city and of Georgetown are accessible by street cars, there being ten street railway companies and branches in active operation.

Washington is to a great extent a city of boarding-houses, and thousands of its citizens depend upon the rental of apartments, etc., for a portion of their incomes. The number of officers and clerks in government employ is nearly 5000, and, as most of these have families, there is an extensive local market for goods and commodities of all kinds, which is met by a large and excellent variety of stores and merchandise.

During the civil war of 1861-65, Washington was the centre of military operations of prodigious magnitude. On the return of peace and the assured restoration of the Union, confidence in the future revived, and Washington, which had been so long retarded by the incubus of war, began to extend its growth by the erection of multitudes of new buildings, and other evidences of prosperity. From this period may be said to date that new Washington, which, with its magnificent public improvements and multitude of private edifices of taste and elegance, has taken the place of the mean little village which but a few years ago appeared so unworthy the capital of a great nation. There were erected in 1875 nearly 1400 new buildings, at a cost of about $3,500,000, and in 1876, 1160 houses.

The environs of Washington abound in natural beauties, which need only the hand of wealth and taste to render them more attractive than those of any other American city. Favorite drives out of town take the visitor to Soldiers' Home, whence an enchanting view of city, river, and hilly landscape is unrolled; to Rock Creek Valley, notable for its picturesque wildness and wealth of flowers and forest trees; to the heights above Georgetown, by the splendid driveway of K Street and Connecticut Avenue, climbing hills which command the widest and most impressive prospect in the District of Columbia; and to Arlington Heights, on the Virginia shore, with its city of the dead containing 15,000 Union soldiers' graves, and its lovely views down and across the Potomac to where the Capitol lifts its airy dome into the eastern sky.

The question whether it is good policy to build up a great city expressly for a seat of government is not now an open one. Washington has been built, and was laid out by the fathers of the republic on a scale of greatness commensurate with the permanent wants of a capital for a populous and powerful nation, destined to hold a front rank in civilization. The question of the removal of the seat of government westward, or nearer to the present or prospective centre of the country, is no longer agitated. The present capital, with its storied memories, founded by the first President, whose name it bears, is felt to be a worthy centre of the political union of a great people, symbolized by the inscription engraved on the dome of the Capitol, “E pluribus unum.”

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF CHOOSING

THE PRESIDENT.

HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN.

It appears from Mr. Madison's invaluable Report of the Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, that in the first scheme of government submitted to the Convention, by Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, the Electoral system of choosing the President had no place. On the contrary, by the seventh article of Mr. Randolph's plan, it was "resolved that a National Executive be instituted, to be chosen by the National Legislature, for the term of

years." On

the same day, May 29th, 1787, Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, submitted "the draft of a Federal Government" which he had prepared. In Mr. Pinckney's plan, while the members of the Senate of the United States were to be chosen by the House of Delegates (i.e., of Representatives), the Representatives were to be chosen by the people under State regulations; but the mode of electing the President was not defined. When these schemes for a government came up for consideration, the greatest difference of opinion was revealed as to the mode of electing the Chief Executive. Mr. James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, declared himself first and last in favor of an election of President by the people. Experience in the States, said he, had shown that the election of a First Magistrate by the people at large was both convenient and successful. The objects of choice in such cases must be persons whose merits had general notoriety.

Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, was for the appointment of President by the Legislature (i.e., Congress), and was for making him absolutely dependent on that body, as it was the will of that which was to be executed.

The next day Mr. Wilson repeated his arguments in favor of an election by the people, and submitted the first germ of the Electoral system subsequently adopted, in the following amendment:

"That the States shall be divided into

districts, and that per

sons qualified to vote in each district for members of the first branch of the National Legislature elect members for their respective districts to be Electors of the Executive Magistracy; that the said Electors of the Executive Magistracy meet at and they, or any

of them, so met, shall proceed to elect by ballot, but not out of their own body - person, in whom the Executive authority of the

National Government shall be vested."

Mr. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, liked the principle of Mr. Wilson's motion, but feared it would be unpopular. He seemed to prefer the taking of the suffrages of the States instead of the Electors. He was not clear that the people ought to act directly even in the choice of Electors, being too little informed of personal characters in large districts, and liable to deceptions. At the same time, he was opposed to the election by the National Legislature.

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, could see no advantage in the introduction of Electors chosen by the people, who would stand in the same relation to the latter as the State Legislatures stood, while the expedient would involve great trouble and expense.

The vote being taken on Mr. Wilson's suggestion of Electors, it was defeated by two States affirmative to eight negative. The question recurred on electing the Executive by the National Legislature for the term of seven years, which was agreed to-yeas, eight States; nays, two States.

This action was reconsidered on the 9th of June, 1787, when Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, moved that the National Executive should be elected by the Executives of the States. "If the appointment was made by Congress,” said he, “it would lessen that independence of the Executive which ought to prevail would give birth to intrigue and corruption, and to partiality in the Executive to the friends who promoted him." He supposed the State Executives would most likely select the fittest man.

Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, strongly opposed Mr. Gerry's mode of appointing a President. The confidence of the people would not be secured by it.

The vote was then taken, and Mr. Gerry's motion defeated by a large majority.

On the 15th of June, the New Jersey members proposed a third scheme for a constitution, in which the Presidential office was made elective by the United States in Congress.

On the 18th of June, Alexander Hamilton, of New York, who had been hitherto silent on the business before the Convention, made a vigorous speech against some popular features of the plans proposed, and advocating, among other things, the election of one branch of the Legislature and the Executive for life. He submitted a sketch of his own plan for a constitution of government, the fourth article of which provided that "the supreme executive authority of the

United States should be vested in a Governor, to be elected to serve during good behavior, the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in election districts."

These various plans were referred to a committee, which, after many consultations, reported back the clause relating to the choice of President, with the provision that he should be chosen by the National Legislature. A long debate ensued. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, was pointedly against his being so chosen. The President would be the mere creature of the Legislature if appointed by that body. He ought to be elected by the people at large-by the freeholders of the country. If the people should elect, they would never fail to prefer some man distinguished for character or services, and some man of continental reputation; if the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, cabal, and faction; it will be like the election of a Pope by a conclave of Cardinals. He moved to strike out" National Legislature," and insert" citizens of the United States."

Roger Sherman thought the sense of the United States would be better expressed by the Legislature than by the people at large. The latter would never be as sufficiently informed of characters, and besides, will never give a majority of votes to any one man.

Mr. Wilson renewed his advocacy of an election by the people. Mr. Pinckney opposed a popular election, which, he said, was liable to the most obvious and striking objections. The people would be led by a few active and distinguished men. Congress, being most immediately interested in the laws made by themselves, would be most attentive to the choice of a good man to carry them properly into execution.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris declared that if there was any combination it must be among the people's representatives in the Legislature. The people of the States could not combine, nor would they be led by distinguished men. An Executive chosen by the Legislature would not be independent of them. Appointments made by numerous bodies were always worse than those made by the people at large.

Mr. George Mason, of Virginia, conceived it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper person for a Chief Magistrate to the people as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man. The extent of the country rendered it impossible that the people could have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.

The question being taken on an election by the people instead of the Legislature, it was decided in the negative-ayes, 1 (Pennsylvania); nays, 9, being all the other States voting.

Luther Martin, of Maryland, now moved that the Executive be chosen by Electors appointed by the several Legislatures. This was defeated-ayes, 2 (Delaware and Maryland); nays, 8. The question

recurring on the words "to be chosen by the National Legislature," it passed unanimously.

This was reconsidered the next day, when Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, moved to strike out the appointment by Congress, and to insert," to be chosen by Electors appointed by the Legislatures of the States." This was carried-ayes, 6; nays, 3; and Massachusetts divided. On the second clause of the amendment, "shall the Electors be chosen by the State Legislatures," eight States voted in the affirmative and two in the negative.

This action was again reconsidered on the 24th of July, when Mr. Houston, of Georgia, renewed the plan of appointment by Congress, instead of Electors appointed by the State Legislatures. He doubted whether capable men would undertake the service of Electors.

Mr. Gerry opposed the motion. He thought there was no ground to apprehend this danger. The election of the Executive Magistrate would be considered as of vast importance, and would create great earnestness. The best men, the Governors of States, would not hold it derogatory from their character to be the Electors. He moved that the Legislatures of the States should vote by ballot for the Executive in the same proportions as it had been proposed they should choose Electors. This was laid on the table, and the question recurring on Mr. Houston's motion, that the Executive be appointed by the National Legislature, it was carried by a vote of seven States in the affirmative to four in the negative. A controversy then sprang up over the term of the Executive. Mr. Wilson said the perplexities into which the Convention was now thrown proceed from the election by the Legislature, which he was sorry had been reinstated.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris said, of all possible modes of appointment, that by the Legislature is the worst. If the Legislature is to appoint and to impeach, the Executive will be the mere creature of it.

Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive be chosen by Electors, to be taken by lot from the National Legislature.

Mr. Gerry said, this was committing too much to chance.

Mr. King said we ought to be governed by reason, and not by chance. As nobody seemed to be satisfied, he wished the matter to be postponed.

Mr. Wilson said he did not move this as the best mode, but as a compromise. His opinion remained unshaken, that we ought to resort to the people for the election.

The question was then postponed.

The next day Mr. Gerry repeated his remark, that an election at all by the National Legislature was radically and incurably wrong, and moved that the Executive be "appointed by the Governors and Presidents of the States, with the advice of their Councils."

Mr. Madison made a sagacious speech, prefaced by the statement that there were objections against every mode that had been, or