would be a safe, a sure, and pure system, which would secure to their successors the blessings which inevitably follow from having our offices filled by men of character, talents, and integrity.

But what has been the result, and what character has experience stamped upon the proceedings of the old council. The members of the legislature interfered in the proceedings of the council; they became candidates for every office in its gift; they elected the council with this view, and to further their own private ends. Members of the council have interfered with the legislature, and procured the passage of laws, and incorporated banks against the interest and wishes of the people; and to further their own private views, and the engine that procured these votes, and the passage of these laws, was the council. The scenes I allude to, are fresh in the memory of every member of this committee -Thus we see this system so pure in theory, has, in practice, degenerated, and every species of corruption is carried on under its banners.

But, Mr. Chairman, the system of the gentleman from Erie, (Col. Russell) at present under debate, is still more objectionable.

It is in substance the old council, with two additional members, and with all its frailties.

It would give rise to party spirit, strife, and contention, in every district in the state-Intrigue and corruption would exist throughout-each member of the council would be elected for eight or nine counties. He could not possibly be acquainted with the candidates from the different parts of his district-he would be imposed on by the designing, the corrupt, and the selfish from every quarter he would not be responsible. The senator in the old council, had his character of senator at stake, his standing in society; he was elected for other purposes, and with other views, and his office of member of the council, was only incidental to his other duties; but in this case, he is elected for the sole purpose, and has no other responsibility whatever-This patronage is great; he has by this amendment of the gentleman from Erie, a right to nominate all the officers of his district; this would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and what security have we against his being bribed and corrupted-we have heard ofsuch thing sin our legislature, and how much more likely would this irresponsible member of the council be to commit the same crime.

The proposition of the gentleman from Oneida, (Mr. Platt) is liable to every one of the above objections, though on a smaller scale, and with this additional one, that it would tend to increase party spirit, dissensions, and divisions in the community, in a much greater degree.

Let us now for one moment, Mr. Chairman, examine the system reported by the committee of which Mr. Van Buren was chairman. This report gives the sole nomination to the governor, by and with the advice of the senate. To separate the legislative, the executive, and judicial departments of government, appears to be the wish of all.

The governor has by this report the sole power of nominating; there could be, therefore, no legislative connivance-none of that species of corruption could possibly exist-the members of the senate could not know, (unless privately consulted) who was to be nominated, and their opinions on legislative matters would not be influenced thereby. The members of the senate have only the approval or disapproval-they are thirty-two in number, and there could be no use, and scarcely a possibility of corrupting them.

The members of our legislature, are, by a provision in the constitution, debarred from accepting any office whatever; they could not, then, as formerly, return to their constituents loaded with every valuable office.

Upon the whole, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced, that as it is necessary this appointing power should exist somewhere, that there are fewer evils to be apprehended from this system, than any one I have heard suggested, and inas much as the character of the governor is necessarily connected with the nominations and appointments he shall make, and I consider him responsible to the people for every one of them, and as we elect him annually, we can confidently rely on a faithful discharge of his arduous duties, and I feel a perfect conviction that the report of the committee affords the best system, and it shall receive my

vote.

MR. Ross. Mr. Chairman, permit me to ask the indulgence of the committee a few minutes, whilst I notice some of the singular views and representations just submitted by the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Edwards.) He appears to be labouring to excite alarms, by imputing to the advocates of this amendment, sentiments I have heard no one yet advance, and I will venture to say, no one entertains.

In relation to the general appointing power, it would seem to be inferred from his arguments, that if it was made elective by the people in districts, as proposed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Russell,) all the officers heretofore appointed by the present council, would be lodged in the hands of this new appointing power. I have heard no such wish or intention expressed, nor do I believe any such sentiment to exist among the supporters of this amendment. On the contrary, the necessity of distributing the power of appointments as much as possible, has been urged by all, at least in every part of the house where any opinions have been expressed. I cannot hesitate to declare my entire and settled conviction, that a distribution of this power, is both wise and expedient. To accomplish this object, many of the officers heretofore appointed, should be made elective. Military, and all local ministerial officers, such as county clerks, commissioners for taking acknowledgments, &c. ought by all means to be elected by the people whom they are

to serve.

But, sir, when gentlemen (Messrs. Spencer and Edwards) urge the propriety of electing judicial officers, such as magistrates, and tell us too that the people call for it, it seems impossible that they should be sincere. That effects, the most pernicious and detrimental to the public welfare, would flow from making any judicial officers elective, particularly magistrates, I think must be manifest to all. Independently of the agitations, management and strife, incident to such elections, and which will be sufficient to deter sober, discreet men, from entering into competitions to obtain the office, it will destroy all confidence in the independence and impartiality of our magistrates.

Wherever these elections are contested, as they will be, the candidates cannot help but know who have opposed, as well as those who have advocated their election. In this respect, they are altogether more unpleasantly situated than judicial officers of a higher grade, were they to be made elective. During the heat of elections, it would be natural that many unfriendly tales and aspersions would be told, and set afloat to prevent the election of candidates, who might notwithstanding be successful. I ask, would not the magistrate, in deciding on the rights and interests of his friends and opponents, thus situated, be liable to be warped by prejudice? It would be scarcely possible for some men to avoid it. It is human nature to be more or less influenced by such considerations. Electing men to the office of justice of the peace, would not exempt them from the frailties of our nature, nor would it insure the selection of men of such an elevated cast of mind, as to look with indifference to the anxiety of a political friend. If I mistake not, it would oftener lead to a selection of an opposite description.

Supposing the magistrate to be the most honest man living, he would not be in a situation to exercise his cool unbiassed judgment. He would be constantly exposed to the imputation of partiality, to avoid which, and to guard against the bias of his own feelings, he might even prejudice the rights of his friend, while one of an opposite character, or of strong passions, might do great injustice to his opponent when called upon to decide between parties thus situated. The office of justice of the peace is not of trifling importance, for under the present increased jurisdiction those offices adjudicate upon a greater amount of property, in the aggregate, than all other courts in the state.-Hence the importance of preserving a confidence in their decisions.-Otherwise we lay the foundation for multiplying appeals, and perhaps of ultimately cutting off entirely their civil jurisdiction. To some engaged in the law, this might be a de sirable state of things, but to all other classes of citizens, it would be disastrous. In most cases a small majority, and even a minority in many instances of a single town, would elect magistrates to serve the people of a whole county. This, sir, is a principle novel and unsound-because it entirely departs from

the representative systern, by creating officers to exercise jurisdiction over us, without our consent, directly or indirectly, and over whom we have no control. Besides, sir, the common sense of the American people, as well as of all other countries, has decided against the correctness of this mode of creating judicial officers. If they have not so decided, and so much good would result from this mode as is pretended, why is it not every where adopted? Why is it left for Ohio and one other state to furnish the only solitary examples? It is well known, too, that in these instances the people would be glad to change it for any other mode. But, says the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Edwards,) it is not only just and right in principle, but the people have called for it. Sir, as far as I know their wishes, no such call has been made, unless it be some who expect to derive some sinister or political advantage at the expense of the public interest.

Notwithstanding I am opposed to the election of magistrates and all other judicial officers, yet it is certainly my wish, that a great proportion of the officers, both civil and military, that have been heretofore appointed, should be elected by the people, and which, I think, can be done with the utmost safety and convenience.

This I be

But after all, there must still be some general appointing power. lieve is confessed by all. In whose hands then shall it be placed? I apprehend in none, so safely as in a council elected by the people, in districts, according to the scheme proposed by the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Russell.)

I am aware that no plan can be devised, that will be entirely free from objections. But among the variety of projects submitted by different gentlemen, I am enclined to think this is liable to the fewest objections. The members chosen in this manner, come together possessing a general knowledge of their own districts, and will doubtless receive instructions from the people whom they represent, in relation to appointments fit and proper to be made. They will also be directly responsible to their constituents, for the faithful execution of the trust reposed in them. The provision requiring them to hold their ses- ' sions at a different time from that of the legislature, deserves the highest approbation, because the power of appointing to office, ought never to mingle with the business of legislation. Its connection has already produced much evil, and has furnished the true cause of complaint against the present council. Instead, sir, of this mode of appointment being objectionable, on the ground of expense, as has been urged, it has the decided preference to that of connecting it with either branch of the legislature, on the principle of economy.

But, sir, the unusual jealousies and fears manifested by gentlemen from NewYork, with regard to having any appointments made here, and the great anxiety to cut off all connection and community of interest between the different counties, and the general appointing power, I apprehend will not lead to any useful results, if too much indulged. Whether certain men in, or out of Albany, have been in the habit of interfering too much with appointments, I shall not undertake to decide.

But should the amendment now submitted, be adopted, I think there would be very little danger of any improper interference, since the members thus elected, except the governor, are ineligible to any other office.

The question was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the negative as follows:

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Buel, Carver, Case, Child, R. Clarke,Clyde, Collins, Day, Dodge, Dubuis, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, A. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Park, Paulding, Pike, Pitcher, Platt, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Root, Rose, Rosebrugh, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Seaman, Seeley, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, Starkweather, Steele, D. Southerland, I. Sutherland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Townley, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Van Horne, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten. Ward, E.

Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Wheeler, E. Williams, N. Williams, Wood, Woodward, Yates, Young-108.

AYES-Messrs. Brooks, Burroughs, Cramer, Lansing, Lefferts, President, Russell, Sheldon, Taylor—9.

A question of order then ensued, when on motion of JUDGE VAN NESS, the committee proceeded to test the principle of constituting the governor (with the approving power of the senate) the general or supreme appointing power of the state, by dividing the section, so as to limit the question at the word "appoint;" whereupon the same was put and carried.

GEN. ROOT then moved to strike out the words "sheriffs," and after a discussion at some length, in which Messrs. Root, Van Ness, Briggs, Brooks, Van Buren, and Sharpe took part, the question was taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the affirmative by all the members present, excepting Messrs. Bowman and Paulding, who voted in the negative.

JUDGE PLATT then moved to insert, after the word "appoint," the following words, viz:

"The chancellor, chief justice, and justices of the supreme court, the first judge of each county, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and all judicial officers, hereafter to be created, whose tenure of office shall be that of good behaviour.

After a debate of some length between Messrs. Platt, Munro, Spencer, and Birdseye, Mr. Platt withdrew his motion, and suggested that he would introduce the proposition seriatim. He thereupon moved to insert next after the word "appoint," the words "the chancellor." Messrs. Root and Young op. posed the motion, which was put and lost.

MR. Van BUREN then moved specifically an adoption of the proposition he this morning had the honour to suggest in the course of his remarks on the proposition of the gentleman from Erie (Mr. Russell.) He wished those words added at the close of the second section.

MR. WENDOVER thereupon moved to amend the amendment of the honourable gentleman from Otsego, (Mr. Van Buren) by ingrafting upon it the fol lowing proposition;

"That the justices of the peace for each county, except the cities, be appointed by the judges of the county courts and the boards of supervisors in joint meeting that the vote of each judge and supervisor present at any appointment, shall be recorded in their minutes, and copy thereof deposited in the office of the county clerk; and that no appointment of justice of the peace shall extend beyond three years."

Whereupon the question was taken upon the same and lost.

JUDGE PLATT opposed the amendment, on the ground that justices so to be appointed, would not be responsible to the people, but would be the creatures and agents of the governor.-That the judges would necessarily relax from the stern dignity of their appropriate character, and become mere political machines in the hands of the executive.

In relation to the board of supervisors, he contended that their present high character had proceeded from their abstraction from political concerns, which their legitimate duties suggested, and would be lost and destroyed amid the tumults and agitations of party, which this amendment naturally invited. It would be injurious to the repose of that confidence in relation to town concerns which had hitherto subsisted; and above all, would operate with extreme inequality, inasmuch as each town in that board would have an equal vote, however unequal in information, wealth, or population.

COL YOUNG reported the amendment, and replied at considerable length to the objections which had been raised by the gentleman from Oneida, (Mr. Platt) when a motion was made to rise and report, which was carried.

In Convention, MR. WHEELER gave notice that he should propose to-morrow. that no division by ayes and nocs should hereafter be made in committee of the whole, except upon a call of a majority of the members present. Adjourned.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1821. The Convention assembled at the usual hour; and after prayers by the Rev. MR. DAVIS, the journal of yesterday was read and approved.

COL. YOUNG, from the committee (of thirteen) to whom was referred the resolution relative to the right of suffrage, made the following report :—

I. Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been one year an inhabitant of this state, preceding the day of the election, and for the last six months a resident of the town, county, or district, where he may offer his vote, and shall have been, within the next year preceding, assessed, and shall have actually paid a tax to the state or county, or shall be by law exempted from taxation: And also, every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been for three years next preceding such election, an inhabitant of this state, and for the last year, a resident in the town, county, or district where he may of fer his vote, and shall have been, within the last year, assessed to labour upon the public highways, and shall have performed the labour, or paid an equivalent therefor, according to law, shall be entitled to vote in the town or ward where he actually resides, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people: Provided, That no male citizen, other than white, shall be subject to taxation, or entitled to vote at any election, unless, in addi. tion to the qualifications of age and residence, last above mentioned, he shall be seised and possessed, in his own right, of a freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts and incumbrances charged thereon, and shall have been, within the year next preceding the election, assessed, and shall have actually paid a tax to the state or county.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER moved that the usual number of copies be printed for the use of the Convention, and that the same be referred to the committee of the whole, when on the report of the honourable Mr. Sanford. Agreed to.

THE APPOINTING POWER.

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the unfinished business of yesterday,-Mr. Lawrence in the chair.

MR. BUEL commenced the debate in support of the amendment of the honourable member from Otsego. (Mr. Van Buren.) He adverted to the different propositions before the committee, for appointing or electing justices of the peace. He said the mode recommended by the select committee of electing them, was very exceptionable. The gentlemen who constituted the committee to whom this subject was referred, were not all in favour of having them elected by the people. There was not, indeed, a majority. It appeared to him that this was the worst possible mode: it had been asked, and with emphasis too, why justices could not as well be elected as town clerks and supervisors? This question was scarcely entitled to an answer, as the duties of these officers bear no comparison with each other. The trust committed to supervisors was merely that of adjusting the monied concerns of the county, regulating taxes, and preserving a proper balance between the different towns of the county. His acts are not to operate on individuals, but on the whole including himself; there could be no possible inducement for intrigue in the procurement of that office; but in the election of a magistrate it is very different. The justice of the peace is to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction, and, in fact, he is the poor man's judge---he brings justice home to the doors of the people. He is the magistrate who puts all the laws in motion, by commencing all criminal prosecutions, and a very great proportion of civil; it is he who carries into effect the poor laws; and, in fact,his powers in the aggregate are enormous---they exceed all the other courts in the state.

It is considered an office of emolument, and is sought for on that account, almost exclusively, by some; this is not the case with the office of supervisor. In the election of a justice of the peace, all kinds of intrigue would be used, and the man who had the most influence, and could set the most machinery in motion at the election, would most surely succeed in getting the appointment for himself or his friend. Offices obtained in this way would not be respecta ble, nor would the incumbents be suitable characters for the discharge of such