Van Buren did not conceal his hostility to the election of
these justices. If he had developed radical tendencies in the
suffrage debate, he now exhibited equally strong conservative
proclivities in limiting the power of the voter. His vigorous
protests in the committee-room against the election of surro-
gates, sheriffs and county clerks had defeated that proposi-
tion, and in referring to the section of the report making jus-
tices of the peace elective, he said it had been a source of
sincere regret that the committee overruled him. But a major-
ity of the committee, he continued, in his smooth and adroit
manner, had no strong personal predilections on the question
of the election of sheriffs and surrogates, and if, on a fair
and deliberate examination, it should be thought better to
have these officials elected by the people, they would cheer-
fully acquiesce in that decision. This was the quintessence
of diplomacy. He knew that Erastus Root and Samuel
Young insisted upon having these officers elected, and, to se-
cure their opposition to the election of justices of the peace,
he indicated a willingness to be convinced as to the expedi-
ency of electing sheriffs and surrogates.
To bring the question of electing or appointing justices of



1821] VAN BUREN'S WILT SCHEME 309

the peace squarely before the convention, Van Buren, at a
later day, introduced a resolution providing that the board
of supervisors in every county should, at such time as the
Legislature directed, recommend to the governor a list of
persons equal in number to the justices of the peace in such
county; that the respective courts of common pleas of the
several counties should also recommend a like number, and
from the lists so recommended the governor should appoint.
