But in order to repel this argument, and to sustain their distinction, the gentlemen have put the case of a clergyman from Vermont, (where the clergy are not excluded from a seat in the legislature) coming to reside in this state, and it has been asked whether the prohibition in our constitution relative to the clergy, would not exclude him here? To this Mr. V. V. said he found no difficulty in giving a satisfactory answer. The privilege of citizenship has no connexion with the clerical office. A clergyman may exercise all the functions appertaining to his office in this state without being a citizen; but citizenship is necessary to give him a political relation to the government, and that without reference to his clerical office. Wherefore when a citizen from Vermont, or any other state, who is a clergyman, comes to reside amongst us, he is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship, independent of his office, and as to that he must be content to stand upon the same footing with his

clerical brethern here.

MR. V. V. concluded by repeating that he had understood that it was expected by a considerable portion of the people of this state, that the right of suffrage would be extended, but he had not heard that it was expected or desired (except by some of the citizens of New-York) that any of the present electors of this state should be disfranchised. He should therefore vote for striking out the word white in the amendment before the committee, in order to reserve inviolate the present constitutional rights of all the electors.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER said, it was the duty of every man to contribute his aid in arriving at a just result in this important question. He thought he might say he had not wasted much of the time of this Convention. The subject was a momentous one-not merely the proposition before the committee, but the subject matter of it; and certainly he could not justify himself in remaining silent on this important question. He should lay it down as a fundamental maxim, that in proceeding to amend the constitution, this Convention had an unquestionable right to protect and guard the rights of the majority of the community, although it may seemingly invade the rights of others; that the community has a right to secure its own happiness and prosperity, and that we are authorized to adopt all means that shall conduce to that end. If we find existing in this community any particular class of people, who cannot with propriety and safety exercise and enjoy certain privileges, we have a right to abridge them by placing them in the hands of the majority. We have in our constitution determined that no man under twenty-one years shall exercise the right of suffrage, upon the presumption that they do not possess mature understandings, and therefore have not a right to enjoy this privilege. Has the correctness of this principle ever been doubted? He believed not, although many arrive at maturity of understanding, and are ornaments of society, before they reach that age. It is necessary in establishing laws, to have general rules. He therefore had no hesitation to say, that with regard to the blacks, whatever we have to accuse ourselves of, from our own fault, or the fault of our ancestors, we have the unquestionable right, if we think the exercise of this privilege by them will contravene the public good; we have a right to say they shall not enjoy it. This is consistent with the feelings of every man. Sir, difficulties have been urged, and it has been supposed by some gentlemen, that it is an infringement of the constitution of the United States, which says "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Now, sir, said Mr. Spencer, I have two answers to this: First, If by adopting this principle we shall not be able to exclude men of colour from coming from states, where they enjoy that privilege, the committee know that any thing we may do, inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, would be ineffectual; if it be competent for us to do so, it would be inoperative. This is one answer. We therfore need not be deterred on that ground. I go farther; and must be permitted, with great deference to those distingushed gentlemen who are opposed to me on this subject, to express my own views of the construction of that article. My own opinion is, that this clause regards mere personal rights. It was intended by the constitution to admit persons of other states to purchase property, and enjoy all the personal rights, as in the states whence they came. Let us look at it in relation to the

constitutions of the several states. We have declared that a person to be eligible to the office of governor must have been a resident of this state a certain number of years, before he is qualified. Now, I ask, whether an emigrant from the state of Vermont would contend, that he was eligible to that office, in the same manner as if he had always resided in this state? A residence of six nonths is required to entitle a person to vote; but a person coming from Vermont, upon the principle here contended for, would say that he had a right to vote, because he had been enrolled in the militia, without reference to the question how long he had resided in the state. I think it was stated by some gentleman in the debate, that a minister of the gospel, who had been licensed in another state, in which there were no such restrictions, would be eligible to a seat in our legislature. An honourable member has said, that he would have the same rights and privileges as a minister of the gospel, in this state. On the same principle, a person of colour coming from another state, would have the privileges as one of the same class here. He should forbear to enlarge upon this part of the subject; but he did hope that gentlemen would concur with him in believing that this clause in the constitution regarded personal rights, and no other.

