Gentlemen have triumphantly asserted, that a majority of seventy thousand freemen, who called this Convention, have declared that this odious distinction in favour of the freeholders of our country, should no longer disgrace the records of liberty. It was only yesterday that this same seventy thousand sent us hither to abolish the council of revision; to-day, the seventy thousand called this Convention for the sole purpose of taking from the freeholders their dangerous power of clecting the senate. Each gentleman seems to believe that the amendment, which he desires, is the great object for which the Convention was especially called, and he marshals his seventy thousand in support of his proposition. Sir, this Convention was called for, by a vast majority of the people of this state, not because they wished to change the seat of sovereignty-not because they wished the constitution demolished and its fragment scattered by the blasts of party-nor even because they believed their constitution so generally defective, that no part of it would answer the end of wholesome government, and wished to change it entirely for another; but because they perceived that, in one particular, however plausible in theory, it was baneful in practice. The executive had repeatedly called the attention of the legislature to the appointing power. That power was lodged in such hands that no change could make our situation worse. On this subject the public mind was deeply, extensively agitated. The council of appointment had attracted the scrutinizing attention of every portion of the state. It was distinctly seen and felt that our legislators were no longer nóminated and elected for their virtue, intelligence, and general fitness to enact wholesome laws; the people no longer sent to the senate men venerable for their experience and valuable for their wisdom. The fountains of legislative authority had been corrupted; the primary assemblies had been called, not for the sole and legitimate purpose of selecting for nomination to office the best and wisest citizens, but to designate those who would best carry into effect the objects of party; those, who could be relied on as fit instruments to fill the council of appointment, and who would take and appoint from ready made lists, the tools and sycophants of faction. The assembly, too, has been chosen under the same pestiferous influence, men have been promoted, not for their general wisdom and acknowledged virtue, but as the pliant, faithful instruments of the master demagogue of the day. Their duties consisted in punctual attendance upon caucuses, and a careful, strict, habitual observance of the orders of some self-elected leader of his party, who has taken shelter, in the honours and emoluments of some secure and durable office, from the storm he had excited, but could no longer control. The effects of an appointing power, thus constituted, have been visited, in discord and confusion, upon every county in the state; and I wonder not that the people have shaken off their slumbers, and rising in their majesty, have declared, by a majority of seventy thousand, that this instrument of corruption-this engine of oppressionshould no longer remain. It has sacrificed age, and talents, and worth upon the altars of party, and with unblushing profligacy, has elevated to stations of responsibility and trust, the ignorant, the weak, and the abandoned. Why, sir, in the county, which I have the honour to represent, this council has appointed as a magistrate, a man, who recently was convicted at a court of oyer and terminer in that very county, of hiring a miscreant to burn his neighbour's barn; and he was imprisoned there for his crime. Think you, sir, that the citizens of that county, who had so lately witnessed his trial and condemnation, and had seen him through the grates of his prison, expiating his guilt, think you they would have committed to such a man, by their votes, the administration of the laws and the guardianship of the peace? Would the respectable yeomanry of that county, think you, have degraded the freeman's ballot by making it the instrument of elevating to the seat of magistracy a gaol-delivered felon ?

I admit, sir, there was another motive for calling this Convention—a motive which had a powerful influence, and greatly swelled this majority. The western and northern parts of this state, when our present constitution was adopted, were a wilderness. That wilderness is now filled with valuable citizens, who hold their estates by a tenure unknown at the adoption of that constitution. The settlers on the Holland Land Company's purchase, on the Pultney and Hornby estates, upon M'Comb's purchase, and in many other portions of the

western and northern counties, hold under contracts for the purchase of their farms. In many, if not in most cases, they have paid the greatest portion of the purchase money-cleared and cultivated their farms, and erected valuable dwellings; but, as yet, have not completed their contracts and received their deeds. In my judgment, these men have always been entitled to the right of suffrage, as "freeholders possessed of a freehold in their own right;" for this term, I contend, is used in the constitution in a generic sense, including both legal and equitable freeholders; and this construction has been given to the constitution, by every branch of the government. The act which declares that both mortgagors and mortgagees in possession should be deemed freeholders under the constitution and our election laws, could never have passed upon any other constitutional ground, than that one was an equitable, the other a legal freeholder. If the title passed to the mortgagee, then he was the legal freeholder; and the mortgagor in possession, seized of the equity of redemption, was the equitable freeholder. If we adopt the modern doctrine, and declare the mortgage to be a security for money, then we regard the fee-the legal estate -as vesting in the mortgagor, and the mortgagee in possession as possessed of an equitable freehold : It is impossible the legal freehold estate should be in both mortgagor and mortgagce, at the same time. The act which requires persons holding their lands under these contracts, to serve on juries, is of the same character, and furnishes the same inference. Our constitution declares, that "trial by jury in all cases, in which it hath heretofore been used in the colony of New-York, shall be established and remain inviolate for ever." Now a jury must consist of twelve men; and the legislature had not the constitutional right to reduce the number, except in cases where it had been used in the colony; and by the same usage, those jurors must have been freeholders of the counties, or freemen of the cities. This act, therefore, would have invaded the constitutional guard of the trial by jury, if these men were not equitable freeholders. Furthermore-Their estates would pass under a devise of “ all my freehold estate; it would descend to the heir, and in many cases it would be subject to judgments and executions as real estate. Taking the declaratory act, relative to mortgagors and mortgagees, which I have before mentioned, as a precedent, many gentlemen were desirous to pass another declaratory act expressive of the sense of the legislature, that equitable, as well as legal freeholders, were embraced in the term "freeholders," as used in the constitution. Many individuals, adopting the construction of the constitution, which I have here given, had exercised the rights of electors, while others, entertaining conscientious doubts, had not exercised those rights and it was believed that a declaratory law passing the council of revision, would have removed all these doubts, and established a uniform exercise of the right of suffrage. But, sir, this law was defeated. The people were told, from high authority, that they had been nickaimed equitable voters-that they were remediless without a Convention--Is it then, wonderful that these people should unite, to a man, in calling a Convention to declare and establish their constitutional rights on a clear and certain basis? Would any man dare to assert that so hardy, enlightened, and virtuous a people ought not to possess and exercise the right of suffrage? They have families to protect, who have felt with them the privations, and endured the hardships incident to the first settlement of the wilderness-hardships which none but themselves can know. Their cultivated farms are now subjected to taxation, and they bear their full portion of the public burthens. In war they formed the exposed frontier of the state, and numbers of them were driven, in the blaze of their own dwellings, before the savage allies of a vindictive foe, to seek another shelter for the helplessness of wailing infancy and the decrepitude of tottering age-their young men rushed to arms in defence of their country; and fathers who now hear me, were made childless by the conflict. Such, and so situated were the men who were told-" you are not seized of freeholds— you rent no tenement-you have no vote for the officers of your government, and no remedy but in a Convention." Sir, of the majority of the votes in favour of calling this Convention, thirty thousand are referable to this cause only.

Individual and isolated cases, however striking and interesting they may be, cannot be comprehended in the general provisions of a constitution. Virtue

and intelligence cannot in every case be insured access to the polls. Vivid and impressive as was the picture drawn by our President of the gallant officer, who died of a broken heart, because, as it would seem, he was not an elector, even a limited fancy might add to the apparent injustice of our country.-Suppose the gallant hero had been a youth of twenty years of age; is it proposed to embrace his case and make brave infants voters? Suppose him a foreigner, shedding his blood in defence of his adopted country; is it proposed to give him the right of suffrage? Suppose our hero the only son of his mother, and she a widow-her husband had fallen, in the establishment of the independence of his native land, and his son had laid down his life for its preservation-her property is all that Providence has permitted her to retain; is it proposed to permit her to guard that property with the electoral ballot? The influence of the female world is imparted with less ostentation, but not with less effect-Their song over the cradle wakes the first moral idea-on their lap the future hero first stands erect-their precepts and their smiles nerve the arm of the warrior, and inspire the tongue of the orator.

In organizing the government the whole mass of the population have granted the entire sovereignty of the state to one tenth of the whole number. The patriots and sages who formed our constitution, divided and balanced the powers of government in such a way as they thought most likely to secure to their posterity safety, liberty, and happiness. A portion of the people are chosen to discharge the duties of legislation-some are appointed to fill the benches of justice-some are charged with executive functions; and to a large body of the people is entrusted the exercise of the elective power. The duties of this electoral body are various, and they are separated into classes, that they may the better discharge those duties; to one class is assigned the duty of electing the senate and the governor; to the members of this class united with another, is assigned the duty of electing the assembly, and particular portions are directed to elect county and town officers. In this division of the powers and duties, the freeholders of the state have hitherto been charged with the election of the executive, and one branch of the legislative department of the government. For nearly thirty years, sir, I have been acquainted with this constitution; and have never, until last year, heard a lisp of complaint that this power was unwisely deposited, or. unjustly executed. It is true that during the late war, there were some who contended that the governor, being the commander in chief of the militia, ought to be chosen by those who elected the most numerous branch of the legislature. I am well aware that appeals have been made to the pride of the soldier, and he has been significantly asked, if he did not think he ought to vote for his commander in chief-for the man to whose guidance he is subjected, and to whose skill and courage are committed his comfort in camp, and his life in the field of battle; and I may also admit, that individuals have been interrogated whether they did not wish to vote for or against our present chief magistrate; and in all these cases the answer has been, O, yes. But pursue the inquiry-put the question, "do you claim the right of electing the senate?" to an honest and discreet man, not being a freeholder, and he would answer, "No. Give me a voice in electing the most numerous branch of the legislature, and I am content."

All men, rich and poor, have the same personal rights of life and liberty, and it is therefore just that they should all, in these respects, be placed upon an equality; but some, in addition to these rights, possess property, which not only ministers to their own gratification, but, in numberless ways, more or less direct, contributes to the well being of their poorer neighbours, and nour ishes the whole community; these men, therefore, have a greater stake in society, than I have, and it is but just that their influence should be more extended; they may vote for one branch of the legislature, and I will vote with them for the other, and for my commander in chief-it is a shield broad as my wants-a rampart strong enough to shelter me."

Mr. Chairman, we are here convened to amend our constitution, not to destroy it; and gentlemen are bound to show the part which they ask us to amend, to be really defective; and I call on gentlemen for an exposition of the evils which we have experienced from that provision, which commits the power of

electing the senate to those who are, thank God, in this favoured land, the real, legitimate lords of the soil.

The gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Radcliff,) has contended that, by nature, all were endowed with the right of suffrage; and he calls upon us to show that universal suffrage would be dangerous to the best interests of the state. Sir, the burden of proof rests upon the gentleman himself, not on us; the constitution on this occasion, holds the negative; and I call upon him to point out the danger to be apprehended from the exercise of this elective power by the yeomanry of the country. Have the freeholders exercised it tyrannically? Let their wide liberality-their expanded charities-give the answer.

We are called upon to confer this power on those who may exercise it discreetly. Do the freeholders wish to participate with those who merely do no hurt? Cui bono? For what end introduce them? If they vote with the freeholders, they are not wanted; if they vote against them, their power will be injurious to freehold rights. And who are these people who are to aid the freeholders in electing their senate? On this subject, sir, I know I am liable to be misrepresented, and have already been so by anticipation, by those who have "the people" ever on their tongues, but who, I fear, have seldom carried them much lower. Who are they who will protect the landed interest of this state, better than its owners; or better determine when a direct tax is necessary and proper to be imposed on their farms; and better judges what laws are calculated to advance the agricultural interests of the state? Sir, they are the ring streaked and speckled population of our large towns and cities, comprising people of every kindred and tongue. They bring with them the habits, vices, political creeds, and nationalities of every section of the globe; they have fled from oppression, if you please, and have habitually regarded sovereignty and tyranny as identified; they are men, whose wants, if not whose vices, have sent them from other states and countries, to seek bread by service, if not by plunder; whose means and habits, whose best kind of ambition, and only sort of industry, all forbid their purchasing in the country and tilling the soil. Would the state be better governed-would the landed interest be better protected, by the suffrages of such men, than by the ballots of freeholders? Mr. Jefferson has said, sir, that great cities were upon the body politic great sores. In mentioning the name of this illustrious statesman with commendation, I am aware that I may fall under the lash of the honourable gentleman from Richmond, for most certainly I have never been an admirer of the gun-boat system. But, however that may be, his old adherents and universal admirers, cannot object to his authority, because he may be cited by one, who has not assented to all his views; and adopting his sentiment as already expressed, I would not, certainly I would not, if I could prevent it, carry, by absorption, the contents of those sores through the whole political body. These cities are filled with men too rich, or too poor to fraternize with the yeomen of the country; and I warn my fellow freeholders of the dangers which must attend the surrender of this most inestimable of privileges-this attribute of sovereignty. On whom do the burthens of government fall, in peace and in war? On you. Your freeholds cannot escape taxation-they cannot elude the vigilance of the assessor, and though encumbered to their whole value, they must pay on their entire amount. When danger threatens, to whom must you look for support? Is your militia called for, he who has no interest in your soil, swings his pack, and is away, leaving the farmer and the farmer's son, to abide the draft, and defend the life, liberty, and property of themselves and the community. They are identified with the interest of the state. I would to heaven, the entire mass of the freeholders of this state were here present, to decide upon this all-important question—to determine whether they would wantonly cast away this saving power-this longenjoyed attribute of sovereignty, granted to them, at first, by the whole population, and which would constitute the richest inheritance they could transmit to posterity. Among the blessings which a moderate portion of property confers, the right of suffrage is conspicuous; and the attainment of this right, holds out a strong inducement to that industry and economy, which are the life of society. If you bestow on the idle and profligate, the privileges which should be purchased only by industry, frugality, and character, will they ever

be at the trouble and pains to earn those privileges? No, sir; and the proli gal waste of this invaluable privilege—this attribute of sovereignty-like indiscriminate and misguided charity, will multiply the evils which it professes to remedy. Give the people, to the extent contended for, one department of the government, as a means of security from possible oppression; but preserve, I conjure you, to the faithful citizen, as his best recompense-as the richest gem he can board-and as the sheet-anchor of the republic, the freehold right of suffrage for the senate. If the time shall ever come, when the poverty shall be arrayed in hostility against the wealth of the state; when the needy shall be excited to ask for a division of your property, as they now ask for the right of governing it, I would then have a senate composed of men, each selected from a district where he should be known, by the yeomanry of the country-by the men who, if I may venture upon the exquisite figure of the eloquent gentleman from Dutchess, "wake their own ploughs with the dawn, and rouse their harrows with the lark."

But we are told this distinction is odious, aristocratic, and perpetuating a privileged order. Has it come to this? Does the possession of a small farm, or a modest house and let in town, render the owner odious in the eyes of the people? Who ever before heard of a privileged order of all the freeholders of the state of an aristocracy of two-thirds of the whole body of the people-of 250 dollar aristocrats? The idea admits not of a serious refutation.

One argument which has been pressed upon this committee, I confess I never expected to hear in this ball; it is, that "the people demand this right;" that is to say, in point of fact, those who will not exercise their faculties and industry so as to make themselves owners of a real estate of $250 dollars, demand that you surrender to them rights which are now, and have been for nore than forty years, attached to freeholds. Sir, if it be just and safe to confer this right, it should be bestowed gratuitously; nothing should be yielded to this incnacing demand. If this demand were presented in a different shape-if you were called upon to bestow so much of your freeholds upon these unquali fied demandants as would enable them to vote against you, would you advocate that claim-would you yield to it! I know, sir, that one honourable gentleman has pointed out the blessings which would flow from yielding this boon to our brethren in distress. He has witnessed the exultation of the patriot La Fayette, in the victory of republicanism over his own property. The honourable gentleman was taken, by the noble marquis, to the terrace of the splendid cha teau of Le Grange. Before him, as far as the eye could stretch, lay the rich domain. "But yesterday," exclaimed the imperial republican, "but yesterday this vast territory was my property: it was dotted with cottages filled with my vassals: Mark the blessings of la grande révolution; those who were then hewers of wood and drawers of water, the vassals of my estate, are now the legiti mate sovereigns of republican France-the lords of their own soil." How long, Mr. Chairman, if we yield to this demand, will it be, in all human probability, before those, who now modestly ask no more than a right to govern our property-they having none themselves to engross their attention, or require their care-will appear armed with the elective power of the state, to consummate to us, the rich blessings conferred on the vassals of Le Grange by the French revolution? If this surrender be now made, how long before a demand of the property itself may be expected? Never, Mr. Chairman, never, till now, have I understood that our dearest rights were at the disposal of those who might think proper to demand them. Really, sir, after the inventive ingenuity and resource which the honourable gentleman has so admirably displayed, in connecting with this discussion the marquis La Fayette, and the vassals of Le Grange, he could not, I think, have been in earnest, on a late occasion, when he declared that the territory of debate had been trodden to a waste, that the garden of fancy was desolate, and that not a flower could be culled within its extensive borders." Who shall prescribe limits to the immortal mind? Who shall designate bounds to the imagination of man, when challenged to exertion? Not only did the honourable gentleman on my left, with infinite felicity of conception, confute the complaint which fell from his tongue, when he rose; but another honourable gentleman on my right (Mr. Duer) has furnished another