Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/19

newly appointed, so shall the Schepens, now confirmed, pay due attention to the conversation, conduct, and abilities of honest and decent persons, inhabitants of their respective village, to inform the Director-General and Council, about the time of the next election, as to who might be sufficiently qualified to be then elected by the Director-General and Council."^[1]

Again there is no mention of popular election; the magistrates nominate, the Director and Council elect. Similar provisions were inserted in the charters of New Haarlem, Bergen and New Utrecht. Still more limited were the local political powers granted by Governor Colve after the Dutch reconquest in 1673. The Governor issued an order for the reorganization of the government of the towns of Midwout, Amersfoort, Breuckelen, New Utrecht and Gravesend, in which he reinstated the old form of nomination and confirmation of magistrates:

"Previous to the annual election, the Sheriff and Schepens shall make [a list], in nomination for Schepens, of a double number of the best qualified, honest, intelligent, and wealthiest inhabitants (but only those belonging to, or well affected toward, the Reformed Christian Religion), and shall present it [to] the Governor, who shall then make a selection, and, if he deem it best, confirm some of the old Schepens."^[2]

In accordance with the provisions of these charters, the magistrates of the Dutch towns were accustomed to send their nominations to the Director. No reference is made in their letters or in the action of the Director and Council to any elections by the townsmen. The nominations are said to be "made and presented," or "made and submitted" by the schepens, by the commissaries, by the magistrates, by the schout and schepens.^[3] These words are quite significant when compared with the letters from the English towns making their double nominations, in which there is usually internal evidence of the suffrage in town-meetings.^[4] The Dutch letters give no hint of such popular action, and in place of town elections, the close-corporation system of the Holland towns prevailed.

The conclusion we must come to from all the evidence obtainable is that there were no regular town-meetings among the Dutch, no popular elections for magistrates, and that the magistracy was of the nature of a close corporation, some retiring annually,^[5] and their

1. N. Y. Col. Doc., XIII. 196.
2. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, I. 162.
3. See N. Y. Col. Doc., XIII. and XIV., passim; e.g., XIII. 231, 336; XIV. 257, 344, 414, 510. 520, 522, 523.
4. See post, p. 12.
5. I have been unable to find the principle underlying this practice of partial retirement. See N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV. 314, 344, 412, 473, etc. For instance of removal for cause, see N. Y. Col. Doc., XIII. 336.