his character for integrity, which would render it unsafe for him to retain the office. Cases might occur, where local disaffections to the government, might render it important that this officer be changed. If it was necessary to have this power any where, it was necessary to have it where it could be exercised with firmness. It was his opinion that the governor would be the most proper person to exercise this power; as he could have no possible motive, except that of the public good, for he could not possess the power of filling the office with his friend, after it was vacated-even if he could, he would be cautious how he offended the people of a county, for the sake of gratifying a friend. It had been suggested, that the officer ought to have an opportunity to make a defence-and that the executive should make known the reasons for which he removes; this, he thought, might sometimes be improper. There might sometimes be cogent reasons for a removal, which would be improper to disclose-there might be certain immoral disqualifications which would be indelicate to make known. The honourable President of the Convention, had added to the proposition which was offered, such improvement as he deemed wholesome; but he did not think there' could be any possible inducement for the executive to abuse this power, if it was submitted to him alone. His responsibility to the people annually would be a sufficient guard against an improper exercise of his power.

MR. TOMPKINS said that by dividing his proposition, the gentleman from Columbia might try the sense of the Convention on the power of removal without cause assigned.

GEN. ROOT wished the cause of removal might be known and assigned. He was no friend to gubernatorial delicacy. We had seen too much of it already.

JUDGE VAN NESS modified his proposition, which was, however, withdrawn, at the suggestion of Mr. Tompkins, and Mr. T.'s was substituted.

MR. TOMPKINS moved that his proposition be divided into two parts. Carried. The question on the first part, relating to the removal of sheriffs, was taken and carried.

The question was then stated to be on the second part of the proposition, requiring the governor to assign reasons for such removal, and to give to the sheriff an opportunity of appearing in his own defence.

CHANCELLOR KENT was opposed to the proposition, on the ground that it might be expedient for the governor to remove sheriffs without assigning his He thought the executive should have both the appointment and removal of those officers. The governor was the great sheriff of the state, and the sheriff's should be considered in the light of deputies.

reasons.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER approved of the proposition. No officer should be removed for arbitrary cause, nor without good reasons. He could not concur in opinion with his honourable colleague, (Mr. Kent.) It was desirable to break into fragments and disperse the appointing power; and this Convention would never consent to give the governor the power of appointing and removing his own sheriffs. He thought there was no necessity of departing from a valuble principle.

MR. TOMPKINS was confirmed in the expediency of retaining that provision in his amendment. It is the professed object of all to exclude party. But if this clause be rejected, a sheriff may be displaced in secret, and without cause assigned, which may be merely a political one, and thereby his character impaired by supposing it to proceed from moral disqualifications known to the executive. It would really be conferring the power of appointment on the governor, and introducing that very party spirit which we ought to exclude.

MR. RADCLIFF was opposed to the last part of the proposition of the honourable gentleman from Richmond.

GEN. ROOT again expressed himself in its favour. He was not in favour of yielding the reputation of his fellow-citizens to the delicacy of the executive. Suppose a case in which the political parties in a county are nearly balanced. ile removes the successful candidate, who is opposed to him in politics. He being ineligible for the next three years, and not like John Wilkes, capable of being thrust back upon the executive, and being placed hors combat, is effectually placed in the back ground. The same game is continued, until all the

popular candidates are laid on the shelf. In this way he may vacate the election of the people, and render nugatory the provision which theConvention had passed. The question was then put and carried.

The chairman then read the 10th clause.

MR. RADCLIFF moved to strike out the words, "except the (mayor of) the city of New-York."

MR. FAIRLIE opposed the motion. He thought it was inexpedient to make the mayor the mere creature of the common council.

MR. JAY was also opposed to the motion of Mr. Radcliff. He said the mayor of the city might otherwise be opposed to the executive, and it was important that there should be an union and harmony of sentiment between them. The mayor of that city has great power, which is more arbitrary within its jurisdiction, than that of the president of the United States. He (Mr. J.) was not in favour of accumulating the power at the seat of government, but there was a moderation to be observed in all things, and he feared we were verging to an unreasonable jealousy of the general appointing power. The mayor was the preserver of the peace, and the head of the police of that city. It was proper, therefore, that he should be independent of the city in the exercise of his power, which might require him to suppress mobs, of which there had been one of three or four days continuance in that city.

MR. MUNRO Concurred with his honourable colleague. The proposition would reduce the mayor to a mere chairman of the corporation.

MR. SHARPE Supported the motion; and hoped if the mayors of other cities were to be appointed by the common council, New-York would not be an exception. A great part of his judicial power had been given to the first judge.

MR. RADCLIFF had hoped that the principle of having officers elected by the people had been established by this Convention; and therefore he would not enter into a discussion of its propriety. Have we not examples on this subject? The city of Philadelphia appoint their mayor by the common council, and no evils are known to result from that method there. In the city of New-York, the duties formerly incumbent on the mayor are now divided. He is merely a ministerial officer, who attends to the police and good order of the city. He, to be sure, appoints carmen and marshals; but he should apprehend no danger from him on that account. With respect to this city being more exposed to mobs than other places, he did not think it was the case. We have been told by a gentleman from Westchester, that within his recollection there was a great mob in that city. It was not a political mob, but a mob of doctors.

