Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/275

 A'ouiinatioiis in Colonial A'ctc York 265 throughout viva voce ; every man voted in full knowledge of the candidates and of the powerful leaders.' A voter could not be in- dependent in secret ; by his vote he proclaimed to the world in whose "interest" he stood. Every voter was watched, we may be sure, and his record was known." In addition to this the wide- spread political indifference among the common people, in the rural districts at least, made political control by the aristocracy still more easy.-' By whom, then, and how were nominations made as a part of this political control? They were made practically by the controll- ing members of the aristocracy, informally and personally. Strictly speaking there was no method — nominations were methodless. This assertion rests largely on a lack of evidence rather than on a wealth of it. The very fact that there is scarcely any evidence left to us of how nominations were made tends to show that there was no formal method — tends to show in the light of the conditions just enumerated, that candidates were " set up " by some form of pri- vate personal agreement among the two or three men within a county whose "interests" were sufficient to decide the election. Their stand once taken, all who were in their "interest" followed their lead as a matter of course, for this is the essence of the aris- tocratic method, that men are governed by personality rather than by principle. The question in Albany was not, what are the can- didate's principles, but whom is Sir William or Col. Livingston for? But although the lack of evidence tends to show that this was true because this fashion of selecting candidates, above all others, would leave little trace save in private correspondence, what evi- dence there is tends to confirm it ; and that little is to be gleaned from such correspondence. What has been said of the old aristo- ' The method of taking a poll is detailed by the law of May 16, 1699, Colonial Lmvs of New York, I. 406 ff. See also De Lancey, Manors of New York, in ScharPs His- tory of Westehts/er County, I. no. The best notion of what a colonial election was like can be obtained from a description of the election of Lewis Morris to the Assembly from Westchester County in 1733. Nno York Journal, Nov. 5, 1733; quoted in Bol- ton, History of Westchester County, I. 136-139; and given in substance in iie Memorial History of New York, II. 233. ^ A wealthy and influential member of the aristocracy could be opposed by a com- mon man only with some temerity. The view taken of such opposition is well illustrated in the closing lines of the description of the election of Lewis Morris in 1733. " Upon the closing of the poll, the other candidate, Forster, and the Sheriff, wished the late Chief Justice much joy. Forster said he hoped the late judge would not think the worse of him for setting up against him, to which the judge replied, he believed he was put up against his inclinations, but that he was highly blameable." New York Journal, Nov. 5, 1733. 'Dawson, Westchester County during the American Rt~folution, I, S. Clute, Stolen Island, 82.