we shall violate a sacred principle, without any necessity, if we retain this discrimination. We say to this unfortunate race of men, purchase a freehold estate of $250 value, and you shall then be equal to the white man, who parades one day in the militia, or performs a day's work on the highway. Sir, it is adding mockery to injustice. We know that, with rare exceptions, they have not the means of purchasing a freehold and it would be unworthy of this grave Convention to do, indirectly, an act of injustice, which we are unwilling openly to avow. The real object is, to exclude the oppressed and degraded sons of Africa; and, in my humble judgment, it would better comport with the dignity of this Convention to speak out, and to pronounce the sentence of perpetual degradation, on negroes and their posterity for ever, than to establish a test, which we know they cannot comply with, and which we do not require of others.

The gentleman from Saratoga, who, as chairman of the committee, reported this proviso, (Mr. Young,) has exultingly told us, that ours is the only happy country where freemen acknowledge no distinction of ranks-where real native genius and merit can emerge from the humblest conditions of life, and rise to honours and distinction. It sounded charmingly in our republican ears, and I have but one objection to it, which is that, unfortunately for our patriotic pride, it is not true. I abhor the vices and oppressions which flow from privileged orders as much as any man, but it is a remarkable truth, that in England, the present Lord Chancellor Elden, and his illustrious brother, Sir William Scott, are the sons of a coal-heaver; and the present Chief Justice Abbot, of the Kings Bench, is the son of a hair-dresser. The gentleman from Saratoga, (Mr. Young,) began his philipic in favour of universal suffrage, by an eulogium on fiberty and equality, in our happy state. And what then? Why, the same gentleman concluded by moving a resolution, in substance, that 37,000 of our free black citizens, and their posterity, for ever, shall be degraded by our constitution, below the common rank of freemen-that they never shall emerge from their humble condition-that they shall never assert the dignity of human nature, but shall ever remain a degraded cast in our republic.

The same gentleman recited to us on that occasion, an elegant extract from an admired poet, (Gray's Elegy,) describing in melting strains, the effects of humble poverty, and mental depression. Let me ask, sir, who is it, that now seeks to repress the noble rage;” and to "freeze the genial current of the soul"? I must be permitted, to express my deep regret, that the gentleman's poetry, and his prose, do not agree in sentiment. I confess, sir, I feel some apprehension, when I anticipate, that the speeches of that honourable member, will be read by the proud English critic; who will boast, that "slaves cannot breathe English air;" that "they touch his country, and their shackles fall.” The gentleman from Saratoga will be justly considered, as a leading patriot and statesman in our republic; and if his text and his commentary, his precept and his practice, are at variance; we shall be nakedly exposed to the lash of criticism, from the hand of retaliation.

Before we adopt this proviso, I hope gentlemen will take a retrospect of the last fifty years. Consider the astonishing progress of the human mind, in regard to religious toleration; the various plans of enlightened benevolence; and especially the mighty efforts of the wise and the good throughout Christendom, in favour of the benighted and oppressed children of Africa.

In our own state, public sentiment has been totally changed on the subject of negro slavery. About sixty years ago, an act of our colonial assembly was passed, with this disgraceful preamble: "whereas justice and good policy require, that the African slave-trade should be liberally encouraged." And within the last forty years, I remember, in the sale of negroes, it was no uncommon occurrence to witness the separation of husband and wife, and parents and children, without their consent, and under circumstances which forbid all hope of their ever seeing each other again in this world. And this was done without apparent remorse or compunction, and with as little reluctance on the part of buyer and seller, as we now feel in separating a span of horses, or a yoke of oxen. But I thank God, that a sense of justice and mercy has in a good measure regenerated the hearts of men. A rapid emancipation has taken place; and we approach the era, when, according to the existing law, slavery will be abolished in this state.

But, sir, we owe to that innocent and unfortunate race of men, much nore than mere emancipation. We owe to them our patient and persevering exertions, to elevate their condition and character, by means of moral and religious instruction. And I rejoice that by the instrumentality of Sunday schools, and other benevolent institutions, many of them promise fair to become intelligent, virtuous, and useful citizens. Judging from our experience of the last fifty years; what may we not reasonably expect, in the next half century? Sir, if we adopt the principle of this proviso, I hope and believe, that our posterity will blush, when they see the names recorded in favour of such a discrimination.

I beseech gentlemen to consider the enlighted age in which we live! Consi der how much has already been accomplished by the efforts of Christian phi lanthropy! During the last forty years, we have brought up this African race from the house of bondage: We have led them nearly through the wilderness, and shewn them the promised land. Shall we now drive them back again into Egypt? I hope not, sir. The light of science, and the heavenly heams of Christianity, are dawning upon them. Shall we extinguish these rays of hope? This is not a mere question of expediency. Man has no right to deal thus with his fellow man; except on the ground of necessity and public safety. It is not pretended that such a reason exists in this case. We shall violate a sacred principle, to avoid, at most a slight inconvenience:-and, if I do not deceive my self, those who shall live fifty years hence, will view this proviso in the same light as we now view the law of our New-England fathers, which punished with death all who were guilty of being Quakers, or the law of our fathers in the colonial assembly of New-York, which offered bounties to encourage the slave trade.

As a republican statesman, I protest against the principle of inequality contained in this proviso. As a man and a father, who expects justice for himself and his children, in this world; and as a Christian, who hopes for mercy in the world to come; I can not, I dare not, consent to this unjust proscription.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER was opposed to the proviso, although on a former occasion he had voted to exclude the blacks altogether. His reasons were, that the rule contained in the proviso was incorrect, because it gave to the owner of real estate an advantage over a person who might, perhaps, possess a leasehold estate of the value of $1,000, or personal property to the amount of $20,000.

MR. VAN BUREN said he had voted against a total and unqualified exclusion, for he would not draw a revenue from them, and yet deny to them the right of suffrage. But this proviso met his approbation. They were exempted from taxation until they had qualified themselves to vote. The right was not denied, to exclude any portion of the community who will not exercise the right of suffrage in its purity. This held out inducements to industry, and would receive his support.

COL. YOUNG, would forbear remarks upon the uncourteous expression of the gentleman from Oneida (Mr. Platt) in pronouncing his (Mr. Y's) observations untrue. But he should repeat that they were truc, and that the United States of America was the only country under heaven, where the humble poor could emerge from obscurity. If that honourable gentleman had adverted to those books of logic which have doubtless formed no small part of his study, he would have found that Exceptio probat regulam, and the three cases only which he has cited from Great Britain, evince the truth of the general observation.

Mr. Y. considered the proviso as the result of compromise. It had been so considered and advocated on Saturday by an honourable gentleman from Albany (Mr. Kent) who a few minutes after voted against it. Another honourable gentleman from Albany has now given notice, that although a few days ago he voted for the total exclusion of the blacks, he is now opposed to their quali fied exclusion. Gentlemen had an undoubted right to change their minds, but he would desire it to be specifically understood, that if this proviso was reject ed, he should move to insert the word white in the report and exclude them altegether.

CHANCELLOR KENT explained. He said that slavery existed in this state at the time of the revolution, and yet it was not recognized in the constitution. There was no such thing known in the constitution of the non-holding states, with the exception of Connecticut, as a denial to the blacks of those electoral privileges that were enjoyed by the whites. In Europe the distinction of colour was unknown. The judges of England said even so long ago as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that the air of England was too pure for a slave to breathe in. The same law prevails in Scotland, Holland, France, and most of the other kingdoms of Europe.

The question on striking out the proviso, was then taken by ayes and noes and decided as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Bacon, Barlow, Birdseye, Brooks, Buel, Child, R. Clarke, Day, Duer, Eastwood, Fish, Hees, Hogeboom, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, Munro, Paulding, Pitcher, Platt, Rhinelander, Root, Sanders, N. Sanford, Spencer, Sylvester, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Wheaton, E. Williams, Wooster-33.

NOES-Messrs. Baker, Beckwith, Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, D. Clark, Cramer, Dubois, Dyckman, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Hurd, Lansing, Lawrence, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Moore, Nelson, Park, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Richards, Rockwell, Rose, Ross, Russell, Sage, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seaman, Seeley, Shape, Sheldon, I. Smith, R. Smith, Stagg, Starkweather, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Van Horne, Ward, A. Webster, Wendover, N. Williams, Woods, Yates, Young—71.

MR. BIRDSEYE moved to strike out the words "subject to taxation, or"-in the 26th line, and after a discussion of the subject at some length by the mover, and Messrs. Russell, Fairlie, and Van Buren, the question was taken thereon, and lost.

MR. TALLMADGE moved to strike out the word freehold in the 30th line, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "real or personal," before the word estate, Lost.

After a few remarks from Messrs. Birdseye, Young and Fairlie against the amendment, the motion was put and lost.

A division was then called for on the report, as far as to the proviso.

MR. E. WILLIAMS wished this might be done in committee of the whole; and on his motion the Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the right of suffrage-Mr. Ñ. Williams in the chair,

The first section of the report being under considération, the question was taken on the first part thereof to the proviso, by ayes and noes, and decided in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dubois, Dyckman, Eastwood, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Hallock, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Hurd, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Moore, Nelson, Park, Pitcher, Porter, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Richards, Rockwell, Root, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, N.Sanford, R.Sandford, Schenck, Seeley, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Yates, Young-83.

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Duer, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Hees, Hunter, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lawrence, Munro, Paulding, Platt, Rhinelander, Rose, Sanders, Seaman, Spencer, Stagg, Sylvester, Van Horne, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Wheaton, E, Williams, Woods, Woodward, Wooster-32.

MR. BIRDSEYE moved to strike out the word "taxation," in the twenty-sixth line, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "direct taxation on any assessment on his real or personal estate."

MR. E. WILLIAMS was opposed to the motion; and

MR. KING made a few explanatory remarks, when the motion was put, and

lost.

COL. YOUNG moved to insert the word "direct," in the twenty-sixth line, immediately preceding the word "taxation." Carried.

MR. R. SMITH moved to amend, by inserting after the word "thereon,” in the thirty-second line, the following words : " or shall own and possess other taxable property of the value of five hundred dollars." Lost.

The question was then taken on the proviso, and carried by a large majority, without a division.

On the whole section, including the proviso, the question was taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Bowman, Briggs, Brooks, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Child, D. Clark, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dubois, Dyckman, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Hallock, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Hurd, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, McCall, Moore, Nelson, Park, Pitcher, Porter, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Richards, Rockwell, Root, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seeley, Sharpe, Sheldon, E. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Var Fleet, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Yates, Young 74.

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Birdseye, Buel, R. Clarke, Duer, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Hees, Hogeboom, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lawrence, Munro, Paulding, Platt, Reeve, Rhinelander, Rose, Sanders, Seaman, Spencer, Stagg, Sylvester, Van Horne, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Wheaton, E. Williams, Woods, Woodward, Wooster-38.

The question was then taken on the whole report, and carried without a di vision, whereupon the committee rose and reported.

In Convention, Ordered that the report as amended be printed, and ordered to lie on the table.

THE APPOINTING POWER.

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the report of the committee on the appointing power. Mr. Lawrence in the chair. MR. JAY, pursuant to leave given, moved a reconsideration of the vote on the question relative to the election of justices of the peace by the people, in their respective towns. Although he did not pledge himself to vote for that measure if his motion prevailed, yet he was disposed to give the subject further consideration, and as it was at best but a choice of difficulties, was inclined, as at present advised, to risk the consequences of election by the people.

GEN. RooT. It has been claimed that to elect justices of the peace is a democratic meastire. Sir, I oppose such election, not merely on the ground that it would produce turmoil and confusion, but principally on the ground that it would be the height of aristocracy. I beg pardon of the honourable gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Van Vechten,) for the use of terms so unpleasant to his ear, but the argument requires their adoption. And I say that the plan of electing magistrates in town meetings, is as destitute of democracy as the Canton of Berne in Switzerland, where three or four hundred burghers kindly save the mass of the people from that trouble. The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is co-extensive with the county in which he resides. And you elect by one town a magistrate who can play the tyrant over all the other towns in the county, without any responsibility to those towns. There is no relation between the elector and the elected, and the few are thus enabled to govern the many, which I take to be the very essence of aristocracy.

It is said, however, that the other towns, having equal powers, may retaliate. And is this a desirable state of things? Towns differ in sentiment. They have conflicting interests, or are attached to different parties, and a judicial warfare commences, in which judicial shot are exchanged from town to town, to the great annoyance of both. But on the same principle that towns may choose county officers, counties ought to choose state officers-and are gentle

men prepared for that? It may be reserved to Rockland to choose a governor, whilst a chief justice may perhaps fall to the lot of Delaware, and a judge of the supreme court to the county of Putnam. Such an election as this would probably find but few advocates; and yet there is as much democracy in this, as there is in the plan proposed for choosing justices by the towns. Gentlemen seemed to think that they had got us into a dilemma; but I discard such democracy, where one-seventeenth part are enabled to lord it over the residue. The county of Delaware has twenty-three towns; the counties of Ontario and Westchester about the same number. In the latter county there are towns where very few persons attend their town meetings, and it may be in the power of six or eight in one town to clect four magistrates who may exercise jurisdiction over twenty-two other towns to whom they do not bear even the shadow of responsibility. Gentlemen may arraign me, if they think proper, at the bar of public opinion, but if this be democracy, I have utterly mistaken its character. MR. BURROUGHS spoke in opposition to the motion. He was followed by MR. EASTWOOD. Although, Mr. President, I was in the minority on this question, when it was taken the other day, I am opposed to a reconsideration of it now, or at any time hereafter, for I do think, if we are going to consider, and reconsider, and consider again, and at such great length as our considerations are, we shall be detained here till winter, and I am, therefore, altogether opposed to a reconsideration of the question at all; and I shall, at all times, be satified to comply with the vote of a majority of this Convention, as I heretofore have been. We have been here a long time, and I think the people who see us, will be tired of the sight, and those who do not see us, will be tired of hearing from us. Indeed, sir, I should regret, that if on my way home I should be known to have been a delegate to the Convention. But, sir, I rejoice, that when I get home, I shall be where I shall not be seen nor heard of very soon. Perhaps our delay here, may in some measure be owing to the proceedings of the first committee that was appointed after the organization of this Convention-I think that they are entitled to but little credit for their exertions, in recommending the whole of our constitution to be submitted to ten committees, consisting of seventy persons. Did they expect that those committees would report, that the different subjects referred to them wanted no alteration, or might they not have known, that they would be for trying experiments, by tearing down all the old constitution, and recommending something better, as they say; but as I say, in many cases something worse. I do not think that com mittee made a very acceptable or able report, although they had a man at their head as wise as a King. If I am not mistaken, sir, we are doing more than the people ask, and some things that they do not wish.

MR. BRIGGS supported the motion.

MR. VAN BUREN hoped the question would not be reconsidered. It had been once distinctly decided, and it ought not to be reviewed-at least, not until all hope of substituting a better plan was despaired of. The committee was now called to the consideration of the single question, whether justices of the peace should be elected by the towns in which they reside. Should the present question be decided in the negative, he had a proposition which varied essentially from that he had heretofore submitted, and which he then read in his place. He did not offer it at present, as it would not be in order, but he purposed, at a subsequent and proper time, to present it to the consideration of the committee.

MR. EDWARDS remarked, that the opposition to the plan for electing justitices, now rested upon very different ground from what it did when the subject was last under discussion. Then it was urged that the people would not discreetly exercise the power-now that it is aristocratical. This is a most extraordinary idea. And how is it attempted to be supported? Why, it is said that men may be called upon to answer before magistrates whom they have had no voice in electing, and that towns will elect magistrates who will oppress the inhabitants of other towns. The idea that towns will elect magistrates for the purpose of oppressing each other, proceeds upon the idea that the people are not only unsound, but absolutely rotten. Sir, I aver, that there is no towp Lich is so absolutely a Sodom, as this assertion implies. Mr. Edwards thes