In Convention, Mr. SHARPE moved that the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, and that the same, together with whatever relates to the subject of appointment, not hitherto acted upon, be referred to a select committee.

After a desultory discussion of the subject, Mr. SHARPE withdrew his motion, to the end that gentlemen might take such course in relation to it as they might think proper.

COL. YOUNG then moved that the whole subject of the appointing power be referred to a select committee.

MR. BACON was unwilling to travel over those parts of the report of the select committee on that subject, which had been already passed over and settled. MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON reduced to writing the object of Mr. Young, and presented the same in the terms of the following resolution :

"That the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the report of the committee on the subject of the appointing power, and that the same be referred to a select committee of , to take the said report into consideration, and to make such amendments and to report the same as they may think proper."

COL. YOUNG assented to the resolution.

MR. VAN VECHTEN was opposed to referring this subject to a select committee. Such a committee would not be at liberty to give and take, as had been suggested, from the principles adopted by the Convention. It appeared to him we were treading back the ground we had once traversed, and were preparing to protract our business, of which the people were already weary.

MR. VAN BUREN was also opposed to this general reference. He thought it would create alarm and apprehension among the people, that the Convention were about to undo all they had done, and to extend the session to a great and unreasonable length.

COL. YOUNG contended that the reference ought to be general, and not in detached parts, as one might have an important bearing upon the other.

MR. EDWARDS said, that if any one subject had been thoroughly winnowed, it was this which respected the appointing power. The people were already wearied with our protracted session, and it was desirable to finish and complete our business as we advanced.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON advocated his resolution, and contended that great good had been produced by former and similar references.

MR. N. WILLIAMS rose to urge the propriety, at this stage of the discussion, on the appointing power, of referring the whole subject to a select committee. It was important not to lose time, but more important to the Convention, and the people, that every thing should be done with due deliberation.

The objection urged so strongly, that if the subject was now referred to a committee, the whole must be again discussed in the Convention, appeared to him not to have weight. The Committee would doubtless pay all proper regard to the principles settled in committee of the whole, and the report must be submitted sooner or later, to a special committee for revision and adjustment. But why, he asked, do we find such extreme anxiety expressed by certain gentlemen in the covention, to have the appointing power of the city of NewYork, acted on by itself? Have we not more than once been told by some of the honourable gentlemen from that city, that they were willing, nay, solicitous, to be placed on the same footing with the country in relation to appointments? And yet, now, when there is a prospect of attaining that desired object, by a reference of the whole to a select committee, who will be able to adjust and report a uniform plan, an alarm is excited, and objections are raised. Although he could not well comprehend all this discrepancy of action, he would be allowed to conjecture, and he would do it with all proper delicacy, that while there was some want of concert as to the regulation of city patronage and power, some of the honourable gentlemen from the city, came here perfectly well agreed as to their plans for governing the country; for they act on this point with fatal firmness, and almost entire unanimity. Indeed, he said,

the confusion on this subject had chiefly arisen from the various plans in relation to New-York, which had been laid upon our tables. One project had scarcely been printed and read, before another had come upon us by surprise ; and ere that was fully understood, the subject must be referred to a select committee. He would not object to this, and only asked that the whole report might go together.

He would say very little about the appointing power in New-York. He did not pretend to know much about it, and did not wish to embarrass the subject. As much power and patronage as it should be thought proper to be given to the common council of that city, he did not doubt would be executed discreetly, wisely, and justly. But the question was, how much should be given? Shall we give up to the city authority the whole regulation of that grand emporium, and thus create a power that might become, in process of time, greater than that of the state? He should question the wisdom of this. One honourable gentleman from that city had said, to be sure, that there was no danger in placing patronage in their hands, for it would be exercised by the fathers of the city. We had heard, said Mr. W. of the fathers of ancient Rome, the Patris Conscripti; and they were not backward to grasp at power when opportunity presented. They first governed the imperial city; then all Italy; and then extended the arm of power over the mightiest and most extensive government in the world. Should the powers of the city and state be separated, and become independent, the one of the other, great evils might arise; and these fathers of the city might, perchance, aim to be fathers of the state, and possibly endanger even the Grand Canal! [Here the gentleman was called to order; this subject was not before the Convention.] Mr. W. continued, and said he did not intend to be out of order, and intended to shew that the appointing power of the state, as well as of the city, in order to have a perfect whole, ought to be referred to the same select committee. And with this view, proceeded to urge further reasons why this course ought to be adopted.

A further debate ensued, in which Messrs. Ross and Briggs supported, and Messrs. Edwards, Van Buren, and Kent, opposed an unrestricted reference, when the question was taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the negative, as follows:

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Brooks, Buel, Carpenter, Carver, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lansing, Lefferts, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Park, Paulding, Pike, Pitcher, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Rose, Rosebrugh, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Seaman, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, R. Smith, I. Sutherland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, Woods-86.

