tutions, nor can be safely trusted with the choice of its rulers; and that this class increases in a geometrical ratio, with the increase of its wealth and its population. That, that description of persons ought not to enjoy the right of suffrage, all must admit; and the only difficulty seems to be, in fixing upon a rule which will exclude them, without at the same time excluding a different and better class of citizens. There is no general rule which is not subject to particular exceptions; and I am free to admit, that none can be fixed upon in relation to this subject, which will not exclude some who ought to be admitted, and admit others who ought to be excluded. But shall we therefore have no restrictions at all? Do we reason or act in this manner, in relation to the ordinary arrangements of government, or the ordinary transactions of private life? Is it ever admitted as a valid objection to a law, whose general operation is conceded to be salutary, that it may operate hardly upon a particular individual, or a class of individuals? If it were, there would be an end of legislation, as there must be of all arrangement, whether constitutional or otherwise, of a general and comprehensive character.

It is true, sir, that the right of suffrage may be safely extended, in proportion to the prevalence of good morals, and the general diffusion of education and intelligence through a community; and I am happy and proud to admit, that this concession lays a very broad foundation for the right of suffrage among us. But, sir, I am not without my apprehensions, that this very circumstance may lead us into error. Most of us are farmers: I feel myself honoured in belonging to that very respectable class of men-And when we look around us, and see how few there are in our respective neighbourhoods, to whom we should be unwilling to entrust the right of suffrage, we can hardly realize that there would be much danger in making it universal. But, sir, why is our population thus virtuous and intelligent, and how long is it to retain its present character? We have hitherto been almost exclusively an agricultural people : We have had an extensive and fertile region in the west, in which the enterprize of our citizens has found ample room to expand itself--Speculation has not pressed upon the means of subsistence-The capital of the country has been employed in the purchase and improvement of land, and the capital of our cities and towns in an advantageous peaceful commerce : Every thing has been in a state of rapid improvement--The pulse of the body politic has been healthful and vigorous. But, sir, we cannot anticipate the continuance of this state of things-We cannot expect an exemption from the changes and calamities which have visited other nations-Already an interest is growing up among us, which will produce a most important change in the habits and character of our population; I allude, sir, to the manufacturing interest, and I fully concur with the honourable gentleman from Oneida, in the opinion, that the western district of this state, will be, at no distant period, the work-shop, as it has heretofore been the granary, not of this state only, but of a very considerable portion of this union. Sir, there is no portion of the globe, of the same extent, which possesses superior manufacturing advantages; and I do not consider it visionary to anticipate, that within the lives of some who hear me, there will spring up upon the borders of your canal, cities and towns, which will bear no mean comparison with the largest and most flourishing manufacturing cities of Europe. Your metropolis, as has been justly observed, is destined to be the London of this western world. If this be so, sir, is it not wise to consider what will be the effect of the regulations which we are about to adopt, not in relation to the present state and condition of our society only, but in relation to that which is most assuredly to exist hereafter.

Sir, the immediate and direct consequence of political regulations, whether legislative or constitutional, are often utterly unimportant, in comparison with their distant and unforeseen effects. I trust, sir, that what we are now doing, is not done for a day; and in every stage of our proceedings, I have felt myself pressed, and in some degree awed, by the reflection, that the transactions of this assembly must shed a benignant or disastrous influence upon a remote posterity.

