Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

mittee, whether this savours of equality of representation in the legislature as respects the landholders? Perhaps it will be said, that the freehold electors will have a right in common with the other electors, to vote for both branches of the legislature; but will any gentleman tell me in what character the freeholders will possess that right? It is not given to them in the character of freeholders, for the ownership of land per se is not recognized, in either of the propositions last mentioned, as a legitimate qualification for an elector. Nay, according to those propositions, if a man settles within this state five months previously to an election, and becomes the absolute owner of a freehold of the value of twenty-five thousand dollars, for which the former owner has paid the tax during the then current year, he will not be a legal voter. It would seem that in the estimation of the select committee, as well as in the opinion of the gentleman from Delaware, actual residence and a freehold interest in land, is a less meritorious qualification for an elector of members of the legislature, than a naked, casual residence of six months or a year, connected with the payment of a tax of six cents, or a day's work on the highway, or an hour's parade in the ranks of the militia, accoutred in the manner prescribed by law for a citizen soldier. It is true, that the landholders who pay taxes, and I believe there are none who do not, will have a right to vote for members of both houses of the legislature; but it should be remembered that our farmers have cattle and other personal property on their farms, which is not the less visible and tangible by the government, for being a necessary appendage to their farms, and which is never forgotten or overlooked by the assessors and collectors. Let us, then, place their participation in the choice of the members of assembly to the account of their personal property; and let it be co ceded that such participation gives them a fair representation in the legislature as far as relates to life, liberty, and personal property.-What becomes of their landed interest? How is that represented? Is it by an equal vote for personal property, personal services, and pecuniary contributions with other electors, who own no real estate, and whose numbers will always exceed the landholders? Is this equality according to the true principles of a representative government? Does it place the landholders of the state upon an equal footing with the other electors? Will this equality, as to the right of suffrage for members of the legislature, assure to the landholders even-handed justice, when legislative systems of taxation are to be devised and put into operation? Are there no conflicting interests between the holders of real and personal property on such oc casions? And ought it to be dissembled, that in such conflicts, the predomi. nant influence in elections will never be forgotten by those who depend upon that influence for their seats in the legislature?

The gentleman from Dutchess, (Mr. Livingston) seems to suppose that the freehold voters constitute at present two-thirds of the whole number of electors. Be it so will the gentleman venture to assert that the proposed extension of the right of suffrage will not change the difference of two-thirds in favour of the electors who are destitute of freeholds? In that event, what weight will the freehold interest of the state have in the scale of elections? Will not the choice of those who are to legislate for the landholders, rest with that class of electors who have no interest in real property? And will that afford the benefit of an equal representation in the legislature to the owners of land? May 1 be permitted to illustrate my argument by anticipating the result of the proposed extension of the right of suffrage in the city of New-York?

The average of the present senatorial votes taken in that city, is about four thousand, and when the proposed extension takes effect, their numbers will be increased more than three fold. What their increase will be in the course of ten or twenty years, who can tell? Then, who will undertake to say that real property will remain constitutionally secure, for twenty years to come, under the operation of the proposed extension of the right of suffrage? Again, sir: admit for argument's sake, that the freehold voters constitute a large majority of our present electors, is that a sound reason for divesting them of the right which the constitution gives them, of choosing one branch of the legislature? It appears to me, that their numbers, and the value and stable nature of their

property, establishes indisputably the justice of the present constitutional provision in their favour.

It has been conceded by the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Radcliff,) that real property ought to be made secure, but he contends that the freehold qualification of electors for senators affords no security to it. If he is correct on these points, let me ask why he is so solicitous to do away the freehold qualification for senatorial electors? Why is it desirable to extend the right of suffrage? Will such extension render personal property, and personal rights more secure? How will that increased security be effected? Will it not be derived from the accountability of the elected to the electors by whom they are chosen? And will not the same cause produce a similar effect in favour of the landholders, in case they retain the right of electing senators? Or will real property be better secured by legislative guardians chosen by electors who have no interest in it?

