earned estates of the rich. He hoped equal firmness and equal independence would be manifested by every one on this occasion. The time will come, when the yeomanry, those who own the substance of the country, will regret, should the amendment be defeated, that they gave up a right which they cannot recal, and surrendered a privilege which they cannot regain. COL. YOUNG. It has been observed by the honourable gentleman of Columbia, (Mr. Van Ness) that it devolves upon the opposers of the amendment to point out its inutility. I am saved that trouble by the gentlemen themselves. They inform us that there are forty or fifty thousand people in this state, deprived of the right of suffrage, who ought to exercise it. Another honourable gentleman, (Mr. Van Vechten) has deplored the omis sion of the word freehold in the report of the committee; whilst the member from Columbia, (Mr. E. Williams) pointed out with great force and perspicuity, the inconvenience and uncertainty that had arisen from its insertion into our existing constitution. He would leave those gentlemen to reconcile such contradictions as they could. The report of the committee, however, and the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, were calculated to do away at once all this moral turpitude; to prevent these frauds and perjuries by simplify. ing the system; and extending the right of suffrage to all, whose station in society, and whose presumable intelligence, integrity, and independence, gave them a right to expect it. The constitution of the United States was made subsequently to ours, and contained no provision, that either the electors, or elected, should be freeholders. And yet it gave to the general government the power of making war and peace, and of creating a national debt that had the effect of a mortgage on all the freehold estate in the union. Why, then, preserve this odious distinction in the state of New-York? It has been said that the poor will increase with the progress of society, and therefore you ought to limit this privilege to the freeholders. Whom do the gentlemen mean by the epithet poor? The paupers? They are excluded by every proposition that has been made. Or do they intend to describe that intermediate class of society, between the very poor and the very rich? If they mean the latter, I am prepared te say, and that, too, with emphasis, that they ought not to be excluded. They are the soundest, the most honest, and incorruptible part of your population. Mr. Young continued his remarks for some time; but the usual bour of adjournment having nearly arrived, and the patience of the committee probably exhausted, he would apologize for an abrupt conclusion of his remarks, and submit the question. The question on the amendment offered by Chief Justice Spencer, was then taken by ayes and noes, and it was decided in the negative, as follows: NOES-Messrs. Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Frost, Hallock, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Hurd, King, Knowles, Lansing, Lawrence, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Nelson. Park, Paulding, Pike, Pitcher, Porter, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Richards. Rockwell, Rogers, Root, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seaman, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, R, Smith, Starkweather, Steele, D. Southerland, I. Sutherland, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Wheeler, Woodward, Wooster, Yates, Young-100. AYES—Messrs. Bacon, Fish, Hees, Hunter, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Platt, Rhinelander. Rose, Sanders, I. Smith, Spencer, Sylvester, Van Horne, Van Ness, Van Vechten, E. Williams, Woods-19. The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again Adjourned. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1821. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. DAVIS. The President then took the chair, at 9 'clock, A. M. when the journal of yesterday was read and approved. THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. On motion of MR. N. SANFORD, the Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the unfinished business . yesterday.—Mr. N. Williams in the chair. MR. BRIGGS said it had been proposed to divide the amendment into two distinct parts, and he wished that it might now be done. MR. DUER observed, that it had been yesterday decided, in effect, that the qualifications of electors should be the same for whatever public officer was the subject of their choice. He had fully concurred in that measure. He had concurred in the rejection, because he was satisfied that it tended to introduce, or rather to perpetuate, a distinction that was unnecessary and odious. That its effect and operation would be to divide the people into hostile factions, without attaining the end for which it was designed. He could discover no principle that would justify a denial in the choice of senators, that would not also justify a total denial of the right of suffrage. He had also concurred in the rejection, because it was required by the people at our hands. It was a principal purpose for which the Convention was called, and to refuse to obey their will, would be a violation of that confidence which had been impliedly reposed. He admitted that there was not legitimate, legal proof of their wishes, but it was sufficiently satisfactory to the conscience and understanding. But whilst he expressed his satisfaction that the last vestiges of an odious distinction were erased from the constitution, conformably to the wishes of the people, he hoped that the Convention would not pass those bounds of moderation which those wishes prescribed. There were peculiar reasons why the committee should proceed with caution. Whatever might be done in relation to the subject, would be sure to be opposed. Freeholders are jealous of their privileges-and every means would be resorted to, to excite that jealousy and extend the alarm. It might be safely predicted that the cry of jacobinism would be heard in every county-that the valuable and venerable institutions of the state were about to be destroyedthat the barriers against the eruption of democratic phrenzy were prostrated; and that all the horrors of revolutionary France were about to be introduced into our country. He hoped and believed that these predictions and representations would not deter the members of this body from the firm discharge of their duty -but it taught the necessity of caution. Mr. D. was not one of those who believed that every person has an absolute right to elect his rulers; still less, that