CHAPTER XXVIII.

FROM NOVEMBER 10, 1821, TO JANUARY 1, 1823.

THE Convention adjourned, without day, on the 10th day of November.

At the meeting of the new congress, in December, a very warm contest arose in the house of representatives in respect to the choice of a speaker. Mr. Taylor was again a candidate, and was supported now, as heretofore, by many of the members from the eastern, middle, and some of the western states. Those members from NewYork, who were elected by the party opposed to Gov. Clinton, (and they constituted a majority of our delegation,) warmly opposed the elevation of Mr. Taylor to the speaker's chair. The southern members had some difficulty in fixing upon a candidate; but they eventually united on P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, since an associate judge of the supreme court of the United States, and he was elected. There were five ballotings. P. P. Barbour, Samuel Smith of Maryland, and Cæsar A. Rodney of Delaware, were the southern candidates. On the fifth ballot, Mr. Barbour received eighty-eight votes, Mr. Taylor sixty-seven, and there were seventeen scattering votes. This, it will be seen, gave Mr. Barbour a majority of all the votes. His election was produced by the unanimous support of the bucktail members from this state, whose only objection to Mr. Taylor was, that he was understood to have been favorable to the election of Mr. Clinton, in 1820. Federalists, Clintonians, and democrats, all professed to be the supporters of the administration of Mr. Monroe, and, of these three parties, it is probable the federalists were the most sincere friends of that administration.

So far as related to national measures, I am not aware that there was a shade of difference between the Clintonian and the anti-Clintonian democrats of this state. Why, then, should the members of the house of representatives, belonging to the latter class, have voted against selecting a speaker from their own state? Their conduct can only be charged to the rigid system of party discipline which prevailed here. Mr. Gales of the Intelligencer, being astonished and confounded at the course taken by a majority of the New-York delegation, gravely remarked, that "there must be something peculiar in the political distinctions in New-York." Mr. Van Buren was then in the United States senate, and it is alleged, and I have no doubt, truly alleged, that he exerted all his influence with the members from this state, to induce them to vote against Mr. Taylor. But Mr. Van Buren, when a candidate for re-election to the presidency, in 1840, experienced in the conduct of his opponents, in his own state, the same want of regard for the character and political influence of the state, as he and his friends manifested in the election of speaker, in 1821. "The same measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

The legislature convened at Albany, on the second day of January. On the evening previous to their meeting, the democratic members of the assembly, held a caucus for the nomination of a speaker. They were divided between Mr. Samuel B. Romaine of New-York, and Mr. James Burt of Orange county. The two parties measured their strength by a ballot, and Mr. Romaine received thirty-eight votes, and Mr. Burt but twenty-eight. Romaine was therefore declared duly nominated and the next day he was elected.

After the two houses were organized, the governor met them in the assembly chamber, and delivered an able, though as usual somewhat too long a speech.

In his exordium he alluded, in very handsome terms, to the civil revolution about to be effected in the state government, by the action of the late convention. He abstained, he said, from expressing any opinion on the amendments to the constitution, which had been recommended, because that question was now beyond the reach of all delegated authority, being referred to the final decision of the only sovereign power which existed among us, the people themselves.

He urged that the most safe and certain means of increasing the national wealth, was the vigorous prosecution of the coasting and domestic trade. This would create a demand for home consumption, in the grain growing states. For this reason he thought domestic manufactories ought to be protected by duties on importations from abroad.

He congratulated the legislature on the rapid progress made in the construction of the canals, and he expressed an opinion that the Erie and Champlain canals, which had been commenced on the 4th July, 1817, would be completed during the year 1823. He recommended the formation of a board for public improvement, and he noticed the canals which were then projected in Ohio and Illinois. He intimated that, in his judgment, these infant states ought to be assisted by the general government in carrying into effect the magnificent plans they had projected, and he urged the legislature to instruct the senators and request the members of the house of representatives from this state, in the congress of the Union, to use their efforts to procure a grant, to these states, of the aid which they required.

The city of Washington had applied, through the executive of this state, for its influence with the national government, to persuade that government to assist them in the execution of their plans of improving that city,

which the governor recommended to the favorable attention of the members.

He made various other important suggestions, among which was a recommendation to alter and improve our code of criminal law, and concluded what was supposed to be his last legislative address, with this very commendable advice: "whatever diversity of opinion may exist, I am persuaded that we will all co-operate with a sincere and entire devotion to our solemn and momentous duties, in cherishing a spirit of conciliation and forbearance, and in cultivating that respect which we owe to each other and to ourselves."

This liberal and patriotic suggestion did not receive the attention which its intrinsic merits demanded from an enlightened body of men; for Mr. Ulshoeffer immediately moved that a committee be appointed to consider the propriety of answering the governor's speech; which motion prevailed, and he was appointed chairman of that committee. He made a labored and long report, in which he animadverted, with great severity, on the practice of the governor, in delivering a speech, instead of sending a message to the legislature, a practice by the by, which had been in use ever since the organization of the government. He concluded his report by recommending the adoption of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this house approves of the declaration of the late assembly, that the custom of delivering a speech by the executive to the legislature at the opening of the session, and of returning an answer to the same, is a remnant of royalty, not recommended by any considerations of public utility, and ought to be abolished." "

Several years before, the governor had in his annual speech, stated to the legislature that on his part he waved the claim on them for an answer, but that he preferred

coming in person to the legislature and delivering an address, to sending a message, because, in his judgment, that course was most respectful to the representatives of the people. Whether the governor would address the members personally or communicate with them by message, was a matter which it was as exclusively his province to decide as the hour of meeting of the assembly was for them to determine. He had decided on the question and was supported in that decision by the uniform practice of his predecessors, and he had rendered a modest and respectful reason for the course he had adopted. All that the assembly would do, was to determine that they would make no answer to his speech; and the expression of this determination was unnecessary, because the governor had informed them he neither required or expected any. The assertion that the practice of delivering speeches and making answers was "a remnant of royalty," must have been made for the sole purpose of producing effect.

"Mr. J. M'Kown said he was opposed both to the report and resolution. The committee had travelled out of their bounds, and had speculated upon abstract subjects, which had not been submitted to their consideration. He then offered as a substitute for the resolutions offered by the chairman of the select committee, the following recital and resolutions.

"Whereas, the committee who were appointed to report on the propriety of answering the speech of his excellency the governor, have reported to the house, and given statements and opinions on matters not submitted to them; therefore,

"Resolved, as the sense of this committee, that they disagree to the report of the select committee, and that the said committee be discharged from any further consideration of the subject referred to them.