AYES-Messrs. Barlow, Beckwith, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Burroughs, Case, Cramer, Fenton, Knowles, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, Nelson, Rockwell, Root, Ross, Russell, Schenck, Starkweather, Steele, Taylor, Wheeler, N. Williams, Wooster, Yates, Young-25.

MR. RADCLIFF then moved that that part of the report of the committee on the appointing power which had not hitherto been acted upon, be referred to a select committee. Carried.

COL. YOUNG moved that the same be referred to the delegates from the city and county of New-York. Lost.

It was then ordered that said committee consist of the number of thirteen. MR. MUNRO offered a resolution, which after amendments by the mover, and by the Convention, was referred to the foregoing committee, as follows:

"Resolved, That the mayor of the city of New-York ought to be appointed by the governor, with the consent of the senate."

MR. Ross proposed to refer the following resolution to the same committee:

"That in each of the towns of this state, there shall be elected at the annual town meetings thereof, one coroner, who shall be, ex-officio, a commissioner for taking acknowledgments, and who shall, before entering on the dudes of his office, take and subscribe the oath of office before the clerk of the county." Lost.

On motion of MR. BUEL, so much of the report of the committee on the legislative department, as had not been referred to the new select committee, was referred to a committee of the whole, and the Convention thereupon resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on so much thereof as relates to the bill of rights, which had been referred to this committee.-Mr. Van Buren in the chair.

The resolution of GEN. TALLMADGE, in relation to slavery and involuntary servitude, was called up.

MR. SHELDON thought it ought not to pass. It went to authorize a master, after his slave had become old, decrepit, and useless, to throw him as a burthen on the community.

COL. YOUNG said it was too broad. It would release the apprentice from his indentures, and, in a great measure, tend to weaken parental authority.

GEN. TALLMADGE would make a few remarks explanatory of the resolution which he had the honour to submit. He alluded to the law of 1799, which enacted, that all children born of slaves after that time should be free,-males at the age of twenty-eight years, and females at the age of twenty-five. But the law of 1817, made no provision that would prevent the existence of slavery in this state until 1846, as it was to operate only prospectively. These acts, however, indicated the sentiment of the public, and were in the nature of a pledge, which ought to be redeemed by inserting this provision in the constitution. It was a mistake, he said, that slavery would, by the existing laws, cease in this state, in the year 1827; but he hoped the Convention would decide, that it should not continue after that time. In such case, the legislature would have an opportunity, before that period, to make proper provision for their support during their second infancy.

MR. SHARPE was opposed to the resolution.

GEN. ROOT had two solid objections to it, and one of minor importance. It provided that "from and after the 4th day of July, 1827," the slaves should be free. He did not know why their annual festival should be put off one day la ter than that of the whites. Ours is held on the 4th, but theirs is postponed to the 5th.

But he had objections of more importance. The first was, that it was unnecessary, as the legislature had already done what this provision contemplated their doing, and there was an act of that kind, that there was no probability they would ever recal. In the second place, he did not wish to deface and blacken the constitution by any provision in which slavery should be recognized.

MR. RADCLIFF regarded it as a proper subject for legislation. He was not an advocate for slavery, but he thought the legislature had advanced with equal pace in the progress of public opinion, on the subject of emancipation.

MR. BRIGGS thought that posterity would find out that we had slaves here, whether we blackened the features of the constitution with them or not.

MR. BUEL was in favour of the resolution. The gentleman from Delaware is disposed to omit this provision in the constitution, and is opposed to blackening that instrument by introducing it. But our public records recognize the fact of the existence of slavery, and it had already been inserted in the constitution in the distinction between white and black votes in the exercise of the right of suffrage. It was an important provision, and the subject ought not to be left to legislative discretion. Justice required it, and public expectation would warrant its insertion.

MR. E. WILLIAMS opposed it. It was a clause in favour of common beggars. Nothing was more interesting to the people than the system of the poor laws. Work-houses had been established with salutary effect, and he believed that these slaves turned loose would become strolling paupers, and would be wil ling to remain so if they could avoid labour.

MR. BRIGGS said, that if in the work-houses they were compelled to labour, it was with their own consent.

MR. SUTHERLAND proposed to offer a substitute if this should be rejected, the purport of which was, to confirm and make unalterable the existing laws on the subject of slavery.

MR. SHARPE observed, that this resolution would turn slaves out of the warm kitchens of the farmers, where they had lived comfortably, to perish in hovels. It was injurious to the slave. Slaves had been sold on the faith of the law as now existing. Formerly, if a slave ran away, $100 dollars reward was offered for his apprehension. Now the kitchens of Long-Island are emptied upon the city of New-York, and the reward offered is SIX CENTS, but no charges!

GEN. TALLMADGE asked, in relation to the subject of work-houses, whether gentlemen intended to repeal the law providing for their liberation in 1827? If they did not, it was our moral duty, by a constitutional provision, to guaranty their emancipation. The law makes slaves of those children who were born of slaves after 1799, and before 1817, so that instead of a total emancipation in 1827, slavery might be continued in this state until 1846, unless this provision should be adopted.

GEN. ROOT moved to amend, by striking out the words "from and after the 4th day of July, 1827." Carried.

On the section as amended.

MR. N. WILLIAMS thought it was a matter peculiarly appropriate to legisiation, but he was not willing to let slaves loose on society, without any provision for their support.

MR. JAY professed himself to be zealous in the cause of emancipation, but he thought the law, as it now stands, was more wise and expedient than an immediate freedom. The cause of humanity would gain nothing by instant emancipation.

CHANCELLOR KENT believed, that if a call for the previous question was ever proper, it was peculiarly so on the present occasion. He had no doubt that it was best, as well for the slave as the master, that the law should remain as it is. Slavery was universally reprobated, and no new constitutional provision was necessary to give that sentiment additional impulse. It would in his opinion be as proper to provide that the legislature should make no law to hang a man without a trial-or a law in favour of polygamy, or laws that might tolerate a violation of the commandments of the decalogue.

MR. RADCLIFF moved to postpone the subject to the first day of January next. GEN. TALLMADGE, thought nothing could be gained by endeavouring to face the question.

MR. E. WILLIAMS remarked, that this was the first proposition that had been presented for the confiscation of vested rights. Masters had rights that ought not to be violated; and as to the slave it was a crusade against the last remaining hope of the miserable African. He has now a claim to support—a claim which the laws of God and man contribute to enforce. By this provision the master and the slave would be severed, and the rights of both essentially impaired.

The Ayes and Noes being called for, the question of postponement was decided in the negative as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Bacon, Breese, Carpenter, D. Clark, Collins, Dodge, Dubois, Dyckman, Fish, Frost, Hees, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Huntington, Hurd, Kent, King, Lefferts, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Paulding, Pike, Porter, Radcliff, Reeve, Richards, Rosebrugh, Sage, Seaman, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Swift, Taylor, Townley, Townsend, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Verbryck, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheeler, E. Williams, Woods, N. Williams, Wooster.-50.

NOES-Messrs. Beckwith, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carver, Case, Child, R. Clarke, Clyde, Cramer, Day, Duer, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Hallock, Hogeboom, Howe, Hunter, Jay, Knowles, Lansing, A. Livingston, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Park, Pitcher, Price, Pumpelly, Rhinelander, Rockwell, Rogers, Root, Ross, Russell, N. Sanford, R.

Sandford, Schenck, Seely, Steele, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Fleet, Ward, A. Webster, Wheaton, Young-54.

MR. RADCLIFF moved to amend by adding" and the legislature shall provide by law for their support by their present masters." Lost.

MR. N. WILLIAMS then moved the previous question, which was carried, and a division being called on the main question, it was decided in the negative, as follows:

NOES--Messrs. Bacon, Barlow, Breese, Brinkerhoff, D. Clark, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lansing, Lefferts, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Munro, Nelson, Paulding, Pike, Porter, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Rockwell, Russell, Sage, R. Sanford, Schenck, Seaman, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, I. Sutherland, Swift, Sylvester, Taylor, Tuttle, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Verbrick, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Wheeler, E. Williams, N. Williams, Wooster, Young-73.

AYES-Messrs. Beckwith, Briggs, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Ferris, Hogeboom, Huntington, Hurd, A. Livingston, Moore, Park, Pitcher, Price, Richards, Rogers, Root, Rosebrugh, Ross, N. Sanford, Tallmadge, Tripp, Van Fleet, Woods-33

The committee thereupon rose and reported: and on motion, in Convention, the report of the committee on the Judiciary Department was made the order of the day for to-morrow. Adjourned.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1821.

The Convention assembled as usual, and the President took the chair at 9 o'clock, when the minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

On motion of MR. N. SANFORD, the Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole on that part of the unfinished business of yesterday, relating to the Legislative Department. Mr. Van Buren in the chair.

The question was stated to be on the fourth section of the report of the select committee, on the bill of rights, which had been referred to this committee, and which was as follows:

"4. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall ever be passed to curtail, or restrain the liberty of speech, or of the press; and in all prosecutions, or indictments, for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, if it be made to appear, that the matter charged as libellous, was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."

MR. BRIGGS called for the consideration of his amendment to that section which was, to insert after the words, "the truth shall be given in evidence," the words" and shall be a justification."

The question on the amendment was taken and lost."

MR. N. SANFORD offered the following amendment :

Strike out all after the word "evidence," and insert the following: "to the jury, if it be made to appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous, was published from good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted."

Mr. E. WILLIAMs inquired whether it was intended that the truth might in