmen be chosen by the Townsmen out of the free- men such as shalbee approved by the court for the better." 2 In Massachusetts by an order of 1635-6 the towns were given power to elect their own officers, such as selectmen, surveyors for the highways, constables, etc? Under the charter of 1691 the inhabitants of the towns were called to- gether annually for the purpose of electing a town clerk and three, five, seven or nine selectmen. 4 After i/oo a treasurer was also chosen by each town," though before that time a treasurer was elected for each county by the votes of those possessing the town suffrage. 6 The first provincial legisla- ture of New Hampshire passed a law providing that an an- nual meeting should be held in each town for the election of constables, selectmen, jurors and other officers. 7 The towns of Rhode Island elected a large number of local officers, including among others a town council. 8 In the four towns of that colony which had first been settled, the chief judicial officer was one of the assistants, and as such 1 " Other inferiour officers, as constables, grandjurymen and surveyors for the highwaies, bee then also confeirmed, if approved by the Court." Laws, 1658, Brigham, 109. Laws, 1662, Brigham, 138. See Book of General Laws, 1671, Brigham 260, 264, for provisions concerning the annual elections of selectmen and constables. 3 I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 172; Coffin, History of Newbury, 19. The maximum number of selectmen appears to have been nine. Laws, ed. 1660, 76; ed. 1814, 195. * Laws, 1692-3, chap. 28, I Ames and Goodell, 65. 5 Laws, 1699-1700, chap. 2, I Ames and Goodell, 385. 6 Laws, 1692-3, chap. 27, i, I Ames and Goodell, 63. 7 1680, I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396, 403. This statute was re- pealed, but later re-enacted in substance. 5 Geo. I, chap. 88, Fowle ed. 1761, 34, 201, 213; ed. 1771, 137. Ministers were also elected; ed. 1771, 155. 8 18 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 9. 2 o6 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS was, of course, chosen at the general court of election. 1 The act under which Block Island was incorporated, in 1672, gave the freemen of that corporation power to elect wardens and a " sargent." 2 The charter of Providence, in 1649, gave full power to the inhabitants to rule themselves and elect officers of justice on the first second day of June in each year. 3 In the New Haven colony we find that the Fundamental Orders of 1643 provided for the election of as many magis- trates as were necessary for each plantation. 4 As early as 1636 constables were sworn in Newton to act till " newe be chosen," so that it seems reasonable to assume that even at that early date local officers were elected in the Hartford colony. Under the Connecticut charter each town chose annually not more than " seven selectmen, one town clerk, constables, surveyors of highways, fence viewers, listers, col- lectors of rates, leather sealers, haywards, inspectors, chimney viewers, and other ordinary town officers." 8 Among the latter were packers of beef, pork and other goods, clerks of trainbands, gagers, sealers of measures, branders, appraisers and so forth.' The New England colonies were included with New York in the " Dominion " ruled by Andros from 1687 until his im- prisonment in i689. 8 Under this government the only offi- cers elected by the people were local in character. Each town was permitted to meet but once a year for the purpose 1 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 148, 401. 2 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 466. 3 I Rhode Island Colonial Records > 214. 4 I New Haven Colonial Records, 113. 5 I Connecticut Colonial Records, i. 6 Connecticut, Session Laws, ed. 1715, 113. 7 Ibid, go, 91, ed. 1750, 54, 69, 240. The reader will find in I Howard, Local Constitutional History of the United States, 78-99, a list of the town officers that were elected in Massachusetts. 8 For his commission, see 3 New York Colonial Documents, 544. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 2O/ of choosing its own officers, and among them were a com- missioner, constable and four selectmen. The latter held office for two years, half of the number going out of office each year. 1 That the custom of annually electing their town officers was regarded by New Englanders as essential to their welfare is shown by the fact that a little colony of Puri- tans on the coast of Georgia elected their selectmen and other officers regularly each year. 2 In the Dutch towns of New Netherland there existed a system of local elections similar to those which had long flourished in Holland. A petition from the Eight to the Nineteen of the Amsterdam Chamber, in 1644, stated that it would be impossible for the rural districts to be cultivated unless the people were permitted to " elect from among themselves a Bailiff or Schout and Shepens, who will be em- powered to send their deputies and give their votes in public affairs with the Director and Council."" The charter of Flushing, issued the following year, granted that town the right to " Nominate, Elect and Choose a certain officer over them, who may bear the name or Title of Scout or Constable of fflushing." 4 Gravesend, by a charter granted at about the same time, was allowed to elect three magistrates and a schout subject, however, to confirmation by the governor. 5 , Other towns followed the custom, already referred to, of electing a double or triple number of magistrates, from which the Director appointed one." The reply of Governor Stuy- vesant to the convention of 1653 justifies the inference that the English towns on Long Island elected their magistrates without presenting them to him for confirmation. 7 During 1 Ordinance of Council, 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 427. 2 I Stevens, History of Georgia, 380. 3 I New York Colonial Documents, 213. 4 O'Callaghan, Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 49. 5 Ibid., 55. 6 I O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 393. ' See 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 250. 2 o8 HIS T R y F ELE C TIONS the second Dutch occupation, in 1673, we find that the council of war sent orders to a number of towns, both in New York and New Jersey, requiring them to elect and re- turn a double number of schouts and schepens, from whom the council should appoint the magistrates. 1 The Duke's Laws, under which for a time New York and parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania were administered, pro- vided that " all votes in the private affairs of particular towns should be given and Determined by the Inhabitants, Free- holders, Householders." 2 Under this code eighteen overseers were chosen by a majority of the freeholders of each town. The terms of four of these expired each year, their places being filled by popular vote. From the outgoing overseers the freeholders elected a constable and returned him to the justices for confirmation. 3 In 1666 the number of overseers in each town was reduced to four, and the freeholders were ordered to meet in their towns, and dismiss by vote two of the new overseers chosen that year, as well as two of the overseers that had held office during the previous year. 4 The Monmouth patent, issued by Governor Nicolls in 1665, empowered the inhabitants of that town to elect their local officers. 5 In the more southern portion of the Duke's dominions we find that in 1672 Newcastle was incorporated as a " Balywick." The first officers were appointed, but thereafter a high sheriff and bailiff were to be elected annu- ally. The method of selection was the double nomination, two candidates being chosen by the people, and from these the governor appointed one. Four assistants might also be 1 2 New York Colonial Documents, 574, 577, 579, 580, 586; I New Jersey Archives, 125 etseq. 2 Title, Votes, page 22. The code is published in the Charters and Laws, re- printed by the State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 1879. 3 Title, Overseers, ibid., 44. * Ibid., 68. 5 I New Jersey Archives, 45. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 209 chosen annually. 1 During the proprietorship of the Duke, as well as afterward, many towns received charters or patents giving them the power of electing officers. The Duke's Laws gradually went out of use, but it was not until after 1690 that they became a dead letter in New York. The writer is unable to say how far, during the period they were in force, the towns availed themselves of the privilege of electing their own officers. We shall see that in Pennsylva- nia and Delaware, except in the incorporated settlements, no general system of local elections was introduced until just before the Revolution. New Jersey began to develop local elections much earlier than her southern neighbors, but out- side of New England the honor of developing them into a permanent system belongs to the province of New York. In 1691 the New York assembly passed a law command- ing the freeholders of every town to meet annually at the times expressed in their patents. At such meetings they were to choose three persons to be surveyors and " Ordrers of the Work for laying out and the amendment of the High- ways and Fences," according to the rules to be prescribed by the freeholders. 2 But the indefinite language of the preceding act was the cause of numerous mistakes, and in 1703 another statute required each town to elect annually a person to " compute, ascertain, examine, oversee and allow the contin- gent, publick and necessary Charge of each County." This officer was called a supervisor, and in electing him each in- habitant of a manor, liberty, jurisdiction, precinct and plan- tation was given power to join his vote with those of the next adjacent town. The " Manner of Ranslaerswick" was excluded from this last provision, and was permitted to choose a separate supervisor. In addition each town, manor, or precinct was authorized to choose two assessors and one 1 1 2 New York Colonial Documents, 496. 2 3 Will, and Mary, Van Schaack's Laws, 3. 2 i o HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS collector. Vacancies were filled at special elections, and in case of failure or refusal to elect, power of appointment was vested in the justices of the peace. 1 This was generally the rule with the middle colonies. A later act authorized the choice of special officers for the collection of quit-rents. 2 Subsequent changes in these statutes affected only the num- ber of officers to be chosen, and the dates when elections were to be held;' The manor of Rensselaerwyck was from the beginning treated as if it were a town. It was permitted to choose officers with the same names and duties as those of the towns, and in addition overseers of ovens and chimneys. 4 In the course of time similar privileges were extended to the manors of Livingston 5 and Cortlandt. 6 In early times the duties of an overseer of the poor were performed by the church wardens. It was not until 1773 that a law was enacted providing that overseers of the poor might be chosen in every town, manor or precinct where there was no estab- lished vestry.' In New Jersey, by a statute of 7 Anne, town or precinct meetings were authorized to be held for the purpose of choos- ing overseers and assessors of the poor." In 1730 it was or- dered that an assessor and a collector should be chosen annually by the voters of every town, division, precinct and district. 9 In default of an election, the justices of the peace could appoint to these offices. Just before the Revolution it was provided that not more than four overseers of the poor 1 2 Anne, Van Schaack's Laws, 541. 2 Van Schaack's Laws, 404. 3 See 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 1621, Van Schaack's Laws. 4 4 Anne, chap. 151, Van Schaack's Laws, 67; also 70, 545, 568, 689, etc. 5 3 Geo. I, chap. 323, Van Schaack's Laws, 106. 6 II Geo. II, chap. 651, Van Schaack's Laws, 192. 7 13 Geo. Ill, Van Schaack's Laws, 756. 8 7 Anne, chap. 6, Nevill's Laws, 9. s 3 Geo. I, chap. 22. Nevill's Laws, 44. IN THE A M 'ERIC 'AN COLONIES. 211 should be chosen at the annual town meetings throughout the colony, and that- vacancies might be filled by special elections. 1 In 1730 the election of four persons from among whom the justices of the peace should select two to be sur- veyors of highways, was authorized. 2 In addition to the officials just mentioned, every New Jersey town elected two " chosen freeholders." It seems to have been the duty of these persons to aid the justices of the peace in deciding about the building of goals and court houses, and in certain other administrative matters. 3 Besides these elections we find in New Jersey two in- stances in which a locality voted upon a formal proposition in a manner resembling somewhat the Rhode Island referen- dum* In two counties the court houses had been burned, and in order to decide where new ones should be erected, special elections were held. The justices of the peace were ordered with the aid of the chosen freeholders to draw up advertisements and have them posted in the most public place in every township. The purpose of these was to sum- mon all persons who were properly qualified to vote for rep- resentatives, to meet on the site of the old court house. The meeting must take place within forty days after the adver- tisements were posted, provided twenty days' notice was given. On the day appointed the justices took the votes and the chosen freeholders acted as judges. The poll could be adjourned from day to day for three days, until all those attending had voted. Then the justices added up the totals and the new court house was erected in the place in favor of which the majority of votes had been cast. 5 1 14 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 408. * 3 Geo. I, chap. 23, Nevill's Laws, 48. 3 12 and 13 Anne, chap. 17, Nevill's Laws, 32. For other functions see 7 Geo. II, chap. 108, Nevill's Laws, 216. * See p. 10, ante. 5 Monmouth County, 4 Geo. II, chap. 54; Somerset County, 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 62; Nevill's Laws, 200, 247. 2 1 2 HIS TORY OF ELECTIONS In 1725 it was enacted in Pennsylvania that three com- missioners should be chbsen for each county. One of these went out of office each year and his successor was chosen at the regular elections for the assembly. After 1718 six as- sessors were chosen at the same election. 1 For a long period in the history of that province the only local officers chosen by popular vote besides the inspectors, were the pound keepers. 2 All the other town officers appear to have been appointed, and it was not until 1772 that the voters of every town in the province were authorized to choose two supervisors of highways. 3 In 1771 provision had been made for the annual election in each town of a board of three free- holders whose duty it was to " settle" the books of the over- seers. 4 After the following year a board of four auditors was chosen to examine the accounts of the supervisors. 3 In Delaware almost all the local officers were appointed, and with the exception of sheriffs, coroners and inpectors, the only elected officers were the assessors. At first these were chosen at the county elections for assemblymen," but after 1766 on the day appointed for choosing inspectors, 7 an assessor was elected in each hundred. In the southern col- onies the only local officers subject to election by popular suffrage were, if we except the vestrymen and wardens, the constables provided for by Locke's Constitution. 8 2. Parish Elections. The parish was primarily an Eng- lish institution, and existed only in those colonies where there 1 4 Geo I, chap. 213, Franklin ed., 1742, 156; n Geo. I, chap. 3, Hall and Sel- lers ed., 1775, 131. See p. 170, ante. 2 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 3 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444, 4 ii Geo. Ill, chap. 18, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404. 5 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, 15, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444. 6 i6 Geo. II, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 231. 7 Adams ed., 1797,429. 8 Art. 91, i North Carolina Colonial Records, 199. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 213 was an established church. On both sides of the Atlantic the parish had its secular as well as religious side, and as the smallest governmental division its affairs were administered by a vestry whose functions were somewhat analogous to those of the New England selectmen. 1 The writer has found no trace of a vestry outside of New York, Maryland, Virginia and the two Carolinas. It may be stated as a gen- eral rule that in each parish ministers were chosen by the vestry and that they became ex-officio members of that board. Sometimes the wardens were elected by popular vote, but usually this was done by the vestry. By the statute of 4 William and Mary, the Church of Eng- land was established in the city of New York and in the counties of Richmond, Westchester and Queens. Two churchwardens and ten vestrymen were elected every year by the freeholders of these districts.' 2 After 1746 each of the seven wards in New York city chose two vestrymen, and the membership of the board was thus increased to four- teen. 8 Maryland received her establishment in the same year as New York.* A subsequent statute fixed the number of the vestry at six and made the minister, if he was worth forty pounds, a member of the board. Two wardens were chosen annually by the vestry and the freeholders. Two members of the vestry went out of office each year, their successors be- ing chosen at the annual meeting of the parish. The vestry could remove a member after giving him personal notice, or, if he was out of reach, by affixing a public notice to the great door of the church for three successive Sundays. All vacancies were, however, filled at special meetings of the 1 See on the general subject, i Howard, Local Constitutional History of the United States, 117 et sey. 2 Van Schaack's Laws, 19. 3 19 Geo. II, Van Schaack's Laws, 267. 4 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 2, Bacon's Laws. 214 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS freeholders called for the purpose. 1 In no province was there wider popular control over the vestry than in Mary- land. Continuing in geographical order, we find that a statute enacted by Virginia in 1643, indicates that church wardens were annually elected and the vestrymen were appointed. 2 In the following year, however, it was definitely stated that the vestry should be elected by the voices of the majority of the parishioners who attended the annual meeting. 3 In 1661 the number of vestrymen was limited to twelve, 4 but in the fol- lowing year the minister and vestrymen were given the power of choosing wardens and of filling vacancies in their own number. 5 The vestry thus became self-renewing and, to all intents and purposes, a close corporation. That this change was not' favorably received is shown by the action of Bacon's legislature in 1676. This body complained of the evils that arose from the long continuance of vestries, and with a view of reforming the abuse, passed a law providing that once every three years twelve vestrymen should be elected by the votes of the freeholders and freemen of each parish. 6 The course of development in North Carolina was pre- cisely the reverse of that in Virginia. At first the ves- try was a close corporation, 7 but after 1741 twelve vestry- men were elected for terms of two years by the freeholders of each parish. 8 After 1765 vestry elections were held at in- tervals of three years. 9 The wardens were, however, chosen 1 I Anne, chap. I, Bacon's Laws; Act no. 5, Basket! ed., 1723, 13. 2 18 Car. I, Act i, I Hening, 240. 3 19 Car. I, Act. v, I Hening, 290. 4 13 Car. II., Act xxi, 2 Hening, 25. 5 14 Car. II, Act ii, 2 Hening, 44. 6 Bacon's Laws, Act. vi, 2 Hening, 356. 7 Laivs, 1715, 2 A r orth Carolina Colonial Records, 206. 8 14 Geo. II, chap. 23, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157. 9 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 215 by the vestrymen, who also had power to fill vacancies until the next election. The English church was established in South Carolina in 1704. The first elections were held the following year, two wardens and nine vestrymen, being chosen in each parish. Vacancies were filled at special elections called with all con- venient speed. 1 A subsequent act reduced the membership of the vestry to seven and gave the rector a seat in the board. 3 The rector of a parish was chosen by a majority vote of its inhabitants, and commissioners were given power to hear and settle disputed elections: 1 After 1712 vacancies among the wardens were filled by the vestry. 4 In Connecticut a system of parish or church society elec- tions flourished. In these a clerk and committee were an- nually chosen by the settled inhabitants of each parish. 5 Ministers were also chosen at these meetings. 