they derive such right from social compact or grant. The object of all government was the security and happiness of the governed. No right could exist inconsistent with that object. It was a question of expediency only, and not at all dependent on abstract principle. Mr. D. was heretic enough to believe that there was no peculiar abstract excellence in a republican form of government. Its excellence depended on its adaptation to the habits and manners of the people. Where the people were sunk in vice and profligacy, it was perhaps the worst government that could be instituted. But where the body of the people were intelligent and moralwhere there existed habits of attachment to liberty and subordination to law, a republican government, was, of all others, the most excellent. It was not to be denied, that there were some among ourselves, who did not possess the discretion or independence necessary for the due and proper exercise of the invaluable privilege of the right of suffrage. There was no necessary connexion between poverty and vice. Yet as a general rule-in a country like ours, where the acquisition of property is within the reach of all, where the labourer to-day may be a freeholder to-morrow, it was but too generally the fact, that those who remained in poverty, were continued in it by idleness or vice. And it was a melancholy reflection, that by an inscrutable law of nature, this class were sure to increase with the advance of population. Can it then be questioned, if the principle and the fact be admitted, that it is our duty to prohibit, or limit the exercise of a right that is sure to be abused? The sober minded people of this state are not prepared for the new and untried principle of universal suffrage; and the introduction of this principle would necessarily result from an adoption, either of the report of the committee, or of the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware. If we are prepared to throw down those guards which the wisdom of our ancestors erected, let us not do it covertly, but directly. Let us not conceal from ourselves, or others, the inevitable effect of our regulations. Mr. D. then entered upon a detailed discussion of the result of the propositions before the committee, to show that by extending the right of suffrage to all who performed military service, and laboured on the highway, unrestricted and universal suffrage would clearly and certainly follow. After animadverting upon a remark made on Monday by a gentleman from Columbia (Mr. Williams) in illusion to himself, Mr. Duer submitted to the committee an amendment which had for its object to exclude all persons from the right of suffrage, except such as pay taxes on real or personal estate. A discussion took place between Messrs. Root, Duer, Spencer, and the Chairman, on a question of order; and whether Mr. Duer's substitute could be received. MR. DUER considered his proposition as an amendment to the report of the select committee. After a few remarks from Mr. Wendover the chairman decided that an amendment to Mr. Root's proposition was in order, but that a substitute was not. MR. WARD moved that the committee rise and report, for the purpose of revising and settling the rules of the house. After a few remarks from Messrs. Sheldon and Sharpe, the motion was put and lost. MR. DUER then moved to reject the amendment of the gentlemen from Delaware. GEN. ROOT said, that the question would be on his amendment--call it rejeetion or what you would, it amounted to the same thing. He never before heard of a motion for rejecting an amendment; but as the gentleman from Orange had never held a seat in the legislature, his ignorance of parliamentary rules was excusable. That gentleman was also excusable for being no better ac quainted with republicanism. It had heen said that his (Mr. R.'s) amendment would not suit the soberminded part of the community; he suspected it was more obnoxious to the high-minded than to the sober-minded. In his opinion, military services and working on the public roads should entitle persons to the elective franchise-(he begged pardon, he would call it by that name no more, out of respect to his honourable friend from New-York, (Mr. Fairlie)-should entitle persons to the right of suffrage. He would remind the committee, that the question would be on his amendment--not on rejecting it. MR. BRINKERHOFF moved an amendment by striking out "two" and inserting "fire."-His reasons for the motion were, that many young men reside, with their fathers after they are twenty-one years, for some time. MR. BRIGGS said it struck him, that the gentleman might improve his motion by adding a proviso," so long as they reside with their fathers." MR. HOGEBOOM thought the amendment unnecessary, as another qualification, that of working on the highway, would supersede such a provision. GEN. ROOT explained the reasons which induced him to adopt the term “between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two." MR. WENDOVER opposed the provision for admitting the sons of farmers to vote, since the principle would operate unequally, as in the case of orphans. MR. BRINKERHOFF's motion was then put, and lost. MR. WENDOVER then moved to strike out the words," and the sons of such citizens being between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two years." CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER made a few remarks in support of the motion, and thought the provision unnecessary. GEN. ROOT made a brief reply, when the motion was put and carried. GEN. TALLMADGE called up the sub-divisions of Mr. Root's amendment which he had moved when in a committee of the whole on this subject some days since. GEN ROOT was opposed to acting on the amendment in the manner proposed by the gentleman from Dutchess. A case might occur, where he (Mr. R.) should find it necessary to vote against a part of his own amendment. Another discussion on a question of order took place between Messrs. Tallmadge, Root, Van Buren, Spencer, Sharpe, and the Chairman. MR. SHARPE said we had now arrived at a state of things which he had anticipated, when this amendment or substitute was received in its present shape. MR. JAY, for the sake of relieving the embarrassments of the committee,. moved to strike out the words," or, being armed and equipped according to law, shall have performed within the year military duty in the militia of this state." MR. DUER moved to strike out a still larger portion of the amendment, including the above words and another clause; and hoped the gentleman from Westchester would withdraw his motion with that view.-Mr. Jay did not assent. MR. E. WILLIAMS said it had been previously moved to divide the amendment. That motion appeared to him to be in order, and he wished it might first be taken. Here another discussion on the question of order was had, in which Mr. President, and Messrs. Tallmadge, Root, and Spencer took part, when the motion for dividing the proposition was put and lost. MR. SHELDON then seconded the motion of Mr. Jay to strike out, as aboye stated. MR. VAN BUREN called for the ayes and noes. MR. KING regretted the embarrassments in which the committee were involved. He wished the proceedings had taken a different course, and that the report of the committee had been amended in the ordinary way. In relation to the merits of the motion of the gentleman from Westchester, (Mr. Jay,) he would make a few observations. If the object of the committee was to make this constitutional provision a means of carrying into effect the military laws, and to make a forfeiture of the right of suffrage the consequence of a failure to comply with that law in every particular, it would be proper to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware. The proposition was now to expunge that part of the amendment which makes the performance of military service a sufficient qualification for an elector. Mr. K. had concurred yesterday in rejecting the distinction contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman from Albany. That distinction ought to be abolished: public sentiment required it. It would not rest satisfied until it was abolished; and it was the part of wise and prudent men well to consider the progress and state of public opinion, and to settle it down upon the best possible basis. Want of union and mutual jealousies were to be avoided. Will not the senate, he asked, be stronger, having the confidence and contribution of the votes of all? And would it be consented to, that the landholders should appoint the senate, and those who held no land, the assembly? The senate should receive the support and influence of all the classes in the community; and those who could not be trusted for the choice of one branch, should not be trusted for any, but should be excluded from all. There must be a general rule--an uniform principle. One may think that those who fight should enjoy that privilege;-another, that all who make contributions in any possible form to the support of the government whether in the shape of highway labour, or otherwise, should be admitted to vote. But there should be a common rule agreed upon, by which to include and by which to exclude. In Mr. K's opinion, every man should be excluded who has not the capacity to give an impartial and independent suffrage, or who was habitually and neces sarily influenced by other men. The great and difficult question is how to apply this rule. Mr. K. then proceeded at considerable length to shew that those who merely performed military service and labour on the roads, did not ordinarily compose that class of electors that could be deemed independent; and that although we were bound to extend to them all the charities of our nature, and although it could be no object or desire of any member of the Convention, to depress any class of our fellow citizens, yet it well deserved reflection whether they were not so commonly dependant on others, as to render it unsafe to extend to them a privilege so precious to us, and which, if abused, would be dangerous to the very existence of our liberties MR. BURROUGHS supported the amendment of Mr. Root, and thought it preferable to the original section in the report. MR. DODGE was in favour of retaining the clause in the amendment, as it now stood. With great deference to the gentleman from Queens, he acknow ledged himself unable to see the propriety of the rule, which had been proposed. He asked if it did not require as much capacity to do military duty, as to pay a tax? MR. KING explained--he did not mean to lay down an absolute rule, but merely to suggest some general principle. MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON recapitulated the principles which governed the committee, of which he was a member, in making this report. He spoke against the rule, which had been proposed by the gentleman from Queens; and remarked, that if the principle would apply in any case,it would be in that of the blacks, in favour of whom that gentleman had voted. MR. KING said that gentlemen were imputing to him sentiments which he had not expressed. COL. YOUNG believed this committee, of which he was a member, had bestowed as much labour on their report as any other committee, and after mature deliberation, they had come to a conclusion, that all who sustain public burdens, either by money, or personal services, should be entitled to vote. Mr. Y. admitted that no one should be allowed to vote,who did not possess capacity and independence. But what moral scale could be established, graduated by dollars and cents? There may be bad men among those who perform militia duty, and among those who labour on the highway; but so there may be among those who pay taxes. The air we breathe may be contaminated; but shall we refuse to inhale it, lest perchance we might breathe the pestilence? Mr. Y. contended that those who performed militia service, really paid a heavier tax than many freeholders of $2000. Here young men were usually the framers of their own fortunes. They were not depressed, as in foreign countries, by a decree of irreversible humiliation. Here were no orders, ranks, or titles, but those of virtue and intellect. In India it was impossible that an individual of an inferior, degraded cast, should ever rise to a participation with those of a superior. In Europe, too, the prospects of the poor were hopeless. They cannot emerge from their situation, but were doomed to irremediable poverty. Fair Science to their minds her ample page, And froze the genial current of the soul. This melancholy reflection cannot apply in this country without the aid of imagination; but in Europe, although it was poetry, it was no fiction. The question on Mr. Jay's amendment was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the negative as follows: NOES-Messrs. Barlow, Beckwith, Bowman, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dyckman, Fenton, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Hurd, Knowles, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Park, Pike, Pitcher, Porter, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Richards, Rockwell, Root, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, Sanders, N. San |