What is the declared sense of the legislature and people of this state, relative to the propriety and security of freehold qualifications? By your statutes, the ownership of a freehold is indispensable to qualify a man for any of the higher town offices, and to serve as a juror. Those statutes have been in force many years, and their provisions universally approved. How happens this, if there is no merit in freehold qualifications? Does it evince that public sentiment is adverse to such qualifications? To me it is unequivocal evidence of the opinion of this community in their favour.

Again, sir, if a freehold qualification is deemed essential for jurors who are to pass in the first instance upon all our rights, is it less essential for senators, who, as constituent members of the court of errors, are to decide finally upon the same subjects? It is true that the statute provisions to which I have alluded, only recognize the security of the freehold qualifications in the persons to be elected to all the important town offices, and in the persons designated for jurors, and not in the electors; but it cannot be controverted that those recognitions establish the principle for which I contend, inasmuch as freehold qualifications in the electors for senators, is an obvious means to carry the same qualifications, with their wholesome influence, into the senate.

We have also been told, that property of every description will always have its due weight in the legislature. This I take to be an implied admission that it ought to have weight there. How, then, can gentlemen who make this concession, pretend that it is neither wise, nor just to provide by the constitution for giving to real property its due weight in the senate? Is the principle sound, and yet the provision for ingrafting it in the constitution unwise and unjust? This mode of reasoning does not carry conviction to my mind-Does it mean that real property will provide its own protectors in the legislature, without any constitutional provision upon the subject? Let me ask how? If it is to be done by means of our elections, it must be in a way, which, I presume, this Convention is not disposed to sanction-I mean by exercising an undue influence upon the electors. Besides, sir, the body of our farmers, who constitute the mass of freehold electors, are unable to compete in that way with large monied capitalists and manufacturers-Their pecuniary means are generally small, and incompetent for the purposes of such a competition, and their habits and pursuits disqualify them to engage in it upon equal terms with their opponents. Hence it follows as a necessary result, that in order to assure to real property its just weight in the legislature, there must be a fundamental provision in the constitution for the purpose.

It has been urged by the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Radcliff) that we have large and growing commercial and manufacturing capitalists, which require equal protection with the landed interest of the state. Be it so. The amendment before us will not deprive those capitalists of equal protection.—They will be fully represented in the assembly, and it will be their own choice, if they are not duly represented in the senate also. Let them invest $250 of their overgrown capitals in real property, and they will acquire the right of suffrage for both branches of the legislature. Have they any right to demand that we shall do away the freehold qualification of electors for senators for their accommodation, merely because they do not set a sufficient value upon it to lay out the small sum of $250 to acquire it? I contend that they have not.

Again, it is insisted, that the term for which senators are elected, affords adequate security to real property without the freehold qualification of electors for the senate. I freely admit, sir, that the senatorial term of four years, imparts more stability to the senate, than the assembly possesses, and that it creates a salutary guard against the evils of unwise legislation, which the influence of popular excitements upon the latter branch of the legislature might otherwise produce. But without the freehold qualification of electors for the senate, it does not make the senators accountable for their public conduct to the landholders of the state, and therefore it does not give to the owners of real property, their legitimate weight in the government.

Some of the opposers of the amendment before us, object to it, because, as they allege, it is founded in aristocratic principles. I must confess, sir, that this objection has at least the merit of novelty. A landed aristocracy composed of the great body of yeomen of this state, is, I apprehend, an anomaly. I have sometimes heard the holders of overgrown estates in lands, called aristocrats, but until now, I never heard that the prescribed freehold qualification of $250 for electors of the senate, was considered an aristocratic feature in our constitution. What! the common farmers-the stable pillars of the state, a body of aristocrats? If the ownership of fifty, or an hundred, or two hundred acres of our soil, converts the owner into an aristocrat, then, according to the estimate of the gentleman from Dutchess (Mr. Livingston) two-thirds of the present electors of this state are aristocrats-and hence proceeds, I presume, the solicitude of the remaining one-third, that the right of suffrage may be extended, so as to countervail the aristocratic influence of the farmers, by a class of voters, who, for the want of real property, are more democratic, and of course more independent.

The time has been, when a large portion of the real property of the state was vested in a few men of wealth, but that time is past. Our large landed estates are rapidly dividing, and the facilities given to promote their division, by the operation of the statute for regulating descents and abolishing entails, will in a few years break them up. There is, therefore, no ground for apprehension from that quarter.