MR. FAIRLIE said the mayor and sheriff of New-York were charter officers, and with these we ought not to meddle.

MR. JAY said there had been tumults in the city of New-York, and it was fair to argue to the future from the past. He had not said there had been political mobs, but it was immaterial to him if his house was to be torn down, and his life jeopardized, whether it was done by a political mob, or any other kind of mob. He was in the political minority, and for that very reason he wished the executive of the city might act in union with the executive of the state, that the stronger arm of the latter may be lent to the former, to protect him from outrages. It was indeed peaceable at present in that city. He hoped it would so continue. But it was not correct to say that because the sun shines to-day, we shall have no storm to-morrow.

In relation to the powers of the mayor-it is true that they have been divided-but he is not divested of them. In that division, all his judicial powers are distinctly reserved, and it was only to relieve him from too heavy a burthen that a separation was authorized, but he retains the same powers he ever had, and may at any time resume their exercise.

MR. SHARPE said, if mobs and tumults should arise, a mayor elected by the corporation would be as well qualified to quell them as a magistrate elected at Albany.

COL. YOUNG thought that the aldermen and assistant aldermen were not of a character to encourage or favour tumults and mobs. He believed the corporation was a very proper tribunal for the appointment of the

mayor.

MR. MUNRO said that the mayor and corporation would completely control the elections of the city, if the former were appointed by the latter.

MR. VAN BUREN would vote for the motion, although it was not contemplated to appoint the mayor by the general appointing power, as had by some been supposed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE remarked, that the corporation of New-York had heretofore been, and now were, composed of men who would not be likely to encourage mobs. A case, however, might occur, when men of a different character might be elected, and when nothing could save the city. He should, however, vote for the motion, as he believed the corporation better qualified than any power at Albany.

Question taken, and decided as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Bacon, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Bowman, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Burroughs, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fenton, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Hunting, Huntington, Hurd, Kent, King, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Nelson, Paulding, President, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Rhinelander, Richards, Root, Rose, Russell, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seaman, Seeley, Sharpe, I. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, Starkweather, Steele, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Fleet, Van Ness, Van Vechten, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, Wooster, Young-87.

NOES-Messrs. Buel, Child, Fairlie, Hogeboom, Jay, Lansing, Munro, Park, Platt, Rockwell, Sheldon, I. Sutherland, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, N. Williams, Yates-16.

MR. EDWARDS moved to strike out the words " and clerks."

After some desultory discussion, the question was put and carried.

The fifth section of the report, as amended, was then read.

MR. VAN BUREN said, that in the amendment of the gentleman from Orange, the term of office of justices was left in blank. He moved that the blank be filled with three years. One, two, and four years were also moved.

GEN. TALLMADGE proposed an amendment-that the justices hold their officcs for four years, and a fourth part be elected annually, to give stability to the magistracy.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER said, in some towns there would be but one justice, in others two and three, &c. It would therefore be impracticable to appoint a portion of them annually.

The question on four years (the longest term) was put and lost.
The question on three years was put and carried.

The clause as follows was then read and approved.

"That any person so appointed a justice of the peace, may hold his office for three years, unless removed by the county court, or court of common pleas, for causes particularly assigned by the judges of the said court. And that no justice of the peace shall be so removed, until notice is given him of the charges made ngainst him, and an opportunity afforded him of being heard in his defence.”

The sixth section was then read in the words following:

6. That all officers under the authority of the government of this state, in the city of New-York, whose appointment is not vested in the common council of said city, or in the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall be appointed in the following manner, to wit -The inhabitants of the respective wards of that city, qualified to vote for members of the legislature, shall elect one person in each of the said wards, and the persons so elected, shall constitute a board of electors for the appointment and removal of all such officers. That immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be, into three classes. The seats of the electors of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the first year; of the second class at the expiration of the second year; and of the third class at

the expiration of the third year, so that one third may be chosen every year ; and if vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, they shall be supplied by the wards in which they happen, in the manner above mentioned. And that no such elector shall be eligible to any office within their gift, during the time for which he shall be elected.

