was, which political party should get foremost astride of it, and spend with the greatest profusion the public treasure. It was not his expectation that all the golden promises would be realized. On that point, as on many others connected with it, his hopes were few and feeble; but he did feel, that it was both his right and his duty to claim the punctual and assured fulfilment of that pledge which the statute book had recorded.

MR. BACON said, that it could not be concealed, that this question was one which had some local bearings on a particular part of the state, over other parts; to be called to act on such a question, was always undesirable, and placed the representative of that portion of the state who were more particularly affected, in a most invidious and unwelcome situation. If he voted in favour of that interest, his conduct would probably be attributed to personal or local interest, and if he voted against it, it might appear like the affectation of magnanimity which could not be appreciated, and might be noticed only to be scoffed at. In the vote which he thought it his duty to give, he would make no such professions. Where the interest of his constituents, or of the state at large, was in question, he had no right to be magnanimous in the ordinary acceptation of the term. He professed to be governed only by considerations of what he thought was required by general principles of justice and good policy to the interests of the state, and was not inconsistent with the true interests of the district which he in part represented. Such, in his view, was the provision reported by the select committee, and he was willing to adopt it.

It could not be doubted, that although the great public and private benefits to be derived from the future use of the canals, and the revenue expected from them, were in some good degree common to the great body of the people of the state, yet in some respects they would undoubtedly be more particularly beneficial to that portion of the people inhabiting the western and northern sections of it, and they might therefore, reasonably be expected to contribute something more than their equal share, or at least to hazard something more towards refunding the sums advanced for their construction. It was in that view, that the $250,000 tax on lands adjacent to them, was originally contemplated; that however had been suspended, and he had no doubt would be entirely abandoned, because it had been, and ever would be, found impracticable to be exccuted with any tolerable equality, and so expensive in its collection, as to render it not worth the cost of effecting it.

The legislature had, however, laid a small duty upon salt manufactured in the western district, and the canal commissioners had established a rate of tolls upon all articles passing on the canals. This duty, and these tolls, it was conceded on all hands, were extremely small and moderate in their amount, and no one now complained of them. It might, however, be more for the immediate and supposed interest of that portion of the inhabitants, who consumed that salt, and who transported their commodities on the canals, to have both these impositions either essentially reduced, or wholly abolished. No one contended now, that such a wish was a reasonable one, or would venture to advocate it. But it was a question touching the local interests of large bodies of people; the temptation to regard only those interests was a strong one, and the subject was one on which they were always liable to be excited and agitated by designing and ambitious men. It was a spirit, which, whenever awakened, could not be resisted, even by those more considerate amongst them who thought it unwise. In all future struggles of parties, it was to be feared if this question was left open, that rival factions would ever resort to it in every election, for the purpose of gaining partizans to their standard, and every candidate for a popular election, must stand pledged to the repeal of the salt tax, and the canal tolls, to ensure his success, and thus, not only the district, but the state, would be brought in perpetual agitation; for he was yet to learn that there was any project so profligate that some faction could not be found who were willing to force it into their service, when it could serve a temporary or local object. We had already sufficient materials for that purpose, and those who were willing to spend their lives in tending the fires of faction, or in quelling them, were welcome to the employment. It was his wish to remove them so far as might be from their reach. He would put it to gentlemen, who with himself

represented that section of the country, whether if this proposition of paying these duties and tolls, at their present low rate, as the condition of having the canals constructed and completed, had been originally offered to them and to their constituents, they would not, one and all, have at once and cheerfully closed with it, as a most fair and advantageous bargain on their part. Most certainly no one would have hesitated. What, then, we should gladly have done originally, he was willing now to comply with, trusting to the moderation and good sense of those people for kis justification. It has been from the enlarged and liberal views of the state at large, that they have been furnished with this great avenue to the ocean, and he was willing to meet these views with a corresponding spirit of justice and good faith, on the part of those who unquestionably would derive from it some advantages peculiar to themselves. Whether he should, in this course, stand singular and alone, he knew not. It was sufficient for him, that he complied with what was his own sense of justice and good feeling towards every portion of the people of this state, and he would not, in this view accede to the amendment proposed to the section by the gentleman from Erie.