But the amendment under discussion is assailed by another objection. The gentleman from New-York (Mr. Radcliff) has told us, that if the principle which it contains, be correct, the provision is unjust, because it allows to a landholder to the value of $1000-only an equal vote with one whose freehold is worth no more than $250.

The answer to this objection is plain and easy. It is not necessary for the security of real property, that the freehold votes should be graduated according to the value of each elector's property. The owner of a small farm feels as deep an interest in its protection, as the large landholder does in the protection of his extensive domain. It is their community of interest in the subject, that produces the desired security. For every law which imposes burthens upon, or invades the rights of, real property, will affect all the owners of land, in proportion to the value of their respective estates.

We have been admonished, sir, by the gentleman from New-York, as well as by the gentleman from Dutchess, to beware of relying on the speculations and theories of wise and virtuous statesmen in relation to the science of government, for that they are not exempt from fallibility. What lesson should this admonition teach us? Is it not, that we should distrust our own infallibility-that we should not confide too much in our own speculations and theories upon a subject on which the most enlightened and distinguished statesmen have erred, when the prosperous and safe path of experience lays open before us? The wisdom of our present constitution has been tested by the experience of more than forty years-it has guided us to unexampled greatness-it has secured all our rights, and conferred upon us the blessings of peace and happiness why, then, are we urged to alter some of its most prominent features? Is it the part of wisdom to substitute experiment for experience, in a case so interesting, not only to the present, but to future generations? What dire necessity re quires it? The gentleman from Dutchess (Mr. Livingston) has indeed told us, that the freehold qualification of electors for senators, is unfriendly to civil lib erty; but has he attempted to prove it? No-it is an assertion that can not be verified-What, a provision founded in the true principles of a free representa

tive government, hostile to civil liberty? Is it incompatible with civil liberty, to give to the landed interest of the state, its due weight in the legislature? Is it necessary to the preservation of civil liberty, so to extend the right of suffrage, that the free and independent votes of our hardy and honest ycomanry may be out numbered by another class of voters, whose stake in the government exists no longer than while they may please to reside within the state, and whose contributions to the support of government are limited to the ordinary exactions and services to which every inhabitant is liable during his residence amongst us? The position of the gentleman is so repugnant to every correct notion of a free representative government, that it only requires to be fully stated, in order to expose, its unsoundness.

The same gentleman has urged, that the freehold qualification of senatorial electors engenders jealousy-is opposed to public opinion, and therefore ought to be abolished. What evidence have we of the state of public opinion on this subject? Whence is it derived? From individual opinions expressed in this house? From the proceedings of party meetings, and such like communications published in the newspapers to promote the views of faction? Is this proper evidence to govern the deliberations and decisions of a convention of the people, especially convened to revise and amend their constitution?

Again I beg leave to ask, what jealousies exist on the subject? Who are jealous of the freehold right of suffrage for senators? Are any who have no freehold, jealous of those who have? Do they wish to enjoy their rights without becoming freeholders? Is this reasonable? Ought freehold rights to be sacrificed at the unhallowed shrine of such unfounded jealousy? But suppose the unjust sacrifice should be made, will that do away all jealousy! Will it not awaken a well grounded jealousy in the injured freeholders, whom the gentleman has represented to constitute two-thirds of the whole body of electors? Let me admonish that gentleman to beware, lest by attempting to remove an imaginary evil, he may incur the guilt of committing a serious wrong, without accomplishing his professed object.

The gentlemen on the opposite side of the question seem to rely much on the example of other states. What is that example? They say that nearly all the states have abolished the freehold and other property qualifications of electors. For argument's sake, I will admit the fact; but I must at the same time add this further important fact, which they have omitted to state, that very few states have gone the length of wholly passing by freeholds in the constitutional enumeration of the qualifications of electors, and that many recognize the soundness of the principle for which I contend, by requiring a substantial freehold qualification in the elected. Hence it would seem that the example of other states, so far as it has any bearing upon this question, does by no means settle it. And upon a point so deeply involving the best and dearest interests of the people of this state, I would, with great respect for the enlightened statesmen of those states, say, that I am not prepared to admit that their example ought to be conclusive upon us.