6 Moreover, a method was provided by statute for the organization of new societies after other societies had been drawn off from them. 7 3. Municipal Elections. So far as the writer has been able to ascertain, the only cities which elected their own offi- cers were New York and Albany. Philadelphia was a close corporation. In its charter the first set of aldermen and councilmen were named and it empowered them to appoint the mayor and select their own successors. 8 The coroner 1 Acts 1704, no. 225, 21, 22, 27; no. 241, 2 Cooper, 242, 259. ' l Act 1706, no. 256, 29, 2 Cooper, 287. 3 Acts 1704, no. 225, 14; 1706, no. 256, 21; 1712, no. 307; 2 Cooper, 236, 287, 366. 4 Act 1712, no. 307, 7, 2 Cooper, 366. 5 4 Geo. I, 6 Connecticut Colonial Records, 33; Session Laws, 231. 6 2 Geo. II, chap. 33, 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 211 ; Session Laws, 362. 7 13 Geo. I, 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 74, Session Laws, 335; 2 Geo. II, chap, 41, Session Laws, 366; 9 Connecticut Colonial Records, 218. 8 Pennsylvania Laws, Miller ed., 1762, 10, n. 2 1 6 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS and the sheriff were the only officers elected by the people, but this was done by virtue of their capacity as a county, and in this particular their action differed in no respect from that of the inhabitants of the other counties. 1 After 1771 the freeholders of Philadelphia annually elected two wardens. 2 As has been already seen, 3 the smaller Dutch towns pos- sessed the privilege of electing their officers, though their choice was subject to the approval of the Director General. New Amsterdam had not been granted this privilege, al- though- it had been demanded in 1642 and again in 1649.* At last, in 1652, Director Stuyvesant was instructed to have a schout, two burgomasters and five schepens " elected according to the custom of the metropolis of Fatherland." He, however, continued for a long time to appoint municipal officers, and when a protest was made he replied that he had done so " for momentous reasons." " For, if," he said, " this rule was to become a cynosure, if the nomination and election of magistrates were to be left to the populace who were the most interested, then each would vote for some one of his own stamp, the thief for a thief, the rogue, the tippler, the smuggler, for a brother in iniquity, that he might enjoy greater latitude in his vices and frauds." The magistrates had not been appointed contrary to the will of the people, because they were " proposed to the commonalty in front of the City Hall by their names and surnames, each in his quality, before they were admitted or sworn to office. The question is then put, does any one object?" Finally, in 1658 Stuyvesant allowed the burgomasters and schepens 1 See Penn's Charter of Privileges; I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. 2 II Geo. Ill, chap. 19, 17, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 417. 3 See p. 207, ante. 4 1 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 193; I Brodhead, History State of New York, 540. 5 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Nelherland, 192, 213, 250, 311, 312; I Brod- head, History of the State of New York, 540, 548. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 2 IJ to nominate their successors, but the city did not have a schout of its own till 1660.' , By the terms of the treaty of peace in 1664, the inferior civil officers and magistrates in New York were to hold until their successors were elected or appointed. 2 In 1665 Gov- ernor Nicolls appointed the first mayor. 3 During the second Dutch occupation, when the city was called New Orange, a double number of magistrates were elected by the people and presented to the governor for appointment. 4 In 1686 the Dongan charter gave the lieutenant governor the power of appointing the mayor and sheriff of New York city, but an alderman, an assistant and a constable were to be chosen for each ward by a majority of the inhabitants of that ward. 5 During his short lease of power Leisler issued war- rants for the election of the mayor and sheriff by " all Pro- testant freeholders." The resulting election was a farce, as only seventy of the inhabitants voted. The illegality of this action in defiance of the provisions of the Dongan charter was one of the chief causes of complaint against Leisler. 6 The Montgomery charter, granted to New York in I73O, 7 authorized the election of one alderman, an assistant, two assessors, one collector and two constables in each ward. 8 The charter of Albany was granted by Governor Dongan in 1686, and it resembled in many respects the instrument 1 2 O'Callaghan, History ofA'ew Netherland, 370. 2 Art. 1 6, 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 534. 3 2 Brodhead, History of the Slate of New York, 212. 4 See the Provisional Instructions for the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens of New Orange, 2 New York Colonial Documents, 680. 5 Manual 'of 'the Common Council of New York, 1868, 7,9. 6 3 New York Colonial Documents, 645, 655, 675; 2 Brodhead, History of tfie State of New York, 578, 9. 7 4 Geo. II. *Manualofthe Common Council of New York, 1868, 26; Explanatory Act: n Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 2 i g HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS under which the city of New York was first organized. It provided that six aldermen, six assistant aldermen, consta- bles and other magistrates, should be chosen annually. The mayor as well as the sheriff was appointed by the governor. 1 In the province of Pennsylvania several boroughs were created by charter. Chester, Bristol, and Lancaster, erected in 1701, 1720, and 1742, respectively, were empowered by their charters to elect annually " fit and able men" to be burgesses. The burgess first chosen was to be high consta- ble. 2 In 1773 Lancaster was granted the privilege of elect- ing annually two supervisors and two assessors. 3 In North Carolina the electors who were qualified to vote for the representative from Wilmington, were authorized to meet' annually and elect five men, from whom the governor was to appoint three commissioners. 4 1 Weise, History of Albany, 200. 2 For the charters of these boroughs see Pennsylvania Laics, Miller ed. 1762, 14, 16, 18. 3 13 Geo. Ill, chap. I, 7, 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 495. 4 Laws, 1740, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 114. CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE. i . Town Elections. It is believed that all persons quali- fied to vote at a general election could vote in town meetings. In New England, for instance, freemen of the colony seem to have been permitted to vote for their town officers as well as for their deputies. In the present work the deputies to the general court have been treated as general officers, following thus the analogy of those colonies which elected only repre- sentatives or delegates to the assembly. But the deputy of the Puritan colony was, perhaps, a local officer in that he represented the freemen of the town from which he came. Though little authority has come within the notice of the writer, 1 he believes that deputies were elected by the freemen of the colony residing in the towns rather than by those vot- ing in the town meetings or in the election of local officers. The reason of this is that the deputy was a substitute for each freeman of his town, and was chosen for the purpose of exercising the functions which were the inherent right of the freemen of the colony but which it was impossible for them to exercise directly. The present section, therefore, treats only of the qualifications of those voters who were not free- men of the colony, the latter being always qualified to vote for local officers. 2 It is a general truth that local suffrage was wider, more inclusive, than colonial suffrage, i. e., than that by which the election of deputies to the general court was regulated. 'See New Hampshire, Act 1770, Fowle ed., 1771, Temporary Laws, 40. 2 Plymouth : Laws, 1669, Brighain, 156. Massachusetts : Laws,ed. 1660, 76; ed. 1814, 195. Connecticut: Session Laws, 113, 269. 220 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS In the Plymouth colony freeholders of twenty pounds ratable estate and of good conversation who were not Quakers, and who had taken the oath of fidelity, could vote for town officers. 1 Since many who had not taken the oath of fidelity tried to vote and this was found to " much obstruct the carrying on of religion in the publicke weale" it was enacted later that a record of those who had taken the oath must be kept by the clerk of each town. 2 Some years later voters in towns were required to be orthodox in the fundamentals of religion. 3 In 1635 Massachusetts enacted that only freemen could vote in towns " in actions of authoritie or necessity, or that which belongs to them by virtue of their freedom as- receiv- ing inhabitants and laying out town lots, &c." This law ex- tended to towns, the law permitting only church members to vote, but it is a question whether this restriction applied to the electing of officers.* On account of the " ability" of those who were not church members it was at a later time found advisable to permit them to vote, provided that they were at least twenty-four years old. 5 A subsequent enactment gave a vote in the choice of selectmen and other town officers to all "Englishmen, settled inhabitants and householders, of the age of twenty-four, of honest and good conversation, be- ing rated at eighty pounds estate in a single country rate, and that had taken the oath of fidelity to this government." 6 Under the provincial government of Massachusetts Bay, all persons coming to live in a town except " freeholders, proprietors of land in the town, those born or having served an apprenticeship or removed elsewhere," must obtain the consent of the selectmen of the town before they could 1 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Laws, 1669, ibid., 156. 2 Laws, 1678, Brigham, 188. 3 Book of General Laws, 1671, Brigham, 258. 4 1 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 161. 5 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 109. 6 Laws, ed., 1660, 76; 1814, 195. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 221 vote." 1 Officers were elected by freeholders and other inhab- itants rated at twenty pounds beside the poll, " real estate to be set at so much only as the rent or income thereof for the space of six years would amount to were it let at a reason- able rate, and personal estate and faculty to be estimated ac- cording to the rule of valuation" prescribed for assessing taxes. Disputes on this point were settled by the moderator. 2 Qua- kers and Anabaptists were exempt from taxes for religious purposes, and on that account not permitted to vote on ques- tions concerning ministers and meeting houses. 3 The qualifications for electors of town officers in New Hampshire were the same as those in the province of Massa- chusetts Bay. 4 This is true, though one of the earliest New Hampshire laws declared the suffrage in town elections to be no wider than that existing in the elections held for the choice of assemblymen. 5 A temporary law passed just before the Revolution restricted the suffrage in town elections to per- sons ratable according to the tax laws, for thirty shillings, including their polls. 6 In each of the Narragansett towns before the charter of 19 Charles I, freemen were admitted and disfranchised or sus- pended by vote of the entire body assembled in town meet- ing, 7 Under the charter, towns were a long time permitted to exercise their option in admitting such inhabitants as they pleased. 8 Ultimately the distinction between the free- 1 Laws, 1700-1, chap. 23, I Ames and Goodell, 452. * Laws, 1092-3, chap. 28, 4, I Ames and Goodell, 65; 1735-6, chap. 8, I, 2 Ames and Goodell, 761. 3 1731, 2 Ames and Goodell, 620, 715, 877, 1022. 4 4 Geo. I, chap. 82, 3, Fowle ed., 1761, 230; ed., 1771, 124; 5 Geo. I, chap. 87, Fowle ed., 1761, 34, 2OI, 213; ed., 1771, 137. 5 I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396, 403. 6 Fowle ed., 1771, Temporary Laws, 40. 7 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 53, 85, 119. 8 1 8 Car. II, Franklin ed, 1744, 9. 222 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS dom of a town and the freedom of the colony seems to have been obliterated, and the qualifications for electors came to be the same in both cases. 1 In New Haven the writer has found no distinction between a free burgess of the colony, and a free burgess of a town. 2 Hartford, on the other hand, permitted persons with cer- tain qualifications to vote in town meetings, although they could not be freemen of the colony. 8 No one could reside in a town unless he was formally admitted by a vote of the townsmen. 4 It seems at first to have been the rule that any admitted inhabitant could vote for town officers, but ulti- mately it was enacted that besides freemen, only an " admit- ted inhabitant, Householder and a man of sober conversa- tion with a Freehold estate, Rated at fifty shillings in the common list beside his person," should be allowed to vote in town elections, under a penalty of twenty shillings. 5 This act seems to have been passed with the intention of shutting out all who had only a transient interest in a town. Under a later statute the owner of a personal estate of fifty pounds, as well as he who possessed a fifty-shilling freehold was al- lowed to vote, provided that he was twenty-one years old. 6 Outside of New England the qualifications of persons vot- ing for town officers do not appear to have been very defi- nitely fixed. In New York the term " freeholder and inhab- itant" is common. 7 By this phrase we are probably to under- stand a person residing in the town and possessing a freehold within its limits. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that the word inhabitant was of wider meaning than the word freeholder. The two terms were intended to qualify each other, in order to limit the suffrage to those possessing 1 16 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 252. 2 1 New Haven Colonial Records, 113. 3 Session Laws, 113. ^1643, I Connecticut Colonial Records, 96. 5 Session Laws, 113. 6 Ibid., eds. 1750, 1754, 1769, 240. 7 Van Schaack's Laws, 3. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 223 more than a transitory interest in the town. The same re- mark applies to the suffrage at parish elections in New York and in the South. The town suffrage in New Jersey was definitely fixed in 1766, when a statute was enacted which provided that, ex- cept in towns corporate, no person should vote unless he was a freeholder, or a tenant for years, or a householder, and a resident in the township or precinct where he voted. 1 In Pennsylvania the pound-keeper of each township was elected by the inhabitants who were owners or possessors of land," but the suffrage for supervisor elections was the same as that for members of the assembly, though all freeholders seem to have been allowed to vote. 3 2. Parish Elections. In general it may be stated that the possession of property and residence within a parish was sufficient to qualify persons to vote for wardens -and vestry- men. In a few cases the suffrage was more explicitly defined. Thus, in New York City, vestrymen were chosen by persons qualified to vote in municipal elections. 4 In Maryland only those inhabitants who were freeholders within the parish and who contributed to the public taxes and charges thereof, could vote. 5 The parish suffrage in North Carolina was re- stricted to a " freeholder in actual possession of estate, real for his life or that of another or greater estate, either fifty acres or a lot in town saved according to law within the parish." 6 1 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 450, Allinson's Laws, 287. The earlier statutes used the words " freeholders and inhabitants, householders;" 3 Geo. I, chap. 22, Nevill's Laws, 44, * 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 3 Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444. 4 ii Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 624. 5 I Anne, chap. I, 8, Bacon's Laws, Baskett ed., 1723, 13. 6 5 Geo. III. chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. See also 14 Geo. II, chap. 23, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157. 224 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS South Carolina was not so liberal as her northern sister, for she required membership in and conformity to the religion of the Church of England. In addition voters were required to be freeholders and residents contributing to the public charges of the parish. 1 In the Connecticut society meetings an elector was re- quired either to be in full communion with the church or else to possess the same amount of property as a voter in a town election. 2 Dissenters who were on that account ex- empt from paying taxes were not permitted to vote. 3 3. Mtmicipal Elections. The Dongan charter gave the inhabitants of each ward in New York City power to elect aldermen. 4 We have already seen that Leisler had the mayor and sheriff elected by the Protestant freeholders. 5 The Mont- gomery charter seems to have gone no further than that of Dongan in defining the qualifications of a voter. 6 It was not until 1771 that the assembly passed an explanatory act, 7 in which it was stated that the aldermen were to be chosen by the freemen and freeholders of each ward. The freemen must have held their freedom for at least three months, 8 and have actually resided in the ward for one month before the election day. The qualification of a person voting in right of a free- hold was similar to that required in general elections. This was a freehold of forty pounds not held in trust for any body corporate or politic or for any pious or religious use ; 1 Act 1704, no. 225, 21, 2 Cooper, 242. 2 Fifty shillings in freehold, or forty pounds in the common list. 12 Geo. II, chap. 33, Session Laws, 362; 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 211. 8 9 Connecticut Colonial Records, 218. * Mammal of the Common Council of Nnv York, 1868, 9. 5 3 New York Colonial Documents, 675. * Manual of the Common Council of New York, 1868, 26. 7 II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 8 In the city of London, liverymen and freemen must have been such for twelve calendar months. Statute n Geo. I, chap. 18. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 2 2$ and it must have been in the possession of the voter for one month before the day of election unless it was acquired within that time by descent or devise. A mortgagor could vote if he was in possession and in receipt of the profits. If not, the franchise belonged to the mortgagee. The estate of a voter must be situated within the ward in which he voted. The qualifications of municipal electors in Albany were not clearly defined until 1773, when a contested election case was decided by the common council. A set of regulations, founded, it was said, upon the custom of the board, was adopted, and these show that the suffrage was very wide. Every person twenty-one years of age, and born within Brit- ish dominions, could vote- in the ward where he resided, pro- vided he had been a resident of the city for six weeks. This was the general rule, and to it there were a few exceptions : a bond servant could not vote during the time of his servi- tude ; the votes of persons who were influenced by bribes were declared null and void ; aliens were prohibited from voting, whatever might have been the length of their resi- dence ; persons not naturalized, or who had not taken the oaths of supremacy or allegiance, were debarred; and no one could vote in a ward to which he had removed just before the day of election. The rule in regard to residence was much more strictly enforced than it would be to-day, and a man who occasionally went out of town to visit his family was de- clared a sojourner, and on that account debarred from voting. 1 Lancaster is the only one of the Pennsylvania boroughs whose charter clearly expressed the qualifications of an elector. The suffrage was restricted to inhabitants, householders within the borough, who had resided there for a year preceding the date of the election, and who had hired a house and ground of the yearly value of five pounds sterling. 2 , 1 I Collections on the History of Albany, 250, el seq. 2 Miller ed., 1762, 18. CHAPTER III. THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL ELEC- * TIONS. The statute books of the American colonies contain very few provisions which show in what manner local elections were conducted. There is greater dearth of material on this subject than on that of local suffrage which, in New England at least, was defined with some degree of precision. The manner in which local elections were to be called, 'and the date on which they were held, were usually prescribed, but beyond this no general regulation appears to have been attempted. The absence of statutory provisions concerning the management of town elections would, therefore, seem to show that the matter was largely governed by local custom and usage, that was to a great extent moulded by the influ- ence of the practices then current at general elections. i. Town Elections. In Massachusetts, under the second charter, town elections were held during the month of March, 1 while in Connecticut' they took place in December. In the former colony the exact date was fixed, and notice was given by the constable, 1 while in the latter this duty devolved upon the selectmen. 