fact that it was made by Mr. Clay in 1816, eight years before the grand revolt against the caucus, is enough to exonerate him from the charge of having opposed it in 1824 because he knew that he could not be nominated. The vote for a candidate for President was taken, and resulted in the selection of Mr. Monroe, by the narrow margin of eleven majority. Monroe had 65; Crawford, 54. The strength of the Crawford movement was chiefly in New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Kentucky, and his own State of Georgia, which five States gave him forty of his fifty-four votes. A ballot for a candidate for Vice-President gave Governor Daniel D. Tompkins of New York 85 votes, and he was nominated.

These proceedings startled everybody, not so much because of what had been done, for that the people were ready to approve, but because the members who had assumed the right to make nominations had come near making recommendations which would not have been accepted. Numerous meetings were held in various parts of the country to protest against the caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief Justice, took a most prominent part.

The nomination being made, the presidential election was practically decided. There was no canvass, worthy of the name. In New England, the Federalists still had partial control, but it was already slipping away from them. It is a remarkable fact that all the electoral votes cast against Mr. Monroe were given by electors who owed their appointments to State legislatures; for on this occasion, Massachusetts, which had given the people the privilege of appointment from the first election of Washington, repealed the law, and the legislature appointed all the electors. In Connecticut and Delaware the legisla

tures had exercised the right of appointment from the first, and continued to do so on this occasion.

The number of States whose votes were counted at this election was nineteen. Indiana, which had adopted a constitution in June, 1816, was admitted to the Union December 11, of that year. The question whether or not its electoral votes should be counted gave interest to the joint meeting of the two Houses of Congress in February, 1817. The table of electoral votes was as follows:

The preliminary arrangements in regard to the electoral count were made according to precedent. The two Houses met in the Representatives' IIall, and the certificates were duly opened. When all had been opened except the returns from Indiana, Mr. Taylor of New York - a member of the House of Representatives, and Speaker of the body some years later, when the Missouri compromise was passed - arose, and, addressing the Speaker, expressed his regret at being compelled to interrupt the proceedings, and to object to the vote from Indiana. He was proceeding to state his objections, when the Speaker (Mr. Clay) stopped him and said that the two Houses had met for the single specified purpose of performing the constitutional duty which they were then discharging; and that, while so acting in joint meeting, they could consider no proposition nor perform any business not prescribed by the Constitution.

At this point Mr. Varnum of Massachusetts, concurring in what the Speaker had said, suggested the propriety of the Senate retiring, that the House of Representatives might deliberate upon the question raised by one of its members. The President of the Senate put the question to the senators, and it was agreed to, and the Senate withdrew. Mr. Taylor immediately took the floor, and urged that, as Indiana was not a State in the Union at the time the election took place, its votes were no more enti tled to be counted than if they had come from Missouri or any other Territory. He maintained that the question should be considered and decided now, when the result would not be affected by it, and suggested that a joint resolution be passed, declaring that the votes were illegal and ought not to be counted. A resolution was moved declaring the votes legal, and on this a long debate took place. The suggestion was made that the resolution

should not be a joint one, as, by establishing a precedent, it might some time thereafter, when the House and Senate should be opposed to each other, "deprive this House of one of its powers, by permitting the Senate to participate in this question." The discussion turned wholly upon the point whether or not Indiana was a State in the Union after it adopted its Constitution, and before it was admitted by a formal act of Congress. The power of Congress to reject the votes, if Indiana were not a State for purposes of the election, was questioned by no one. Finally, by an almost unanimous vote, the whole matter was indefinitely postponed, and the House sent a message to the Senate that it was prepared to resume the

count.

Meanwhile a somewhat similar debate was taking place in the Senate, but, before a decision was reached, the message of the House was received. Thereupon the resolution which had been under discussion, declaring the votes of Indiana legal, was withdrawn by its mover, Mr. Barbour of Virginia, and the Senate returned to the Representatives' Hall. After the two Houses had assembled, the Speaker informed them that the House of Representatives "had not seen it necessary to come to any resolution or to take any order on the subject which had produced the separation of the two Houses." Thereupon the count was completed, the result declared, and the proceedings were terminated.

X.

THE "ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS."

AT no time in the history of the country has party feeling been so nearly absent as it was during Mr. Monroe's administration. The time has passed into history as the "era of good feelings." The Federalist party was almost extinct, even in New England and Delaware, and there was hardly a public man in office in any of the States who cared longer to urge the doctrines which had once divided him from the Republican party, or, as it now began to be called, the Democratic party. The election of 1820 was not even a contest. In the early part of the year there was a secret movement to supersede Mr. Monroe; but it did not promise well at any time, and defeated itself without any effort on the part of Mr. Monroe or his friends. A caucus was called during the session of 1820; but only a few members attended it, and a resolution that it was not expedient to make any recommendation was adopted without opposition. The result of this election is well known. Mr. Monroe was elected by a vote which would have been absolutely unanimous had not one elector of New Hampshire, deeming it due to the memory of Washington that no President after him should share in the honor of a unanimous election, given his vote for John Quincy Adams. The result in detail was as follows: