CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER said, that as he had once occupied the floor, and had expressed his sentiments on this question, he did not now rise to enter again into the debate. But he felt himself called on, (and he hoped the committee would indulge him the privilege) to reply to some remarks which fell from the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Tompkins.) It had been said, that he and his colleagues acted on this question from preconcerted measures. He repelled such an allegation; he had concerted no plans of opposition with his colleagues; and he declared that his conduct was actuated by no other motives, than the sincere convictions of his own mind, and the conscientious discharge of his duty. The disagreement between his own proposition, and that of one of his honourable colleagues, furnished evidence, if any were needed, that there had not been a preconcert among the delegation.

The gentleman from Richmond had made some remarks on the revilers and calumniators of General Hamilton; and he, (Mr. S.) felt himself entitled to call for an explanation, and to demand whether those remarks were intended to be applied to him. [Here Mr. President rose and explained. He disclaimed any personal allusion, and denied having used the language, which had been imputed to him.] Mr. Spencer remarked, that after this explanation he had nothing more to say. It had again been his misfortune to misunderstand the gentleman from Richmond. But as he was up, and as other members might have received the same impressions as himself, he would take this occasion to add, that before the death of General Hamilton, he, (Mr. S.) had had the good fortune to attract his notice, and to receive marks of his kindness and friendship; and he, (Mr. S.) entertained the same views of his character, and the same friendly feelings towards him, which he expressed in his remarks on Saturday. He behieved him to be one of the greatest and most upright statesmen that our country ever produced. He admired his sincerity and friendship. He, (Mr. Hamilton) carried his heart in his hand, and you could always read its truth and integrity. He never disguised his feelings-he was guilty of no duplicity-and did not flatter and deceive the people with false and empty professions.

MR. Ross. It is not my intention, sir, to engross much of the time of this Convention, much less on this occasion, since the amendment under consideration has already received a pretty full discussion. The honourable mover of this amendment, (the Chief Justice,) as well as those gentlemen who have supported it, have laboured to impress a belief, that to preserve a distinction in voting for senators, founded on the possession of two hundred and fifty dollars amount of freehold by the electors, is absolutely necessary to secure the rights of property. That to abrogate this feature in our present constitution, would be dangerous-that it would be a reflection upon the wisdom of our ancestors who framed it that it is not sanctioned by the practice or example of other states; and, finally, that no innovation has been called for by the people of this state, to their knowledge.

:

Sir, in aristocratic and monarchial governments alarms of this kind, are al ways sounded by ministers and nobility, whenever the people call for the extension of privilege, so as to awe them into silence-But in republican states, it is worthy of consideration to examine and ascertain whether such apprehensions be real or imaginary.-That the framers of our present constitution thought it wise to introduce this feature, I have no doubt, having to act as they did, amidst the storms of the revolution, and under peculiar circumstances which no longer exist. The reason they adopted that feature, has on former occasions been frequently, and I believe, satisfactorily explained, which was, that nearly all the freehold property in the state was then possessed by a few families, and unless they were indulged in this favourite discrimination, it would lead to disaffection, which the most imperious consideration of safety, urged them to prevent, and to do every thing in their power to conciliate and enlist the wealthy in support of the cause in which they were then engaged.— In such a state of things, it was a wise and salutary provision, because any innovation calculated to alarm or disaffect those on whom they were obliged to depend for resources, would have been dangerous. But since our situation is now so widely changed, and property infinitely divided, the danger has ceased to exist. If such alarming apprehensions as have been held up to view, were

well founded; if this distinction in voting for one branch of the government, be necessary to preserve a cheek upon the other, by which to secure the rights of property, as some contend, then are our sister states in a most sad dilemma. For a reference to their respective constitutions will establish the fact, that not a single constitution adopted since the period of the revolution, contains a solitary provision of the kind. Can it be supposed that all our statesmen of this enlightened age, have been seized with a fatal delusion? Have they been deaf to the admonitions and maxims of wisdom, regardless alike of the guardianship of property, and the preservation of their states, by discarding a provision so wholesome and necessary. Such indeed has been their folly and madness, if the direful apprehensions so pathetically depicted by gentlemen who support this amendment, be real, But, sir, were they to assign the reasons why they had not adopted in any of their constitutions the provision contemplated by this amendment, I apprehend they would be the same that prompt the people of this state to call for its abolition, to wit, that they deemed it not only unjust, but an odious remnant of aristocricy unfit to be incorporated into the free institutions of a republican government. But it is said by the supporters of this amendment, that the people of this state have expressed no wish in favour of its abolition. Then are they incapable of manifesting their wishes.— In fact every channel through which public opinion could be conveyed, not by one party alone, this anti-republican distinction has been for years the theme of complaint. The executive of this state, we are informed, has been petitioned to recommend it to the legislature to call a Convention for the purpose of altering this, as well as other parts of the constitution, so at least, as to do away this illiberal and unjust restriction upon the right of suffrage. And yet shall we be told these calls have not come to our knowledge? The distinction proposed by this amendment, has already been the fruitful source of tumult, disorder and animosities, of corruption and perjuries at elections.-Many have imagined, or pretended to imagine, that they were freeholders, when they held nothing but conditional contracts. To evade a discrimination so repugnant to freedom, men have frequently sworn in their votes, by taking a conveyance during the election, or by testifying that they were worth the necessary amount when they were notoriously in a state of bankruptcy. Instances of these several cases and a variety of others, have occurred within my own personal observation. In such a state of things, the practice of challenging will be more or less resorted to, and which produces the most bitter resentments, disorder, and often violence. At the same time the unprincipled will evade the law with impunity, while the conscientious will be excluded.

Sir, the honourable Chief Justice in a former debate, in a very able and impressive manner, showed the necessity of avoiding the practice of administering oaths to test the qualifications of electors. And, sir, I did hope that neither that gentleman, nor his honourable colleagues, would urge the adoption of a provision that would inevitably undermine the sound and wholesome maxim he had so strongly inculcated, so long as the amendment in question, would infallibly tend to the commission of crimes. Indeed the best interests of society, are opposed to its adoption. To include what he has been pleased to term equitable freeholds, serves still more to increase the difficulty, by rendering it impossible to test the qualifications of electors, by any other mode than by their own oaths. But, sir, we are told that unless men possess two hundred and fifty dollars worth of treehold, they are not to be trusted in the choice of senators, especially the labouring class, without property. Sir, I know not what may be the character of those who perform the menial services of the great, they may deem themselves degraded to the condition of slaves, without the right of exercising an opinion of their own, and thereby completely subservient to the nod of their imperious employers. But, sir, this is not the condition of the labouring class in the country-I appeal to the honourable members living in the interior, whether the labouring class about them, though poor, are not generally as a body of men, discreet and independent in the exercise of their political rights? There are individual exceptions, I confess, among the poor, as well as the rich-But they expect the inost of them soon to become freeholders—If they are not to be trusted safely, how happened both branches of the legislature, the senate

and the council of revision, too, to pass a law recommending a Convention, in which the privilege of voting for delegates was extended, so as to embrace all who perform military duty; when it was well known that an extension of the right of suffrage was in contemplation? The truth is, our experience thus far under our present constitution, pointed to this as one of its material defects.The experience of our neighbouring states which have no such provision, warrants the conclusion, that our fears of innovation in this case are wholly groundless. It is said (by the honourable Chancellor) for upwards of forty years, under this constitution we have increased in population, wealth, and importance, with an astonishing rapidity, and that we ought to be contented without seeking an extension of privilege by innovation-So while a colony of Great-Britain we grew and flourished exceedingly, and some were then of the opinion, and no doubt honestly of the opinion, that it would have been wise not to have changed our situation-Will it be pretended that, that opinion was correct? In that, as in many other cases, experience has demonstrated the wisdom of innovations in governments when they can be materially improved. In view of these considerations, sir, I hope and trust that this amendment will not prevail.

MR. BURROUGHS spoke a few words in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Chief Justice.

MR. E. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, although I have hitherto been a silent, I have not been an inattentive member of this Convention. I have not only listened with pleasure to the eloquence which has been poured forth from every quarter of the house, but I have drawn instruction from the wisdom, which has so profitably and on so many occasions occupied this floor. When I look about me, and perceive with whom I have the honour to be associated in the great task of constitutional reform, difficult and delicate as that task is, I cannot but feel that the united talents and learning of this august assembly is adequate to its accomplishment, and that the people have a right to anticipate an auspicious result from our labours. On every side I behold men, who have long filled the most elevated and arduous offices, and grown grey in the service of the state. A majority of this Convention have passed into the autumn of lifethey come, laden with the fruits of experience, abundant in knowledge, mature in understanding. From such an assembly, all unruly passions must have been excluded, and the arts of the demagogue would here be unavailing. Happy is it for us and for those who shall come after us, that it is so; for, Mr. Chairman, the friends of rational liberty in all quarters of the globe have their attention fastened upon independent, confederated America; in the front rank of this confederacy, in the most conspicuous station, stands the great state of New-York, and the result of this Convention will decide her fate, perhaps for ever. Who, then, does not feel-who is there, who does not appreciate-the responsibility under which we act? Our proceedings, our opinions and votes, are placed on never-dying records; our character as patriots and statesmen, will be determined by the measures which we may here adopt; if those measures be stamped with wisdom; if they be conceived in the spirit of disinterested regard for the common good, and bear the impress of impartial justice, then that character will live in honour through ages yet unborn, and future generations will hold us in grateful remembrance. But, if the demon of party should be permitted to enter this hall, mingle in debate, and betray our judgments, then, instead of the blessings of our children for our wisdom and fidelity-instead of the unceasing gratitude of posterity for earnestly consulting their perpetual welfare, we should in a few short years, hear it said of us, as has been already said [by Mr. Tompkins] of the Convention of 1801—“ it was a party Convention, called to subserve party interests-its measures were dictated by the tyrant, party-it defaced the fairest features of our constitutionit prostrated the proudest pillar of our government." How unwise, then-how short-sighted is that man, who seeks to advance the temporary interests of a political party, by the permanent provisions of a constitution of government! Party is the gourd of a day; it may flourish in the night of deception, but it must wither in the light of investigation, and under the full beams of risen truth, it dies and is forgotten. But the constitution remains-if a bad one, to scatter curses through society-if a good one, to confer equal blessings upon

all, and transmit them, with augmenting weight, from age to age.-The constitution, sir, is the heart of the republic-the source of political life; from it issues the blood that nourishes and warms the remotest members of the political body it is the sun in the centre of the political system; around it the legislative, executive, and judicial powers revolve in their proper orbits, imparting light and life to the great elements of social prosperity and happiness-the manners, habits, and customs, the education, morals, and religion of the people, giving to them protection and perpetuity.

We are not, Mr. Chairman, now just emerging from the savage state; we have a government, founded on social compact: a portion of our natural rights has been surrendered, and sovereignty, which in the state of nature equally appertained to all, has been concentrated, and vested in a portion of the people, for the common benefit and protection of the whole. The sovereign power of the state is, indeed, comprised with, but it is by no means accurately described by the term, the people. This term in its general and most comprehensive signification, embraces the whole population-all that portion of the human family, which is comprised within the limits of the state. But as the great object of the exercise of sovereignty is the general good, it never has been, in fact, and all will admit that it never ought to be, in theory, committed to the people, in this extended acceptation of the term. It ought not to be so committed, because the young and inexperienced, those who are helpless and dependant, by nature and inevitable necessity, as well as by civil institution and legal contract, cannot be, and never have been supposed, in the most extravagant theories of equality, capable of expressing their wills independently and intelligently. Thus, by the universal consent of mankind, one half, and truth no less than politeness, compels me to add, the better half of the whole human family, is at once and utterly excluded from any participation of sovereignty. The male population we again divide, excluding all infants; and from the remaining portion we subtract all foreigners, all paupers, and all felons; until we find sovereignty reduced, and that too, by common consent and universal custom, from a population, in the case of our own state, of upwards of thirteen hundred thousand souls, into the hands of about one hundred and fifty thousand free male citizens, who are the actual, legitimate sovereigns of the state, and who constitute but about one tenth of its entire numbers. If it be true that all persons are born equal in political rights, possessing equal portions of legitimate sovereignty, how happens it that nine-tenths of our fellow legitimates are dethroned, and we, the one-tenth, are declared the rightful sovereigns of this free and independent state? If the right of self-govern. ment were, as some gentlemen seem to consider it, not only a natural, but an unalienable right, it would follow that, by nature and by Providence, it had been bestowed equally upon every individual of the human race, and that by no act could a portion lawfully assume to itself the attribute of sovereignty conferred alike on all; it would be usurpation; it would be tyranny.

In this country, and in this state, the people have selected, from all the forms of government known to civilized man, an elective republic. No doubt they have selected with unrivalled wisdom; but, in establishing a constitution and fundamental laws, they have found it necessary even here to limit the number of those, in whom the sovereign power shall rest, and to pronounce what portion of the whole, will be most likely to exercise it with wisdom, with justice, and for the promotion of the public welfare.

We are the representatives of the sovereign power of this state, deputed to examine the constitution, to suggest and recommend such alterations as we believe the public good demands; which, when adopted by the people, shall become fundamental, shall bind the power from which itself derives its authority, and become the charter of freedom and security to all who come within its jurisdiction.--Some gentlemen have reminded us of the position that government is instituted for the protection of life, liberty, and property, and insisted upon it, as if it were a new position, and as if, when once established or admitted, it put an end to argument and settled the whole question. But, most surely, it does not follow that all who are protected by government, or entitled to its protection, are also entitled to a voice in the designation of the men who ad

minister that government. All have lives to be protected; but all living are not, therefore, entitled to become electors. All are entitled to civil and religious liberty-the minor as extensively as the adult-the female as extensively as the male-yet they have not all a voice in choosing their rulers; many a female, as well as many a legal infant, is in possession of large estates, but they cannot vote. No, sir, the mere statement of this general truth, important as it is in the abstract, and admitted as it is by all, helps us not one step onward in the argument; the question, the great practical question, is still to be put, in what manner shall this great end of government, the protection of life, liberty, and property, be best accomplished? It certainly cannot be accomplished by consulting one of these great objects of social care, to the neglect of the rest. No, sir, and while I would not, on the one hand, bestow exclusive favour upon the possessors of mere wealth, nor graduate a man's political power by the extent of his property, I would not, on the other, bestow all my care upon simple, unaccommodated life and liberty, or neglect the protection of those accumulations of industry and bounties of Providence, which give to life and liberty so much of their value-so much of their charm to the individual, and so much of their utility to society. I would endeavour, sir, to consult all these objects in due proportion; I would endeavour to unite the attachment to life, which is so deeply implanted in the nature of man-the love of liberty, which is so thoroughly interwoven with our rational faculties—and the love of property, without which, civilized and social life could not be enjoyed--I would endeavour to unite all these great principles of action in support of that government, which I would render the equal guardian of them all.

But we have been told, sir, that gentlemen have pledged themselves on this question; and that they cannot and dare not vote against universal suffrage! If such gentlemen there are upon this floor, of them I ask, why all this pageantry, this mockery of debate? Why do we spend our nights in reflection, and our days in laborious discussion? or why express the reasons of our conduct? Are not our arguments intended to illumine our understanding and convince our judgments? This conflict, sir, is alike unequal and unprofitable. Is it treating this Convention fairly, for any gentlemen to come with their minds cased in impenetrable armour, while they are permitted to hurl the thunders of their eloquence, and dart the lightning of their wit, at our open, unsuspecting, undefended bosoms?

It has been objected that the question now under debate, has been determined by the people, and that nothing remains for us but to register their decree; and one gentleman has declared, "he was instructed by his constituents, and he should be ashamed to go home and tell them, he had heard new arguments at Albany, which had convinced him that he and they had long been in error." Sir, my constituents have sent me here with no such instructions. They expect their delegates will calmly and deliberately examine the various important subjects which shall come before this Convention; and they will be better, far better pleased, that we pursue the broad road of duty, which the expanded wisdom of this august assembly may lay open, than the narrow path which they themselves had discerned at home.

Gentlemen say the people have settled this matter in their primary assemblies. Vox populi vox dei. But the worshippers of this deity have, certainly, a right to know his commands; and they cannot reasonably be censured for hesitating to obey injunctions of which they are ignorant. Before I can believe that the resolutions of the primary assemblies beyond the Genesee river, are binding upon the freeholders of Suffolk, I wish to know how their meetings were got up, and by what class of the community they were attended. Will gentlemen inform us what were the topics of argument urged at those meetings, and whether the resolutions there adopted, were the cause or the consequence of those arguments. What were the sound and unanswerable reasons which induced the yeomanry of the country to surrender a portion of their sovereignty, and divide their inheritance with those who have neither property nor character? Sir, the people of this country do not settle their rights in this manner; they have not fully examined this matter; they have made up no opinion; much less have they expressed any wish to control and govern our conduct.