2 In Rhode Island the freemen of each town appear to have appointed a date for their local elections, 3 and a fine was im- posed on all towns which failed to elect the required number of officers. 4 This latter provision would seem to have been 1 Laws, 1692-3, chap. 28, I Ames and Goodell, 65, Additional acts on the sub- ject of town electiors are: Laws, 1735-6, chap. 8, 1,2 Ames and Goodell, 761; Laws, 1738-9, chap. 26, ibid., 980; Laws, 1742-3, chap. 28, i, 3 Ames and Goodell, 47. 2 Session Laws, 113. 3 Franklin ed., 1744, 9. 4 Hall's Code, 1767, 87. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 227 necessary in the other New England colonies as well, in view of the fact that the election of the prescribed number of officers proved a burden from which the towns would have been glad to have escaped. The charter granted to Providence in 1649 gave to the inhabitants of that town power to choose their officers of justice on the first second day of June of each year. 1 During the governorship of Andros the towns embraced in his "dominion" elected their officers annually on the third Monday in May. 2 The writer is inclined to believe that the written ballot was generally used in New England town elections. In the Plymouth col- ony we find a statute providing that selectmen should be chosen "by papers," 3 and as far back as 1637 such appears to have been the practice in at least one Massachasetts town. 4 In the middle colonies town elections were usually held in the spring. The Duke's Laws appointed the first of April as the date for choosing constables. 5 Thus, in New York they took place on the first Tuesday in April, or on the days expressed in the charters and patents of the several towns. 6 In New Jersey the various local officers were chosen on the second Tuesday in March,' while in Pennsylvania supervis- ors and boards of audit were elected on the third Saturday of the same month. 8 In the latter province the election of a pound-keeper took place in each town on the twentieth of May, or on the following day if that should happen to be First Day. 9 The county officials were chosen in the autumn 1 1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 214. 2 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 247. 3 Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, Brigham, 260. 4 Coffin, History ofNewbury, 23. 5 Page 70, ed., Harrisburg, 1879. 6 3 Will, and Mary; 2 Anne; Van Schaack's Laws, 3, 54, 756. In Albany and Tyron counties, as well as in the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, they were held on the corresponding day of May, Van Schaack's Laws, 689. " Nevill's Laws, 32, 44, 48. 8 Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404, 444. 9 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 228 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS at the time of the selection of assemblymen, 1 while in Dela- ware the various hundreds voted for assessors on September 1 5th. 2 For the purpose of electing poor officers in New Jersey, meetings were called at a convenient time and place on the warrant of any one justice of the peace. 3 After 1744, how- ever, these officials were chosen at the regular town meetings, and vacancies were filled at special elections called " on a short day," by means of a precept from a justice. 4 In Penn- sylvania there were provisions requiring a notice of five days of all town elections. Advertisements were posted in the most conspicuous places of the several towns and boroughs. 5 These elections were generally held in the afternoon between the hours of three and six, 6 though in the borough of Lancas- ter the hours were from ten until four. 7 Ten days' notice was required for the elections of assessors in Delaware, and they must take place before six o'clock in the afternoon. 8 In New Jersey the chosen freeholders were elected in the most pub- lic place of each town. 9 This was also true of pound-keepers in Pennsylvania, 10 although supervisors were chosen at a point as near to the centre of the township as was possible. 11 In the laws of the middle colonies very little is said in re- gard to the procedure at town elections. In Pennsylvania it was provided that the voting should be by means of " tickets in writing." 12 There was nearly always some provision in regard to the choice by a majority or a plurality of voices, but a precise meaning does not always attach to these terms. 1 October ist. 2 6 Geo. Ill, Adams ed., 1797, 429. x 7 Anne, chap. 6, Nevill's Laws. * 14 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 408. 5 Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404, 444, 495. 6 Ibid., 444. 7 Ibid., 495. 8 Adams ed., 1797, 429. 9 12 and 13 Anne, chap. 18, Nevill's Laws, 32. 10 Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. u Ibid., 444. 12 Ibid., 404, 444. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 229 For example, the writer has found one statute in which the words majority and plurality occur in the same connection, and are apparently used interchangeably. 1 In Pennsylvania the persons chosen as supervisors were returned in writing be- fore March 25th to the office of the clerk of the quarter ses- sions. Their certificates were under the hands of the super- visors of the public roads. 2 2. Parish Elections. Wherever the Church of England was established it would seem proper to have parish elec- tions takejDlace on Easter Monday. Such was indeed the rule in Maryland 3 and in both North* and South 5 Carolina. In New York, however, vestry elections were held on the sec- ond Tuesday in January, 6 although after 1770 the city vestry was chosen at the city hall on the feast of St. Michael, which was also the day appointed for municipal elections. 7 Before this two vestrymen had been chosen in each ward. In this province the electors were called together by warrants issued by the justices of the peace to the various constables. 8 In Virginia no particular date was fixed for parish elec- tions. The earlier statutes required that warning should be given, 9 while the law passed by Bacon's assembly com- manded the wardens to publish an election on two succes- sive Sundays. 10 In South Carolina notice of vestry elections 1 New Jersey : 4 Geo. II, chap. 4, Nevill's Laws, 200. 2 Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, <\<\<\. 3 1 Anne, chap. I, 8, Bacon's Laws ; Baskett ed., 1723, 13. 4 14 Geo. II, chap. 23, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157; 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 6 Act 1704, no. 225, 21, 22, 2 Cooper, 242. 6 4 Will, and Mary, Van Schaack's Laws, 19. The date for Richmond County was afterwards changed to the third Tuesday in March. Van Schaack's Laws' 2^0. 1 10 Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws., 624. 8 Van Schaack's Laws, 19, 566. 9 1 6 Car. I, Act v, I Hening, 290. ^Bacon's Laws, Act vi, 2 Hening, 356. 230 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS was given by public summons. 1 In North Carolina, on some Sunday at least forty days in advance, the sheriff posted notices on every church and chapel and also publicly read the election law at the door of the court house between the hours of twelve and one on the second day of the court preceding the election. Such thorough publication was doubtless necessary because in this province elections took place but once in three years, and the attendance of all ex- cept Quakers was required. The only valid excuse for absence was " bodily infirmity or legal disability," and the penalty for non-attendance was twenty shillings proclama- tion money, which could be recovered within ten days by a warrant from a justice of the peace. 2 In case of "badness .of weather or any other unavoidable hindrance" and "un- foreseen accidents" in both the last named provinces, ves- trymen could be elected on days other than those appointed by law. In such a contingency a sheriff in North Carolina appointed a day not less than ten nor more than twenty days in the future, and personally summoned the freehold- ers ; while in South Carolina public notice on two Sundays was sufficient. The old vestrymen held over until their suc- cessors were elected, and, if the conditions precedent were strictly complied with, the election though postponed was as valid as if it had taken place on Easter Monday. 3 In gen- eral it may be stated that vestry elections took place in the parish church, or if there was none at some convenient place. 4 A peculiar feature of the Maryland parish meeting was the preliminary voting in order to determine which of the 1 Act 1704, no. 225, 21, 22, 2 Cooper, 242. 2 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 3 North Carolina: 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. South Carolina: Act 1712, no. 307, 6, 2 Cooper, 366. 4 South Carolina: Act 1704, no. 225. 21, 2 Cooper, 242. Maryland: I Anne, chap, i, 8, Bacon's Laws* IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 231 vestrymen in office should be discharged. The law required that two vestrymen should go out of office each year, but gave to the parishioners the power of deciding who should be put out. 1 In South Carolina an election for the choice of a minister was called by commissioners, and returns were made to them within two months. If this last step was omitted the commissioners could declare an election void. 2 The statutes governing parish elections contain the usual vague provisions in regard to plurality or majority of voices, one term being used about as often as the other. The writer thinks that parish officers were chosen by viva voce vote, though he is aware that in the only two instances where detailed regulations were given, provision is made for a poll. At first in New York City vestrymen were chpsen in every ward/ but after 1770 they were elected at the City Hall at eleven o'clock on the morning of the festival of St. Michael the Archangel. The Mayor, Deputy and Recorder presided, and if no poll were demanded it became their duty at the ex- piration of two hours, to declare who was elected. If a poll were required they appointed and swore in a clerk, who was to take it down in writing. If in two days all the votes could not be recorded, the presiding officer had authority' to ad- journ the poll. The election could not be closed so long as there were any voters awaiting to be polled or until proclam- ation had been made and an interval of fifteen minutes had elapsed. 4 In North Carolina the course of procedure was similar. At ten o'clock on the morning of the election, which was held " at the usual place," the sheriff or his deputy made procla- mation and began to take the poll. The name of each elec- 1 I Anne, chap, i, 8, Bacon's Laws, 2 Act 1712, no. 307, 2 Cooper, 366. s Van Schaack's Laws, 267. 4 II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, 12, Van Schaack's Laws, 624. See also ibid., 566. 232 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS tor was entered in a book, but in all cases the full number of twelve vestrymen must be voted for. All votes were given openly, and at sunset the sheriff cast up the votes and an- nounced the election of the twelve candidates having the highest number of suffrages. In case of a tie the sheriff was given a casting vote. For illegal voting there was a fine of .5, half of which went to the informer and half to the poor. In such cases the onus probandi was placed on the defend- ant. 1 There were few provisions in regard to parish elections in Connecticut, and these disclose no vital differences from the methods followed in town meetings. The settled inhabitants of parishes met annually in the month of December for the purpose of choosing a new clerk and committee. Five days' notice of such meetings were given by the persons in office. 2 After new societies had been drawn off, organization was effected at a meeting called by a warrant issued by an assist- ant and a justice on the demand of three inhabitants. 8 Town and society elections do not seem to have been very peacefully managed in this colony, for a law was passed im- posing a fine of five shillings upon all persons participating in disturbances at such meetings. 4 3. Municipal Elections. We have seen that the free- holders and freemen of New York were authorized by the Dongan and Montgomery charters to elect certain officers on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel. The earlier instru- ment prescribed a majority of votes as necessary to consti- tute an election, while the second declared a, plurality suffic- ient. Each ward was constituted an election district, and no J 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 2 6 Connecticut Colonial Records, 33; 4 Geo. I, Session Laws, 231. 3 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 74; 13 Geo. I, Session Laws, 335. 4 2*Geo. II, chap. 41, Session Laws, 366. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 233 further provision was made beyond empowering the aldermen of each ward to appoint -the place of election. In conse- quence many abuses arose, but it was not until 1771 that a statute was enacted explaining the manner in which New York City officers were to be chosen. 1 By virtue of this law, the Mayor, Aldermen and Common- alty were authorized to appoint returning officers and fix the places of election eight days in advance. The returning officer was always a resident of the ward in which he acted, and clerks were also appointed to 'take the poll, at a com- pensation of twenty shillings, lawful money of New York. Every elector was required to declare publicly whether he voted by virtue of his freedom or of his freehold. For re- fusal to so declare, his vote was null and void. Persons hav- ing freeholds fronting on the East side of Broadway could vote only in the West ward. 2 In the Dongan charter of Albany the provisions in regard to the manner of conducting elections were as vague as those in the New York charter.* From the evidence submitted at the trial of a contested election case in 1773, we are able to gather some information bearing on this subject. The day of election, as fixed by charter, was the festival of St. Michael the Archangel, and the aldermen appear to have taken the poll on the stoops of their several residences. The elections began at nine o'clock in the morning, and the polls were open until between four and five o'clock in the afternoon. One of the electors testified that on going to the stoop where he had heard that the poll for his ward was being taken, he 1 Both charters were published in the Manual of the Common Council, 1868. 2 1 1 Geo. ill, chap. 1492, 3, 6, 9, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. Some of the provisions of this act were probably taken from the English statute of 1 1 Geo. I, chap. 1 8, which regulated the elections of aldermen and other municipal officers within the city of London. 3 Weise, History of Albany, 200. 234 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS found it closed. He complained that he received no notice of the time of closing, but as it appeared that he did not offer to vote until after five o'clock, and had failed to call on the magistrate afterwards, the common council held that he had forfeited his vote, because the poll had-not in fact been closed until after four o'clock, and then only because no more electors had offered to vote. The testimony of several of the witnesses shows that bribery prevailed to an alarming extent at this election. From five to ten pounds appears to have been the usual price for a vote. In two cases it appears that forty pounds were paid, and it was proved that one of the persons v^ho had sold themselves at this price told a bystander that he was going to buy cattle with his money, and that " he would be d d if he would vote before he had -been paid." 1 The nearest approach to a municipal election in Philadel- phia is found after 1771. In that year the freeholders of the city were first permitted to vote for two wardens, at the same time that they elected burgesses for the assembly. The names of the candidates were ordered to be written on a separate piece of paper, and delivered to the tellers. The persons elected were returned by certificate " to the Mayor, ' Recorder and Aldermen at their general sessions of the peace," and entry was made in the minute book by the clerk of the court. 2 * The laws contain no specific provisions concerning the manner of holding elections in the Pennsylvania boroughs. The day on which officers must be chosen was usually fixed by the terms of the charter. In Chester the burgesses and the high constable were elected by ballot. 3 In Lancaster the 1 I Collections on the History of Albany, 250, et seq. 2 II Geo. Ill, chap. 19, 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 417. 3 Miller ed., 1762, 14. All the Pennsylvania city and borough charters are also given in full by Hall and Sellers. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 235 names of the persons chosen as borough officers were certi- fied under seal to the governor within ten days after the election. 1 In the election of a supervisor and assessor Lan- caster was treated precisely like an ordinary town, except that the voting took place at the court house between the hours of ten and four. Returns were made by one of the burgesses.'' 1 Miller ed., 1762, 15. * 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 2. 7, 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 495. APPENDICES APPENDIX A. WRITS, RETURNS AND OATHS. In the following pages are collected a number of the writs and returns which were in use at various times in the Ameri- can colonies. Some of the forms were prescribed by statute, and the writer has added copies of the writs used in calling the first elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as the instrument used by Governor Dongan of New York, in summoning his second assembly. In Massachusetts Bay a statute prescribed the form of the precepts which were addressed by the sheriffs to .the selectmen of the several towns and of the returns made by the latter. The early returns in Maryland are crude examples of a return by in- denture. In regard to oaths, it should be noted that a statute did not in all cases lay down the precise form to be followed. In the case of an election officer, as a rule, it was simply enacted that he should swear to do certain things in a proper manner. On the other hand, the oaths to be taken by electors were usually given in full, and it is these that form the second portion of this appendix. The oath of a free- man in a New England colony was taken at the time of his admission, and it was therefore in one sense an elector's oath, because the suffrage was limited to freemen. In other cases the oaths were usually administered upon demand of the candidates or- upon challenge. The occasions on which an oath was required are mentioned in the following pages, and whenever a particular oath resembles one of those used in England the proper reference is given. 240 APPENDICES. I. WRITS AND RETURNS. MASSACHUSETTS. 1 Writ for calling a great and general court or assembly. William and Mary, by the grace of God, of England, Scot- land,. France and Ireland, king and queen, defenders of the faith, &c. To our sheriff or marshal of our county of Greeting: WEE command that upon receipt hereof you forthwith make out your precepts, directed unto the selectmen of each respective town within your precinct requiring them to cause the freeholders and other inhabitants of their several towns, duly qualified as in and by our royal charter is direct, to assemble at such time and place as they shall appoint, to elect or depute one or more persons (being freeholders within our said province), according to the number set and limited by an act of our general assembly within the same, to serve for and represent them respectively, in a great and general court or assembly by us appointed to be convened held & kept for our service at the town house in Boston upon the day of next ensuing the date of these presents. And to cause the person or persons so elected and deputed by the major part of the electors present at such elections, to be timely notified and summoned by the constable or constables of such town to attend our service in the said great and general court or assembly on the day above prefixed by nine in the morning: and so de die in diem during their session and sessions, and to return the said precepts with the names of the persons so elected and deputed unto yourself. Whereof you are to make return together with this writ and of your doings therein under your hand, unto our secretary's office at Boston, one day at l Laws, 1692-3, chap. 36; I Ames and Goodell, 80. Other forms may be found in this volume of the Acts and Resolves. APPENDICES. 