In arranging its municipal affairs, any government may adopt such regulations as it may think fit. A citizen had no more right to claim to be an elector, than to be elected.-The regulation of the right of voting is an arrangement for the public good; and upon the principal question, if we would conscientiously decide, he believed we should say, that persons of colour do not possess the requisite qualifications for exercising this privilege with discretion. They are a degraded race-it is in part our fault. It had been considered since his day by good and pious individuals, that slavery was lawful-that it was justified by scripture. That opinion has changed-the contrary is believed by all classes of people; and we ought not to deprive them of rights, if by permitting them to enjoy those rights, we do not injure ourselves. Provision has been made in this state for the abolition of their bondage; but in other states slavery exists. -Gradual emancipations may take place; and the truth is not to be disguised, that slaves, thus emancipated, are flocking into this state, and particularly into the metropolis. This consideration ought to arrest the attention of this committee.

He did verily believe, that this description of persons lacked intelligence. It was not owing to their nature altogether, but partly to the manner in which they had been brought up, that they were not capable of judging discreetly in matters of government. Though he should vote against this motion, yet he must connect it with other propositions reported by the committee. He admitted that we have a right to do so for our own safety and security. It has been said by some gentlemen, that by their enjoying these privileges, others were to be abridged-this is not the test; and yet with regard to the report of this committee, they admit a large number of persons to vote, merely because they contribute to the support of the government by their personal services. On this subject how stands our constitution now, with regard to the most numerous branch of the legislature? [Here Mr. Spencer read the clause of the constitution, regulating the votes for members of assembly.] The first inquiry will now be, how many persons will be admitted to the right of suffrage, who do not at present enjoy it, under the existing constitution. The second, whether extending this right in so great a degree, as is proposed, would be compatible with the interests of this state. The report says, that all white male citizens, who within the year immediately preceding the election, have worked on the highways, have been enrolled in the militia, &c. shall be allowed to vote. This will be on the ground of their contributing to the public fund.

Let me ask, said Mr. S. to whom this right will be extended? It will principally be extended to single persons, who have no families, nor permanent residence; to those who work in your factories, and are employed by wealthy individuals, in the capacity of labourers. Now, I hold, and I do it with all deference to the opinions of others--for I do not mean to charge any thing upon this committee-but I do hold, that it will be one of the most aristocratic acts that was ever witnessed in this community-under the pretence of giving the right

to them, we in fact give it to those who employ, clothe, and feed them. I appeal to this Convention, whether they do not believe, that a man who employs twenty, thirty, or fifty of these persons, if, on the approach of an election, he tells them that he wishes them to vote for this or that candidate, whether they will not feel themselves bound to comply with his wishes. That man who holds in his hands the subsistence of another, will always be able to control his will. Such a person will forever be the creature of the one who feeds, shelters, clothes, and protects him. This class of persons, would be as subservient to the will of their employers, as persons of colour. In truth, it would seem to

me, that under the notion that there is a call for extending the right of suffrage, this report goes to the most extravagant length.

He said he would explain what he believed to be the origin of this sentiment in favour of extending the elective franchise. The western part of this state has increased with an almost unexampled rapidity, with a virtuous and intelligent people-I speak of those who hold lands by virtue of contracts. They have gone on improving their estates, and paying as far as they could; but in very few cases have they completed their payments, and merely for the want of a form of a deed, they have been excluded from the right of voting. A short time since, attempts had been made in the legislature to invest them with the privilege of voting, as being equitable freeholders, but the attempt did not succeed; and their condition certainly does appear to call for some relief.

I have believed, and do still believe, said Mr. S. that we are called on to extend the right of suffrage, as far as the interests of the community will permit; but I do think we cannot contemplate carrying it to the full extent recommended in the report, without knowing that we are not giving it to those people who will nominally enjoy the right, but to those who feed and clothe them. I shall vote against striking out the word white, on the ground that it is necessary for securing our own happiness. I cannot say I would deprive those people, who have acquired property, of the privilege of voting; but I cannot consent to extend it to others, in whose hands it will be as much abused as by these coloured people. I am willing to extend the right of suffrage as far as my conscience will admit; but I never can agree to extend it so far, as to deprive the agricultural interests of this state of the rights which they ought to enjoy. I never can consent to extend this right, and make an aristocracy by giving the man who has the longest purse, the power to control the most votes.

