for party organization, but the idea of rotation in office was a democratic one. This result had already been partly achieved by the provisions in state constitutions for short terms of office, and in many instances by limitations upon reëligibility. But now the general principle was accepted that all offices should be held for short terms only, in order that all citizens might have better opportunity to secure a position. The idea rested on the assumption that one man is about as well fitted for any office as any other man, and may, therefore, be safely intrusted with official responsibility. It was diametrically opposed to the doctrine that office should be held on the ground of special fitness, and that long tenure of office gives one, in a sense, a vested right to the position.

By no one was the popular notion more clearly stated than by Jackson himself in his first annual message to Congress. Here are found the two ideas on which the new system rested; namely, that experience is not very important for a public servant, and secondly, that a long tenure of office is actually detrimental to good public service. "There are, perhaps, few men," said Jackson, "who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power without being more or less under the influence of feelings unfavorable to the discharge of their public duties." And again he argued that "the duties of all public officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of in

telligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance; and I cannot but believe that more is lost by long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience." He further urged that the proposed measure "would destroy the idea of property in office now so generally connected with official station; and although individual distress may be sometimes produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed, give healthful action to the system." Such was the doctrine of rotation in office as announced by President Jackson.

This view seems to be that experience had before entering office is unnecessary, and experience gained after entering office is apt to make the officer less fit to serve the public. John Taylor, in his Inquiry, asserted that more talent is lost by long continuance in office than by the system of rotation. Talents are called out by the prospect of employment, and "smothered by the monopoly of experience." On the floor of the United States Senate it was predicted that in time opportunities will be enlarged, "till it shall become a matter of course that each individual shall strive to qualify himself to discharge the duties of any office to which he may be called."1 It was, in fact, generally believed that no great skill is necessary for the work of governmental administration; and, on 1 Congressional Globe (1835), 23d Congress, 1st Session, I, 273.

the other hand, that an officer long in the public service would lose sympathy with the people, and become a devotee of officialism and bureaucracy. Life estate or even long estate in office was attacked by the democracy of this time in the same way that monarchy and aristocratic privilege had been at an earlier time. This attack was one part of the great movement which swept away what was left of privilege, and opened the way for the democratization of political institutions. That some of the ideas accompanying this advance should be crude, radical, or extreme, was in the nature of things to be expected.

One of the most important measures of this period was the general extension of the suffrage from the "property" basis to a"" manhood" basis. This change went down to the very roots of the political society, and for that reason deserves the most careful attention. At the time when the republic was founded there were very strict limitations on the electorate. Political power was kept tightly in the hands of the freeholders, who were to all intents and purposes "the people." These qualifications began to disappear, however, soon after the establishment of the federal government.1 Few of the new states entering the Union adopted the property requirement, and the old states slowly

1 On this point see the authorities already cited, Poore, Charters and Constitutions; and the debates in the constitutional conventions of the various states.

abandoned the restrictions found in their constitutions. Stubborn resistance to the tendency was often encountered, notably in the case of Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; yet the advance was sure, no backward step was taken, and by the middle of the century property qualifications for suffrage had been practically abolished in all the states. A few restrictions were still in existence, but these were not oppressive in character, and excluded no large section of the community. In the majority of the states, however, even these restrictions were omitted, and the broad principle of manhood suffrage (white) received full recognition. The old property qualifications were outgrown and a new democracy sprang up, based, not on the freeholders, but on the whole body of adult male citizens. The electorate was enormously expanded, and there came into existence a type of democracy which made that of Revolutionary days seem like a limited aristocracy.

Recognition was won for this new idea only after a bitter and protracted struggle. The doctrine that suffrage should depend upon property was tenacious of life, and clung desperately to its hold on the state constitutions. The property requirement was supported by some of the ablest men in the nation, and it is from one point of view surprising that the opposite principle was able to make headway against such talented advocates. John

Adams, Daniel Webster, and Joseph Story defended the property qualification in Massachusetts. In New York Chancellor Kent bitterly opposed the adoption of universal suffrage; in Virginia there were arrayed against the extension of the franchise, Madison, Monroe, Marshall, Randolph, and Upshur. The opposition to the freehold principle could boast of no such formidable champions.

The earnestness displayed in the defence of property, and the ability with which the cause was conducted, are such as might have been expected from a class long accustomed to the possession of the right to govern. To this dominant class, the plan of extending the suffrage to practically all male adults appeared to be fraught with the very gravest danger. The project seemed to them to be without foundation either in reason or in justice, and they did not see how it could result in anything but the subversion of democratic institutions. The results of the adoption of the principle of universal suffrage as predicted by the famous jurist, Kent, were the abuse of liberty, the oppression of minorities, the disturbance of chartered privileges, the degradation of justice, unequal taxation, crude and unstable legislation. "I hope, sir," said the venerable judge, "we shall not carry desolation through all the departments of the fabric erected by our fathers. I hope we shall not put forward to the world a constitution such as will merit the