It is wise, therefore, to consider what will be the effect of universal suffrage upon a manufacturing population. (Mr. S. here went into the subject at some

length, and indeavoured to shew, that from the nature of their habits and oc cupations, a manufacturing population must be mose ignorant, and more subject to an arbitrary or corrupt influence, than any other description of people. That from the numbers that are collected and crowded together in large manufacturing cities and establishments, they were liable to sudden, violent, and dangerous excitements, under the influence of which, he contended the right of suffrage, would be dangerous and alarming.) I am aware, sir, that all classes of the lower orders of society, are more or less subject to influence. That they look with something of deference and respect to the opinions of those who employ them, who consequently minister to their comfort or subsistence -and that this influence is felt in the political, as well as other functions which they are called on to discharge. But, sir, this is very different from the influence which I have been deprecating. There is nothing in it either arbitrary or corrupt. Sir, corruption contaminates its instrument as well as its object. And who are to be the agents in buying, or otherwise unduly influencing the votes of this floating, ignorant, and mercenary class of voters? It will be the young and ardent politicians of the day, who, warmed, if you please, with an honest zeal in support of the cause which they espouse, will thus commence their political career, and contract habits and notions of political mo rality, which will accompany and influence them through life. This, sir, in my view, will be the first evil of universal suffrage. It is not the complexion which may be given by it to a particular election, or the ascendancy which it may give to a particular party; it is the introduction into your society, of a class of voters who cannot act intelligently and independently; who, therefore, will, on most occasions, sell their votes to the highest bidder. It is this portion, and this portion only, of the community, whom I would exclude; and the amendment of the gentleman from Dutchess, as far as it goes, I think will have this tendency. The renting of a tenement, supposes a man to have a family, to have arrived at years of discretion, and to have a residence of some permanency. If you pass this barrier, you go to universal suffrage; there is no stage between this and that. In the view of the subject which I have taken, is it wise to go that length?

But it is objected to this amendment, that the renting of a tenement is a term so vague as to leave too much to the discretion of the board of inspectors, which discretion may be abused. And an objection of a similar character has been made, to establishing the payment of taxes as a qualification for voters, because it is said it rests entirely in the discretion of the legislature to say who shall and who shall not pay taxes. They may say that no man shall be taxed, who is not worth 1000 dollars. The presumption of such an abuse of power, is an extremely violent one, and not lightly to be indulged. And if abused at all, it will undoubtedly be for the purpose of extending, not circumscribing the right of voting. Power must be vested somewhere, and wherever vested it may be abused. But whenever that shall be considered an objection to delegating power, as was forcibly observed by an honourable gentleman from Orange, in a former debate, all government is at an end, and society must be dissolved into its original elements. But, sir, those who make these objec tions are involved in this absurdity. They recommend to us to do that directly, which they admit to be a great evil-for fear that by an abuse of the power of the inspectors of our elections, it may be eventually done. After the very able discussion which this subject has undergone, I will trespass no longer upon the patience of the committee.

MR. EDWARDS said that this was the very basis of our political fabric, and the due regulation of it was the most important question which had or would come before this Convention. He thought there was great danger of pushing this principle too far. He disclaimed any sentiments in favour of artificial distinctions in society; but he did believe, that there were many who were not qualified to exercise this right. In his view, taxation and representation should go hand in hand. He pointed out the evils which would follow, if the elective privilege should be carried to such an extent as had been contended for. If we sowed the wind, we must reap the whirlwind. We were unmooring the constitution of our fathers, and committing it to the waves. Much had been said

of the future. He believed the time would come, when posterity would look to those who now opposed universal suffrage as benefactors to the state. He hoped the committee would rise and report, that members might commune together for a few days.

COL. YOUNG Could not see the benefit of rising and communing together, till the principles on which we should proceed, were settled. In reply to the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Edwards,) he would remark, that he appeared to advocate principles, which would disfranchise many persons, who were entitled to vote by the provisions of the present constitution. That gentleman was in favour of depriving those who work on the roads. The gentleman from Schoharie thought the legislature pure, and 30,000 young men corrupt. If you make the constitution acceptable to the people, you will anchor it in their affections.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER said he had not troubled the committee since the vote on this proposition was taken. His conduct had not been, and he hoped it would not be, influenced by that decision. He should endeavour to discharge his duty faithfully and conscientiously, whatever might be the result. He examined at some length the amendment of Mr. Tallmadge; and was in favour of striking out, although he did not like what was proposed to be inserted. Making the renting of a tenement a qualification for voting, was very objectionable; it had led, and would lead, to many frauds and frequent perjuries. As for the clause which it was proposed to strike out, it evidently led to universal suffrage, and as such he should oppose it. It was an abuse of terms to call working on the highway a tax-it was a mere personal service required to be performed. This and similar propositions had induced him to offer his substitute, with the hope of preserving one branch of the government. By the decision of the Convention he had been convicted of an error; and it was not his intention to controvert the wisdom of a large majority of this honourable body. His only wish, now, was, that the conflicting opinions of members might be reconciled, and the subject disposed of in a way that should do credit to this body, and consult the welfare of the state. We should recollect that the eyes of the world were upon us, and that this was another experiment whether a republican government in its purity could long exist-should we fail, the enemies of our form of government would mock at us. In his opinion we should adopt it as a general rule, that those should be vested with the elective privilege, who would be the most likely to exercise it with independence and discretion. It was upon this principle that he had voted against persons of colour. Gentlemen had quoted the maxim, that all men are born equal. This appeared to him mere sound. Would it be said that every person in the community had a right to vote? He fully concurred with the honourable gentleman from Oneida (Mr. Platt,) who had said that the elective privilege was rather an office, or a function, than a franchise or a right. Much had been said of the east, and we had frequently been referred to that section of the country for lessons of wisdom. He held in his hand the amendments adopted by the Convention of Massachusetts-an assembly, embracing much talent, wisdom, and experience, from whose proceedings it was not derogatory to us to borrow precedents. [Mr. S. then read the section regulating the right of suffrage, as adopted by the Massachusetts convention.] Here was nothing of military duty, or of those who work on the highways. From the stress which was laid on military duty, one would suppose that we were to be involved in perpetual wars. There was nothing at present to justify such anticipations. The world was pacific and tranquil, and probably no member of this Convention would live to see this country involved in another conflict. As for the amendment of the gentleman from Washington, he thought favourably of some of its features, although he agreed with the gentleman from Oneida, in thinking that in its present shape, it led to universal suffrage. He concurred with gentlemen who had preceded him in the debate, that residence and taxation should be made the qualifications of voters.

COL. YOUNG begged leave to remark, that in Massachusetts a poll tax was laid. GEN. TALLMADGE wished that the question on striking out and inserting might be divided.

GEN. ROOT objected, and said they were indivisible by the rules of the Convention.

GEN. TALLMADGE therefore withdrew his motion, and substituted a motion, to strike out" or on the highways,"-assuring the committee, however, that he should follow it up by moving the residue of the motion which he had the honour to submit this morning.

The question on striking out was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Beckwith, Birdseye, Bowman, Breese, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Case, Clyde, Dodge, Duer, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Hallock, Hunter, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lansing, Lawrence, Lefferts, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Paulding, Platt, President, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Rhinelander, Rockwell, Rogers, Rose, Sage, Seaman, Seeley, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Horne, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Wheeler, E. Williams, Wood, Woodward, Yates-68. NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Briggs, Carver, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Collins, Day, Dyckman, Eastwood, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Huntington, Knowles, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M Call, Park, Pitcher, Porter, Price, Richards, Root, Ross, Russell, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Schenck, Sheldon, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Van Fleet, Ward, Wooster, Young-48.

After a few remarks on the order in which the other amendments before the committee should be taken up, the chair decided that the amendment of the gentleman from Washington was next in order.

GEN. ROOT supported the amendment at some length. As his own proposition had been voted down, he was willing to take that which approximated nearest to his own views.

MR. RADCLIFF offered a few remarks on the amendment, in which he took occasion to say, that he could not see how gentlemen who voted in favour of persons of colour, could reconcile their vote with the one which they had just given.

JUDGE VAN NESS moved that the committee rise and report.

MR. EDWARDS begged to say one word in reply to his honourable colleague from New-York. His motives had been impeached for the vote he had given. [Mr. Radcliff disclaimed the intention to impeach the motives of any one.] Mr. E. continued, that his conscience acquitted him, and he was not ashamed to have his votes go forth to his constituents and to the world. He considered it no better than robbery to demand the contributions of coloured persons towards defraying the public burdens, and at the same time to disfranchise them, The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again, MR. WHEELER's amendment was referred to the committee of the whole, when on the report of the committee relative to the right of suffrage, and the usual number of copies ordered to be printed. Adjourned.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1821.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. LACEY. The President took the chair at the usual hour, when the minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

MR. N. SANFORD moved that the Convention now resolve itself into a com mittee of the whole, on the unfinished business of yesterday.

Before the question was put,

MR. HUNTER begged leave to offer several resolutions, relative to the qualifications of governor and senators, which were read, and

On motion of Mr. SHARPE, referred to the committee of the whole when on the executive department.

The Convention then went into committee of the whole on the unfinished business of yesterday. Mr. N. Williams in the chair.

JUDGE VAN NESS moved for a re-consideration of the vote of yesterday, for striking out the words " or on the highways."

COL. YOUNG was willing to re-consider the vote, since he believed those who worked on the highways are as much entitled to vote as those who do military duty; but he believed the motion was out of order.

An animated discussion on a question of order ensued, in which Messrs. Tallmadge, Root, Young, Sharpe, Williams, Van Buren, the President and Chairman took part; when it was decided that the question on postponing the amendment of Mr. Tallmadge was in order.

The question for reconsideration was then taken and carried in the affirmative.

COL. YOUNG then called for the consideration of Mr. Wheeler's amendment.

MR. WHEELER Would detain the committee but a few minutes in explaining the reasons which induced him to propose the amendment. He was in favour of universal suffrage, with such exceptions and limitations as might be condu cive to the public welfare.

Here MR. YOUNG suggested to the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Wheeler,) if it would not be better to suspend his remarks till the blanks in the amendment were filled. Mr. Wheeler assented to the propriety of the suggestion.

COL. YOUNG then moved to fill the first blank with two, and the second with one, as terms of residence.

MR. TOMPKINS moved to fill the first with three, and the second with one. Mr. Young withdrew his motion, and the blanks were filled as moved by the President.

MR. WHEELER proceeded, and concluded his remarks.

JUDGE PLATT was opposed to the amendment, upon the ground that it was in favour of universal suffrage. He dwelt for some time upon the features of the amendment, and in reply to the remarks which had fallen from Messrs. Young and Wheeler, He thought three years, as a term of residence, was too long, since it would exclude many farmers who might emigrate and settle in this state.

COL. YOUNG followed in a speech of considerable length, in which he contended that all who contribute to the public burdens should enjoy the right of suffrage.

MR. BRIGGS remarked that we had arrived at a state when the only alternative was to tread back our steps, and restore the senate as it was, or adopt universal suffrage. He preferred the latter.

MR. VAN BUREN occupied the floor for some time in expressing his sentiments decidedly against the amendment, and against universal suffrage. We were hazarding every thing by going to such lengths in the amendments--the people would never sanction them.

MR. TOMPKINS supported the amendment, and thought too much alarm had been created by the bug-bear, universal suffrage. Taxation as connected with representation, meant liability to taxation. How was it when no taxes were imposed in this state? Was there no representation? The property qualifi cation had always been an odious feature in the constitution; and as it would bear away with it a vast proportion of the perjuries, slanders, &c. that had often disgraced our elections, he hoped it would be abolished.

MR. BACON said, that he was glad that we had at last come to calling things by their right names; heretofore gentlemen had generally on all sides of the house disclaimed the intention of engrafting in our constitution the principle of universal suffrage, but had professed that it was their wish to restrict it within some substantial or definite bounds; we had however just been told by the honourable President of the Convention, that he was openly and decidedly in favour of every man who either directly or indirectly contributes to the public