MR. KING remarked, that it seemed to be supposed that a jealousy existed in the southern and eastern parts of the state, greater than the occasion would justify. He would advert to a case that he thought in point. The treaties with France, Holland, and other foreign powers, during the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the constitution, contained provisions to secure the repayment of monies borrowed, not only of pledged faith, but such as made the obligation on the territory the land of the states. And these treaties, with such provisions, were declared to be not merely contracts, but the supreme law of the land.

CHANCELLOR KENT was also opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Erie, and adverted to the recent constitution of Connecticut, in which the charter of Yale College, the school fund, and pecuniary obligations, were laid under a renewed, constitutional pledge. We were now about to change our constitution from the beginning to the end. Would it, then, be expedient, or wise, to shrink from a measure to give stability to public credit, which it was our interest and glory to support? The furtherance of the canal must depend upon future loans, and would money-holders hereafter trust the state, when it was found that they would not, by a solemn constitutional act, confirm the pledges already given? Would it not create a distrust that would be extremely injurious? Better would it have been that the question had never been agitated, than agitated and rejected. To leave it to the legislature under these circumstances, would be injurious to that public credit, which, like the delicacy of female reputation, could be maintained and assured by a substantial verdict in its favour. The legislature is a fluctuating body. It rises and falls like the mercury in a thermometer, and if this amendment should be adopted, public credit would, in his opinion, sink fifty per cent. It would be like referring to a mortgagor the power of diminishing the number of acres included in a mortgage. He agreed with the gentleman from Saratoga, that there was a common interest to the various parts of the state, which it was the duty of every friend of his country solicitously to preserve and foster.

MR. NELSON replied-he said he regretted with the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Kent,) that this subject had ever been brought into discussion in this Convention: and if the consequences were to follow from a rejection of this part of the section, which he predicted, (a fall of our credit fifty per cent.) he (Mr. Nelson) felt no part of the responsibility. He found the section in the report, and he felt bound by every principle to resist its adoption. In his conscience he could not give a vote which would transmit to posterity the record of sectional jealousies, of a want of confidence of one part of the state in the other. He was willing, as it regarded his rights or interests in this community, to trust the legislature on subjects exclusively of legislation, but if he professed the same feelings toward the people of the south and the east which they evinced toward the west, he certainly should think it desirable to have the salt tax fixed in the constitution beyond which the legislature could not go, lest they might hereafter be disposed to increase it unreasonably.

He felt no such apprehension. He was willing to trust to the wisdom and discretion and justice of those who come after us.

MR. VAN VECHTEN was disposed to have the pledge received in the constitution. Money had been borrowed upon the pledge of the state, that the duties on salt, and the taxes arising from transportation on the canal, should be appropriated to the extinction of the debt thus incurred. Such a pledge would be binding on individuals, and if so, it was binding upon the legislature, and as they were the representatives of the people, the people must be bound by the acts of the legislature, We are told that this looks like a want of confidence

in the people of the west. Are we not all equally bound? This pledge cannot be broken without destroying our government; as individuals could not do it, we cannot do it as a public body. This is a subject in which the people in the western part of the state are deeply interested, and attempts have already been made to modify or exempt the duty on salt. If these attempts have been already made, what may we not expect in future. It will be wise in us, and discreet, to fix this whilst it is within our power, and let the western people know. that this pledge must be redeemed.

The question on Mr. Russell's amendment, was thereupon taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the negative, as follows:

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Breese, Briggs, Buel, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Cramer, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hogeboom, Hunt, Hunter, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Paulding, Price, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rockwell, Root, Rose, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Seaman, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Townsend, Tripp, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Woods, Woodward, Yates, Young-69.

