Page:The Iowa journal of history and politics, v. II.pdf/23

Rh The complicated machinery of nomination and election with which we are now so familiar was wholly unknown in New Hampshire, and this was also generally the case in the other States. Major-General John Sullivan, who had vigorously supported the Constitution, was an unsuccessful candidate on the opposition or Anti-Federalist ticket. His candidacy was largely determined by his own personality and by State politics. At the first election no candidate for representative received a majority, and choice was made from the six highest at a second election held on the first Monday in February, 1789.

On election day no one of the electors received the requisite majority and a selection devolved upon the legislature. The law did not specify the method to be followed in such a case. The House being the most numerous body naturally insisted on a joint ballot, while the Senate stood out for a concurrent vote. A deadlock resulted. Which body had the best of the argument can not be determined from the words of a reporter of the Hartford Courant, who thought the observations of the Senate were "pertinent, manly, and firm," while those of the House were "ingenious, deep, and well-digested." In the end, in order that the State's vote might not be lost to Washington, the House concurred in the Senate's list. The Senate stubbornly refused to agree to the motions of the House to refer the matter to a joint committee, or to choose the electors by lot from the ten highest on the list. The five electors were Federalists and all cast