Mr. Hamilton had entertained the views that now animate the people of this state, would he have proposed in the Convention of the United States, that the governors of the several states should all be appointed by the supreme executive ? Sir, I very well remember that when I had the honour to think and act on political subjects with the gentleman from Albany, although we respected the character and talents of Mr. Hamilton, neither of us respected his political opinions or his writings.

But why must the two branches of the legislature be composed of different genius and heterogeneous materials? To constitute a sufficient check, says the gentleman:-and so, for this purpose, it must consist of discordant elements! Is this the way that government should be constituted? That the different branches, instead of harmonious movement, should be set in hostile array against each other? The honourable gentleman has adverted to the case of an individual employing two agents for the transaction of his business. Sir, I want no better example to illustrate my views of the subject, and to deduce a consequence directly the reverse of that which he has drawn. Were I that individual, I would choose men who might act in unison, and counsel each other upon the subject matter of their agency. If they possessed different tempers-opposite opinions, and hostile feelings, could I expect that the agency would be well managed?-Would not my interests be lost sight of, in their distractions and animosities? What government ever sent two ministers to negociate a treaty, and selected them for their known hostility to each other?

I agree that in a monarchical government, where little liberty is left to the people, it is necessary to have such checks as gentlemen have described. In such governments there are different orders, as lords and commons in England; different estates, as in the diets of Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. But the necessity in those governments bears no analogy to ours.-We have no different estates, having different interests, necessary to be guarded from encroachment by the watchful eye of jealousy.-We are all of the same estate-all commoners; nor, until we have privileged orders, and aristocratic estates to defend, can this argument apply.

But it is urged that this different genius of the senate is necessary to protect the landed interest:-to prevent the mob, the rabble, or the radicals, as they would be called in England, from laying a tax on the lands of the rich, and not on their own-when gentlemen say they have got none! This argument destroys itself.

But the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Spencer) is apprehensive that we shall encourage aristocracy by enabling the manufacturer to control the votes of the hundred men he employs. The arguiment is you must raise up and protect aristocracy in the senate---for what purpose? To avoid aristocracy! But does the gentleman suppose that this powerful manufacturer is not connected with the landed interest? Is not the manufactory itself real estate? And will he be disposed to break down real estate, who has such a powerful interest to support it?

But another honourable gentleman (Mr. Kent) has said, that the senate must be preserved, because it is our dernier resort as a court of justice. It must be protected, to preserve the judiciary from falling a sacrifice to those whose pursuits are commerce and manufactures. But will not these classes feel as strong an interest in sustaining them, as the farmer back in the woods? Have they not more frequent occasion to resort to them for the protection of their rights?

In relation to the second branch of the inquiry, it seems to be admitted, that heretofore the senate, although elected by freeholders, has not possessed a superiority, in any respect, over the other branch of the legislature; but the fault is laid on the size of the four great districts; and now that the state is to be divided into seventeen senatorial districts, faction will hide its hated head. I agree, sir, that the time has been, that senators in the western district may have derived their nomination from the city of Albany.

By the plan that is now offered, freeholders, those having a clear, equitable right, of the value of $250 are to be allowed to vote for senators. How are the qualifications of these equitable frecholders, as they have been nicknamed, to be

ascertained? Shall it be referred to their own oaths? This is a dangerous temptation to perjury, and the honourable member (Mr. Spencer) has more than once opposed any provision that should allow a man to qualify himself by his own oath. Shall it then be determined by the chancellor? Sir, I am not yet prepared to refer to that, or any other officer, however respectable, the power to control and determine the suffrages of the peeple.

I admit, that such persons should be enabled to vote for senators; but I am not willing that they should wade through uncertainty, if not perjury, to atfain it.

