Page images
PDF
EPUB

members of both houses. The proposition to abolish the council of revision was unanimously adopted. Ambrose Spencer, then chief-justice, admitted the expediency of separating the judges from the legislative power, but opposed with zeal the vesting the power in the governor, unless he was made more independent of the legislature. Peter R. Livingston strenuously labored to obtain such a modification of the proposed amendment as would permit bills, returned with objections, to pass, if they should then receive the votes of two thirds of the members elected to each house. Jonas Platt, then a justice of the supreme court, and member of the council of revision, very earnestly insisted upon some more effective check on hasty and improper legislation than he thought would be secured by the veto of the governor dependent (as it was supposed he would be) on the legislature. Erastus Root opposed these views and supported the amendment, declaring, with his customary energy, that he deprecated the firmness which grew out of an independence of the popular voice to oppose the popular will. Chancellor Kent expressed his apprehension "that the sober-minded people of the state would not be satisfied to see so important a column of the constitution destroyed, without having it replaced by something more efficient in its character, and useful in its operation," than the qualified veto which was proposed. James Tallmadge supported the proposition in a speech of great ability, and evincing deep research into the history of government. Daniel D. Tompkins, who was the president of the convention, approved the principle of a qualified negative upon legislation, but opposed the conferring that power upon the governor alone, and proposed to establish a council to consist of the governor, lieutenant-governor, and attorney-general and others. He also proposed to confine the governor's veto to cases in which unconstitutional laws were offered for his signature. Abraham Van Vechten, Samuel Young, and John Duer, approved the plan proposed by the committee, and it was finally adopted.

Under the former constitution, the pardoning power was vested in the governor, except in capital cases. That power was now conferred on the governor, with unlimited power to pardon in all cases except treason; after a debate in which Mr. Tompkins, Ogden Edwards, David Buel, junior, Samuel Nelson, and Peter R. Livingston, endeavored to procure an amendment, by which

the governor should be obliged to assign reasons for granting executive clemency; which proposition was opposed by Mr. Kent, Mr. Platt, and others. Mr. Root endeavored to retain the legislative power of pardon in capital cases.

The power to prorogue the legislature, conferred by the old constitution, was abolished on motion of Mr. Root; but the convention was at one time almost equally divided on the question.

The term of the executive office, under the old constitution, was three years. It was now reduced to two; thirty-one members voting in favor of continuing the term three years; sixty-one voting to fix the term at two years, and fifty-nine for reducing it to one year.

Mr. Root made an unsuccessful effort to procure a provision in the constitution, inhibiting courts from granting new trials, after two verdicts had been rendered. Mr. Duer made a like effort to incorporate in the constitution an article, declaring that indictments should not be found for what was resolved in meetings of the people, peaceably convened to consider the action of the government.

The debates in the convention disclosed the fact that there were three opinions among its members on the question of suffrage. One of them contemplated retaining the qualification of a freehold, valued at two hundred and fifty dollars, as a condition of suffrage for senators. Nineteen members voted for this proposition, viz., Messrs. Bacon, Fish, Hees, Hunter, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Platt, Rhinelander, Rose, Sanders, I. Smith, Spencer, Sylvester, Van Horne, Van Ness, Van Vechten, E. Williams, and Woods. A second opinion was favorable to universal suffrage by white persons. This opinion was supported by Mr. Root, Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Radcliff, and Mr. Young. The third opinion was conservative and midway between the extremes; and it was supported by Messrs. Van Buren, King, Sutherland, Duer, Nelson, and Nathan Williams. The result was a compromise between these conflicting opinions. But so strong was the popular sentiment in favor of universal suffrage, that the constitution was amended five years afterward, so as to dispense with all other restrictions than those which are specified in our synopsis of that instrument. The exclusion of colored persons from suffrage, unless they had freeholds valued at two hundred and fifty dollars, was * Hammond's History.

VOL. II.--6

carried by a vote of seventy-one to thirty-three, and was based upon the ground that the African race were in a condition of hopeless degradation and ignorance. The proposition was opposed with great zeal and ability by Peter A. Jay.

One of the chief causes of discontent under the old constitution, was the manner in which the appointing power had been exercised by the council of appointment, which consisted of the governor and four senators chosen by the assembly. The council was abolished with great unanimity, many offices were rendered elective, and the power to fill others was distributed among several departments and functionaries, without important division among the members as to the principles of distribution.

It would be inconvenient to extend our notice of the convention. What has been written will perhaps be sufficient to show the spirit which prevailed in its deliberations, and to indicate some of the members who were influential in giving direction to its measures.

