debating whether we shall confine the government of this state to certain families, and whether all the other families in the state shall not be forever excluded from any share of it. To this, my opponents answer, that the safety of the people is the supreme law and that the moral condition of the people of colour, renders their exclusion an act of duty--and a gentleman opposite has asked me, whether, notwithstanding my abhorrence to slavery, I would advise the state of South-Carolina, or of Georgia, to adopt the measures of an immediate emancipation. I had already given a distinct answer to this question in the observations which I first addressed to the committee on this subject-I then said, that an immediate and universal emancipation of the slaves in those states, would be productive of more misery, and probably of more crime, than a continuance of the present state of things, and that therefore, I should not advise it—and I admitted, that great and imperious public necessity would justify a sacrifice of private right to the public good-But, sir,I appeal to the candour of the gentlemen themselves, whether they have made out a case of such necessity. It had not been, nor could it be, asserted, that the votes of the coloured population have ever occasioned the smallest inconvenience, or the slightest discontent, in a single county of the state, except New-York. And it appears that even in that city, the number of those votes at the last contested election were less than two hundred--and is it possible that you will violate a single principle of justice, or of equal liberty, in order to obviate the inconvenience of this contemptible number of votes ?

I am told, sir, that the southern states are about to emancipate their slaves, and that we shall then be overrun by an emigration of free blacks from those parts of the union. Happy should I be, sir, if this intelligence were confirmed. But where is the evidence of this approaching emancipation? I have heard, indeed, that the southern planters were adopting measures to rivet more firmly the fetters of slavery, but never that they were beginning to break them. I have heard of laws that forbade the ministers of the gospel to proclaim them the glad tidings of salvation. I have heard of laws to prohibit any man from imparting to them a knowledge of letters,and of the first rudiments of literature. I have heard of laws which prohibited manumission-But I have not heard of a single measure which tended to prepare them for the enjoyment of freedom, or which indicated an intention of granting it.

I have yet, sir, to notice the arguments of the gentleman from Saratoga, (Col. Young) these were avowedly addressed,not to our reason, but to our prejudices, and so forcibly have they been urged, that I feel persuaded they have had more influence on the committee, than all that has been said beside on this occasion. Though repeated in various forms, they may all be summoned up in this: that we are accustomed to look upon black men with contempt-that we will not eat with them that we will not sit with them-that we will not serve with them in the militia, or on juries, nor in any manner associate with them-and thence it is concluded, that they ought not to vote with us-how, sir, can that argument be answered by reason, which does not profess to be founded on reason? Why do we feel reluctant to associate with a black man? There is no such reluctance in Europe, nor in any country in which slavery is unknown. It arises from an association of ideas. Slavery, and a black skin, always present themselves together to our minds--But with the diminution of slavery, the prejudice has already diminished, and, when slavery shall be no longer known among us, it will perhaps disappear-But, sir, what sort of argument is this? I will not eat with you, nor associate with you, because you are black; therefore I will disfranchise you. I despise you, not because you are vicious, but merely because I have an insuperable prejudice against you ;-therefore I will condemn you, and your innocent posterity, to live forever as aliens in your native land. Mr. Chairman, I do trust, that this committee will not consent to violate all those principles upon which our free institutions are founded, or to contradict all the professions which we so profusely make, concering the natural equality of all men, merely to gratify odious, and I hope,temporary prejudices--Nor will they endeavour to remove a slight inconvenience by so perilous a remedy as the establishment of a large, a perpetual, a degraded, and a discontented caste, in the midst of our population.

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

AYES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carver, R. Clarke, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Duer, Eastwood, Edwards, Ferris, Fish, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Hunting, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Park, Paulding, Pitcher, Platt, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Rosebrugh, Sanders, N. Sanford, Seaman, Steele, D. Southerland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Ward, A. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, Woodward, Wooster, Yates-63.

NOES-Messrs. Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Carpenter, Case, Child, D. Clark, Clyde, Dubois, Dyckman, Fairlie, Fenton, Frost, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hurd, Knowles, Lansing, Lawrence, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M Call, Millikin, Pike, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Rockwell, Root, Rose, Ross, Russell, Sage, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Starkweather, I. Sutherland, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Van Fleet, Van Horne, Verbryck, E. Webster, Wheeler, Woods, Young-59.

GEN. ROOT observed, that he thought the report of the committee was in some respects objectionable. There was danger of extending the right of suffrage too far. It was now extended to negroes; or in the polite language of the day, to coloured people. It was in his opinion inexpedient to admit strolling voters. With a view to prevent it, and to compel those to contribute to the support of the government, in which they claim to participate, and whose protection they receive, he would now move to strike out all that part of the first section of the report which follows the word "years," and to insert in lieu thereof an amendment, the principle of which he had previously suggested. The amendment was thereupon read, as follows:

Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been one year an inhabitant of this state, and for six months a resident in the town, county, or district, where he may offer his vote, and shall have been, for the year next prece. ding, assessed, and shall have actually paid a tax, either to the state, county, or on the highways; or, being armed and equipped according to law, shall have performed within that year, military duty in the militia of this state; and the sons of such citizens, being between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, in the town where they may then actually reside, for any elective officer in this state. But no person shall be allowed so to vote, who would not, if an able bodied man, and within the proper age prescribed by the laws of the United States, be liable to the performance of militia duty; unless exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this state; on account of some public office, or being employed in some public trust, or particular business, deemed by the legislative authority to be specially beneficial to the United States, or this state; or unless he shall have paid, within the year next preceding his offering his vote, a fair equivalent, in money for his personal services and equipments; to be deter. mined by the legislature, according to the estimated expense in time and equip. ments, of an ordinary able bodied and efficient militia man: Provided, That this prohibition shall not extend to any person above the age required by law for the performance of militia duty, who would have been liable to perform the same, or to pay an equivalent therefor, before arriving to that age.

JUDGE PLATT remarked, that he should oppose both the amendment, and the report of the select committee; because in both cases, the test of the right of suffrage was made to depend on the volition of the general government; a government moving in a sphere beyond our control. By the provisions both of the report, and of the amendment, if a man paid a tax to the United States, he would have a right to vote.. Suppose this state should lay no tax, then the general government, by imposing a tax, would have the power of conferring the right of suffrage on that portion of our fellow citizens who should pay it. It was incorrect in principle; for the right of suffrage should be regulated only by the will of the people of this state.

MR. EASTWOOD remarked, that as the amendment was long, and at present appeared to be crooked, he thought it would be well to have it printed before it was acted on.

On motion it was then resolved to pass over the first, and to take up the second section of the report.

GEN. ROOT moved to strike out the word shall, and insert may. Carried. The question was then taken on the second section, as amended, and carried. MR. WENDOVER moved that the question on the third section be divided. That course was adopted, and the question was taken on the first part of the section, to the word "established," inclusive, and carried.

The 2d clause was then read, as follows :-"The legislature may provide by law, that a register of all citizens entitled to the right of suffrage, in every town and ward, shall be made, at least twenty days before any election; and may provide, that no person shall vote at any election, who shall not be registered as a citizen qualified to vote at such election.

MR. HUNTER moved to strike out in the residuary part of the section, the words may, for the purpose of inserting the words shall, so as to make it imperative on the legislature to conform to the course described in the report.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER expressed his gratitude to the committee for their exertions to prevent the evils that were attendant upon our mode of election. He thought the course recommended by the committee would conduce to peace and quietness at the polls, and prevent those scenes of iniquity and perjury that had been often witnessed with pain, and which had a powerful tendency to sap the foundation of morals, and the principles of justice.

GEN. ROOT opposed the motion, and was also opposed to the principle of the report. It contemplated, he said, the establishment of a tribunal unknown to our laws-sitting in secret-making out a register upon evidence not capable of being contradicted, and this, too, without providing for the proscribed, whose names were not on the register, any mode of redress.

COL. YOUNG was opposed to the amendment, but in favour of the report. The committee had left the subject in the nature of a recommendation to the legislature. Its merits would be canvassed, and it would be ultimately adopted or not as the people should see fit. He would unfetter the legislature from any restraints on that subject, by which they might suppose themselves at present bound. He hoped the recommendation would be ultimately adopted by the legislature. Among other benefits it was calculated to produce, it would greatly diminish the expense of elections. Instead of three days to hold the polls, it would probably require but one. In the eastern states that practice had prevailed, and he was informed that 6 or 7000 votes were received in Boston in a day. He hoped we should follow the example.

MR. VAN BUREN thought it would be dangerous to make it obligatory upon the legislature to adopt the course recommended in the report. He was therefore opposed to the motion.

MR. SHARPE Concurred with the gentleman from Otsego, that it ought to be optional with, but not made imperative upon, the legislature to pass such laws as the clause recommended.

MR. BRIGGS was in favour of striking out the whole of the last part of the section.

MR. CRAMER was in favour of the proposition, without the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ulster, (Mr. Hunter.) It was safe to trust to the legislature so long as such men, as the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Root,) were members of it, to stand as sentinels. He recapitulated and dilated upon the arguments which had been advanced by those who preceded him in the debate.

GEN. TALLMADGE rose to remark, that the reason why a register had not before been made, was, that the legislature had not the right to do it; and as the legislature would not hereafter have such right, since it would be a modification of the elective franchise, he hoped the section would be adopted.

MR. VAN BUREN said, that the register was no part of the qualifications of voters, and that the legislature now have the power to pass laws authorising an enrolment of the electors.

GEN. ROOT said he now comprehended the views of the committee in reporting this strange section. From the remarks which had dropped from gentlemen in the course of the debate, they were governed by motives of economy.

We must have registers made out, because the town of Boston, and other compact towns in New-England, give in their votes in a single day. He assigned his reasons at some length against the provision, and the evils which would attend its execution. It would be inconvenient and vexatious, subjecting the voters to much trouble and expense, without any benefit.

MR. BURROUGHS strenuously advocated the section. He had witnessed the scenes of corruption and crime at the polls, which had been alluded to in the debate, and which this section would prevent.

MR. BRIGGS opposed the clause.

MR. SHARPE wished the ayes and noes to be taken on the question of striking out "may" and inserting "shall." He was in favour of the clause as reported.

MR. BURROUGHS made a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from Schoharie.

MR. BRIGGS moved to strike out the 2d clause.

GEN. ROOT thought that both motions might be tried by taking the question on the section as reported, and moved accordingly.

The question on the latter clause of the section was then taken and carried in the affirmative.

MR. BRIGGS objected to the mode in which the question was put; but before he had gone through with stating his objections,

On motion of MR. LIVINGSTON, the committee rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again.

COL. YOUNG remarked, that while in committee of the whole, a motion had been made, that the amendment to the first section, offered by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Root) be printed. As that motion was not acted on, he now moved that the usual number of copies be printed.-Carried; and the Convention then adjourned.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1821.

The Convention met at the usual hour. Prayer by the Rev. MR. MAYER. The minutes of yesterday were then read and approved.

FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

GEN. SWIFT, from the committee on future amendments of the constitution, made the following report :

And be it further ordained, &c. that if, at any time hereafter, any specific amendment or amendments to the constitution shall be proposed in the Senate or Assembly, and agreed to by two thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments, shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature then next to be chosen, and shall be published for six months previous to the time of making such choice; and if, in the legislature next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two-thirds of the Senate and members of Assembly elected, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such a manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of Assembly voting thereon, they shall become part of the constitution of this state.

On motion of COL. YOUNG, the foregoing report was referred to the committee of the whole, and the usual number of copies ordered to be printed.

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the unfinished business of yesterday-Mr. N. Williams in the chair.

The 4th section, abolishing all existing qualifications of electors, was read, when

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER wished to enqire whether a constitutional provision was necessary to abolish the existing qualifications. Are they not abolished by the latter part of the 7th section, particularly in respect to the oaths now required? That section prescribes the oath that shall be taken, and declares any other unnecessary; on the other point, the substitution of new qualifications of necessity, and ipso facto, abolishes the old.

MR. SANFORD made some remarks in reply to Mr. Spencer; and, as we understood, in opposition to his views.

COL. YOUNG said these amendments were to be proposed merely as amendments; and, therefore, it was thought best to make them plain and simple, so that ordinary persons might at once see their bearing; and hence it was deemed advisable to introduce this clause specifically, annulling the former qualifications of voters. If, however, our whole constitution, or rather those parts of it which, on a review of the whole shall, be retained, are to be re-enacted, then, of course, this clause is not worth retaining, because we should not re-enact the old qualifications. The clause had better stand as it is, perhaps, for the present; and if, on a comparison hereafter, when all the amendments shall be before us, with other provisions and clauses, this shall be found redundant, it can then be expunged.

MR. BRIGGS. If I understand the subject, sir, we have made provisions for persons elected to office to take certain oaths. Now, if the legislature is not to prescribe this oath of allegiance, it is best to say so.

The 4th and 5th sections were then passed, and the 6th section, requiring that the votes at all elections should be by ballot, being read,

GEN. ROOT said, if this provision was meant to extend to the votes in town meetings, for the election of all petty officers, fence-viewers and damage prizers, (hog howards, as they were called in Connecticut,) and others, it was carrying it too far. He thought it had better be left as it was.

COL. YOUNG thought that the force of this objection which was made in the committee, had been obviated by an amendment-he found he was mistaken, and would therefore propose an addition, that this clause should extend only to those who were not now elected, viva voce. The officers who are now elected, viva voce, are so few, being only the road masters and fence viewers, that it seems scarcely necessary to make an exception, in their favour, in the constitution: though I have no objection that the gentleman from Delaware should make this amendment.

GEN. ROOT. The amendment I would propose, sir, is to strike out the section. Our present constitution provides for the election of all important officers by ballot, and it is not worth while to say that other elections shall be by ballot, when it may be necessary that the legislature should direct otherwise, in some cases. Where towns are extensive, this voting by ballot, even for a path master, might lead to inconvenience and bad results-it would make it necessary that the political parties should mect in caucus for election of fence viewers and path masters. He thought this not a desirable state of affairs.

COL. YOUNG (to obviate the gentleman's objection) moved the following amendment:-"except such town officers as may, by law, be directed to be otherwise chosen." It is true the original Convention left it to the legislature to say, that if, after experiment, it should be found that voting by ballot was bad in its operation, it might be altered. But as we have now sufficient experience of the salutary operation of this provision, Mr. Young boped its practice would hereafter be made binding by a constitutional provision.

MR. BRIGGS. It seems to me, sir, we had better leave this business entirely to the legislature. One gentleman has suggested a reason for letting the election by ballot remain. It is, that the government will one day fall into the hands of the rich; and then he fears that unless the votes be by ballot, they will all be given as the rich dictate. Sir, when that time comes, I do not much care how they vote, or whether they vote at all. I think we had better leave all this business to the legislature.