gratification which its accomplishment afforded him. He should be opposed to disturbing this provision; but if the amendment offered by the gentleman from New-York could be made to correspond with it, he should vote for it with great pleasure. He must acknowledge, however, that on this point he differed from the gentleman from Schoharie, (Mr. Sutherland.) He apprehended it would very materially change the law of libels.

He was willing, not only that the truth should be given, when published for good motives and justifiable ends; but that it should then amount to a complete justification. The statute laid down the rule suggested by the immortal Hamilton its verbiage was a maxim taken from the brief which he held in his hand on the occasion alluded to by the honourable chancellor.

The question is not, as has been stated by the gentleman from New-York, whether the liberty of speech and of the press shall be confided to the courts, or entrusted to the jury?

No, sir, (said Mr. W.); the question is this: Will you leave the admission or rejection of evidence to the court in cases of libel, as in all other cases; or will you, by a constitutional provision, direct that the truth of the fact published, shall always be admitted in evidence, although that truth can in no manner prove the motive good, or the end justifiable?

In the cases alluded to by the gentleman from Saratoga, (Mr. Young,) where a physician should be represented as a quack, a lawyer as a pettifogger, a merchant in good standing as a bankrupt-the fact would be admitted as a matter of course. In such cases, there would be no way of coming at the motives, or the tendency, of such publication, without going into a proof of facts; and testimony would be in such cases admitted by the court.

To lay a broad constitutional provision, compelling the court to admit the truth to be given in evidence on all occasions, would be going farther than he could consent to; and as there were undoubtedly many instances where such testimony would be extremely improper, he should oppose the amendment. He would leave this subject as the law leaves it; and in all cases where the motive might be good, and the end justifiable, he would leave the statute to compel the court to admit testimony.

Mr. W. thought it very singular, that this peculiar benefit should be claimed for libellers; that they should be the objects of the particular solicitude of the Convention. Why not leave them on the same grounds with other malefactors? He agreed with the honourable gentleman from Oneida, that he would leave the character of public men, and of candidates for public office, open to examination. He would indeed go further, and admit the truth to be given in evidence, where it was possible that the publication might originate from good motives and justifiable ends: but it would not be denied, that cases did occur, where there could be no possible grounds of justification, and where the public had no interest in the investigation of the truth or falsehood of the charge.

You, sir, said Mr. W.) are a father; and should Divine Providence centre the hopes of your family in one darling son, and that son, just emerging from infancy, and ready to adorn manhood, should be consigned to an untimely grave; should this afflicting Providence be made the sport of the news-boy's song; should the bereaved father be represented as covered with moral leprosy, and this Providence displayed to the world, and to the agonized mother, as evidence of Divine chastisement for moral guilt;-would you provide by your constitution, that this libeller should prove the death-bed scene, and urge it as evidence of the father's guilt? I forbear to enlarge.

MR. DUER replied: It was well known that the question in debate had a bearing upon a libel suit now pending before the courts of this state, in which the judge was the prosecutor. And should it be left to him to decide on the merits of the suit? He hoped the amendment would be unanimously adopted. The question was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the affirmative, 97 to 8-all the members present voting in the affirmative, excepting Messrs. Dodge, Jones, Kent, Rhinelander, R. Smith, Sylvester, E. Williams, and N. Williams.

The fourth article was then passed as amended.

The fifth section relative to unreasonable searches and seizures, was read, and passed without amendment.

The sixth section was read in the following words:" The trial by jury, as heretofore enjoyed, shall remain inviolate."

GEN. Root moved to amend the section by striking out the words "as heretofore ENJOYED." He was not satisfied with that kind of enjoyment--for the true reading would have been as heretofore perverted, and he was decidedly opposed to sanctioning and perpetuating those provisions by a constitutional confirmation. The trial by jury on the circuit is about as farcical as any judicial spectacle that can be presented to the people. They are sworn to give their verdict according to evidence; but they have to do it under the opinion of the court. They rarely disobey-but if they are hardy enough to do so, the verdict is set aside, and a new trial granted. The trial by jury had become of no value, except in cases sounding in damages, and in measuring the degree of credibility of witnesses.-Even there, however, the court often interposes, and tells them, how to exercise their judgments. In criminal cases also, it had been greatly impaired, though fortunately not utterly destroyed. Mr. R. would prefer to strike out the section altogether; but if that course were not approved, he hoped his motion would prevail, and he should propose a substitute which he read, the purport of which was to retain the right of trial by jury, on the basis on which it stood under the colonial government.

MR. BUEL opposed the substitute, upon the ground that it was in the highest degree unsafe to make juries judges of the law, as well as of the fact. The principal duty of a judge was to explain and decide on points of law.

GEN. ROOT proposed to divide the substitute.

The motion was acquiesced in, and the first part of the substitute was read. It was then agreed to strike out the sixth section; whereupon Mr. Root withdrew his amendment.

MR. NELSON moved to strike out the seventh section.

The motion was modified, by moving to strike out all that part of the section, which follows the word "imposed," so as to make the seventh section read, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed."—Carried. On motion of Mr. E. WILLIAMS, the eighth section was stricken out. The ninth and last section was adopted without amendment.

MR. DODGE called for the consideration of an additional section heretofore offered by him, providing that all rights not specially enumerated in the constitution, were reserved to the people.

After some discussion the motion was lost.

MR. WHEATON moved to reconsider the question which had been taken on a former day, on the second section of the report of the select committee on this subject, with the view of moving to insert in the fourth line after the word "and," the following words: "in the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep in time of peace with the consent of Congress." Mr. W. stated, that as by the constitution of the United States, each state might raise troops, or build ships for its own defence in time of war, and might even in time of peace keep military and naval forces with the consent of Congress, it would be necessary to leave the legislature a power to provide for the discipline and government of such forces. But as the clause now stood, the legislature could not apply to the forces of the state, (except the militia in actual service,) the rules of martial law, which would be indispensably necessary for their control. The general provisions which were required for the protec tion of persons in civil life from arbitrary proceedings, and a summary trial and punishment, could not safely be extended to persons in the military or naval service. They must be governed by the articles of war, and by courts martial. The motion prevailed, and the amendment was made accordingly. MR. WHEATON moved, that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of certain resolutions offered by him sometime since.

The resolutions offered by the gentleman from Ulster (Mr. Hunter) were read. as follows:

First. The governor hereafter to be elected, shall be at least thirty-five years of age-that ! e be a citizen of the United States, or of this state, and when elected, he shall have an interest in lands or tenements in the state, worth two thousand! dollars, of er alt debts or incumbrances chargeable thereon.

Second. That senators hereafter to be elected, shall be thirty-five years of age' and be seven years a citizen of the United States, four of the last years to be an inhabitant of this state, and when elected shall have an interest in lands or tenements, in the district which he is to represent, of the value of one thousand dol lars, above all debts or incumbrances chargeable thereon.

Third. That the representatives in assembly hereafter chosen, shall be at least twenty-five years of age, and be five years a citizen of this state, the three last years an inhabitant of the county he is to represent, and during that time shall have pursued some honest calling or business for a livelihood.

MR. DUER called for the consideration of a resolution relative to slavery, of fered by Mr. I. Sutherland. The resolution was read, as follows:

"Resolved, That the 4th and 32d sections of the act entitled an act relative to slaves and servants, passed March 31st, 1817, shall be unalterable by the legisla. ture."

The resolution was supported by Messrs. Duer, Sutherland, and Buel, and opposed by Messrs. Briggs, Young, Sharpe, and Tompkins.

MR. RUSSELL moved to amend the resolution by striking out all that part which follows the word "resolved," and insert the following:

"That slavery in this state shall not extend beyond the 4th day of July, 1827 as now established by law."

MR. KING. A few days ago, a motion was made to shorten the time during which the remaining slaves within this state should continue to serve their masters, and to declare in the constitution, that slavery does not exist in the state.

The consequences of this declaration, would be the immediate freedom of these persons. It is known that many of them are old, and that all are without the habits which would enable them to provide for their own subsistence.

By the law of the state they will be free in 1827, and in the mean time, measures may be devised for their support and protection when emancipated-for this reason, and it was a sufficient one, the Convention negatived the motion. It is now proposed to insert in the constitution, a provision confirming the law by which the slaves within this state will be free in 1327. By voting for this provision, those who the other day voted against immediate emancipation, will manifest their motives in doing so, to have been in kindness to the slaves, and the provision will also restrain the legislature from prolonging slavery beyond 1827. Nothing concerning slavery is now contained in the constitution. The votes of those who with me were opposed to immediate emancipation, require no other explanation than the pernicious effects to the public, as well as to the slaves themselves, of such emancipation. On this account, therefore, the provision proposed to be inserted in the constitution is not requisite.

As a check on the legislature, it is equally unnecessary. The truth and force of public opinion on this subject, is a sufficient restraint on the legisla ture, and there is therefore no reason to apprehend that the legislature, from any motive, can be prevailed on to postpone the day of emancipation.

If a constitutional provision on this subject be not necessary, it should not be made, because every act of this character adopted by one of the states, does not fail to excite strong feelings in other states, which in these respects are less happy than ourselves.

Against this provision it is moreover urged, that if we omit to mention it iu our constitution, it may hereafter be forgotten that slavery once existed in the state. The suggestion may appear to be more specious than solid, though it is possible that we may be as fortunate as our ancestors.

It is now the proud boast of England, that the moment a slave stands upon her soil, or breathes her air, he becomes a free man. Yet we are informed that time was, when England sold English men into foreign bondage; and that so great was the number of English youths sent for sale to the Irish market, that Ireland passed a non-importation law to keep them out. If this practice of ancient times be almost sunk in oblivion, does not the circumstance encour»

age us to hope that the enslaving of black men may hereafter be forgotten and should we not forbear to make our constitution a record thereof?

The debate was further continued by Messrs. Jay, Young, Tompkins, and Buel, when the question was taken on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Erie, and lost.

The question then recurred on the resolution of Mr. Sutherland.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON moved, that the farther consideration of the resolu tion be postponed till the first day of January next. Carried.

MR. HUNTER'S resolutions were then read, and negatived.

The committee rose and reported.

In Convention, ordered, that the report lie on the table.

The President nominated the following members of the Convention to constitute the committee on the subject of appointments in the city of New-York, and on such other parts of the report of the committee on the appointing power, as have not been acted on, viz.

"Resolved, That when the Convention adjourn, it will adjourn till ten o'clock on Monday morning, and that there be two sittings a day, until further orderThat the hours of meeting be ten o'clock in the morning, and half past six o'clock P. M.

On motion of Cor. YOUNG, the resolution was divided, and the first part was lost. The second part was then withdrawn by the mover. Adjourned.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1821.

The Convention assembled at the usual bour. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. De WITT. The minutes of yesterday were then read and approved.

MR. KING, chairman of the select committee, to whom was referred the proposition of Mr. Tallmadge, relative to senatorial districts, reported as follows:

"That the state shall be divided into eight districts, to be called senate districts, each of which shall choose four senators.

The first district to consist of the counties of Suffolk, Queens, Kings, Richmond, and New-York.

The second district to consist of the counties of Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland, Orange, Ulster, and Sullivan.

The third district to consist of the counties of Greene, Columbia, Albany, Rensselaer, Schoharie, and Schenectady.

The fourth district to consist of the counties of Saratoga, Montgomery, Hamil ton, Washington, Warren, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, and St. Lawrence.

The fifth district to consist of the counties of Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Os. wego, Lewis, and Jefferson.

The sixth district to consist of the counties of Delaware, Otsego, Chenango, Broome, Cortland, Tompkins, and Tioga.

The seventh district to consist of the counties of Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Ontario.

The eighth district to consist of the counties of Steuben, Livingston, Monroe, Genesee, Niagara, Erie, Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Chautauque.

And as soon as the senate shall meet after the first election to be held in pursuance of this provision, they shall cause the senators to be divided, by lot, into four classes of eight in each, and so that every district shall have one senator of each class, the classes to be numbered one, two, three and four; and the seats of the first class shall be vacated at the end of the first year, of the second class at the end of the second year, of the third class at the end of the third year, of the fourth class at the end of the fourth year, and so on continually, in order that one senator be annually elected in each senate district.

II. That a census of the inhabitants of the state, excluding aliens, paupers, convicts, and persons of colour not taxed, be taken under the direction of the legislature, in the year 1825, and at the end of every ten years thereafter; and that the senate districts shall be so altered by the legislature at the first session after the return of every census, that each senate district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of such inhabitants; which districts shall remain unaltered until the return of another census. Provided that every district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and that no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district.

The annexed table dividing the state into eight senate districts, exhibits the number of inhabitants contained in each.