MR. RADCLIFF had hoped that some gentleman would provide a substitute for this clause; but as it had not been done, he must move to have it stricken out, that some other appointing power could be provided for the city of NewYork. If the committee would take it into consideration, they would find that the city of New-York had many officers not required in the other parts of the state, which rendered it more difficult to settle the appointing power in that city than in any other part of the state. The city and county of New-York were co-extensive-there were no county regulations distinct from those of the city-which was different from the other cities and counties in the state. This rendered it necessary that they should have a different regulation from those places which have both city and county regulations in common. The plan proposed by the gentleman from Orange, for the appointment of justices of the peace, and adopted by the committee, would not answer for the city of NewYork: the court of common pleas, in the city of New-York, was composed of the aldermen of the city and first judge-they all belonged to the corporation except the first judge; therefore, for the court to make a nomination, distinct from the nomination of the supervisors, would be absurd. The plan adopted for other places than the city of New-York, does not at all apply to the case of that city-it would, in fact, amount to this, that the common council should make the appointments; and therefore I am of the opinion that it would be the simplest and best way, to give to the council the appointment of such officers as are in the counties appointed by the supervisors and judges of common pleas. As the sheriff, clerks, and mayor are provided for, we have but one class of officers corresponding with the officers of counties; and that is the justices of the peace. Mr. R. went into a minute description of the different orders of justices in the city of New-York, and their respective duties. He concluded by expressing an opinion that the common council would be as proper a body to exercise this power, in appointing justices of the peace, as any other body of men; and he should not object to the first judge associating with them, although it would probably be as well to omit him. With respect to all other officers of that city, not otherwise expressly provided for, he should be willing to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to determine; and with that view he would offer his amendment, as follows:

"That the justices of the peace in the city and county of New-York, including the official justices, the justices of the marine court and the district justice, and the clerks of the said justices, respectively, be appointed by the common council of said city; and all other officers in said city whose election or appointment is not provided for by this constitution, shall be chosen, or appointed within the said city, in such manner as the legislature may from time to time direct."

MR. VAN BUREN could not discover why the common council which had been thought a proper body for the appointment of the other officers, was not also adequate to other trusts. He therefore submitted the following proposition:

"That all the city or state officers in the city of New-York whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in this constitution, shall be appointed by the common council of the said city and county and shail hold their respective offices during the pleasure of the said council."

MR. MUNRO moved that it be laid on the table.

MR. RADCLIFF Supported this motion. The corporation had a vast patronage; and it was very questionable whether it ought to be extended. He hoped that the proposition of the gentleman from Otsego would lie on the table.

COL. YOUNG would give to New-York the same mode of appointment, and a like tenure of office, as had been given to the country.. He would go so far as

to expunge the sixth section. He thought the common council equally capable of making appointments, as the supervisors. He was willing, in the event of a tie, to let the first judge decide.

MR. FAIRLIE wished it might be postponed till to-morrow.

MR. MUNRO hoped we should not dispose of offices to the amount of half a million in haste.

MR. VAN BUREN concurred with the gentleman from Westchester (Mr. Munro) in believing that this subject required deliberation.

MR. TOMPKINS hoped we should postpone and reflect on this subject. From his past and present connexion with that city, he knew the importance of the question.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE thought we should pause before we gave such an enormous power to the municipal authorities of that city.

MR. RADCLIFF thought we might at least take the question on striking out the clause.

MR. JAY was in favour of the postponement. The common council, he said, was the legislature of that city. They had the power of taking private property for public use, and of assessing others to pay for it. They had power to make contracts-a power which they had pretty liberally exercised-very necessary though very despotic powers in relation to the preservation of healthand about four hundred offices were already at the disposal of that body. If state patronage would poison the senate, as gentlemen had supposed, he would submit it whether there was not equal reason to fear that city patronage might poison the common council.

JUDGE PLATT begged leave to make one suggestion before the question was taken. He had voted against making the mayor appointable by the corporation, and being in the minority he could not move for a reconsideration. He wished some gentleman in the majority would move a reconsideration of that vote. The subject was postponed till to-morrow.

The seventh section being under consideration, was read in the following

words:

7. That all the officers which are at present elected by the people, continue to be so elected; and all other officers, whose appointment is not provided for by this constitution, and who are not included in the resolution relative to the city of New-York; and all officers who may be hereafter created by law, may be elected by the people, or appointed as the legislature may from time to time by law direct, and in such manner as they shall direct.

GEN. TALLMADGE proposed to amend the section so as to prohibit the legislature from referring any part of the appointments submitted to their disposal to the general appointing power.

MR. VAN BUREN was opposed to it, and wished to know the reasons that could be alleged in its favour.

GEN. TALLMADGE went into an explanation of his views in offering the amendment. He disapproved of the most that had been done on this subject. No part should be left to the legislature.

MR. VAN BUREN said if the gentleman from Dutchess found we were going wrong, he should have put us in the right way. He was not anxious that the appointments should be left to the legislature; but if we interfered with the discretion of that body, we ought to make some other specific disposal of them. MR. BIRDSEYE said a few words, when

MR. R. CLARKE moved that the seventh section, and the amendment thereto, be postponed till to-morrow. Carried.

TENURE OF OFFICE.

1. The Treasurer to be chosen annually.

2. Secretary of state, comptroller, surveyor, and commissary general, to hold during the pleasure of the legislature-removable by concurrent resolution.

3. Sheriffs to be appointed annually, ineligible after four years, and to hold

no other office at the same time.