Page:The Iowa journal of history and politics, v. II.pdf/36

22 about putting the Constitution into operation—one indication of the apathy with which it was regarded in New York. On first assembling the Anti-Federalists were chiefly interested in calling a new convention to revise the Constitution. Sometime in December the Senate passed bills for choosing electors and senators by a concurrent vote, and a few days later the Assembly provided for their election by joint ballot. Neither party would accept the other's work. Each naturally favored the method which was the most to its own interest. The Anti-Federalists, who had a decided ascendency in the Assembly could carry all on a joint vote, and the Federalist Senate by insisting on a concurrent vote could create a deadlock, and then bargain for one half of the offices as the price for breaking it. A prolonged wrangle ensued. The Federalists offered to compromise on the basis of each house naming a senator and one half of the electors, but the other side refused. The legislature adjourned without action, and New York was unrepresented in her first electoral college. This is the first instance where a legislature failed to elect senators because of party animosities. Towards the close of the first session of Congress, July, 1789, New York elected senators by a concurrent vote of the two houses. Philip Schuyler was first agreed upon. For second choice the two houses finally united on Rufus King, each having in turn at first rejected him. King had lately come to New York from Massachusetts, which State he had represented in the Federal Convention. The two