24-1 least before said court's sitting. Hereof you may not fail at your peril. Witness Sir W. P., Knight, our captain general and governor in chief and over our province of the Massa- chusetts Bay in New England. Given at Boston under the publick seal of our province aforesaid, the day of 169 in the year of our reign. By his excellencie's command. Precept to the selectmen for the choice of representatives. Suffolk : ss. In observance of their majesties' writ to me directed. THESE are in their majesties' names to will and require you forthwith to cause the freeholders and other inhabitants of your town, that have an estate of freehold within this province or territory of forty shillings per annum at the least, or other estate to the value of forty pounds sterling, to assemble and meet at such time and place as you shall ap- point, then and there to elect and depute one or more per- sons fbeing freeholders within the province), according to the number set and limited by an act of the general assem- bly to serve for and represent them in a great and general court or assembly appointed to be convened, held and kept for their majesties service at the town house in Boston upon the day of next ensuing the date hereof; and to cause the person or persons so elected and deputed by the major part of the electors present at such election to be timely notified and summoned by one or more of the con- stables of the town to attend their majesties' service in the said great and general court or assembly, on the day above prefixed by nine in the morning, and so de die in diem dur- ing their session and sessions. Hereof fail not, and make return of this precept with the name of the person or per- sons so elected and deputed, with their being summoned, unto myself on or before the day of abovesaid. 242 APPENDICES. Given under my hand and seal at the day of 169 in the year of their majesties' reign. AB of the county of To the selectmen of the town of greeting. Return to be endorsed on back of precept. Pursuant to the precept within written, the freeholders and other inhabitants of this town qualified as is. therein directed, upon due warning given, assembled and met together the day of and then did elect and depute AB and CD to serve for and represent them in the session and sessions of the great and general court or assembly appointed to be begun and held at Boston on the day of , the said persons being chosen by the major part of the electors pres- ent at said meeting. Dated in the day of \ Selectmen. J The persons chosen are notified thereof and summoned to attend accordingly. By me : AB, constable of C. NEW YORK. Writ calling the second Assembly^ James the Second by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., Supreme Lord and Proprietor of the Colony and Province of New York and its dependencies in America. To Esq., Sheriff of County Greeting. Wee Require Comand and strictly Enjoyne you that forth- with you cause all the Freeholders of your County to meett together in some convenient Place there to chuse one per- 1 Introduction to Journal of Legislative Council, iv. APPENDICES. 243 son to be theire Representative for County in a General Assembly to be holden at the Citty of New Yorke on the twentieth day of October next ensueing the date hereof in order to consult with our Gouernor and Council of New Yorke and its depend encyes what Lawes are fitt and neces- sary to be made and established for the good weale and Gouernment of the said colony, and you are in 5 weekes after the election to have the name of the Person so Elected Re- turned unto the Secretaryes Office. In testimony whereof I haue caused the scale of the Province to be hereunto afixed this i/th day of Aug st , 1685. Passed the office Test, THO. DONGAN. JOHN SCRAGGE, Secry. NEW JERSEY. 1 Proclamation of Gov'r Carteret calling the first Assembly. Whereas by the Infinite Goodness Providence and bless- ing of Almighty God this Province of New Jersey is in a probable way of being populated there being a Considerable number of families already settled in severall parts of the same and many more that m a short tyme will come and place themselves vnd r this Gouernment, for the better prop- agating and Incouragement thereof I have thought fit with the advice of my Councill to appoint a Generall Assembly to begin the XXV th day of May next Ensuing the date hereof for the making and Constituting such .wholsome Laws as shall be most needfull and Necessary for the good govern- ment of the said Province & the maintayning of a religious Communion & ciuil society one w* the other as becometh Christians without which it Vmpossible for any body Politicq to prosper or subsist. Wherefore These are in the Lords Proprietors Names to Will and Require all the free- 1 1 New "Jersey Archives, 56. 244 APPENDICES. holders belonging to To make choice and appoint two able men that are freeholders and dwellers 'W th in the said Limits to be your Burgesses and Representatives for you, And they being Impowered by you are to make their per- sonall appearance at Elizabethtowne the 25* day of May next as aforesaid & there to join w th me your Gouernour & my Councill to advise in the Management of the affaires that are needfull and Necessary for the Orderly & Well Gouern- ing of the said Province hereof you may not faile as You and Every of you Will answere your contempt to the contrary. GIVEN vnd r the scale of Prouince the seauenth day of Aprill 1668 and in the XX yeare of the Reign of Ou r Souereign Lord Charles the Second of England, Scotland, France & Ireland, King Defend r of the Faith &c. PH CARTERET. PENNSYLVANIA. Writ calling the first assembly, 1682^ (L. S.) WILLIAM PENN, Proprietary and Governor of the province of Pennsylvania and the territories thereunto be- longing: I do hereby in the King's name, empower and require thee to summon all the freeholders in thy bailiwick to meet on the 2Oth day of the next month, at the polls upon the Delaware River ; and that they then and there elect and chuse out of themselves, twelve persons of most note for wisdom and integrity, to serve as their delegates in the pro- vincial Council to be held at Philadelphia, the loth day of the first month next; and that thou there declare to the said freemen, that they may all personally appear at an Assembly, at the place aforesaid according to the contents of my 1 1 Proud History of Pennsylvania, 234. APPENDICES. 245 charter of liberties ; of which thou art to make me a true and faithful return. Given at Philadelphia, the day of the month 1682, WILLIAM PENN. To Richard Noble, High Sheriff of the county of Bucks ; and the other five Sheriffs likewise for their several counties. MARYLAND. . Writ calling the first assembly? Warr 1 to Cap 1 Evelin Touching the Generall Assembly. After my hearty Commendaons & c whereas my dear brother the Lord Propriet r of this Province, hath by his Com- mission to me directed in that behalfe bearing date at Lon- don in the Realme of England, the I "5 th day of Aprill 1637 appointed a grail assembly of all the freemen of this Prov- ince to be held at his town of S* maries on the five and twentieth day of January next These are therefore in his LoP s name to will and require you (all excuses sett apart) to make your psonall repaire to the ffort of S l maries on the said five and twentieth day of January, then and there to consult and advise of the affaires of this Province. And further to will and require you at some convenient time when you shall thinke fitt within 6 daies after the receipt hereof at the furthest, to assemble all the freemen inhabiting within any part of yo^ iurisdiction : and then and there to publish and proclaim the said generall assembly; and to endeavour to perswade such and so many of the said freemen as you shall thinke fitt to repair psonally to the said assembly at the time & place prefixed ; and to give free power & liberty to all the rest of the said freemen either to be pnt at the said assembly if they so please : or otherwise to elect and ^Maryland State Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, i. 246 APPENDICES. nominate such and so many persons as they or the main part of them so 'assembled shall agree vpon to be the depu- ties or burgesses for the said freemen, in their name and steed to advise and consult of such things as shalbe brought into deliberation in the said assembly ; and to enter all the severall votes or suffrages vpon record ; and the record thereof, and of whatsoever you shall doe in any the premises to bring along with you ; and exhibite it at the day and place prefixed to the Secretary of the Province for the time being, And for so doing this shalbe yo r warr 1 Given at St. maries this 3O th day of January 1637. Second Assembly, Feby 15 163 8-9 l After my hearty commendation &c Whereas I have ap- pointed to hold a General Assembly at S l Maries on the twelfe day of ffebruary .next there to advise and Consult upon the enacting of Laws and other Serious affairs of the Province, These are therefore to will and require you at Some Convenient time where you Shall think fit after the receipt of these Letters to assemble at Kent ffort, all the Freemen inhabiting within the Isle of Kent and then and there to propound to the Said ffreemen to chuse from amongst themselves two or more discreet honest men to be their deputies or Burgesses during the next assembly ac- cording to the form of an Instrument which I herewith Send unto you, to which Instrument, which I herein Send you, to w ch Instrument all the Said ffreemen are to set their hands, And if they agree not in the election, then you are to return upon the Instrument the names of Such two or more per- sons upon whome the Major part of the ffreemen Soe as- sembled Shall consent, And you Shall require the ffreemen So assembled to agree upon a Certain Contribution for the defraying of the Charges w ch Such Burgesses Shall Sustain 1 Maryland State Archives, l Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 27, 28. APPENDICES. 247 by the repairing to the assembly and together with them you Shall return hither the Instrument of their Election Signed as is appointed afore, and for Soe doeing this Shall be your warrant, Given at S* Marie's this 2 I th Decem b 1638 To my Loveing Kinsman Will : Braithwait Commander of the Caecilius Lord Proprietary &c a to our dear Friend & Coun- cillor Thomas Cornwaleys Esq r Greeting whereas we have appointed to hold a General Assembly of the Freemen of our Province at our Fort of S* Marys on the five and twen- tieth day of February next we do therefore hereby will and require you that all excuses and delays sett apart you repair in Person to said Assembly at the time and Place prefixed there to advise and counsult with us touching the important affairs of our Province Given at St. Marys the i8 th January, 1638. (These were sent to four others.) Caecilius Lord Proprietory &c a to our trusty Ric d Garnett Senior Richard Lusthead Anum Benum Henry Bishop Joseph Edlo Lewis Freeman and any other the Freemen in- habiting at Mattapanient Greeting whereas we have ap- pointed to hold a General Assembly ,of the Freemen of our Province at our Fort of S 1 Marys On the five and twentieth day of this instant month of February these are therefore to will and require you that to-morrow or on thursday next at the furthest between one and two of the clock in the after- noon you & every one of you be at Our Secretarys house at S l Johns there to make such nomination and Election of your Burgesses for that manner or division of Mattapanient for this next Assembly as you shall think fitt hereof fail not you Perill given at S* Maries this II th of February 1638. (The like were sent to the freemen of three other hun- dreds.) 248 APPENDICES. Returns were made in this form: 14* February 1638 Memd that this day came before me Richard Garnett Senior, Richard Lusthead, Annum Benum Henry Bishop, Joseph Edlo Lewis Freeman & Rob 1 Wiseman and chose for the Burgess of the hundred of Mattapanient Henry Bishop and have Given unto him full and free Power for them and for every of them to be present in their names at the next As- sembly as their Burgess or deputy and in witness thereof have hereunto set their hands. The mark of RICHARD + GARNETT The mark of RICHARD + LUSTHEAD The mark of JOSEPH + EDLO ROBERT WISEMAN The mark of ANUM -f BENUM The mark of LEWIS + FREEMAN (Similarly for other hundreds.) Writs for election of Burgesses for Oct. I2th, 164.6? Writ. Caecilius &c a to all the freemen of our hundred of St Marys Greeting we do hereby summon you to be before our Secre- tary at Saint Johns on tuesday next at One of the clock after dinner to make election of one or two Burgesses for that hun- dred for the next Assembly. Given at Saint Marys 12 th Sept r 1640. Return.' 2 15 th September 1640. The freemen of Saint Marys hundred chose for their Bur- gesses the next Assembly M r Secretary & M r Greene. coram me JOHN LEWGER Secretary. (Similar writs and returns for other hundreds.) 3 1 Maryland State Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 87. 2 Ibid., 88. 3 Other Warrants: ibid. 114, lit;, 121, 369, 381, 382. APPENDICES. 249 I659 1 January 12 th Caecilius absolute Lord and Proprietary of the Province of Maryland and Avalon Lord Barren of Baltimore &c. To the Sheriffe of Saint Maryes County Greeting Whereas by the advice and consent of our Councell We haue determined to hould an Assembly of the ffreemen of our Province at M r Thomas Gerrards on the last Tuesday in ffebruary next ensuing there to consider of certaine things concerning the State and welfare of this our Province of Maryland Wee command you, Nicholas Guyther Sheriffe of St Maryes County that makeing Proclamation as soone as conveniently may be after the receipt of this writt you cause fower dis- creete Burgesses to be elected to serve the said Assembly there to doe and consent to such things as by coinon con- sent shall happen to be ordained and enacted in the buisness aforesaid so that through want of sufficient power or incon- siderat election of the aforesaid Burgessses the buisnesses aforesaid may not remaine vndon or neglected, and make your retourn of this Writt into the Secretaries Office by the Seventeenth of ffebruary next Given at Saint Maryes vnder our Create Scale of our said Province of Maryland the twelfth day of January in the Eight & twentieth yeare of our Do- minion over the said Province Annoque Domini One thou- sand Six hundred ffifty Nyne. 2 C : Absolute Lord and Proprietor of the Provinces of Maryland & Avalon Lord Baron of Baltimore to the Sheriffe of A: Greeting these are to authorize and require you ime- diately upon receipt hereof to call together four or more of the comissioners of your County with the Clerke who are hereby required to sitt as a Court and dureing their sitting 1 Maryland State Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 381. * Other Returns: ibid, 28, 29, 88, 89, 104, 105, 128, 129, 260, 382, 396. 250 APPENDICES. by virtue of your office to make or cause to be made Publick Proclamation thereby giveing* notice to all the freeman of your said County who have within your said County a free- hold of fifty acres of land or a visible personall estate of forty pounds starling att least Requireing them to appeare at the next County Court to be holden for your County att a cer- taine day within a reasonable time after such Proclamation made for the electing & chuseing of Deputyes and Delegates to serve for your County in a Generall Assembly to be holden att the citty of S* Marye's the day of at which time of Proclamation aforesaid the said freemen so re- quired to appeare or the major part of such of them as shall then appeare shall and may and are hereby authorized and required to Elect and Chuse four severall & sufficient freemen of your County each of them having a freehold of fifty acres of land or a visible personall estate of forty pounds starling att least within your County and you shall give authority to each of them severally and respectively by four severall and respective indentures under their hands and scales to be Deputyes and Delegates for your County and to appear and serve as Deputyes and Delegates for your County att the said next Generall Assembly to doe and consent to those things which then by the favour of God shall there happen to be ordained by the Lord Proprietary by the advice and consent of the great Councell of this Province concerning such occasions and affairs as shall relate to the government state & defence of this Province but wee will not in any case that you or any other sheriffe in our said Province be elected which said indentures shall be between you the Sheriffe of the one part and the said freemen Electing on the other part and shall beare date the same day upon which the said elec- tion shall be made and shall mention the time and place of such election and the persons soe elected and shall be signed and sealed each part of their as well by you the sheriffe as APPENDICES. 251 by the said freemen by whom the said election shall be made and that upon such election you the Sheriffe shall soe soon as conveniently may be certifie and transmitt to the Chan- cellor of this Province for the time being one part of the said severall and respective Indentures close sealed up under your hand & scale and directed to the Lord Proprietary of this Province and alsoe to the said Chancellor & the other part of the said Indentures you are to keepe for your Justi- fication wittness our selfe at our Citty of St. Marye's & cal . ANNE by the grace of God of England Scotland France and Ireland Queen Defender of the faith &c. To the Sheriff of A County Greeting These are to authorize and em- power you immediately upon receipt hereof to call together four or more Commissioners of your County with the Clerk who are hereby required to sitt as a Court and during the sitting by virtue of your office to make or cause to be made publicq proclamation thereby giving notice to all the free- men of your said County who have Within your said County a freehold of fifty acres of land or a visible estate of forty pounds sterl. at the least requiring them to appear at the next County Court to be holden for your County at a cer- tain day within a reasonable time after such proclamation made for electing and choosing of Deputys and Delegates to serve 'for your County in a Generall Assembly to be holden at the port of Annapolis the day of at which time of proclamation aforesaid the said freemen so required to appear or the major part of such of them as shall then appear shall and may and are hereby authorized and required to elect and choose four severall and sufficient free- men of your County each of them having a freehold of fifty acres of land or visible estate of forty pound sterl. at the least within your County and you shall give to each of them 'Act of 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60. The writ given in the act of 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 76, is similar, mutatis mutandis. 252 APPENDICES. severally and respectively by four severall and respective Indentures under their hands and seals to be Deputys and Delegates for your County at the said next Generall As- sembly to do and consent to those things which then by the favour of God shall happen to be ordained by the advice and consent of the great Councill of this province concern- ing such occasions and affaires as shall relate to the Gov- ernment State and defence of this province But, we will not in any case that you or any other sheriff in our said province be elected. Which said Indentures shall be be- tween you the said sheriff of the one part and the said freemen electing of the other part and shall bear date the same day upon which the said election shall be made and that upon such election you the said Sheriff shall so soon as conveniently may be certify and transmitt to the Chancelour of this province for the time being one part of the said severall and respective Indentures close sealed up under your hand and scale and directed to the Governour of this province and also to the Chancellour and the other part of the said Indentures you are to keep for your justification. Witness our trusty and .well beloved John Seymour Esq. our Cap* and Chief Governour of this our province at Annapolis &C. 1 GEORGE by the grace of God of Great Brittain, France and Ireland King Defender of the faith &c. &c. To the sher'f of County Greeting. These are to command authorize and empower you imediately upon receipt hereof to call together three or more Justices of your County whereof one to be of the Quorum with the Clerk of the County Court who are hereby required to sit as a Court and dureing their sitting by vertue of your office to make or cause to be made Publick Proclamation thereby giveing notice to all the free- J 4 Anne, chap. 35; Baskett ed., 1723, 121. APPENDICES. 