GEN. TALLMADGE rose merely to state a fact. He had made examination, and found that in a warmly contested election about two years ago, there were but about one hundred blacks who voted at the polls in the city of New-York; and in the contested election last spring, there were but one hundred and sixty-three. He submitted it therefore, to the consideration of the committee, whether the evil complained of was of a magnitude to require the disfranchisement of this unfortunate race.

COL. YOUNG observed, in relation to the constitutional question that had been raised, that it had been solemnly adjudged by the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Kent,) then Chief Justice, in the case of Livingston vs. Van Ingen and others, 9th Johnson, 577, that "the provision that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, means only that citizens of other states shall have equal rights with our own citizens, and not that they shall have different or greater rights." This was the construction which he had yesterday given it, and which entirely withdrew it from the objectious that had been raised.

MR. RADCLIFF maintained the position which he yesterday assumed, that the constitution of the United States alluded to civil, and not to political rights. He referred to contemporaneous and subsequent constructions of that instrument. The constitution of South-Carolina provides that all white inhabitants, and no other shall be allowed to vote. This constitution was made only two years after the formation of the former, and no such objection was raised, although some of those who made it were members of the United States' Convention. The constitution of Delaware was formed soon after, and that of Connecticut more recently-both containing a similar provision. These were old states, and parties in the formation of the federal compact.

The constitutions of Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri, all new states, contain similar provisions. These having been formed since the original association, were required to submit their respective constitutions to congress for their approbation, as preliminary to their admission into the political family. They did so-and this question has therefore been decided by congress no less than eight times without a single objection ever having been raised against the unconstitutionality of such a provision. The Missouri question was of a political nature, and altogether different from the present.

Mr. R. further illustrated the arguments that had been offered in support of the report of the committee, and answered the objections that had been raised. In reply to the remark, that whites were often as profligate as the blacks, he admitted it; but the same could not be said of them as a class; and if gentlemen could draw a line of distinction that should divide the profligate from the virtuous, he would cheerfully give it his support without reference to colour. He contended that it would be conferring no benefit upon the blacks to allow them to vote. It only led to scenes of dissipation and expense. The principle of extension, as reported by the committee, would give us 2,500 negro votes in the city of New-York-and he hoped that gentlemen from the country would not, merely because they felt no pressure from the evil, let loose upon that city a host of voters that might give law to the whites, and in the consequences affect the remotest corners of the state.

MR. LIVINGSTON. The Convention, sir, have arrived at that part of their business which is the most interesting to the public at large. The questions relating to the legislative and executive branches are less important, because they are at all times in the hands of the people, who can dispose of them at their pleasure. But we have now come back to the right of suffrage-a right which comes home to the business and bosom of every man.

It may be expedient to review our constitutional history. When these states separated from the mother country, and formed constitutions of government, they declared that all men were free and equal; and yet in the next breath they gave a practical refutation of the doctrine they had advanced, by depriving their citizens of equal rights, in granting privileges to the rich which were denied to the poor. And why did they exclude the latter from the right of suffrage? Public policy required it. The wealth of this state was comparatively in the hands of a few individuals. Four or five families could almost control the wealth of the state, and it was necessary to conciliate the rich to avait themselves of their influence and wealth. What was then the situation of the people of colour? They were slaves. A free negro was a phenomenon in the state. They were recognized only as property. Since that time various acts have been passed ameliorating their condition-providing for their gradual emancipation and prohibiting their exportation to foreign states as slaves. But after having thus provided for their emancipation, and welfare, it behoves us to have regard to the safety of ourselves. Grant them emancipation. Grant them the protection of your laws, and the enjoyment of their religion. But if they are dangerous to your political institutions, put not a weapon into their hands to destroy you. It is indeed painful to review their condition. But look at that people, and ask your consciences if they are competent to vote. Ask yourselves honestly, whether they have intelligence to discern, or purity of principle to exercise, with safety, that important right. Look at their memorial on your table. Out of about fifty petitioners, more than twenty could not even write their names-and those petitioners were doubtless of the most respectable of the colour. Such persons must always be subject to the influence of the designing; and when they approach the ballot boxes, they are too ignorant to know whether their vote is given to elevate another to office, or to hang themselves upon the gallows.

It is said, indeed, that the danger consists only in the city of New-York. And is not that city entitled to our protection? A city which embraces onetenth of the population. and two-thirds of the wealth of the state? a city that is your boast, and the sinew of your prosperity, and which, if it takes a wrong direction, jeopardizes the dearest interests of the state. Fir, I remember that in

1801, the political complexion of our national government depended upon, and was changed by, the vote of a single ward in the city of New-York.

My honourable colleague has told you that at a recent election, there were but 163 black votes given in that city. I believe he has been misinformed. But whatever may have been the number admitted, there were more than 500 that applied for admission; and if they are not excluded, the principle of the report will let in upon that devoted city a horde of voters whom I will forbear to describe. Description could not do justice to the picture-but I ask this Convention what intercourse they, as individuals, would hold with them? Aside from all considerations of colour, what has been their conduct that should entitle them to your hospitalities and association ? What privilege have you conferred-what protection have you granted them, that has not been abused? I refer to documents that can give the answer. Look into your calendars. Survey your prisons--your alms-houses-your bridewells and your penitentiaries, and what a darkening host meets your eye! More than one-third of the convicts and felons which those walls enclose, are of your sable population. Sir, I wish to excite no hostile feelings towards them. I pity them from my heart. I lament their condition. I am disposed to amend it; but I cannot consent to invest them with a power that may be wielded to the destruction of all we hold dear.

We have been told by the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Van Vechten) that we were not sent here to deprive any portion of the community of their vested rights. Sir, the people are here themselves. They are present in their delegates. No restriction limits our proceedings. What are these vested rights? Sir, we are standing upon the foundations of society. The elements of government are scattered around us. All rights are buried, and from the shoots that spring from their grave, we are to weave a bower that shall overshadow and protect our liberties. Our proceedings will pass in review before that power that elected us; and it will be for the people to decide whether the blacks are elevated upon a ground which we cannot reach. Sir, we, all of us, entered into the government subject to the implied condition that our constitution was liable to revision and alteration; and that the blacks, in this particular, have vested rights exempt from the power of abridgment or alteration, which the whites have not, I have yet to learn.

But, si r, look to the savages that inhabit your western counties. You have governed them by your laws. You have legislated over them. You have taken their property into your keeping. But where have you allowed them to vote? And why will you debar them a privilege to confer it upon a race infinitely beneath them in all those properties and attributes that give worth and dignity to man?

But, sir, we are presented with a constitutional impediment. I shall not stop to discuss the technical construction, it may bear; but I hold that it is incompetent for the general government to interpose in the regulation of our municipal affairs It is a privilege incident to that state sovereignty which has been reserved. Has congress the right to dictate to the state of New-York what shall be the qualifications of her voters? It cannot be pretended. Suppose the legislature of this state should enact, as they have an undoubted right to do, that no black man shall be admitted as a witness; and suppose a suitor in a court of justice should demand that a black man, who had been imported from a neighbouring state where no such law existed, should be admitted to testify in defiance of your law, would his demand avail him? And yet if the construction contended for be correct, that suitor might rest himself upon the constitution of the general government, and give your law to the winds. No sir, the constitution of the United States does not-nor was it ever intended that it should, interfere with the local regulations of the several states. Such a construction would annihilate our sovereignty and prostrate our independence forever.

MR. JAY in reply-Mr. Chairman-I am sensible that little remains to be gleaned, in a field which has been so well reaped. Still, there are some arguments which deserve a reply, and some points which have been discussed, upon which a few rays of light may perhaps yet be thrown. It has been repeated