The year 1825 was signalized by the commencement of an undertaking which marks an era in the jurisprudence of the state. An act was passed, directing that all the existing statute laws should be revised and reduced into the form of a code, to be submitted to the legislature for review. This important duty was confided to John Duer, Benjamin F. Butler, and Henry Wheaton. Mr. Wheaton resigned the trust, and his place was filled by John C. Spencer. The gentlemen thus constituting the commission were three years engaged in performing its duties; and the legislature, on receiving their reports from time to time, passed upon the same, until in January, 1829, a perfect code was completed in four parts, as follows: Part I. Concerning the territorial limits and divisions, the civil polity, and the internal administration of the state; Part II. Concerning the acquisition, the enjoyment, and the transmission of real and personal property, the domestic relations, and other matters connected with private rights; Part III. Concerning courts and ministers of justice, and proceedings in civil cases; and Part IV. Concerning crimes and punishments, proceedings in criminal cases and prison discipline. The execution of this intricate and extensive work has been regarded, by many enlightened men, as a great advance toward the establishment of a unique and complete code. But the public mind is not now engaged in considering the practicability or expediency of such a measure.

The geographical position of the United States, and our principles of government, are alike unfavorable to conquest and military ambition. The popular mind has its action, therefore, directed toward physical improvement and the melioration of the condition of society; and in this state it has been especially engaged in improving those interior communications necessary to the maintenance of intimate political and social relations, the exchange of supplies, and provision for the public defence.

The destiny of our country seems to have been opened to the mind of Washington, with a clearness almost equal to that with which the varied career of the chosen people was revealed to their prophetic leader, on the sublime occasion when he was required to resign the trust he had so long faithfully discharged. Washington saw, that although the settlements of the United States had been clustering on the Atlantic coast during almost two centuries, yet the region, far more extensive, fertile, and salubrious, which lay beyond the proper borders of the thirteen states, would become the home of the larger portion of the American family; and that, if the natural barriers between that region and the east should remain unchanged, the west would, at no distant period, refuse political connection with the maritime. states; but that, if those barriers could be surmounted by roads, and pierced by canals, connecting the inland lakes and rivers with tidewater, the wealth and population of the whole country would be vastly increased; ample provision would be made for defending every part of our extended borders; and the states, new and old, would be bound "in an indissoluble union of interest and affection." In 1783, when he had proceeded up the difficult navigation of the Mohawk to Fort Stanwix, now the site of the village of Rome, and had crossed to Wood creek, which flows into Oneida lake, and thence had descended to the sources in this state of the Susquehannah, he gave expression to this glowing thought: "Taking a contemplative and extensive view of the vast inland navigation of the United States, I could not but be struck with the immense diffusion and importance of it, and with the goodness of that Providence who has dealt his favors to us with so profuse a hand. Would to God we may have wisdom to improve them !"*

Ideas like these soon afterward engaged the attention of phil

* Washington's letter to the Marquis of Chastellux.

osophic minds throughout the states, and it was perceived that in thus improving the inland navigation of the continent, the route for a communication between the inland waters and the sea, which should secure to itself the trade of the valley between the Allegany mountains and the Mississippi, would become an object of zealous competition.

The ocean, receiving homage through the valleys of the Mississippi and Ohio, the Potomac, the Susquehannah, the Delaware, the Hudson, and the St. Lawrence, seemed to invite through those various channels the accomplishment of the stupendous project.

By removing obstructions to the navigable flow of the continuous waters of the great lakes and of the St. Lawrence, ship navigation might be grasped six hundred miles up that river, and extended around the falls of Niagara into the waters of Lake Erie.

Citizens of Pennsylvania proposed to accomplish the same great purpose, by alternate land and water communications, surmounting the Alleganies, and employing in the transit between the Delaware and the lakes the waters of the Susquehannah and the Allegany.

The project of Maryland comprehended a diversion of trade from the Pennsylvania route at Pittsburgh, and a passage to tide water through the Potomac.

The comprehensive sagacity of Washington, as early as 1784, marked out a plan for securing to Virginia the trade of the regions in the vicinity of the lakes, by connecting the navigable waters of James river by portages, or other communications, with those of the Kenhawa, the Muskingum, and the rivers flowing into Lake Erie.*

The Mississippi offered an easy descending navigation almost from the shores of the lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. But the keys of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, which were the most obvious channels, were held by foreign powers, and neither their enterprise nor the condition of their colonies favored the spirit of competition which had been awakened in the new republic.

New York furnished a navigation through the Hudson, one hundred and eighty miles from tide water, and facilities for constructing a continuous channel for inland navigation across an * Washington's letter to Governor Harrison.

« PreviousContinue »