253 men of your said County who have within the said County a freehold of fifty acres of land who shall be residents and have a vissiable Estate of forty pounds sterling at the least therein requireing them to appear at your County Court house at a certaine time not lees than ten days after such proclamation made for electing and chooseing depty 5 and delegates to serve for your said County in a General! Assembly to be holden at the day of to which time you shall adjourn your said Court and dureing the Courts sitting the said freemen so required to appear or the major part of such of them as shall then appear shall and may and are hereby authorized and required to elect and choose four severall and sufficient freemen of your County each of them having a freehold of fifty acres of Land or who shall be a resident and have a vissiable estate of forty pounds sterling at the least within your County whether the partys so' elected be present or absent, the said election to be made in such manner and forme as y e laws of England and this province doe di- rect and provide and you are to insert the names of the said persons elected in certain Indentures to be then made between you the said Sheriff and the Electors (that is to say) two Indentures for each Delegate each Indenture have- ing thereto your hand and scale and the hands and scales of the severall Electors by them subscribed that the said Dep ts and delegates for themselves and the County afd may have severally full and suff* power to do and consent to those things which then and there by the favour of God shall happen to be ordained by the advice and consent of the Great Councill of this Province concerning such occasion and affairs as shall relate to the Government state and de- fence thereof. But we will not in anywise that you or any other Sherr' in our said Province be elected and that upon election you the said sherr' so soon as conveniently may be give notice to the parties elected if absent and certifie and 254 APPENDICES. transmit to the Chancellor of this province for the time being one of the two severall and respective Indentures affixed to these presents close sealed up and Directed to the Chancellor of this province for the time being and the other part of the said Indentures you are to keep for your Justification WIT- NESS & c . 1 VIRGINIA. No particular form is prescribed for the writs, but each sheriff or his deputy is required to endorse his return upon the back in the following form : "BY vertue of this writt I have caused to be legally sum- moned the freeholders of my county to meet this day being the day of at the court house of this county being the usuall place for election of burgesses and have given them in charge to make election of two of the most able and discreet persons of the said county for theire burgesses, who accord- ingly have elected and chosen A B and C D burgesses for the said county for the next generall assembly to be held at the day of A later act required the return to be made as follows : Upon the writ are to be endorsed the words : " The execution of this writ appears in a certain schedule hereto annexed." The schedule is to be in the following iorm, mtttatis mu- tandis, viz. : " By virtue of this writ to me directed, in my full county held at the court house of my said county, upon the day of in the year of the reign of , by the grace of God of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Queen : de- fender of the faith &c., by the assent of my said county 1 1 8 Geo. I, chap. 42. See Appendix B, post. * II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening 172. APPENDICES. have caused to be chosen (two Burgesses) of my said county, to wit, A B and C D, to act and do as in the said writ is directed and required." For a town or for the college of William and Mary, the return is to be made in this form : "By virtue of this writ, to me directed, I did make lawful publication thereof ; and afterwards, to wit, upon the day of in the year of the reign of by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Queen, de- fender of the faith (at the said town of ) or (at the said college) by the assent of the (freeholders) or (President, and Masters or Professors) thereof, I have caused to be chosen one Burgess for the -said (town) or (College) to wit AB of to act and do as in the said writ is directed and required." ' II. OATHS. i . Freemen and Electors. NEW PLYMOUTH. Oath of a Freeman? You shall be truly loyall to [our Sov. Lord King Charles his heirs and successors (the State and Govern 1 of England as it now stands ] 3 You shall not speake or doe, devise or advise any thing or things act or acts directly or indirectly by land or water, that doth shall or may tend to the de- struccon or over throw of this prnt plantacons Colonies or Corporacon of New Plymouth, Neither shall you suffer the same to be spoken or done but shall hinder oppose & dis- cover the same to the Govr & assistants of the said Colony 1 4 Anne, chap. 2, 7, 3 Hening, 236. 2 1 1 Plymouth Colonial Records, 8 ; Brigham, 38. A similar oath is given in 1 1 Plymouth Colonial Records, 80. 3 The passage in brackets is erased in the original document. 256 APPENDICES. for the time being or some one of them. You shall faithfully submit unto such good & wholsome laws & ordinances as either are or shall be made for the ordering & govrnm* of the same, and shall endeavor to advance the growth & good of the severall plantations w th in the limit of this corporacon by all due meanes & courses. All w ch you promise & sweare by the name of the great God of heaven & earth simply truly & faithfully to pforme as you hope for help fro God who is the God of truth & punisher of falsehood. MASSACHUSETTS. Oath of Fidelity? I A B being by God's providence an Inhabitant within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth do freely and sincerely acknowledge my self to be subject to the Government thereof And do here swear by the great and dreadfull name of the Ever living God, that I will be true and faithfull to the same, and will accordingly yeild assistance thereunto, with my person and estate as in equity I am bound : And will also truely endeavour to Maintain and preserve all the Liberties and Priviledges thereof, submitting my self unto the whole- som Laws made and established by the same. And farther that I will not plot or practice any evill against it or consent to any that shall so do but will timely discover and reveal the same to lawfull Authority now here established, for the speedy preventing thereof. So help me God in our Lord Jesus Christ. Oath of a Freeman? I, A B being by God's Providence an Inhabitant within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth and now to be made free ; doe here freely acknowledg my self to be subject to 1 Laws, ed. 1660, 84. 2 Laws, ed. 1 660, 84 ; I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 117. APPENDICES. 257 the Government thereof : and therefore do hear Swear by the great and dreadfull Name of the Everliving God, that I will be true and faithfull to the same, and will accordingly yeild assistance and support thereunto, with my person and estate as in equity I am bound, and will also truely endeavour to maintain and preserve all the Liberties and Priviledges thereof submitting my self unto the wholesome Laws made and established by the same. And farther, that I will not plot or practice any evill against it or consent that any shall so do ; but will timely discover and reveal the same to law- full authority now here established for the speedy prevention thereof. Moreover I do solemnly bind my self in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matter of this State, wherein Free-men are to deal ; I will give my vote and suffrage as I shall in mine own con- science judg best to conduce and tend to the publick weal of the Body without respect of persons or favour of any man. So help me God &c RHODE ISLAND. During the earlier years of Rhode Island, the newly chosen officers " engaged " themselves by taking an oath. The freemen then took the following " Reciprocal Engage- ment" which falls perhaps under the category of an oath of allegiance or of fidelity rather than of an elector : " We the Inhabitants of the Province of Providence Plan- tations being here orderly met, and having by free vote chosen you to public office and officers for the due adminis- tration of justice and the execution thereof throughout the whole Colonie do hereby engage ourselves to the utmost of our power to support and uphold you in your faithfull per- formance thereof." 1 1 i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 150. 258 APPENDICES. Oath to be taken by electors YOU AB, sollemly and sincearly engage true and faithfull aleagiance vnto his Majesteye Charles the Second, King of England, his heirs and successors, to beare and due obedi- ance vnto the lawes established, from time to time in this jurisdiction to yeald vnto the utmost of your power, accord- ing to the previlidge by his said Majesty granted, in religious and civill concearnments to this collony in the charter; which said engagment you make under the perrill and penalty of perjury. Oath required on admission as freemen or at the time of voting? You AB do solemnly swear (or affirm) That you have not, nor will not receive any money or other reward, nor any promise of Money or any other thing, by which you may expect any money or future reward, at the Election of any o'fficer to be chosen in this colony ; and that you will not bargain or contract with any person, directly or indirectly, contrary to the true meaning of this Oath (or affirmation) ; but that you will use your freedom for the Good of the Government only, without any other Motive. And this Declaration you make without any Evasion, Equivocation or Mental Reservation whatsoever. Oath reqtiired of those suspected of receiving or making fraudulent conveyances in order to multiply or create votes:* You, AB, do solemnly swear that you are really and truly possessed in your own Right of the estate of which a Con- veyance is made you by CD according to the Tenor of the said Conveyance ; and that you now hold and improve the same to your Use, Benefit and Behoof, and that you have not given any promise or assurance of any nature or kind 1 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112. 2 2O Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 'Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. APPENDICES. 259 whatsoever, that you will reconvey said estate to the said CD or any Person in his Behalf. And this Declaration you make without any Evasion, Equivocation, or Mental Reserva- tion whatsoever. NEW HAVEN. Oath of a Freeman^ (1639.) Yow shall neither plott, practise nor consent to any evill or hurt against this Jurisdiction, or any pte of it, or against the civill gouernment here established. And if you shall know any pson, or psons w c h intend, plott or conspire any thing w c h tends to the hurt or prejudice of the same, yow shall timely discouer the same to lawfull authority here established, and yow shall assist and bee helpfull in all the affaires of the Jurisdiction, and by all meanes shall promove the publique wellfare of the same, according to yo r place, ability, and opptunity, yow shall give due honno r to the lawfull magistrats, and shall be obedient and subject to all the wholesome lawes and orderes, allready made, or \v c h shall be hereafter made, by lawfull authority afforesaid. And that both in yo r p s on and estate ; and when yow shall be duely called to give yo r vote or suffrage in any election or touching any other matter which concerneth this com- mon wealth yow shall give it as in yo r conscience yow shall judg may conduce to the best good of the same. Oath of fidelity administered to all freemen? I A B being by the providence of God an inhabitant within Newhaven jurisdictio, doe acknowledge myselfe to be subject to the governm* thereof, and doe sweare be the great and dreadfull name of the everliving God, to be true and faithfull vnto the same, and doe submitt both my person and my whole estate therevnto according to all the wholsome 1 I New Haven Colonial Records, 19. J Ibid., 137. 2 6o APPENDICES. lawes and orders thatt for present are or hereafter shall be there made and established by lawful authority and thatt I will neither plott nor practise any evill agst the same, nor consent to any thatt should so doe, butt will timely discover the same to lawfull authority here established, and thatt I will as I am in duety bounde, maintaine the hono r of the same and off the lawfull magistrates thereoff, promoting the publique good of the same whilest I shall continue an in- habitant there. And whensoever I shall be duely called as a freeburgesse according to the fundamentall order and agreem* for governm* in this jurisdictio to give my vote or suffrage touching any matter which concerneth this Como- wealth, I will give itt as in my conscience I shall judge may conduce to the best good of the same w l hout respect of per- sons, so help me God &c. 1 CONNECTICUT. The oath of a Hartford freeman was almost precisely like that required in New Haven. 2 After 1703 the following oath was prescribed: 3 You, A B, being by the providence of God an inhabi- tant within this her majesties Colony of Connecticut, and now to be made free of the same, DO swear by the Ever living God, that you will be true and faithful to her Majesty Queen Anne, (and to her lawful Successors,) and to the Government of Her Majesties said Colony as Established by Charter. And whensoever you shall give your Vote or Suffrage touching any matter which concerns this colony, being called thereunto, you will give it, as in your conscience 'The London Edition of the laws (1656) contains an oath made up of sentences taken from each of the preceding oaths (2 New Haven Colonial Records, 616). * See I Connecticut Colonial Records, 63. Laws, ed. 1653, Title Oaths, 53. 8 Session Laws, ed. 1 754, 45. APPENDICES. 26l you shall judge may conduce to the best good of the same without respect of persons, or Favor of any Man. So HELP YOU GOD. NEW YORK. General Oath to be taken by every voter, if required? You shall swear that you are a freeholder of the County of and have improved Land or Tenement to the Value of forty pounds, lying at within the said county of Freehold : And that you have not been before Polled at this Election, nor have you procured this freehold to give your Voice in this election. So HELP YOU GOD. 2 In New York city elections one of the following oaths must be taken by every voter, according to his status, if re- quired by a candidate or an officer : :f Freeholder's Oath. You shall swear, or affirm, that you are a Freeholder in the Ward in which you now offer to vote, and have Lands or Tenements to the Value of Forty Pounds lying in the said Ward ; that you do not hold the same in Trust for any Body Politic or Corporate, or for any pious or religious Use what- soever, and that you have possessed the same for one Month next before the day of this Election (except he has his Freehold by Descent or devise), and that you have not been before polled at this Election nor have you procured this Freehold under any obligation or Promise to reconvey the same to the Seller after this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. 1 II Will. Ill, chap. 74, 14, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 2 Part of this oath is taken from the English statute of 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 2 5- 3 1 1 Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 2 62 APPENDICES. Freeman 's Oath. You do swear or affirm that you are a Freeman of the City of New York, and have been so for three months now last past, and have actually resided in the Ward in which you now offer to vote, one Month next before the Day of this election, and that you have not been before polled at this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. NEW JERSEY. Oath to be taken by electors. 1 I A B do in the presence of God, Declare and Swear, That I am and have been a freeholder and Resident in this County, City or Town, One whole Year, and that the Estate for which I claim to give my Votes in this Election, is my proper estate and that it is not conveyed to me in Trust, or on Con- dition that I shall give my vote in this Election for any person. PENNSYLVANIA. If required by any inspector, an elector was bound to de- clare upon his solemn affirmation, 2 " That he is Twenty-one Years of age and a Freeholdenfor the County of and has fifty acres of land or more, well seated and twelve Acres thereof or more cleared ; OR, that he is otherways worth Fifty Pounds, Money of this Province, clear Estate, and hath been resident therein for the Space of two years and that he has not before been polled at that Election." When the system of regularly elected inspectors came into effect, an oath or affirmation was necessary unless the quali- fication of a voter was generally known, " or some one or more of the inspectors shall or will openly declare as to the 1 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. APPENDICES. 263 rest that they know such elector to be qualified as afore- said." 1 MARYLAND. All Papists or persons suspected of being such must take the following oaths before being permitted to vote. 2 Allegiance. I A B do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George. So HELP ME GOD. Abhorrence. I A B do swear, That I from my Heart ab- hor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical, that Damn- able Doctrine and Position That Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed and murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I declare That no foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preeminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within the Kingdom of Great Britain or any of the Dominions thereunto belonging. So HELP ME GOD. Abjuration. I A B do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Sovereign Lord King George is law- fully and rightfully King of the Realm of Great Britain and all other the Dominions and countries thereunto belonging. And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe in my conscience that the person pretended to be the Prince of Wales, during the life time of the late King James, and since his decease pretending to be and taking upon himself the Stile and Title of King of England by the name of James the Third, or of Scotland by the Name of James the Eighth, or the Stile and Title of King of Great Britain hath not any 1 13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 346. * 3 Charles Lord B., chap, i ; I Chas. Lord B., .chap. 5, Bacon's Laws, 264 APPENDICES. Right or Title whatsoever to the Crown of the Realm of Great Britain or any other the Dominions thereto belong- ing. And I do renounce refuse and abjure any Allegiance or Obedience to him. And I do swear that I will bear Faith and True allegiance to his Majesty King George and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitrous Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his Person Crown or Dignity, and I will do my utmost Endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty and his successors all Treasons and traitrous Conspiracies which I shall know to be against him or any of them. And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my Power to sup- port maintain and defend the Succession of the Crown against him the said James, and all other Persons whatsoever, which Succession by an act entitled " An act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject" is and stands limited to the Prin- cess Sophia, Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover and the Heirs of her body being Protestants. And these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken and accord- ing to the plain and common Sense and understanding of the same Words, without any Equivocation, mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever. And I do make this Recog- nition, Acknowledgment, Abjuration, Renunciation and Promise, heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian. So HELP ME GOD. Test. I A B do declare, That I do believe there is not any Trans-substantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever. APPENDICES. 265 VIRGINIA. Oath to be taken by voters upon request of any freeholder?- You shall swear that you are bona fide a freeholder in this county of or towne of to the best of your knowledge. In case the elector were a Quaker, the following declara- tion must be first made : I, A B, do declare in the presence of Almighty God, the witness of the truth of what I say. After 1705, this oath was required of all voters: 2 You shall swear that you are a freeholder of the county of and that you have not been before polled at this election. Thirty-one years later the following oath must be taken if required : 3 You shall swear, That you are a freeholder in the county of and have at least one hundred acres of freehold lands unseated, lying and being in the parish of in the county of in your sole possession or in the possession of your tenant or tenants for years ; and that the greatest part of the said land doth lie in the county of OR, that you are a freeholder and sole owner of twenty five acres of land with a house and plantation upon it, lying and being in the county of in your sole possession, or in the possession of your tenant or tenants for years ; OR, that you are a freeholder and sole owner of a house and lot, or a house and part of a lot, in your possession, or in the posses- sion of your tenant or tenants lying and being in the city and town of , and that such freehold estate hath not been made or granted to you fraudulently on purpose to 1 II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening 172. 1 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening 336. 