termined, when Mr. Otis arose, apparently much embarrassed, holding his hat in his hand, and seeming as if he were almost sorry he had arisen. Soon he warmed with his subject, his hat fell from his hand, and he poured forth a strain of eloquence that chained all present to their seats, and when at a late hour, the vote was taken it was almost unanimously resolved to support Clinton." Comparing now the conference thus described with the present nominating convention, let us see what reasons there are for believing it to have been the first national nominating convention. In the nominating convention of to-day all the states are represented by delegates elected by their party in their respective states. At the convention in question eleven states were represented by seventy delegates. Nearly every state in which the Federalists were strong enough to make their vote a factor in the election sent delegates, and all the states were asked to send them, so that so far as the party was concerned the Federalists may be said to have had a national representation at the conference. As to the method by which the delegates were chosen the records are too incomplete to admit of the assertion that they were in all instances duly elected. That they were elected in New York seems evident from letters of John Jay and Gouverneur Morris on the subject of the convention. Morris's letter to Jay, printed with the date September 11, 1812 (probably it should be August II), implies that the delegates from New York were to be chosen by a state convention, the members of which had been chosen by the party in the counties. From Jay's reply it appears likely that the arrangements were to be made by the presidents of the state conventions.1 To the convention at New York, Vermont sent two delegates, New Hampshire two, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island three, New York eighteen, Connecticut six, New Jersey twelve, Pennsylvania twelve, Delaware two, Maryland three, and South Carolina four. It will be seen that some of the smaller states sent more delegates than their larger sister states. Evidently no rules as to the number of delegates from each state were laid down by the party. At the election all the New England states with the exception of Vermont voted for Clinton. The votes of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Tennessee, and Louisiana, were likewise cast for him, making eighty-nine in all. Madison's majority was only eighteen votes in the electoral colleges. The analogy between this conference and the present national 1 Jay's Works, IV. 362, 363; Sparks's Morris, III. 274. nominating convention is then practically complete. Delegates of a distinctive political party, elected in some instances, perhaps in all, by their party in their respective states, met for the purpose of nominating a candidate for the presidency. They nominated such a candidate; their party conducted a "campaign" in his behalf and cast their votes for him at the election. The facts concerning this conference seem sufficient to warrant the assertion that this was the first national nominating convention. The National Intelligencer made the following statement of the proceedings: ". . . we now learn that the resolutions of most importance were: First, that under the present circumstances it would be unwise to take up a man notoriously of their own party. Second, that they would support the candidate of the two already mentioned whose success would best promote the object of their party. Third, that they would not now make a selection of either as their candidate. In the incidental discussion to which these points gave occasion, Messrs. Otis, Gouverneur Morris, and we believe R. Goodloe Harper gave a decided preference to Mr. Clinton; and a meeting between this gentleman and certain members of the caucus, of whom Gouverneur Morris was one, was had; and in this meeting Mr. Clinton declared that all political connections between himself and the Democratic party in the United States had ceased and would not be renewed." This piece of news called forth an open letter from Mr. Otis in which he declared that the account of the proceedings was false and that no communication had been held with Mr. Clinton nor had he made any statement to the convention. JOHN S. MURDOCK. DOCUMENTS [Under this head it is proposed to print in each issue a few documents of historical importance, hitherto unprinted. It is intended that the documents shall be printed with verbal and literal exactness, and that an exact statement be made of the present place of deposit of the document and, in the case of archives and libraries, of the volume and page or catalogue number by which the document is designated. Contributions of important documents, thus authenticated, will be welcomed.] 1. Draft of an Address of the Continental Congress to the People of the United States, 1776. THIS Address to the Inhabitants of the United Colonies is one of the way-marks on the road to independence, although it has not till now had attention drawn to it. The movement that gave rise to its preparation was started by James Wilson, who shared with Dickinson the leadership of the conservative element in Pennsylvania and in Congress. On the 9th of January, 1776, — when Common Sense had just made its appearance, Wilson proposed that Congress make some answer to the recently delivered speech of the King in which the rebellious colonists were charged with aiming at independence, (Diary of Richard Smith, January 9.) He doubtless thought that an address to the people, telling what Congress had done and what it had in contemplation, would tend to mould opinion, particularly in Pennsylvania, where the extremists were carrying things with a high hand, and that it would serve to inspire wavering minds with enthusiasm for the cause. Wilson had a strong following in