The balance of the different branches of the government has been a theme of warm admiration. It has been likened to a beautiful pyramid, of which the king was the apex, the people the base, and the aristocracy in the centre, that is, between the head and the tail. I am not disposed to carry my admiration so far as to place the people's governor at the top, the people's legislature at the bottom, and an aristocratic senate, between two fires, in the middle. However pleasant the theory may be, it is incompatible with the genius of our government. These powerful checks may be necessary between different families, possessing adverse interests, but can never be salutary among brothers of the same family, whose interests are similar. Look at past experience. Has not the senate, although elected by freeholders, been as democratic as the other branch? Give them a longer terin of service, which will enable them to quell any mad passions that may be excited in the popular branch; and their fewer numbers will enable them more easily to correct any hasty and unadvised legislation of the assembly; and these are the only wholesome and necessary checks that the nature of our government requires.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON had hoped, that the subject would not pass the Convention without a more thorough examination. As a member of the select committee he had acquiesced in the report, and had not yet been convinced that the positions they had taken were erroneous..

He was well persuaded, that every member of the convention was a friend to property, and to the landed interest. But he thought that the views of some gentlemen, if adopted, were not calculated to advance the cause of civil liberty.

Allusions had been made to the formation of the constitution under which we live; and what was the first feature in our remonstance against the usurpations of Britain? Was it not that taxation and representation were reciprocal; and that no imposition could be laid upon us without our consent? Was it the paltry tax on tea that led to the revolution? No, sir; it was the principle, for which we contended: and the same principle, in my judgment, requires a rejection of the proposition now on your table. But we are asked, what evidence we have that the people want this extension of suffrage? Sir, 74,000 witnesses testified, last spring, that they wanted it. Meetings and resolutions, public prints, and conversation have united to require it.

It is concluded, however, that the measure proposed by the original amendment jeopardizes the landed interest. Sir, it is the landed interest, in common with others, that have demanded this measure at our hands: and will they resort to projects which are calculated to injure ourselves? France has been alluded to. The French revolution, sir, has produced incalculable blessings to that country. Before that revolution one third of the property of the kingdom was in the hands of the clergy; the rest in the hands of the nobility. Where the interest of one individual has been sacrificed, the interests of thousands have been promoted. After dining with that friend of universal liberty, the patriotic La Fayette, he once invited me to a walk upon the top of his house, that commanded a view of all the surrounding country. Before the revolution, said he, all the farms and hamlets you can see were mine. I am now reduced to a thousand acres, and I exult in the diminution, since the happiness of others is promoted by participation.

This, sir, is the language of true patriotism; the language of one whose heart, larger than his possessions, embraced the whole family of man in the circuit of its beneficence. And shall we, with less ample domains, refuse to our poorer neighbours the common privileges of freemen?

But, sir, we are told and warned of the rotten boroughs of England. By

whom are they owned? By men of wealth. They confer the right of repre sentation on the few, to the exclusion of the many. They are always found in the views of the monarch; and while aristocracy is supported by the house of lords, the house of commons is borne down by the boroughs.

It is said that wealth builds our churches, establishes our schools, endows our colleges, and erects our hospitals. But have these institutions been raised without the hand of labour? No, sir; and it is the same hand that has levelled the sturdy oak, the lofty pine, and the towering hemlock, and subdued your forests to a garden. It is not the fact, in this country, that money controls labour; but labour controls money. When the farmer cradles his wheat and harvests his hay, he does not find the labourer on his knees before him at the close of the day, solicitous for further employment; but it is the farmer who takes off his hat, pays him his wages, and requests his return on the morrow.

Apprehensions are professed to be entertained, that the merchant and manufacturer will combine to the prejudice of the landed interest. But is not agriculture the legitimate support of both? And do gentlemen really suppose that they will madly combine to destroy themselves? If the title to land contributed to the elevation of the mind, or if it gave stability to independence, or added wisdom to virtue, there might be good reason for proportioning the right of suffrage to the acres of soil. But experience has shewn that property forms not the scale of worth, and that character does not spring from the ground. It seems, indeed, to be thought, that poverty and vice are identified. But look to the higher classes of society. Do you not often discover the grossest abuse of wealth? Look to the republics of Greece. They were all destroyed by the wealth of the aristocracy bearing down the people.

And how were the victories of Greece achieved in her better days? By the militia. How were the liberties of Rome sustained? By her militia. How were they lost? By her standing armies. How have we been carried triumphantly through two wars? By the militia-by the very men whom it is now sought to deprive of the inestimable privilege of freemen. And whom do you find in your armies in time of war? The miser? The monied Shylock? The speculator? No, sir; it is the poor and hardy soldier who spills his blood in defence of his country; the veteran to whom you allow the privilege to fight, but not to vote. If there is value in the right of suffrage, or reliance to be placed upon our fellow citizens in time of war, where, I ask, is the justice of withholding that right in times of peace and safety?

MR. RADCLIFF was not in the habit of declaiming on popular rights, but he thought there should be an equality, whatever qualifications might be fixed on. He was opposed to the proposition now under consideration, because he could perceive no utility that was likely to grow out of its adoption; and if useless, it was of course injurious. Propositions of an affirmative character, ought always to be accompanied by proofs of their probable utility.

Gentlemen have referred to the theories of learned statesmen; but Mr. R. thought it would be found that those theories rested upon no better basis than speculative opinion, or analogies derived from countries, between which and our own, there is no relation. We know that those statesmen were mistaken on some important points. They said our government would vanish in twenty years, that it did not possess intrinsic strength, adequate to its support. But forty years experience has shewn us the fallacy of their predictions.

Property will always carry with it an influence sufficient for its own protection. And shall we give it an artificial aid, that may be dangerous to the rights of the community? But we are told that property is entitled to representation. If the principles of the social compact are likened to a partnership stock, it follows that each partner is entitled to vote according to the amount of his state in that partnership, like shares in a monied institution :-of course upon the ratio of $250 proposed by the mover of the amendment under consideration, every freeholder having $500 worth of property would be entitled to two votes, and if he has $5000 worth he would be entitled to twenty votes.

The weight of character, and talents, and property in the senate, Mr. R. remarked, had not been greater than in the Assembly; and the experience of the Eastern states, where no such odious distinction existed, and where we always

direct our eyes when in the pursuit of wisdom, had evinced that no dauger was to be feared from adopting the amendment of the honourable gentleman from Delaware. It would therefore receive his support.

MR. VAN VECHTEN. I rise with great diffidence to support the amendment moved by my honourable colleague (Mr. Spencer ;) but the importance of the principle which it involves, imposes upon me the duty of expressing my sentiments upon the subject to the committee. In doing this, I shall not attempt to travel over the same ground which has been so ably occupied by my two honourable colleagues (Messrs. Kent and Spencer) who have gone before me. It will be my purpose to shew, with as much brevity and simplicity as I am capable, that the amendment is founded in the true principles of our free representative government-a fair representation of the governed, so arranged as to ensure equal protection and security to the rights of all. I am aware that the question, how this important end is most certainly attainable, is not without its difficulties. But it is a conceded point, that the accountability of representatives, at stated periods, to those by whom they are chosen, is an essential means to its attainment, as it brings the former to the bar of the latter, at those periods, for a free examination into their public conduct, upon the result of which depends their continuance in, or dismissal from their trust. This incites men. who are ambitious to obtain and hold representative stations, to exert all their powers and faculties to merit and preserve the confidence of their constituents, by a faithful discharge of public duties. It is a fact which must be admitted on all sides, that in every community, the people have some rights which are common to all, and others which are separate. Let me illustrate my meaning by specific examples-Life and liberty are common to all, but the possession of property is not. Hence the owners of property have rights which, in relation to those who are destitute, are separate and exclusive. It is the duty of a just government to extend the same protection to the latter as to the former; and thence it follows, that a fair representation of every class of citizens in the administration of government, requires that the right of suffrage should be so arranged, as to give due weight to property, as well as to personal rights. What is the most expedient and safe arrangement, according to the true principles of a representative government, is a point upon which eminent statesmen may, and do, honestly differ in opinion. The sages and patriots who framed our constitution, considered it just and wise to divide the legislature into two separate bodies, with equal powers; the one numerous, and to be chosen by the whole mass of electors: the other comparatively small in number, and to be chosen by the landholders of the state. It will be seen that the distribution of the legislative power, and the right of suffrage, secures practically to every class of citizens, the benefits of a fair representation in the legislature with reference to their respective rights; and the experience of near half a century has proven, that those constitutional provisions are wise and salutary. The rights of property not only, but personal rights, have been secure, and we have prospered to an unexampled degree. It is true that within a few years we have heard a great deal said about the necessity of calling a Convention to revise and amend the constitution; but it is equally true, that this has arisen more from violent party collisions, than from any real dissatisfaction in relation to our constitutional provisions, with a single exception as to the mode of appointment to office.

The object of the amendment under consideration, is to continue the freehold qualification of electors for senators, and to extend it to equitable freeholders, which will include a numerous and valuable class of electors who have heretofore been excluded. Is this unjust or unreasonable? I apprehend not. The landed interest of the state, on account of its stability and importance, is, in my judgment, entitled to distinct weight in the choice of at least one branch of the legislature. Let me ask the committee, whether any other property is so completely within the reach of, and affords such substantial security to, the government? Is there any other solid pledge remaining, to which the creditors of the state look with equal confidence for the fulfilment of its plighted faith? Is there any other property which contributes in an equal proportion, towards the public expenses in the way of direct taxation? Its immoveable and imperishable quality makes it always secure and tangible, and renders its value easi

iy ascertainable, while a very great mass of personal property eludes the eye of the assessor and the hand of the collector, and the whole is perishable and transitory. Besides, the peaceable, frugal, and industrious habits of the owners and cultivators of our soil, exclude them from direct participation in the schemes of ambition, and the unhallowed courses which are not unfrequently pursued for its gratification.

But several objections have been urged by gentlemen on the other side of the question, against the amendment before us. I must, therefore, solicit the andulgence of the committee while I examine those objections in detail.

It has been said by the gentleman from New-York (Mr. Radcliff) that the amendment is incompatible with the principle of equal rights, upon which our present constitution professes to be founded. I deny that such incompatibility exists. What is the true meaning of equal rights in relation to government? It is, that every citizen has equal claims to protection for his rights, whatever they may be. Does it follow thence that a man who has only life and liberty to be protected, needs protection to the same extent with one who, in addition to life and liberty, possesses both real and personal property? No. The equal right of the former is satisfied when he is protected in what he enjoys, but the protection of the latter must be co-extensive with his multifarious rights, to place him on a footing of equality with the other, as respects the objects for which government is instituted. No man can justly complain of inequality in the protection which he receives from government, when it protects all that be possesses; nor is any one without just cause of complaint on this head, when any portion of his rights are left insecure and unprotected. How, then, does the amendment under discussion conflict with the principle of equal rights, as applicable to government? On the contrary, is it not calculated to give to that just and wholesome principle its true practical effect? All the rights of the most numerous class of electors will be represented by men of their own choice in the assembly-men who will be accountable to them at the close of every year, for the manner in which they have executed their trust; nor can any law be passed that will impair their rights, without the concurrence of the assembly. The other class of electors, by whom it is proposed that the senators shall be chosen, will consist of the owners of land. Is it asked why? I answer, because the mass of electors for the assembly will not be landholders, and therefore will have no direct interest in the protectien of landed property. And inasmuch as their rights are secured by a fair and full representation in the assembly selected by themselves, it is just and reasonable that the rights of the freeholders should be made equally secure by means of their own chosen represeutatives in the senate. If there is any soundness in the doctrine of a representative government, that the accountability of representives to their immediate constituents, by means of frequent elections, conduces to the security of The latter, the conclusion to which it leads seems to be irresistible in favour of the proposition before us. But by way of further illustration, I will contrast the gentleman's notion of equal rights, or, as it has been called, the doctrine of equality in the right of suffrage, with the amendment in question. By the report of the select committee, which he approves, it is proposed that " every male eitizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided six months withIn this state next preceding any election, and shall within one year previous to sach election, have paid a tax assessed upon him, or shall within the same period have been assessed to work on a public road, and shall have performed the work, or shall have paid an equivalent therefor in money, or shall within the same period have been enrolled in the militia, and shall have served therein, hall be a qualified voter for governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and members of assembly."

The amendinent offered by the gentleman from Delaware, so far as it is material to the present discussion, proposes to extend the term of residence, and to superadd equipment according to law to the militia enrolment and service, in order to qualify such voter. What will the effect be, whichever proposition prevails? A man who has worked one day on a highway, or is an equipped militia man, who has resided within the state during six months in one case, and one year in the other, will be a qualified voter for senators, who are to protect the landed interest of the state in the senate. Let me ask the members of the com