AYES-Messrs. Beckwith, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Clyde, Collins, Day, Eastwood, Fenton, Ferris, Howe, Humphrey, Huntington, M Call, Nelson, Park, Pike, Pumpelly, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Seely, R. Smith, Swift, Taylor, Townley, Van Fleet, E. Webster, Wheeler, Wooster-33.

MR. KING moved to strike out that part of the section which related to lottesies. Carried.

The committee then rose and reported, and the Convention adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1821. The Convention met at the usual hour, when the journals of yesterday were read and approved.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

The Convention then again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the unfinished business of yesterday (the legislative department.)—Mr. Van Buren in the chair.

The question was on so much of the 12th section of the report of the select committee as relates to a constitutional guarantee of the salt duties and tolls, to the completion and reimbursements of the expenditures in relation to the grand canal.

MR. NELSON moved to insert after the word " aforesaid" in the twenty-third line, the following words :

"Nor the duties on goods sold at auction aforesaid, as established by the act of the legislature, passed April 5, 1817, nor the amount of the revenue established by the act of the legislature of March 30, 1820, in lieu of the tax upon steamboat passengers."

Mr. Nelson explained the object of his amendment. He said the select committee had fixed in the constitution the amount of the salt tax, and taken away all legislative discretion as to its reduction. The act of 1819, which imposed the salt tax, and appropriated it to the canal fund, also appropriated to the same object the duty on sales at auction and the steam-boat tax. If it was right and just that the one tax should be fixed in the constitution, it was right that the two others should be so fixed. If the moral integrity of the people of this state required that the salt tax should be pledged in the constitution for the benefit of the canal fund, it also required that the duty on sales at auction and steam-boat revenue should be pledged.

MR. KING referred to the act of the legislature. The duties on salt were specifically enumerated. So the tolls on the canal were pledged, but no rate specified. The report is that the rates shall not be diminished, though they may be increased. The canal commissioners, it is understood, have fixed tolls on the canal at a very low rate, which may probably hereafter be increased. The duties on sales at auction must be graduated by the duties imposed on them by the government of the United States. The government of this state, in case of collision, would probably have to yield, or the business would be transferred to other states where no such constitutional impediment existed. The amount of these duties is in its nature uncertain; and he did not think it possible to define that amount.

The specific revenue intended by the report to be guaranteed, is that which is connected with the expenditure and arising out of it. The steam-boat tax and auction duties were indeed made auxiliary to the carrying on of this great work but cannot be said to be naturally connected with it.

The commutation of the steam-boat tax was certainly some evidence of the facility with which legislatures may interfere with pledges, however solemnly made, and tended to shew the expediency of a constitutional recognition. These revenues, especially that derived from sales at auction, were precarious, and not considerable in amount. On the whole, he submitted to the committee whether it was expedient so to fix down the duties on sales at auction, as that by the interposition of the general government, all revenue derivable from them may utterly ceasc.

MR. SHARPE was in favour of the amendment. He was disposed to gurantee all the pledges that had been made by the legislature. The steam-boat commutation was justified on two grounds. The citizens of other states questioned the constitutionality of taxing them for passing through the state, and should the question be decided unfavourably to the law, all that revenue would be lost for ever. Besides, it was to continue coeval with the exclusive privilege of the steam-boat company, and would secure to the people of this state a certain revenue as long as that monopoly existed.

On the score of economy-it would not be lost sight of, that the commissioners of the canal fund were authorised to borrow two millions of dollars, and will probably be able to borrow at ten per cent. less, than if the fund is left to float upon legislative discretion.

