Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821 Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution of the State of New York

hoped the constitution would not be left so imperfect, that the postponement of an amendment for two years at farthest, would be a serious grievance.

It had once or twice been thrown out in debate, that the amendments to the constitution would be submitted en masse to the people.-He was sorry to see this subject introduced at this stage of our proceedings, and could not but think it premature. At a proper time it would regularly come before the Convention, and be a subject for discussion.

MR. VAN BUREN rose merely to correct an idea that seemed to be entertained that he was in favour of an entire new constitution. The fact, he said was otherwise. He preferred to engraft amendments upon the existing one; and he had only expressed his fears that such a course might be rendered unavoidable from the very numerous and essential alterations that had been proposed.

GEN. TALLMADGE concurred in the remarks that had fallen from the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Spencer) and had hoped that this report would have been unanimously adopted. If the motion of the gentleman from Delaware should prevail, it would result that the vital principles of the government might be entirely changed, and its most important and valuable institutions overturned, in the short period of six or seven months. It necessarily devolved upon the legislature to fix the time when it should be submitted for its final ratification by the people; and thus essential and momentous principles might be introduced under the impulse of sudden excitement. Three-fourths of the states, instead of two-thirds, are required to sanction amendments to the constitution of the United States; and the time necessarily required to obtain that sanction, was very considerable. But even there, it had been shewn from experience, that amendments were liable to be obtained with too great facility. It had been appended as a thirteenth article to the amendments of that constitution, in the laws of the United States, published under the direction of the then secretary of state, and attorney general, that any person who should accept of any present, pension, patent of nobility, &c. from any foreign prince, potentate or power, should be thenceforth disfranchised. And it had been inferred that a soldier, by having enlisted in the Spanish service in Florida, and received the bounty of a dollar, was no longer entitled to the privileges of an American citizen. The amendment had been proposed at the time the nation was in a ferment respecting young Bonaparte, who received a pension from France. It was found, however, on examination, that fortunately the concurrence of one more state was wanting, so that this preposterous amendment was prevented from becoming a part of the constitution of the United States. He hoped, therefore, that this committee would not embrace a principle liable to such dangerous consequences.

GEN. ROOT then withdrew his motion, and moved to strike out the words twothirds, and to insert the word majority, so as to require the passage of a propos ed amendment by a majority only, when it should be a second time presented to the consideration of the legislature.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON preferred to have the majority referrable to the first legislature rather than the second, and hoped the mover would consent to vary his motion accordingly.

GEN. ROOT preferred to retain it in its present shape. He thought that the first legislature would be more apt to be hurried away by the impulse of party than the second.

MR. VAN BUREN made a few remarks in opposition to the motion.

The question was then taken and decided in the negative, by a large majority, only fourteen voting in the affirmative.

MR. WENDOVER moved an amendment, to render more definite the contemplated publication, by adding after the word published, “in at least one newspaper in each county in this state, in which a newspaper shall be printed."

MR. VAN VECHTEN thought that the manner of the publication might with propriety be left to the determination of the legislature.

MR. WENDOVER's motion was then put and negatived.

JUDGE PLATT did not rise to object to the report-he heartily approved of it. There was one ambiguous phraise, however, which he wished to see amended. The words" the people," which occurred in the 18th line of the report appeare

THE APPOINTING POWER.

On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the report of the committee on so much of the constitution as relates to the power of appointments to office, and the tenure thereof. Mr. Lawrence in the chair.

MR. TOMPKINS approved heartily of that part of the report which related to the militia, and with a few modifications hoped it would be adopted. He believed the militia would flourish more under this system, than it ever had done before.

MR. FAIRLIE thought it would be better to settle the question whether we would abolish the council of appointment, before the report was acted on.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER also thought that question should first be settled. MR. TOMPKINS wished the first section, (abolishing the council of appointment,) might be passed over. The question involved in it might better be postponed until it should be settled in what manner the appointing power shall be disposed of, or distributed. Even if the council should be retained, we have the right to modify the power, and at all events to determine in what manner militia officers shall be appointed. Mr. T. moved to pass by the first section for the present.

GEN. J. R. VAN RENSSELAER thought it was idle to go on and provide a substitute, before it was known whether the Convention was opposed to the old council.

MR. SHELDON preferred that the substitute should be first provided, that members would see what the new system would be. The members will then have an opportunity to choose between the new and the old.

MR. BACON could not see why a different course should be adopted in regard to the mode of proceeding upon this report, from what had been pursued in other cases. A vote was first taken to abolish the Council of Revision, and a substitute was provided afterwards.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE spoke a few words in favour of settling the question on the first section first. He could not see the force of the objections offered by the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Tompkins) or those of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Sheldon.)

MR. EASTWOOD called for the ayes and noes on the question whether the first section of the report should be passed over, and it was decided in the negative, 77 to 26, as follows.

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Beckwith, Bowman, Briggs, Brooks, Buel, Carver, Child, R. Clarke, Eastwood, Edwards, Ferris, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Howe, Hunt, Hunter, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, Lefferts, A. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Park, Paulding, Pitcher, Platt, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Root, Rose, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, R. Sanford, Seaman, Seeley, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Ten Eyck, Townley, Tuttle, Van Horne, Van Buren, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, N. Williams, Woodward, Wooster-77. AYES-Messrs. Barlow, Birdseye, Breese, Brinkerhoff, Burroughs, Case, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Dyckman, Fairlie, Fenton, Lawrence, P. R. Livingston, Pike, President, Price, Rockwell, Sheldon, Taylor, Van Fleet, Ward, Woods, Yates-26.

The question on the first section, for abolishing the council of appointment, was then taken by ayes and noes, and carried in the affirmative, UNANIMOUSLY, 102 members being present.

MR. TOMPKINS Suggested sundry amendments, and finally moved a substitute for the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th sections of the report of the select committee; but he consented to waive his propositions for the present, in order that the chairman of the committee who made the report, might explain the views of the committee, and the principles upon which they had founded their report.

MR. VAN BUREN, (chairman of the committee upon this subject) gave a general view of the reasons which had influenced the select committee in adopting the report now under consideration. The subject was one surrounded with

numerous difficulties; some of which were intrinsic and not to be avoided by any course that could be devised. They had framed a system, which, after much reflection, appeared to them to be liable to the least and fewest objections.

The first question which presented itself for the consideration of the committee, was the propriety of abolishing the Council of Appointment. On this subject there was no difficulty; the same unanimity prevailed among the members of the select committee in this respect, as in the vote which had just passed in committee of the whole, for the abolition of this power; and in this, they had only acted in accordance with public opinion, by which this feature of the old constitution had been condemned. He would not, he said, detain the committee by giving any reasons for this part of the report; after the unanimous vote just given, this would be a wanton waste of time.

The next and more important enquiry, was, with respect to what should be substituted in its stead; and here, as was to be expected, a diversity of sentiment prevailed, and many difficulties presented themselves. For the purpose, however, of lessening, as far as was practicable, the objections that would necessarily exist to any general appointing power, wherever placed, or however constituted, they had felt the propriety of reducing the patronage attached to it; and they had, with that view, separated from it the great mass of the officers of the state. Many of them, they had sent to be appointed, or elected, in the several counties or towns, and others they had left to the disposition of the legislature, to provide for their appointment or election, as experience might prove to be most advisable.

Of the 8287 military officers, they had recommended that all except 78, consisting of major generals, brigadier generals, and the adjutant general, should be elected by the privates and officers of the militia.

Of the 6663 civil officers, now appointed by the Council of Appointment, they recommend that 3643 should be appointed or elected as the legislature should direct-these were auctioneers, masters in chancery, public notaries, inspectors of turnpike roads, commissioners to acknowledge deeds, examiners in chancery, inspectors for commercial purposes, and some other officers. They also recommended that the clerks of counties, and district attorneys, should be appointed by the courts of common pleas, in the several counties. And that the mayors and clerks, of all the cities except New-York, should be appointed by the common council of the respective cities.

Thus far, no great diversity of sentiment had existed among the members of the committee, and there had been a general concurrence of opinion, on all the parts of the report already noticed.

This, together with the justices of the peace, which a majority of the committee had recommended to be elected, left only 453 officers for whose appointment, or election, it was necessary to provide.

In addition to the curtailment of the appointing power, to be retained at the seat of government; the committee, under a full conviction that much of the complaint against the existing Council of Appointment, had arisen from the circumstance of the concentration of power in one body, had thought it wise even here to distribute them; by giving the appointment of the heads of the different departments of this state to the legislature; they being officers entrusted with the public property, whose duties more immediately connected them with that body.

Still, some officers were left; small in number, it was true, but of considerable interest and importance. They were unanimously of opinion, that it would be improper for some of these officers to be elected by the people, and a majority of them supposed that none of them ought to be so elected.

It became necessary, therefore, to provide for their appointment; and to establish what may be called a general appointing power; though limited in the exercise of its functions, to the bestowment of a small number of offices. Four plans presented themselves to the consideration of the committee.

1st. To create a new Council of Appointment, to be elected by the people. 2nd. To vest the power of Appointment in the Executive solely.

3rd. To give it to the Legislature. Or,

THE APPOINTING POWER.

On motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the report of the committee on so much of the constitution as relates to the power of appointments to office, and the tenure thereof. Mr. Lawrence in the chair.

MR. TOMPKINS approved heartily of that part of the report which related to the militia, and with a few modifications hoped it would be adopted. He believed the militia would flourish more under this system, than it ever had done before.

MR. FAIRLIE thought it would be better to settle the question whether we would abolish the council of appointment, before the report was acted on. CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER also thought that question should first be settled. MR. TOMPKINS wished the first section, (abolishing the council of appointment,) might be passed over. The question involved in it might better be postponed until it should be settled in what manner the appointing power shall be disposed of, or distributed. Even if the council should be retained, we have the right to modify the power, and at all events to determine in what manner militia officers shall be appointed. Mr. T. moved to pass by the first section for the present.

GEN. J. R. VAN RENSSELAER thought it was idle to go on and provide a substitute, before it was known whether the Convention was opposed to the old council.

MR. SHELDON preferred that the substitute should be first provided, that members would see what the new system would be. The members will then have an opportunity to choose between the new and the old.

MR. BACON could not see why a different course should be adopted in regard to the mode of proceeding upon this report, from what had been pursued in other cases. A vote was first taken to abolish the Council of Revision, and a substitute was provided afterwards.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE spoke a few words in favour of settling the question on the first section first. He could not see the force of the objections offered by the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Tompkins) or those of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Sheldon.)

MR. EASTWOOD called for the ayes and noes on the question whether the first section of the report should be passed over, and it was decided in the negative, 77 to 26, as follows.

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Beckwith, Bowman, Briggs, Brooks, Buel, Carver, Child, R. Clarke, Eastwood, Edwards, Ferris, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Howe, Hunt, Hunter, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, Lefferts, A. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Park, Paulding, Pitcher, Platt, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Root, Rose, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, R. Sanford, Seaman, Seeley, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Ten Eyck, Townley, Tuttle, Van Horne, Van Buren, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, N. Williams, Woodward, Wooster-77. AYES-Messrs. Barlow, Birdseye, Breese, Brinkerhoff, Burroughs, Case, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Dyckman, Fairlie, Fenton, Lawrence, P. R. Livingston, Pike, President, Price, Rockwell, Sheldon, Taylor, Van Fleet, Ward, Woods, Yates-26.

The question on the first section, for abolishing the council of appointment, was then taken by ayes and noes, and carried in the affirmative, UNANIMOUSLY, 102 members being present.

MR. TOMPKINS suggested sundry amendments, and finally moved a substi tute for the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th sections of the report of the select committee; but he consented to waive his propositions for the present, in order that the chairman of the committee who made the report, might explain the views of the committee, and the principles upon which they had founded their report. MR. VAN BUREN, (chairman of the committee upon this subject) gave a general view of the reasons which had influenced the select committee in adoptthe report now under consideration. The subject was one surrounded with