Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/710

 700 A. E. McKinley methods to new subjects, as when the purely Dutch double-nomina- tion principle was extended to fire-wardens, overseers of highways, militia officers, and even the public draymen.' The incumbents of all these offices were given the power, in accordance with the Dutch custom, of nominating a double number of candidates to fill their positions for the ensuing year ; and the " election," as it was called, was made by the city authorities from the names thus submitted to them. But while accepting the Dutch practice in many things, the municipal court made one decided change toward English ideas. The old Dutch courts had determined cases either directly by the magistrates themselves, or indirectly by the appointment of arbitra- tors ; - but now within a fortnight of the change in government, the new court established the jury system by the appointment of twelve jurors, who determined both civil and criminal matters.^ Thus, al- though the jurors were chosen by the court, the grand old English custom of a trial by one's peers was confirmed to the inhabitants of the city. In the new English municipal government, the only popular feature was this introduction of juries into the courts ; and beyond this, the English governor exercised more power over the ap- pointment of the city officers than did the Dutch director. The latter had allowed the existing officers to nominate to him a double number of candidates, but Nicholls did not even allow this liberty ; for, when the one year's term of his first appointees had expired, new ones were placed in office without any nominations by people or magistrates. * This continued for three years, until, in 1669, the mayor and aldermen asked the new governor, Lovelace, to select the new officers from a double nomination made by themselves. ' This modicum of political privileges was granted by the governor, and until the Dutch reoccupation the governor selected the city officials from such double nominations. " Under the English, there- fore, as under the Dutch, there was no popular participation in the city government ; and the magistrates appointed inferior officers, passed by-laws, tried petty cases, and admitted freemen. " It was 1 See references given in preceding note. 2 Ttie arbitrators were frequently chosen from among those who had held the office of schepen. ^Records of New Amsterdam, V. 267, 279, etc. This jurj' system was discontinued by the Dutch during their reoccupation of New York in 1673-1674 ; but was again put in force by the English after their restoration ; Records of Ne^ij Amsterdam, VII. passim ; Report of State Historian, 1897, 286-288. ^ Ibid., VI. 88, 144, 200, 201. ^Ibid., 260, 332, 384. ' N. y. Cot. Doc, III. 337; Peiina. Archiz-es, second series, V. 6S9.
 * Records of Ne7v Amsterdam, VI. 18.