I shall detain the committee only a moment longer, while I briefly notice the objection made by the gentleman from Delaware, to that part of the amendment which proposes to confer upon equitable freeholders the right of suffrage for senators. If I understood the gentleman correctly, he considers an equitable freehold as an interest in land, which depends for its existence on the mere will and pleasure of the court of chancery. In this he is greatly mistaken.Equitable freeholds are as well defined, and are governed by rules, as well ascertained and established as legal estates. The only difference is, that the court of chancery is the equitable protector of the former, and the courts of law are the legal protectors of the latter.

I bave now, sir, submitted to the committee my views upon this momentous subject. I regret that my humble talents do not enable me to present its merits with the perspicuity and force which they deserve. All I can reasonably hope is, that my feeble efforts may call forth greater abilities to illustrate and enforce the salutary principles for which I have contended.

On motion of GEN SWIFT, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

COL YOUNG moved, that the Convention meet hereafter at 9 o'clock A. M. CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER moved, that the Convention hereafter continue in session till 3 o'clock P. M.

CHANCELLOR KENT and MR. SHARPE opposed the motion, upon the ground that the Convention could not sit more than five hours in the day without exhaustion, or to any advantage in the transaction of business.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE said, he made the motion because he was in the habit of sitting more than six hours in a day; but as other gentlemen thought that a session of six hours was too long, he would withdraw it.

Adjourned to 9 o'clock on Monday morning.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1821.

The Convention assembled at 9 o'clock A. M. pursuant to adjournment, when the journal of Saturday was read and approved.

REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY.

MR. MUNRO, from the committee to whom was referred so much of the constitution as relates to the judicial department, and to take into consideration the expediency of making any, and if any, what alterations or amendments therein, and to report such amendments as they may deem expedient, made the following report :

Resolved, That the following amendments ought to be made in the constitutution of this state.

f

1. The judicial power of this state shall be vested in the court for the trial o` impeachments and the correction of errors, the court of chancery, the supreme court of judicature, a superior court of common pleas in courts of nisi prius, and oyer and terminer and general goal delivery; inferior courts of common pleas to be called county courts and courts of general sessions of the peace; and in such other tribunals of inferior and limited jurisdiction as the legislature may estab lish, under the restrictions hereinafter mentioned.

II. The court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, shall have original jurisdiction in all cases of impeachments; and appellate jurisdiction in all matters of law and equity, which may be brought up by writ of error upon the judgments of the supreme court, and the superior court of common pleas, or by appeal from the decrees of the court of chancery; and shall hereaf ter consist of the president of the senate, for the time being, and the senators, chancellor, and vice-chancellor or vice-chancellors, and the judges of the supreme court and superior court of common pleas, or the major part of them; except that when an impeachment shall be prosecuted against the chancellor, or either of the vice-chancellors, or the judges of the supreme court or superior court of com. mon pleas, the person so impeached shall be suspended from exercising his office until his acquittal; and when an appeal from a decree in equity shall be heard, the chancellor shall inform the court of the reasons thereof; but shall not have a voice for its affirmance or reversal. And if the cause to be determined, shall be brought up upon a writ of error, or a judgment of the supreme court, or the superior court of common pleas, the judges of the court rendering such judgment, shall assign the reasons thereof, but shall not have a voice for its affirmance or reversal. The court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, shall not sit at the same time with the legislature, nor shall any member thereof, be retained, or act as counsel in any cause pending therein.

III. The court of chancery shall hereafter consist of the chancellor for the time being, and of a vice-chancellor, who shall have the same power with the chan cellor, to hear and determine all matters cognisable in the said court; and the decrees, orders, and acts of the vice-chancellor, shall be deemed to be decrees, orders, and acts of the said court, subject to be reviewed and affirmed, reversed, or discharged by the chancellor on appeal to him. The legislature may, at any time hereafter, whenever it may be deemed expedient, establish a second vicechancellor, with like jurisdiction and powers. No person shall be appointed a master in chancery, unless he shall be a solicitor of that court, or have been admitted to the degree of co "r, either in the court of chancery, or in the su

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »