assembly, in whichsoever the same shall have originated, who shall enter the ob jections sent down by the council, at large, in their minutes, and proceed to reconsider the said bill. But if after such reconsideration, two thirds of the said senate, or house of assembly, shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the legislature, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of the members present, shall be a law.

GEN. TALLMADGE briefly explained the views of the committee. The detail of the opinions entertained by the committee, why the council of revision ought to be abolished, was intentionally and very fortunately omitted. It was proper, however, now to communicate to this committee, that the committee of which he had the honour of being chairman, was unanimously of the opinion, that the principles of good government require that the legislative and judicial departments should be kept entirely distinct. The committee were likewise of the opinion, that a veto should be preserved; and in fixing upon the plan to be adopted they have resorted to the constitution of the United States, and copied the plain and simple language of that instrument. But in the concluding clause, the committee have preserved the spirit of that part of the third article of our constitution, which provided that bills not returned within ten days, should become laws in like manner as if they had been passed by the council of revision, or the power in which the veto is lodged. Mr. Tallmadge extended his remarks somewhat further; but he was not distinctly heard.

MR. JAY wished to have the phraseology of the resolution prefixed to the amendment proposed by the committee, amended. It now reads-" Resolved, that the third article of the constitution of this state, be, and the same is hereby abolished." He presumed it was not the intention of the Convention at once to abolish the constitution: and concluded by moving to alter the resolution so as to make it read "ought to be abolished." This amendment was adopted.

COL. YOUNG moved that the resolution be so amended as to read-" Resolved, that the council of revision, provided by the third article of the constitution ought to be abolished." The object of the resolution would then be distinctly understood.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER opposed the motion, as he considered the resolu̸tion proper as it now stood.

MR. DUER Suggested a variation of the amendment, so as to make it read-Resolved, that the third article of the constitution organizing the council of revision, ought to be abolished."

MR. SHARPE Would submit whether the following would not read better"Resolved, that the third aticle of the constitution ought to be amended as follows :"

MR. VAN BUREN thought too much importance was attached to the phraseology of the resolution. The object of this was only to ascertain the sense of the Convention in regard to this feature of the constitution. He was of the opinion that the time of the Convention could be better occupied than in discussing the form in which the resolution should stand. He had no particular objection to the amendments proposed, but he considered them unneces

sary.

Ğen. Tallmadge. It is proper that this committee be informed as to the views of the select committee on this subject, which were to abolish the third article, and substitute the amendment; and they have accordingly presented it in the form of two distinct propositions-the one to abolish, and the other to amend.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER. The object now is, merely to take the sense of the committee; to have the question distinctly stated and settled. It is not therefore worth while to be fastidious as to the form of the resolution. After the amendments are agreed upon, they will all be put into a suitable form and properly arranged, by a committee which will be appointed for that purpase.

MR. SHARPE withdrew his amendment, and the question was taken on that proposed by Col. Young, which was negatived.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER remarked, that the Convention had been informed by the chairman of the standing committee, upon that part of the constitution relating to the council of revision, that they were unanimously of the opinion, that the judicial and legislative departments of government ought not to be mingled or exercised in conjunction; and likewise, that they had thought proper to recommend to this Convention to abolish the third article of the constitution, as it now stands. He thought the principle a sound one, and might be extended further than it is carried in the report that the executive, judicial, and legislative powers ought to be kept separate. We find this to be a fundamental principle in most of the constitutions of the United States; and we al so find that in most instances, it has not been strictly preserved.

With regard to the proposition to abolish the council of revision, it might appear indelicate for him, situated as he was, to express his opinion on that subject; but he should throw himself upon the liberality of this body, and upon this, as on other topics, express his sentiments with the utmost freedom. He was willing that his conduct should be tested by the votes he should give on every question that might come before this body. He trusted he should never shrink from a faithful discharge of his duty; and he should never be backward to assign the reasons of his vote.

The duties enjoined by the constitution on the judiciary, as members of the council of revision, were arduous and painful; duties, from which they would gladly be relieved. The office of member of the council was an invidious one, which no judge would be anxious to perform.

When we are called on by a resolution to amend the constitution, under which we have lived almost half a century, it is incumbent on those, who offered the resolution, to explain the reasons, why such an amendment should be made. He should not go into an examination of the alteration proposed.— He thought with the committee, that it was all important there should be some check provided upon the legislative power; and he was also decided in the opinion, that this check ought to be lodged with some firm, independent, and safe depository.

The Chief Justice here adverted to the important functions of the council of revision, and read from the constitution a part of the third article, and explained the important duties assigned to this department of the government.Facts would justify him in stating, that laws had frequently been hastily and unadvisedly made, and that the powers of the council had often been usefully exercised. In most cases, he believed, the acts of the council had met the decided approbation of the legislature, and the utility of such a revisory power had thus been acknowledged.

He was not opposed to the proposition reported by the committee, nor did he rise to speak against it-he thought the alteration necessary, and he would explain the conditions on which he would agree to it. He had already remarked, that in framing this article of the constitution, it was considered important, that this power should be deposited in independent hands. It was supposed that the governor was not alone sufficiently firm, to resist the will of the legislature. He believed this idea to be correct; and if an amendment in this part of the constitution should be adopted, he should make it an indispensable condition of giving his vote in its favour, that the revisory power be placed in the hands of a depository who was not dependent on the legislature.

The gentleman had stated, that the provision, as offered in the proposed amendment, was copied from the constitution of the United States. He did not believe the revisory power, deposited with the national executive, had ever been abused.

If instances of such abuse had occurred, they were rare, and had given rise to no serious complaints. But there was a wide difference between the execu tive of the United States, and the executive of this state. The President of the United States is elected for four years-the governor of this state, for only three. The federal constitution provides an annual salary for the president, and expressly states that it shall not be increased or diminished. We have no

such clause in our constitution; and the governor is left entirely dependent on the legislature for his salary.

He should therefore vote for this proposition under the express reservation, that the amendment shall be accompanied with a provision hereafter, that the governor of this state shall be placed in a situation, whereby he shall be rendered so far independent of the legislature, as not to depend on their will for his daily bread; since such a state of dependence might render him subservient to their wishes.

He was sensible that there were many forcible reasons, why the judicial should not interfere with the legislative department. It was a point which had often been urged by enlightened writers on constitutions of civil government. Without going into a consideration of these reasons, he was willing to vote for the resolution with an understanding, that such a provision as he had mentioned, should be inserted in the constitution.

GEN. ROOT called for the ayes and noes on the question of adopting the resolution.

MR. VAN BUREN. There will be many questions which will probably pass nearly unanimously. It will therefore be proper to have the ayes and noes taken, that the names of the members may be recorded. He therefore would second the call.

MR. FAIRLIE thought the amendment proposed by the committee ought first to be considered. Should that be adopted, it would then be proper to take up the resolution for abolishing the third article of the constitution. If this committee shall not agree to the amendment proposed, or any other, then we shall have abolished the third article of the constitution without having a substitute. The question on the resolution was then taken by ayes and noes, and it was adopted, (with Mr. Jay's amendment) unanimously; 121 members being pre

sent.

The amendment proposed by the committee was then again read.
MR. WHEELER moved that the committee rise and report.

MR. VAN BUREN. If any proposition by way of amendment or substitute is to be offered, it had better be done in committee of the whole. He was not aware that any was to be offered. He hoped, however, that the committee would not vise.

COL. YOUNG moved to amend the report of the committee, by striking out of the two last lines the words, "after the expiration of the said ten days." They were tautological. Carried.

MR. JAY, after a few remarks, in which he stated that there was a provision of the kind in the constitution of the United States, moved to add the following by way of amendment, to the substitute for the third article proposed by the committee:

"And every order, resolution or vote, to which the concurrence of the senate and assembly may be necessary, (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the governor, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the senate and house of assembly, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

MR. JAY wished it to lie on the table for consideration.

GEN. TALLMADGE suggested a verbal alteration, which was assented to by Mr. Jay.

COL. YOUNG hoped that the proposed amendment would not be adopted, because it would embarrass the proceedings of the legislature. He stated several inconveniencies which would in his opinion result from having every joint resolution of the two branches of the legislature submitted to the executive.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER did not believe the amendment necessary. A joint resolution is here never considered as a law. Mr. S. pointed out the difference between the cases, and the inapplicability of the provision in the constitution of the United States. It might be well to have a provision in the constitution. declaring that no money should be drawn from the treasury on the authority of

a resolution. He imagined that the gentleman, when he considered the di:ference between the United States' government, and the government of this state, would be willing to withdraw his motion.

MR. SHARPE really hoped that the principle contained in the resolution offered by the gentleman from Westchester (Mr. Jay) would not be established. It will greatly embarrass the proceedings of the legislature. Such a provision might be well in the constitution of the United States, but would have a bad effect here.

MR. TOMPKINS opposed the amendment as being wholly unnecessary. He considered that the remarks of the gentleman from Albany (Mr. Spencer) were perfectly correct. These joint resolutions are never considered as having the efficacy of laws; and he had never known any money drawn from the treasury on a joint resolution. But the legislature had on some occasions, voted an appropriation on some emergency, with a pledge that it would afterwards be provided for in some proper bill.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER thought there had been some instances in which money had been appropriated and drawn from the treasury by a joint resolution only.

MR. VAN BUREN spoke a few words, and adverted to the difference between the general government, and that of this state, in their respective modes of legislation. He had before opposed the motion to rise and report; but as this matter required consideration, he would now second that motion.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON rose to offer an amendment to the report presented by the chairman of the committee, for abolishing the third section of the constitution. We have by an unexampled degree of unanimity, determined that we would expunge that article of the constitution. It will be the object of this Convention, then, to adopt a substitute for that article, and to make it as wise and as wholesome as it is possible for the intellect of this body to do. It will be agreed on all hands, that there must be a check somewhere; and the chairman of the committee has reported, that it was the sense of that committee, that it should be reposed in the executive of the state. It will be observed by that report, that every bill which shall have passed both branches of the legislature, shall be sent to the executive. And should he put his veto upon it, and send it back, it is lost, unless two thirds of that branch where it originated, shall pass it, his objections to the contrary notwithstanding. The amendment which he should have the honour of submitting, will go to diminish that power. His object was not to interfere with the proposition to give the veto to the executive; but to provide that in the event of the bill coming back with his objections, it shall become a law if a majority of the house upon reconsideration, shall so determine. He would not at this time assign the reasons, but present it for the consideration of the Convention; and it would, he said, undoubtedly receive that attention, which so important an amendment deserves.

Mr. L. then submitted his proposition, as follows: Eleventh line, strike out the words "two thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill," and insert in licu thereof the following: "a majority of all the members elected to that house." Also, in the 15th line, strike out the words "two thirds of the members present," and insert in lieu thereof the following: "a majority of all the members elected to that house."

MR. TOMPKINS questioned whether the proposition of Mr. Livingston was in order. An amendment has been offered, and an amendment to that amendment, which must be determined before any new proposition can be admitted.

MR. SHARPE said he understood the gentleman from Westchester (Mr. Jay) to say that he wished his motion to lie on the table. Of course the gentleman from Dutchess (Mr. Livingston) was in order.

MR. TOMPKINS repeated his impressions upon the question of order.

MR. SHARPE said he understood that the reason the committee did not rise and report, was, that various propositions might be offered, in order that gentlemen of the committee might have them to reflect upon. If that be the sense of the Convention, he would be glad to receive as many as might be offered.

No vote was taken on the question of order; the amendment of Mr. Livingston, (which had not before been read) was received, and the committee of the whole rose and reported progress.

Some desultory debate arose upon a resolution of Mr. Wendover, that when in committee of the whole, the chairman of the committee should occupy the seat of the President. Mr. W. thought the seat of the chairman too low. He could not be heard in the part of the house where Mr. W. sat. His motion was lost.

Mr. Van Buren, after a few remarks, introduced the following resolution:

Resolved, That so much of the constitution as relates to the tenure of the office of chancellor, the chief justice, justices of the supreme court, and chief or first judge of the courts of common pleas, be referred to the committee on the judi ciary department; and that the committee on the appointing power be discharged from the consideration of the same.

Some considerable discussion, not of a very connected nature, took place upon this resolution, in which Messrs. Van Buren, Young, Munro, Tompkins, Spencer, and J. Sutherland, participated.

COL. YOUNG strenuously opposed the resolution. Among many other remarks, he said, he did not care how many propositions, upon various subjects, should be made. He remarked that it was not to be expected that the propo sitions of members, or the committees, would perfectly harmonize. We must not in this body look for the wisdom of Solomon. The work could not be like that of the temple. Where the sound of the hammer was not heard. The materials of the fabric must be adjusted, and the sound of the hammer must be heard.

MR. TOMPKINS said it appeared to him that the proposition of the gentleman from Otsego, (Mr. Van Buren,) was a very correct one. If this course be taken, we shall have every proposition before us in a distinct shape. Committees will understand to what bounds they are limited-there will consequently be no confusion-and the business of the convention will be transacted with greater expedition.

Some explanations were made between Messrs. Munro and Van Buren; and the resolution was adopted, and

The Convention adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1821. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. LACEY. The President took the chair at 11 o'clock, and the minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

THE COUNCIL OF REVISION.

On motion of Mr. Sharpe, the Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the unfinished business of yesterday.

MR. HUNTINGTON wishing to be excused, Mr. Sheldon was called to the chair.

MR. JAY made a few remarks upon the resolution which he had submitted yesterday, and answered the objections which had been made, viz: that joint resolutions had never been considered as having the efficacy of laws; and that it would be inconvenient for the legislature to be compelled to obtain the sanc tion of the executive to all joint resolutions. He had no doubt that it was the theory of our government, that resolutions should never have the efficacy of law: but on examination he found that the practice had been different: The journals of the legislature abound with resolutions which have had the effect of laws. There were at least twenty cases last winter of this kind. He found resolutions directing the comptroller to suspend the sale of lands for taxesdirecting the adjutant general to distribute a publication relative to the disci pline of the militia through the state, at the public expense, &c. &c. And in 1814, he found that a joint resolution directed the treasurer to pay over to certain gentlemen appointed Commissioners for that purpose, $50,000 for the