Congress, but, mainly through the exertions of the New England delegates, led by Samuel Adams, he failed to carry his point on that day. Two weeks later, however, he was successful, and the predominance of the conservative element in Congress is shown by the election, on January 24, of Dickinson, Wilson, Hooper, Duane, and Alexander as the committee to draw up the Address. Richard Smith tells us (Diary, January 24) that debate on the motion to elect this committee lasted the entire day and that they were instructed to draft just such an address as is given below. "Much," adds he, was said about Independence and the Mode and Propriety of stating 66 our Dependence on the King." The committee made their report to Congress on February 13, and it is entirely in the handwriting of Wilson. The Journal of Congress states that it was then tabled; and it was never again brought forward for consideration. Its spirit, in spite of the not uncertain ring of the last paragraph, was too tame to meet with general approval. That the majority in Congress was able to bring about the election of the conservative committee just mentioned, indicates the strength at that time of those opposed to a declaration of independence. Not less interesting is the fact that the aggressive minority, favoring independence, was able, after unsuccessfully opposing the election of the committee, to win over within three weeks sufficient votes to prevent the consideration and the adoption of the Address. While Congress was not yet ready to decide in favor of independence, it was, however, unwilling to adopt any measure that might stand in the way of so doing when the opportune time should arrive. To publish this Address just as the ports were about being opened to trade and when the equipment of privateers was soon to be authorized, would have been inconsistent in the extreme, and as it could serve no good purpose, it was suppressed. Wilson believed, with many others, that, having no instructions to favor independence, he had to do his best to steer a middle course. The importance attached to instructions is exemplified in his address to the citizens of Pennsylvania, published in the Pennsylvania Packet of October 17, 1780. He maintains that he was not an enemy to independence, but that he "early foresaw it could not but be the ultimate end. When the measure began to be an object of contemplation in Congress, the Delegates of Pennsylvania were expressly restricted from consenting to it; my uniform language in Congress was that I never would vote for it contrary to my instructions: I went farther, and declared, that I never would vote for it without your authority; and was I to be blamed? Should this act have been the act of four or five individuals? Or should it have been yours? It would have been the highest presumption in your Delegates to have taken a step of such immense importance without your sanction." He adds that, when the conference of committees on June 24 changed the instructions received from the Assembly, he spoke and voted for independence, and he rightfully states that his voice was necessary to carry the vote of Pennsylvania in favor of independence. The importance of the steps in the preparation of this Address lies chiefly in showing how the more radical spirits in Congress by sheer aggressiveness beat down their opponents and won converts to their views. HERBERT FRIEDENWALD. [Reports of Committees on Increasing Powers of Congress, Recommendations, Fasts, & N° 24. pp. 219-232, 217.] To the Inhabitants of the Colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusets Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Counties of New Castle Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, from their Delegates in Congress Friends and Countrymen History, we believe, cannot furnish an Example of a Trust, higher and more important than that, which we have received from your Hands. It comprehends in it every Thing that can rouse the Attention and interest the Passion of a People, who will not reflect Disgrace upon their Ancestors, nor degrade themselves, nor transmit Infamy to their Descendants. It is committed to us at a Time when every Thing dear and valuable to such a People is in imminent Danger. This Danger arises from those, whom we have been accustomed to consider as our Friends; who really were so, while they continued friendly to themselves; and who will again. be so, whenever they shall return to a just sense of their own Interests. The Calamities, which threaten us, would be attended with the total Loss of those Constitutions, formed upon the venerable Model of British Liberty, which have been long our Pride and Felicity. To avert those Calamities we are under the disagreeable Necessity of making temporary Deviations from those Constitutions. Such is the Trust reposed in us. Much does it import you and us, that it be executed with Skill and with Fidelity. That we have discharged it with Fidelity, we enjoy the Testimony of a good Conscience. How far we have discharged it with Skill must be determined by you, who are our Principals and Judges, to whom we esteem it our Duty to render an Account of our Conduct. To enable you to judge of it, as we would wish you to do, it is necessary that you should be made acquainted with the Situation, in which your Affairs have been placed; the Principles, on which we have acted; and the Ends, which we have kept and still keep in View. That all Power was originally in the People—that all the Powers of Government are derived from them—that all Power, which they have not disposed of, still continues theirs are Maxims of the English Constitution, which, we presume, will not be disputed. The Share of Power, which the King derives from the People, or, in other Words, the Prerogative of the Crown, is well known and precisely ascertained: It is the same in Great |