5 IO Geo. II, chap. 2, vii, 4 Hening 475. 266 APPENDICES. qualify you to give your vote ; and that you have not been polled before at this election. 1 NORTH CAROLINA. Locke's Constitution required all persons seventeen years of age or over to take the following oath before they could have any rights in the province. In this respect it falls under the head of a voter's oath, though of course the elector must be a freeman of the proper age. 2 I A B do promise to bear faith and true allegiance to our sovereign Lord King Charles the Second, his heirs and suc- cessors, and will be true and faithful to the Palatine and Lords Proprietors of Carolina, their heirs and successors, and with my utmost power will defend them and maintain the govern- ment,according to this establishment in these fundamental constitutions. Oath to be taken upon challenge by any person present? You shall swear, That you have been possessed of a Freehold, of Fifty acres of Land for Three Months past in your own Right, in the County of and have been Six Months an inhabitant of this Province ; and that you have not given in your vote before in this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. In 1 760 the following oath was substituted for the above: 4 You shall swear that you have been Six Months an In- habitant of this Province, and that you have been possessed of a freehold of Fifty acres of Land for three months past, in J A portion of this oath is taken from the English statute of 10 Anne, chap. 23. For additional oaths see 15 Geo. II, chap. 26, iii, 5 Hening 204; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, xiii, 7 Hening 519. 2 Art. 117, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 205. "17 Geo. II., chap, i, Davis ed., 1752, 177. 4 33 Geo. II., chap, i, Davis ed., 1773, 247. APPENDICES. 26; your own Right in the County of , and that such land hath not been granted you fraudulently, on Purpose to qualify you to give your Vote; and that the place of your abode is in the County of and that you have not voted in this election. So HELP YOU Goo. 1 In Vestry elections the following oath was prescribed \ l You shall swear (or affirm) that you are in actual Posses- sion of a Freehold of Fifty Acres of Land in your own Right (or the Right of some other Person) ; or a Lot in the Town of saved according to Law, in the Parish of and that you have not given your Vote before in this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. SOUTH CAROLINA. Oaths covering the qualifications were administered to every voter. 3 GEORGIA. Oath to be administered at the reqtiest of one of the candidates or of any two persons qualified to vote? I AB, do swear that I am legally possessed in my own Right of a freehold Estate of fifty acres of Land in the Township or District of and that such Estate is legally or bona fide in my own right and not made over or granted to me purposely or fraudulently to intitle me to vote at this Election. 1 The latter part of this oath is similar to that prescribed in England by statute of 10 Anne, chap. 23. 2 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis, ed., 1773, 305. 3 Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 249; Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 4 Act 1761. 268 APPENDICES. t 2. Election Officers. MASSACHUSETTS. "Oath to be administered to those that sort and number the votes "^ Whereas yow ABC are appointed and betrusted ffor the opening the Proxies sent in by the Freemen, and receiving sorting and numbering the Votes for the choice of Gou'no r Deputy Gou'no r , Assistants and other public Officers of this Jurisdiction to be Chosen on the ellection Day yow doe now sweare by the Name of Almighty God that yow will deale truely and uprightly therein as also that you will not either directly or indirectly discouer either persons or number of Votes until the Election is ended. So help you God. CONNECTICUT. At the election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Governor Winthrop, in 1707, the tellers chosen to count the votes of the legislature took the following oath: 2 You, AB, CD &c being appointed to sort the votes now to be given in for the choice of a Governour doe swear that you will faithfully do the same and declare who is chosen by the major part of this assembly. So help you God. Orders at Court of Feb'y 4th, 1679-80; 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262. 2 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 38. APPENDIX B. UNPUBLISHED STATUTES RELATING TO ELECTIONS. PENNSYLVANIA. LAWS I/OO, CHAPTER 28.' An Act to Ascertain the Number of Members of Assembly And to Regulate the Elections. For the prevention of all dispute and uncertainty for the future, what persons shall be accounted freemen of this Province and Territories and have right of electing or being elected members of Assembly. Be it Enacted by the Pro- prietary and Governor and by and with the advice and con- sent of the freemen of this Province and Territories in Gen- eral Assembly met and by the authority of the same, That there shall be four persons elected yearly in said respective county of this Province and Territories to serve as members of Assembly. And that no inhabitant of this Province and Territories shall have the right of electing or being elected as aforesaid unless he or they be natural or native born sub- ject or subjects of England or be naturalized in England or in this Province and Territories and unless said person or persons as aforesaid be of the age of twenty-one years or upward and be a free-holder or free-holders of this Province 1 This statute was incorporated by reference in Penn's Charter of Privileges, and confirmed by that instrument as establishing the qualifications of electors. (See I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444, for a copy of the charter.) The present act is'referred to by title in most of the editions of the Pennsylvania co- lonial statutes. The copy now published was obtained from the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where the original is of record. 270 APPENDICES. or Territories and have fifty acres of land or more well seated and twelve acres thereof or more cleared and im- proved or be otherwise worth fifty pounds lawful money of this Government, clear estate and have been resident therein for the space of two years before said election. And to the end that elections on which the good of the Government so much depends may not be corruptly managed or obtained. It is Enacted by the authority aforesaid that all elections of the said Representatives shall be free and voluntary and that the elector that shall receive any reward or gift for his vote shall forfeit his right of electing for that year and be fined in the sum of five pounds to the use of the Proprietary and Governor. And that all and every person and persons that shall give, offer or promise any reward to be elected or that shall offer to serve for nothing or less allowance than the law . prescribes shall be fined in the like sum of five pounds for the use aforesaid and be incapable of serving for that year and the Representatives so chosen as above directed shall yield their attendance accordingly and being in Assembly shall be the sole judges of the regularity or irregularity of the elections of the respective members according to this Act. And if any person or persons so chosen to serve as aforesaid shall be wilfully absent from the service he or they are elected unto, every such person or persons shall be fined in the sum of twenty pounds to the use aforesaid unless his or their excuse shall be allowed by the Assembly. And in case any person or persons so chosen as aforesaid shall die in the meantime or be rendered incapable, then and in such cases it shall be lawful for the Proprietary and Governor and his successors and his or their Lieutenant and Governor for the time being after knowledge thereof to issue his or their writ or writs to the Sheriffs of the respective counties for which the said person or persons were chosen immediately to summon the freemen of the same APPENDICES. 271 to elect another member or members in the room and stead of such absent or deceased or incapable person or persons and to return the same duly executed. And for the preven- tion of all such exceptions or complaints for want of due notice of elections, Be it Enacted by the authority aforesaid that publication of all and every writ or writs for elections as aforesaid shall be made by the several Sheriffs ,of this Prov- ince and Territories in their respective counties or by some others by them severally appointed to read the same in the capital town or most public place within their respective Bailiwicks between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon with an advertisement posted upon some tree or house in the way of leading from every hundred or precinct to the said capital towns or places respectively and also upon the Courthouses and public fixed meeting houses for Religious worship in the said respective counties with all convenient speed after he receives the writ and also give notice thereof to every Constable of the several hundreds and townships which Constables are required to promulgate the same under penalty of five pounds each for each offence. And in case any sheriff shall be deficient therein he shall be fined in the sum of fifty pounds for each offence and in case any Sheriff shall misbehave himself in the management of the aforesaid elections he shall be punished accordingly at the discretion of the Governor and Council for the time being. And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid that every member chosen or to be chosen by the freemen as aforesaid to serve in the Assembly shall be allowed the sum of six shillings by the day and the Speaker ten shillings per day during his or their attendance on the service thereof and that every member of Assembly shall be allowed toward his travelling charges after the rate of three pence for each mile both going to and coming from the place where the Assembly is or shall be held. And be it further Enacted by 2/2 APPENDICES. the authority aforesaid that all Laws hereafter to be made in this Province and Territories shall be fairly engrossed in rolls of paper or parchment before the final passing thereof. # # # # * * * Passed November 27, 1700. Recorded A. Vol. I. page 15. Repealed by the Queen in Counsel, February 7, 1705. MARYLAND. 4 ANNE, CHAPTER 3.5 . J An Act directing the Manner of Electing and summoning Delegates and Representatives to serve in succeeding As- semblys. FORASMUCH as the chiefest and only foundation and sup- port of any Kingdom State or Commonwealth is the pro- viding establishing and enacting good and wholesome laws for the good rule and government thereof and also upon any necessary and emergent occasion to raise and levy money for the defraying the charges of the said Government and defence thereof neither of which according to the Constitu- tion of this province can be made ordained established or raised but by and with the consent of the freemen of this province by their severall delegates and representatives by them freely nominated chosen and elected to serve for their severall citys and countys in a Generall Assembly. And forasmuch as the safest and best rule for this province to 1 Bacon refers to this act by title and declares it to be obsolete. We have thought it unnecessary to publish the act of 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 76, be- cause on comparison we find that it is similar to the law passed in the third year of Charles Lord Baltimore (1678), mutatis mutandis. The latter statute was reprinted a few years ago in the Maryland State Archives (3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60-63), and is therefore easy of access. APPENDICES, 273 follow in electing such Delegates and Representatives is the presidents of the proceeding in parliament in England as near as the Constitution of this province will admit. The Governour Councill and Delegates of this present Generall Assembly do humbly pray that it may be enacted and BE IT ENACTED by the Queens most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of her Majestys Governour councill and Assembly of this province and the authority of the same that for the future when and as often as his excel- lency the Governour of this province for the time being shall be upon any accident and urgent affair of this province think fitt to call and convene an Assembly and to send writts for election of Burgesses and Delegates to serve in such Assembly the form of the said writt shall be as followeth. (Here follows the form of writ as given in Appendix A of the present work.) And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that two citizens to serve in the said Assembly for the city of St. Marys shall be nominated elected chosen and appointed by the major Recorder Aldemen and comon councill as heretofore hath been usual. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that the aforesaid four Delegates to be elected in the respective countys within this province and the two citizens of the city of St. Marys be and are hereby bound and obliged to attend the time and place of the meeting of such Assembly without any further writt or sumons to bee to them sent under the penalty of such fines as shall be by the house of Assembly imposed upon them unless upon sufficient excuse to be admitted by the said house of Assembly their absence be excused withall any law statute usage or custom to the con- trary notwithstanding. And be it also further enacted by the authority aforesaid that any sheriff that shall refuse and neglect to make return 274 APPENDICES. of the Delegates so elected by Indenture as aforesaid before the day of sitting of such Assembly or that shall make any undue or illegall returns of such elections shall for every fault be fined two hundred pounds ster'l the one half to her Majesty her heirs and successors for the support of Government and the other half to the Informer or him or them that shall sue for the same to be recovered in any Court of record in this province wherein no essoyn protec- tion or wager of Law to bee allowed. PROVIDED nevertheless that this act or anything herein contained shall not extend to be construed to exclude any County or Countys city or citys Burrough or Burroughs hereafter by her Majesty her heirs or successors to be erected and made within this province from the liberty of such elections of Delegates and Representatives as is before expressed But that such writt as aforesaid shall upon calling every Generall Assembly for this province for the future issue to the sheriff of every such county when the same shall be erected and made into a county as aforesaid and to the major Recorder and Aldermen of every such city or Bur- rough comanding such sheriff or major recorder and alder- men to cause four freemen of the said County and two free- men of the said city or Burrough qualifyed as in the said writt is expressed to serve as Delegates and Representatives of the said county city or Burrough in the Generall Assem- bly then next ensuing which said four Delegates for every such county and two for the city and Burrough shall from henceforth be reputed and esteemed to be members of the house of the Generall Assembly of this province anything in this Act to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding. Provided also that no ordinary Keeper within this prov- ince during the time of his keeping ordinary shall be elected chosen or serve as a Deputy or Representative in the said APPENDICES. 275 Generall Assembly so to be hereafter called convened and appointed as aforesaid. Sept. 23 rd , 1704 Sept. 26 th 1704 Read and assented to by Read and assented to by the house of Delegates her Majestys Hon ble Councill W SAYLARD Clk H. D. W BLADEN Clk Councill Maryland October 3 d 1704 On the behalf of her Maty I w jH this be a Law Jo: SEYMOUR. f Seal 1 \ of ( Maryland J I, J Frank Ford, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Mary- land do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and true Copy of an Act of the Provinciall Assembly of Maryland as taken from Liber L. L. No 3 Folios 90 &c. one of the Record Books of this Office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand as Clerk and affixed the seal of the f Seal of the ") 4 Court of Appeals j- said Court of Appeals this loth day of June 1892. [Signed] J. FRANK FORD Clerk Court of Appeals of Maryland. NORTH CAROLINA. 10 GEORGE I, CHAPTER 2. 1 An Act intituled an additional Act relating to biennial and other Assemblies and regulating Elections and divers other things relating to Towns. Whereas by the Act intituled an Act relating to Biennial 1 The act of 1 723 is referred to by title in the several editions of the North Carolina laws as chapter 2 of the statutes passed in that year. Davis and Swann (ed. 1752, 67; ed. 1773, 37,) give the title of another law, "an act for Regulating towns and Elections of Burgesses," passed Nov. 6th, 1 727. On account of the sup- 2/6 APPENDICES. and other Assemblies and regulating Elections and Mem- bers. And by a late Act intituled an Act for enlarging and Encouragement of the town called Edenton in Chowan pre- cincts the inhabitants of Several Towns in this Government have Liberty to elect a Representative to Sit in all succeed- ing Assemblies but there being no particular directions how such Representative or the votes shall be qualified for the better regulating thereof. Be it Enacted by his Excellency the Palatin, Sac. And it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that' no person or persons shall be admitted Representative or Burgess for any town in this government unless he be a Freeholder' or owner of a saved lott in the said town and hath been so for eighteen months preceeding.the said elec- tion and doth constantly maintain and keep an habitable house thereon. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that no person or persons whatsoever shall be admitted to elect or vote for a representative or burgess for any town in this Government, unless he be an owner of a saved lott in the said town and doth constantly keep an house or houses in repair thereon not lett or tenanted to and by a person capable of voting in the said town, though not residing therein. Provided nevertheless that where any person who hath paid the preceeding years levy or pole tax doth rent and live in and on any such house or lott in the said town not tenanted shall have a right of voting for a Representa- tive or Burgess, but if the tenant by law have not a right to posed destruction of the original manuscript laws passed between the years 1723 and 1743 (see footnote p. 89, ante), it has not been possible to procure a copy of this statute. A search among the papers of the Public Record Office in London has failed to bring to light a copy of the act of 1727, or of either of the South Carolina election laws of October I5th, 1692 (No. 78, 2 Cooper) or of March loth, 1696-7 (No. 152, 2 Cooper, 130) respectively, to which reference has several times been made in this work. APPENDICES. 277 vote, then the owner thereof and not the tenant shall have the vote and no other person or persons than what are above expressed, shall have any vote for any member or representative in such towns, any Law Usage or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that no person or persons whatsoever, not having resided within this Government eighteen months next preceeding any sue-- ceeding elections shall be capable of being elected or chosen as a representative or member of assembly for any town or precinct within the Government. (The remainder of this statute relates to subjects wholly foreign to the topic treated in the present work. It is therefore omitted.) I, J. C. Birdsong, State Librarian, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of "An Act intituled an addi- tional Act relating to biennial and other Assemblies and regulating ejections and divers other things relating to towns," passed "At a General Biennial Assembly begun and held at Edenton, the 4th day of November, 1723, and continued by several adjournments to the 23rd day of the same," the same being now on file in the State Library of this State. 1 [Signed] J. C. BIRDSONG, State Librarian. December 23rd, 1892. 