MR. Ross. I perceive, Mr. Chairman, by the vote taken yesterday, on the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Russell,) that the determination of this Convention is, to fix in the constitution a perpetual duty on salt manufactured in the western district. I regret it, sir, because it throws another obstacle in the way of its adoption. It would be better to be left as we find it, subject to legislative discretion. But gentlemen insist that the duty of one shilling a bushed on salt, and a certain rate of toll, on the canal, thall be fixed by the constitution, because the state has pledged them as a fund for securing the repayment of money borrowed for the purpose of opening and constructing the canals. Then why not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cortland, (Mr. Nelson,) and take in all the items thus pledged, so as in some small degree, to equalize the burthen. His amendment embraces other duties pledged by the state, with equal solemnity, and for the same objects. According to his amendment, the duties arising from sales at auction, as well as the commutation for the tax on steam boat passengers, have becn pledged by law, and ought, therefore, to be secured by constitutional provision, as much as the duty on salt, or tolls on the canal, otherwise you are

certain to create a jealousy between different sections of the state-this it would be well to avoid. The young lion which, it has been said, is now so easily bound, may soon increase in strength sufficient to burst his chains, and be relieved from the unequal operation of duties, by voting a direct tax. The western citizens are willing to be taxed, and to bear a liberal share of the expense incurred by constructing the canal. But they are unwilling to be liable to bear the whole burthen by an unalterable constitutional decree, which has an exclusive operation on them, unless the same rule is adopted which has a like application else where. The western district is not the only part of the state which is to derive benefit from this great work. It will, when finished, be more extensively beneficial to the city of New-York, than any other part of the state. Gentlemen from that quarter ought not to sculk from a proposi tion to fix in the constitution the duties on sales at auction, and the steam boat commutation, because they have a more immediate effect on them, unless they will consent to exclude the whole from the constitution. But it is contended, that it is less proper to insert these duties in the constitution, because they are laid on private property. The canals and the salt works at Salina are public property, it is true-but are not the works at Montezuma private property? And are you not endeavouring to fix the same duty of one shilling a bushel on all salt manufactured at those works? However it seems to be immaterial whether it be public or private property, on which the duty is laid, so long as its operation is confined to that part of the state. But I hope gentlemen will, at least, be liberal enough to put all the funds provided by law for these objects, on an equal basis. If they must be fixed in the constitution, let them all go together, more especially as those that have their effect here, and to the south, are so trifling, compared with those that have their operation to the west. It has been said that in the western district, we are furnished with salt cheaper than before the duties were laid. I believe this is true. But is it in consequence of the imposition of a duty on that article? I think we shall hardly be persuaded into such a belief. No, sir, the price of every thing has fallenand salt is very high compared with other articles, and it cannot be purchased with any thing but money. It is true, that it is often sold at a sacrifice, in order to obtain cash to pay the duties. These sales are forced, and it is becoming so difficult to raise money sufficient to satisfy the duties, that the manufacture of salt is diminishing to a very great extent. I am well persuaded, that if the duty was half the amount that is now imposed, the revenue to the state would be full equal to the present amount. When laws were passed pledging those duties, and money was borrowed under those pledges, the creditors of the state had no right to expect that the constitution would be altered at all, and since its being amended does not destroy the validity of contracts or laws passed under the present constitution, they have no claim to alter their indemnity. But, sir, if we are to recognize any part of these contracts, let it be for the whole, by adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cortland, (Mr. Nelson.)

MR. KING moved for a division of the amendment, and the question on the first part thereof being taken thereon by ayes and noes, was decided in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES Messrs. Bacon, Barlow, Beckwith, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, D. Clark, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Duer, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hurd, Knowles, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Nelson, Park, Pike, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rockwell, Rogers, Root, Rose, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Seely, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, J. Sutherland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Taylor, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Van Fleet, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wheaton, N. Williams, Woodward, Wooster, Yates, Young-88.

NOES-Messrs. Baker, Breese, R. Clarke, Dubois, Dyckman, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Munro, Paulding, Pitcher, Sanders, Seaman, Sheldon, S. Van Rensselaer, Wendover, Wheeler, Woods-20.