8 GEORGE II, CHAPTER 2? An Act for repealing a Clause in an Act Intituled an Act re- lating to Bienial and other Assemblies, which empowers Freemen of the several . precincts to vote for Members of Assembly ; And declaring what persons shall be qualified to 1 There is also a copy of this act in the Public Record Office in London. - This act is quoted by title in Davis and Swann (ed. 1752, 79; ed. 1773, 45). The copy now published was found in the British Public Record Office in Lon- don. 278 APPENDICES. vote for members to sit in General Assembly; And also qual- ification of Members for the future, Whereas it hath been found inconvenient for the Freemen of each precinct to vote for members of Assembly; And His Majesty by his Royal Instruction having been pleased to di- rect that only only the Freeholders of this Province should be Intituled to vote for Members of Assembly. Therefore be it Enacted by His Excellency Gabriel Johnston Esq r Gov- ernour, the Council and General Assembly, That no person hereafter shall be admitted to give his vote in any Election for members of Assembly for the precincts in this Province, unless such person has been an Inhabitant in the precinct where* he votes at least six months, and has bona fide a Free- hold in his own Right of at least fifty Acres of Land in the said precinct, which he shall have been possest of Three Months before he offers to give his vote. And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That here- after no person shall be deemed qualified or admitted to sit in the Assembly, unless he has been one full year an Inhab- itant of this Province, and is possessed in his own Right of at least one hundred acres of Freehold Land in the precinct where he is Elected or Chosen. And it is hereby Enacted that those parts of the two clauses in an Act Intituled " an Act relating to the Biennial and other Assemblys ; wherein the Freemen of the respect- ive precincts of the County of Albemarle, and the Freemen in each precinct, in Every other County, are Impowered to vote for Members to Sit in the General Assembly ; as also that part of the clause in an Act Intituled "an Act for regu- lating Towns and Elections of Burgesses;" that permit per- sons to vote who have been resident six Months in the pre- cinct where they vote, are hereby declared repealed. And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that if any dispute or Challange shall arise touching the qualification of APPENDICES. 279 any person or persons offering his or their vote according to the true Intent and meaning of this Act, that then and in such Case, it shall and may be Lawful for the person who is authorized to take the Poll, to administer an Oath to such person or persons so off'ring his or their vote, that he or they are quallified pursuant to this Act ; and that the same Oath be administred to every candidate upon any Chal- lenge made of his being quallified, as is in this Act Provided, any Law heretofore made to the Contrary in any wise not- withstanding. And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that from and after the ratification of this Act, That all Elections of Members to- sit in General Assembly, shall be held and taken at the Court House in Every pre- cinct & in Case there should be no Court house in any of the said precincts, that then and in such case, it shall and may be lawful for the Inhabitants of such precinct, to meet and Convene at the place appointed for such Court house to be built ; and if no place for that purpose appointed, then at the usual place in the said precinct to Elect as aforesaid ; any Law Custom or Usage to the Contrary, in any wise not- withstanding. GEORGIA. ACT OF JUNE 9, 1761.' AN ACT To assertain the manner and form of Electing Members to represent the Inhabitants t>f this Province in the Commons House of Assembly J This statute is quoted by title in Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Georgia, as act number 73. It is said that the session laws passed under the provincial govern- ment were printed annually at Charleston and Savannah, commencing in 1756. Copies of these are extremely rare, and we have not been able to find a trace of one. The celebrated Charlemagne Tower collection is wanting in this particular, and as a reprint of some of the Georgia colonial statutes made in 1881 does not contain the election law of 1761, it has been thought advisable to insert it in this connection. 2 8 O APPENDICES. Preamble to Whereas the manner and form of chusing Members of the Commons House of Assembly to represent the Inhabitants of this Province and the Qualification of the Electors and those elected Members of the Commons House of Assembly has never yet been appointed, fixed and determined by any Laws of this Province, We therefore pray your most Sacred Majesty that it may be Enacted Enacted. AND BE IT E NACTED by hj s Honor James Wright Esquire Lieutenant Governor and Com- mander in-Chief of this his Majesty's Province of Georgia by and with the advice and Consent of the Honerable Council and the Commons House of Assembly of the said Province in General Assembly met and by the authority of Writs for electing J Members ot AS- the Same That from and after the passing of sembly to be issued wkconsen7of r "he this Act a11 Writs for the Election of Members. Ste2days before' of the Commons House of Assembly shall be for^tingfand'to issued out by the Governor or Commander in Provo7t c Marshall Chief for the time being with the Consent of who is to cause ,.-. . , 11111' 1 i such Election to be the Council and shall bear teste forty day's be- made and return the names of the fore the day appointed for the Meeting of the Persons elected. J r r said Members and shall be directed by the Pro- vost Marshal in the said Writs to Cause such Elections to be made and to return the Names of the Persons eleclected to be Members of the Commons House of Assembly and the Provost Marshal is hereby empowered and required to execute such Writ to him directed and for the Provost Marshall faithful and due performance of which accord- to cause publick Notice to be made m g to the true intent and meaning of this Act m writing of the *> Ei^tio^aHeasfm the Provost Marshal shall cause publick Notice of ay Eiec e ttn e . theday in writing to be affixed at one or more noted APPENDICES. 28l place or places in such Parish, District or Town or Village for which the election of a Member or Members by him is to be taken at least ten days before the day of Election of the time and place where such election is by him to be taken. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED livery free white by the authority aforesaid that every free white man Ol the *& f J J J 21 ears and natn man and no other who has attained to the age en 2i years and hath been Resident in of Twenty One years and hath been Resident sessed s in a hts own in the Province Six Months and is legally f 1 Land 5 in "hi . . . _ . Parish &c where a possessed in his own Right of fifty Acres of Member is to be ' Elected, deemed Land in the said Parish District or village for qualified to vote for such representa- which the Member or Members is or are to be tive - elected to represent in the General Assembly shall be deemed a person qualified for Electing a Representative or Representatives to serve as Member or Members of the Commons House of Assembly for the Parish District Town or village wherein he is possessed of the above Qualification. And for preventing frauds as to^ter^ne^mes much as may be in all Elections, It is hereby can^tes^kT l Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that the ^e k N^neof a he Returning Officer shall come to the place at the Name of^h" Per^ , , ift i son voted for, and time appointed by the pubhck notice given and no Voter to alter his vote after en- shall enter the Names of every person presented tered, or vote twice at the same Elec- or presenting himself as a Candidate in a Book don - or Roll leaving a fair Column under each Can- didates Name for the names of the Voters and when a Voter comes and Votes the Returning Officer shall repeat distinctly the person or per- sons Names for whom the vote is given before he writes the Voters Name in the fair Column under the name of such Candidate or Candi- dates as shall be voted for by that person and ->o,-> APPENDICES. that no Voter shall alter his vote after it be entered or vote twice at one and the same Elec- tion and that the Candidate or Candidates who The Candidate or a ft er t j le p Q U j g c l osec j an d the VOtCS Summed Candidates having v h c e tes R (u a S ty scr^ up shall be found (upon Scrutiny made if de- mandeTdeciarecu nianded) to have the Majority of votes shall be berT of he AS- deemed and declared to be a Member or Mem- bers of the succeeding Commons House of Assembly. AND BE IT ENACTED by the Au- vote to be taken thority aforesaid that the time for taking votes at between the hours J and I 6o[ th f e r ciock an 7 election shall be between the hours of Nine and 1 elect of the Clock in the forenoon and Six in the after- trTan 1 "days, tmilss noon and that at adjourning the Poll at Con- a Scrutiny is de- i i j ^.i j_- t T^I L - L \ manded. vcnient hours during the time of an Election the Returning Officer shall first sum up the votes given for each Candidate and declare the same to the Candidates present and also declare the same when he has opened the Poll at the ensu- ing Meeting and that the said Election shall not continue longer than two days unless Scrutiny is demanded. PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS that Proviso the Returning Officer is hereby empowered and Returning Officer J to close the Poll two required to close the Poll when he or they hours after the last vote given or at any h ave waited two hours after the last vote has time with Consent present Candldates been given or at any time by and with the con- sent and desire of all the Candidates then present. AND BE IT ENACTED by the Au- tur E ne e d ry to rs be re a thority aforesaid that every person who shall sem'biy tbe a free be elected and returned as is before directed born subject or a ... A , ,, , . , ,-, foreign person nat- by this Act to serve as a Member in the Com- uralized professing . it- i T 111 the Christian Re- mons House of Assembly in this Province shall ligeon of the age of twenty-one years be qualified in the following manner (viz) That and a Resident of this Province for a ^g s h a }l ^C a fl'Ce bOHl Subject Of Great Brit- year, and possessed J andtherein es f am ol " ^ ^ ne dominions thereunto belonging or APPENDICES. . 283 a foreign person naturalized possessing the Christian Religeon and no other and that hath arrived at the age of Twenty One years and hath been a Resident in this Province for twelve months before the date of the said Writ and being legally possessed in his own Right in this Province of a Tract of Land Containing at least five hundred Acres. AND BE IT EN- ACTED by the Authority aforesaid that if any Member or Members chosen or hereafter to be chosen to serve in this or any other Commons House of Assembly shall refuse to serve or any Member or Members should die or depart uiSJJSJJSLto this Province or shall be expelled the House ^H^slon^ so that his or their Seat or Seats become serveorstaiTdfeor ,, i 1 .1 TT i 11 depart the Province vacant then and in such case the House shall or be expelled the , _. , House. The House by address to the Governor or Commander in to address the GOV- ernor to issue new Chief for the time being Signify the Same and writ or writs to elect a Member or desire that a new Writ or Writs may issue to Members to nil up such vacancy. elect a Member or Members to fill up the vacancy or vacancies in the House and in Con- sequence of such Address a new Writ or Writs shall be issued to chuse in that Parish District Town or Village such other Member or Mem- bers to serve in the place or places of such Member or Members whose seat or seats are become vacant and every person so chosen and returned as aforesaid shall attend the Com- mons House of Assembly and shall be reputed, deemed and judged a Member thereof. AND BE IT ENACTED by the Authority aforesaid that if any returning officer as aforesaid shall admit cefn^^toke^he of or take the vote of any person refusing at X^gTo^eTh" the request of one of the Candidates or any two Bribed!""* 1 pre " 284 APPENDICES. persons qualified to vote to take the following oath : " I, A B do swear that I am legally minkteredAenre- " possessed in my own Right of a freehold Es- voters? d to the "tate of fifty acres of Land in the Township " or District of and that such Estate " is legally or bona fide in my own right and " not made over or Granted to me purposely or " fraudulently to intitle me to vote at this "Election" or at the request of any Candi- date or any two freeholders shall refuse to administer the following oath to any Candi- date who is hereby obliged to take this Oath if so required: "I, A B do swear that I am mkktered to* aliy " in my own Right truly and legally possessed quited. " " of five hundred Acres of Land within this " Province and that the said Right is truly and " Bona fide within myself and not fraudulently " made over or granted to me for the purpose " of qualifying me to be a Representative in " General Assembly" or if the Provost Marshal HUvHvfrad! sha11 make an 7 fraudulent return or shall in- fllS5S"or r pS fluence or endeavor to influence or persuade nofio^ar'hl any Voter not to vote as he first designed first designed to ......... . , 10- forfeit^ 50 sterling shall forfeit for each and every such onence to be to his Majesty _ . for defraying the the SUIT! of fifty pounds bterlmg to DC to expence of the sit- ting of the General his Majesty for defraying the expence of the Assembly. sitting of the General Assembly and to be sued for and recovered in the General Court of this Province by Bill Plaint or Informa- MShli P OT V any tiofl. AND BE IT ENACTED by the Authority byTim t^'manage aforesaid that the Provost Marshal or any per- an Election not to , , . , , , . \ return himself as a son properly authorized by him to manage an Member to same in -in 1-1 General Assembly, Election as aforesaid shall not return himself and refusing to at- tend and inform the as a Member to serve in General Assembly and House of any Mat- APPENDICES. 285 if the Provost Marshal refuses or neglects on a ^SS^SSSnt- Summons from the Commons House of As- SL^ hi C sembly to attend that House to inform them to forfeit /so to" be" the best of his knowledge of any matter or dis- afreaed. as pute that did arise or may have arisen about the election of the Member or Members by him returned to serve in Assembly or refusing to shew the Poll taken shall forfeit for every such offence fifty Pounds Sterling to be applied and recovered as herein before directed. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED by the Authority afore- said that if any person or persons whatsoever Any Person on the day of Election shall on the day appointed for the Election of attempting by any J rr arrest or threat to 'a Member or Members to serve in the Com- s ^^otTIg^nll mons House of Assembly as aforesaid presume j s S^"^ to violate the freedom of the said Election by ^ Eiectbn men- A -, ,, ,-T^, ace or abuse any any Arrest Menaces or Threats or attempt to person for not vot- . , .. r ing as he would over awe Affright or force any person qualmed have had him, on ' . sufficient proof be- to vote against his Inclination or Conscience fore two justices to be bound over to or otherwise by Bribery obtain any vote or who ^ he next General ' Session of tat shall after the said Election is over menance vkted d \o n forfeit n a <* despightfully use or abuse any person be- cause he has not voted as he or they would have had him every such person ao offending upon due and sufficient proof made of such his violence or abuse menacing or threating before any two Justices of the Peace shall be bound over to the next General Sessions of the' Peace himself in Twenty .Pounds Sterling money and two Sureties each in Ten Pounds like money and to be of good behavior and abide the Sentence of the Said Court where if the offender or offenders are Convicted and found Guilty of such offence 286 ' APPENDICES. or offences as aforesaid then he or they shall each of them forfeit a sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds Sterling money and be Com- mitted to Goal without bail or Mainprize till the same be paid which fine so imposed shall be paid as before directed. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED by the Authority aforesaid No Civil Officer * to execute any writ that no Civil Officer whatsoever shall exe- on the cody oi any votebhrjlfufne'y cute an Y Writ or oth er Civil Process whatso- from the h piace ur o n f ever upon the Body of any person qualified to he ec be 0n no p t rov m d re vote for Members of the Commons House of than 48 hours in his A i i i r , i. -A j i , 1 journey to, return- Assembly as before in this Act directed either ing from or during . . T ... his stay there on in his Journey to or m his return from the that account, or .... within 4 8 hours place of such election providing he shall not after the Scrutiny * for such Election is be mere than forty eight hours upon his Jour- fimshed under the * not a ex y c eeding *% ne y either g oin g to, returning from or during onSodySch his Sta 7 there upon that account or within .dme 0n iimitei n dl forty eight hours after the Scrutiny for such election is finished under the Penalty of a sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds Sterling Money to be recovered of and from the Officer that shall arrest or serve any Process as aforesaid after such manner and form and to be disposed of as herein before is directed and all such Writs or Warrants executed on the Body of any person either going to or being at within the time limited by this Clause or returning from the place where such election is appointed to be managed he being qualified to give in his vote thereat are hereby declared void and null. This Act not to A ND BE IT ENACTED by the Authority afore- extend to debar the J * of ra tTe nS right U t S o said that this Act or any part thereof shall not the d dtrefrion a of e thi;s extend to debar the Commons House of As- Act the Qualifica- ,, . , -n-i^ TI 11, tion of their Mem- sembly of the Right to Judge and determine APPENDICES. 287 agreeable to the direction of this Act the Qual- a"a' y L y to Privf- ification of any Member or Members of that A^emWy G he"r"o- House or to take away from the General As- Provide, sembly or any part thereof any Power or Privi- ledge whatever that any General Assembly or any part thereof heretofore of Right had might could or ought to have had in the said Province anything herein Contained to the Contrary in anywise notwithstanding. PROVIDED ALWAYS Proviso. that this Act or any part thereof shall not be construed to take away the power and prerog- ative given the Governor or Commander in Chief for the time being from the Crown to ad- journ prorogue or dissolve any General Assem- bly of this Province when and as often as he shall think fit and expedient so to do or to take any other power or Prerogative whatever had from the Crown. By order of the By order of the Upper House. Commons House of Assembly. JAMES HABERSHAM. GREY ELLIOTT, Speaker. In the Council Chamber the Ninth day of June, 1761. Assented to, G. A. WRIGHT. 288 APPENDICES. AN ACT. To ascertain the manner and form of Electing Members to represent the Inhabitants of this Province in the Commons House of Assembly. first Time 2/ th March. Second Time 3O th - Read third Time 9* April and passed the Commons House of Assembly. 1761. THOS. HARRINGTON, Clerk. Upper House, f first Time io th April. "1 Second Time 13 th Read << > l?6l. I third Time 10* May f [_ and passed. CHAS. WATSON, C. G. A. 9 June 1761. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. ATLANTA, GA., April 2ist, 1892. I hereby certify that the foregoing Seven (7) pages con- tain a true and correct copy of An Act now of file in this office, " to assertain the manner and form of electing mem- bers to represent the inhabitants of this Province in the Commons House of Assembly." Assented to June 9th, 1761. Given under my hand and official seal. [Signed] PHILIP COOK, Secretary of State. APPENDIX C. AUTHORITIES QUOTED. ALBANY. Collections on the History of Albany. 4 vols. Albany, 1865-70. ALLINSON'S LAWS. See NEW JERSEY. AMES AND GOODELL. See MASSACHUSETTS. ARNOLD, SAMUEL G. History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plan- tations. 1636-1790. 2 vols. New York, 1859-60. BACON'S LAWS. See MARYLAND. BALDWIN, SIMEON E. Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut. Publica- tions of the American Historical Association, pt. iv, 90, Series of 1890. BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States. 9 vols. 23rd ed. Boston, 1870. BELKNAP, JEREMY. History of New Hampshire. 3 vols. Philadelphia, Boston, 1784-92. BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS. History of Maryland. 2 vols. Baltimore, 1837. BRIGHAM. See PLYMOUTH. BRODHEAD, JOHN ROMEYN. History of the State of New York. 2 vols. New York, 1859-71. BRYCE, JAMES. The American Commonwealth. 2 vols. 2d ed. London, 1889. CENTURY DICTIONARY. 6 vols. New York, 1889-91. CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS. The Puritan in Holland^ England and America. 2 vols. New York, 1892. CHALMERS, GEORGE. Political Annals of the Present United Colonies. Lon- don, 1780. COFFIN, JOSHUA. Sketch of the History of Newbury, Newburyport and West Newburv. Boston, 1845. GOLDEN, CADWALLADER. History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada. London, 1747. COLONIAL CHARTERS. A list of copies of Charters from the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. London, 1741. CONNECTICUT. Laws. Cambridge, 1673. 2QO APPENDICES. CONNECTICUT. Acts and Laws of His Majesties Colony of Connecticut in England. New London, 1715. This is the edition generally referred to in the course of this work as Ses- sion Laws. In Connecticut as well as in one or two of the other Colonies the laws passed at each successive session of the general court were printed and paged in continuation until a new revision was made. Acts and Laws. New London, 1750. The second revision. Acts and Laws. New London, 1769. Public Acts. 1819. Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1636-1777. 15 vols. Hart- ford, 1850-90. COOPER. See SOUTH CAROLINA. Cox, EVERSHAM. Antient Parliamentary Elections. London, 1868. DE FRANQUEVILLE, ALFRED, C. E. F. Le Gouvernment et le Parlement Brittan- iques. 3 vols. Paris, 1887. DELAWARE. Laws. Printed by B. FRANKLIN and D. HALL. Philadelphia, 1752. Laws, Vol. II. Printed by JAMES ADAMS. Wilmington, 1763. Laws, 1700-1792. 2 vols. Printed by JAMES ADAMS, New Castle, 1797. DOUGLAS, WILLIAM. A Summary Historical and Political, &c., of the British Settlements in North America. Boston, 1747. DUKE'S LAWS. See PENNSYLVANIA. ENGLAND. The Statutes at Large. Magna Charta to 25 Geo. III. There are a number of editions of the Statutes, that of Ruffhead (18 vols, London, 1763-1800), probably being the best. FARMER, JOHN and MOORE, JACOB. New Hampshire Historical Collections. 3 vols. Concord, 1822-24. GEORGIA. Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia. Compiled by W ATKINS. Philadelphia, 1800. A Codification of the Statute Law of Georgia. By WILLIAM A. HoTCH- KISS. New York, 1845. Acts passed by the General Assembly, 1755-1774. Now first printed. Philadelphia, 1881. GNEIST, RUDOLF VON. History cfthe English Constitution. 2 vols. Translated. New York, 1886. GORDON, THOMAS F. The History of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1829. HARRINGTON, JAMES. Works, edited by TOLAND. London, 1771. HAWKS, FRANCIS L. History of Nortfi Carolina. 2 vols. Fayetteville, 1857-8. HENING. See VIRGINIA. APPENDICES. 291 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons. This is the Journal of the House of Commons. From 1547 to 1860, 115 volumes were published, the first seventeen volumes covering the period from 1547 to 1714. HOWARD, GEORGE E. An Introduction to the Local Constitutional History of the United States. Vol. I. Baltimore, 1889. LEAMING AND SPICER. See NEW JERSEY. LECHFORD, THOMAS. Plaine Dealing; or Newes from New England. London, 1642. McMAHON, JOHN V. L. An Historical View of the Government of Maryland. Baltimore, 1831. MARTIN, FRANCIS XAVIER. The History of North Carolina. 2 vols. New Orleans, 1829, MARYLAND. Acts of Assembly. Printed by JOHN BASKETT. London, 1723. Laws of Maryland at Large. Edited by THOMAS BACON. Baltimore, 1765. This is the edition referred to as Bacon's Laws. The pages are not num- bered, but are headed with the regnal or proprietary years. Archives. Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly, 1637-83. 3 vols. Baltimore, 1883-9. MASSACHUSETTS. The Book of the General Laws and Libertyes. Cambridge, 1660. The General Laws and Liberties. Cambridge, 1672. There were numerous supplements to the editions of 1 660 and 1672. Laws. Edited by Wait. Boston, 1814. This reprint contains nearly all the laws issued under the charter of 1628. Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. 5 vols. in 6. Boston, 1853-4. Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Edited by AMES and GOODELL. 4 vols. Boston, 1869. This reprint contains nearly all the session laws made under the charter of 1691. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Collections. Vol. 23. Boston, 1833. MOORE, JOHN W. History of North Carolina, 2 Vols. Raleigh, 1880. NEVILL'S LAWS. See NEW JERSEY. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Acts and Laws. Printed by DANIEL FOWLE, Portsmouth. 1761. Acts and Laws. Printed by DANIEL and ROBERT FOWLE, Portsmouth, 1771. Provincial Papers. 1 6 vols. Concord, 1867-87. 292 APPENDICES. NEW HAVEN. Laws. London, 1656. Records of the Colony and Jurisdiction. 1638-1665. 2 vols. Hartford, 1857-8. NEW JERSEY. Laws. Printed by WILLIAM BRADFORD. New York, 1704. The Acts of the General Assembly. Edited by SAMUEL NEVILI., Esq. Philadelphia, 1752. A second volume published in 1761 contains the laws enacted after 1752. The Grants, Concessions and Original Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey. The Acts passed during the Proprietary Governments. Edited by AARON LEAMING and JACOB SPICER. Philadelphia, 1 758. Acts of the General Assembly. Edited by SAMUEL ALLINSON. Burling- ton, 1776. : Archives of the State. 10 vols. Newark, 1 880-8. NEW YORK. The Laws. Printed by WILLIAM BRADFORD, New York, 1710. Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony. 1691-1765. 2 vols. New York, 1 764-66. Laws of New York from ibqi to 1773 inclusive. Edited by PETER VAN SCHAACK. 2 vols. paged consecutively. New York, 1774. Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. 14 vols. Albany, 1856-1883. Manual of the Common Council of New York. New York, 1868. NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Collections. 3d series. Vol. Ill, pt. i. New York, 1857. Collections for the year 1885. The Burghers of New Amsterdam and the Freemen of New York, 1675-1866. New York, 1886. NORTH CAROLINA. A Collection of all the Public Acts of Assembly. Edited by SWANN. Printed by JAMES DAVIS, Newbern, 1752. A Collection oj all the Acts of Assembly. Newbern, 1 764. A complete Revisal of all the Acts of Assembly. Printed by DAVIS, New- bern, 1773. Colonial Records, 1662-1776. 10 vols. Raleigh, 1886-90. O'CALLAGHAN, E. B. History of the New Netherland. 2 vols. New York, 1846-8. Introduction to the Journal of the New York Legislative Council. Lat- ter in 2 vols. Albany, 1861. Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-74. Albany, 1868. PALFREY, JOHN G. History of New England. 4 vols. Boston, 1859-75. APPENDICES. 293 PENNSYLVANIA. A Collection of all the Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania Xow in Force. Printed by B. FRANKLIN, Philadelphia, 1742. This as well as most of the other editions of the Pennsylvania laws, contains the charters. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania, 1682-1776. 6 vols. Philadelphia, 1752-76. The Charters and Acts of Assembly. 2 vols. Printed by PETER MILLER and Comp. Philadelphia, 1762. The Acts of Assembly. Printed by HALL AND SELLERS. Philadelphia, 1775- Archives. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-6. Colonial Records. 17 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-60. Charter and Laws, 16761700. Printed by Authority of the State. Harrisburg, 1879. This edition contains not only the laws and charters of Penn's government down to 1 700, but also the Duke of York's Book of Laws. The latter is the code promulgated at the East Hampton convention of 1664, together with the additions and amendments made subsequently by the court of assizes. See p. 19, ante. PLOWDEN, EDMOND. Commentaries. English Law Reports, 1550-80. 2 vols. PLYMOUTH. Laws. Edited by BRIGHAM. Boston, 1836. Most of the laws contained in this volume were also reprinted in the eleventh volume of the Plymouth Colony Records. New Plymouth Colony Records. 12 vols. in 10. Boston, 1855-61. POORE, B. PERLEY, editor. Federal and State Constitutions. 2 vols. Wash- ington, 1877. PROUD, ROBERT. History of Pennsylvania. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1797. PRYNNE, WILLIAM. Brevia Pariamentaria Rediviva. London, 1662. RAMSAY, DAVID. History of South Carolina. 2 vols. Charleston, 1809. RHODE ISLAND. Acts and Laws. Boston, 1719. Acts and Laws. Printed by JAMES FRANKLIN, Newport, 1730. Acts and Laws. Printed by the WIDOW FRANKLIN. Newport, 1744. Acts and Laws. Printed by J. FRANKLIN. Newport, 1752. Acts and Laws. Printed by SAMUEL HALL. Newport, 1767. This is Hall's Code. Acts and Laws. Printed by SOLOMON SOUTHWICK. Newport, 1 772. Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: 10 vols. Providence, 1856-65. RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Proceedings of. Providence, 1872-3. RIDER, S. S. An Inquiry concerning the Origin of the Clause in the Laws of 294 APPENDICES. Rhode Island (77/9 Ty^j) disfranchising Roman Catholics. Providence, 1889. RIVERS, WILLIAM JAMES. Sketch of the History of Soiith Carolina. Charleston, 1856. SALKELD, WILLIAM. English Law Reports. 1689-1712. 3 vols. SHARPE, GOVERNOR KORATIO. Correspondence, 1753-61. 2 vols. in Maryland Archives. Baltimore, 1889-90. SMITH, SAMUEL. History of New Jersey. Burlington, 1765. SOUTH CAROLINA. The Laws. Edited by NICHOLAS TROTT. Charleston, 1736. Statutes at large of South Carolina. Edited by T. COOPER. 4 vols. Columbia, 1836-8. STEVENS, WILLIAM B. History of Georgia to 1798. 2 vols. New York, Phila- delphia, 1847-59. STITH, WILLIAM. The History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia. Williamsburg, 1747. STUBBS, WILLIAM. Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. 4th ed. Ox- ford, 1883. SWIFT, ZEPHANIAH. A System of the Laws of Connecticut. 2 vols. Windham, 1795-6- TROWARD, RICHARD. A Collection of the Statutes in force relating to Elections. London, 1790. Most of the English Statutes at Large which have been quoted in this work are to be found in Troward's collection. WALSH, ROBERT. An Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain. Philadel- phia, 1819. WEISE, ARTHUR J. History of Albany. Albany, 1884. WHITEHEAD, WILLIAM A. East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments. 2d ed. Newark, 1875. WiNSOR, JUSTIN, editor. Memorial History of .Boston. 4 vols. Boston, 1880-1. Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols. Boston, 1889. WINTHROP, GOVERNOR JOHN, journal. Edited by JAMES SAVAGE, under the title of: The History of New England, 16301649. Hartford, 1790. VAN SCHAACK'S LAWS. See NEW YORK. VINER, CHARLES. A general Abridgment of Law and Equity. 30 vols. 2d ed. London, 1791-4. VIRGINIA. The Statutes at Large ; being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the first session of (he Legislature in the year 1619. Edited by WIL- LIAM WALLER HENING. 13 vols. New York, Richmond, Philadelphia, 1819-23. APPENDICES. 295 NOTE : Besides the editions of the statutes mentioned in the foregoing list, the writer has made a personal examination of the Charlemagne Tower collection of American colonial laws, in the Library of the Pennsylvania Historical Associa- tion. In addition he has consulted the collections of the New York Bar Associa- tion and of the New York Historical Society, which are excelled in completeness only by the Philadelphia collection, and which contains some volumes not in- cluded in the latter. A few statutes which it is believed were not published in any of the known editions of the colonial laws, were transcribed from the origi- nals now on file in the capitals of the various States or from copies in the British Public Record Office in London, and are published in Appendix B of this work. APPENDIX D. TABLE OF BRITISH REGNAL YEARS, FROM THE FIRST PARLIAMENT UP TO THE CLOSE OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD. FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE TO THE STATUTES AT LARGE. Sovereign. Commencement of Reign. Number of Regnal Years. 1C Edward II July 8th 1307 20 Edward III C I Richard II June 22nd 1377 2? Henry IV September 3Oth 1399 Henry V March 21 st 1413 IO Henry VI ?Q Edward IV Richard III Tune 26th 1483 Henry VII 2/1 Henry VIII April 22nd I ^09 }K Edward VI January 28th i "547 7 Tulv 6th ice?.. I November I7th 1*558 4.C 2/L I I Charles II ' May 29th 1660 11 February 6th 168? February 1 3th 1 689 1A. March 8th 1 702 il Georp-e III . . 60 1 Although Charles II did not ascend the throne until May 2gth, 1660, his regnal years were computed from the death of Charles I, January soth, 1649. The year of the restoration of Charles II is therefore styled the twelfth year of his reign. 2 After the death of Mary on December 28th, 1694, William reigned alone under the style of William III. APPENDICES. 297 TABLE OF PROPRIETARY YEARS OF THE LORDS BALTIMORE. FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE TO THE MARYLAND STATUTES. Proprietor. Commencement of Proprietorship. Number of Proprietary Years. June 2oth 1632 Charles l November 3Oth 167? AO Charles April 1 6th 1714 IT Anril 27rd. I7CI .. 2O 1 From August, 1691, to May, 1715, the government of Maryland was administered by the Crown. George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, died before the Charter passed the Great Seal. He was therefore never proprietor. The title ceased with Frederick, sixth Lord Baltimore, who died in 1771, leaving no legitimate issue. The compound dates (e. g. 1635-6) used in the course of this work refer to that part of the calendar year which preceded the com- mencement of the new year. Until after the adoption of the New Style by act of Parliament in 1751, the new year began in the month of March. January, February and part of March were therefore reckoned in both years. POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. A review devoted to the historical, statistical and comparative study of politics, economics and public law. Plan. The field of the Quarterly is indicated by its title; its object is to give the results of scientific investigation in this field. The Quarterly follows the most important movements of foreign politics, but dovotes chief attention to questions of present interest in the United States. On such questions its attitude is non-partisan. Every article is signed ; and every arti cle, including those of the editors, expresses simply the personal view of the writer. Editors. The Quarterly is under the editorial management of theUniversityFaculty of Political Science, Columbia College. Contributors. The list includes university and college teachers, politicians, lawyers, journalists and business men in all parts of the United States, and English and Continental pro- fessors and publicists. Among the contributors of the past seven years have been, in addition to the members of the faculty : Prof. H. C. Adams (Mich. U.), Statistician of the Interstate Commerce Commission ; Pres. Andrews (Brown U.); H. O. Arnold-Forster; Prof. Ashley (Toronto U.); H. H. Asquith, M.P.. Sir Geo. Baden-Powell; Frederic Bancroft, Librarian State Dept. U. S. A.; Prof. 15emis (Van- derbiltU.); E. G. Bourne (Western Reserve U.); J. E. Bowen, The Independent ; J.G. Brooks (Harrard U.); E. P. Cheyney (Penn. U.); Prof. J. B. Clark (Smith Coll.); Prof. Cohn (Gottin- gen U.); Clarence Deming, New Haven News ; Rev. S. W. Dike; Hon. J. F. Dillon; J. P. Dunn, Jr., State Librarian (Ind.); Prof. Elliott (Minn. U.); R. P. Falkner (Penn. U.): Prof Farnam (Yale U.); W. C. Ford, (formerly of the) State Dept. U. S. A.; Kuno Francke (Har- vard U.): A. Gauvain, Le Temps (Paris); Prof. Giddings (Bryn Mawr Coll.); Prof. Gide (Mont- pellier, France), Revue d' feconomie Politique ; George Gunton ; Prof. Hadley (Yale U.); Prof. Hart (Harvard U.); Geo. K. Holmes, Census Bureau, U.S.A.; Prof. Howard (Neb. U.); Prof. Hudson (Mich. U.); Prof. Huff (Vermont U.); Hon. W m . M. Ivins; Prof. James (Penn. U.); Hon. John A. Jameson ; Prof. Jenks (Ind. U.); Rev. Wm. C. Langdon ; Prof. Laughlin (Cor- nell U.); Hon. Alfred E. Lee; Prof. Levermore (Mass. Tech. Inst.); Pres. Low (Columbia Coll.); Prof. Maitland (Cambridge U.): Brander Matthews : J. B. Moore, State Dept. U. S. A.: Prof. Morse (Amherst Coll.); Prof. G. B. Newcomb (N. Y. City Coll.); Prof. Patten (Penn.U.): J. B. Perkins; Fred. Perry Powers, Chicago Times; E. I. Renick, Treasury Dept., U. S. A.; Hon. Theodore Roosevelt; Hon. Irving B. Richman ; Hon. Eugene Schuyler; Hon. W. L Scruggs ; Prof. Shaw (Cornell U.); Freeman Snow (Harvard U.); C. B. Spahr, N.Y. Commer- cial Advertiser ; F. J. Stimson ; Prof. Taussig (Harvard U.); Prof. Trent (Sewanee U.); Pres. Walker (Mass. Tech. Inst.); Prof. Warner (Neb. U.); Prof. Woodrow Wilson (Coll. of N. J.); Horace White, N. Y. Evening Post. Reviews. Each number contains careful reviews by specialists of recent publications. Record. The Record of Political Events, published twice a year, gives a resume of politi- cal and social movements throughout the world. Communications in reference to articles, reviews and exchanges, should be addressed to Prof. W. A. DUNNING, Columbia College, N. Y. City. Subscriptions should be forwarded, nd all business communications addressed, to GINN t COMPANY, 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y. City ; 180 W abash Ave., Chicago ; 9 and 13 Tremont Place, Boston. Yearly Subscription, Three Dollars. Back Numbers and bound Vol- umes can be obtained from the publishers. COLUMBIA COLLEGE University Faculty of Political Science. Seth Low, LL.D., President. J. W. Burgess, LL.D., Prof, of Constitutional History and Law. Richmond. Ma.vo-Smith, Ph.D., Prof, of Political Economy. Munroe Smith, J. U. D., Prof, of Comparative Jurisprudence. F. J. Goodnow, LL.B., Prof, of Administrative Law. E. R. A. Seltgmaii, Ph.D., Prof, of Political Economy and Finance. H. L. Osgood, Ph.D., (Adj.) Prof, of History. W. A. Dunning, Ph.D., (Adj.) Prof, of History. J. B. Moore, A. M., Prof, of International Law. F. W. Whitridge, LL.B., Lecturer on the History of New York. A. C. Beruheim, Ph.D., Lecturer on City Politics. Frederic Bancroft, Ph.D , Lecturer on American History. C. B. Spahr, Ph.D., Lec- turer on Taxation. F. H. GUldingg, A. M., Lecturer on Sociology. Ernest Freuiid, J.U.D. Lecturer on Administration. 8. F. Weston, A.M., Assistant in Economics. COURSES OP LECTURES. I. HISTORY. (i) Outlines of Mediaeval History (undergraduate course) ; (2) Outlines of Modern History (undergraduate course) ; (3) European History since 1815 (undergraduate American Colonies ; (9) Constitutional History of the United States since 1861 ; (10) Political History of New York State; (n) History of the Relations between England and Ireland; (12) Historical and Political Geography ; (13) History of France since 1830 ; (14) Seminarium in Eu- ropean History ; (15) Seminarium in American History. II. POLITICAL ECONOMY. (i) Elements of Political Economy (undergraduate course); (2) Historical and Practical Political Economy; (3) Science ot Finance; (4) Commu- nism and Socialism ; (5) Statistics : Methods and Results ; (6) History of Economic Theories ; (7) Financial History of the United States; (8) Tariff History of the United States; (9) Railroad Problems ; (10) Taxation and Distribution ; (n) Sociology ; (12) Crime and Penology ; (13) Sem- inarium in Political Economy ; (14) Seminarium in Science of Finance ; (15) Seminarium in Social Science. III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW __ (i) Compara- tive Constitutional Law of Europe and the United States; (2) Comparative Constitutional Law of the Commonwealths of the United States ; (3) Administrative Law ; (4) Law of Taxation ; (5) Municipal Corporations ; (6) City and State 1'olitics ; (7) Seminarium in Constitutional Law ; (8) Seminarium in Administration. IV. DIPLOMACY ANI> INTERNATIONAL LAW. (i) History of European Diplomacy ; (2) History ol American Diplomacy; (3) Principles of International Law; (4) Ex- tradition; (5) Seminarium in International Law. V. ROMAN LAW AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE. (i) Insti- tutes of Roman Law ; (2) History of European Law, to Justinian ; (3) History of European Law, since Justinian ; (4) Comparative Jurisprudence : General Principles ; (5) Comparative Jurispru- dence : Special Relations ; (6) International Private Law ; (7) Seminarium in Comparative Leg- slation. VI. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. (i) History of Political Theories, ancient and mediaeval ; (2) History of Political Theories., modern : (3) History of American Political Philos- ophy ; (4) Seminarium in Political Theories of the XlXih Century. The course of study covers three years. The degree of A. B. is conferred at the end of the first year; A.M. at tl.e end of the second; and Ph.D. at the end of the third. Any person not a candidate for a degiee may attend any of the courses at any time by payment of a propor- tional fee. Twenty-four fellowships at $500 each are awarded to advanced students. Three prize lectureships of $500 each for three years are open to competition of graduates. For further information address REGISTRAR. IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW, EDITED BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. I. 1. The Divorce Problem A Study in Statistics. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, 5oc. 3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, 5oc. 4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D. Price $1.00. Vol. I complete, 396 pp., price, $2.00; bound, $2.50. II. 1. The Economics of the Russian Village. By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. Price, 75c. 3. Special Assessments : A Study in Municipal Finance. By Victor Rosewater, Ph. D. Price, 75C. Vol. II complete, 503 pp., price, $2.00; bound, $2.50. 1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. By Cortlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D Price, $1.50. 2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the Amer- ican Colonies. By George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.00. Vol. Ill complete, price $2.00; bound, $2.50. 1. Financial History of Virgipia. By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D. Price, ;sc. 2. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. Price, ysc. For further information apply to Professor EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK.