JUDGE VAN NESS replied. The desire of divorce, he said, could not possibly be stronger on the part of the towns of Dutchess, than that of the county of Columbia; that county had not sought for the connexion, and had no wish to continue it. He denied, however, that these towns of Dutchess had been op-. pressed; they had had as great a share of the representation in congress, as their numbers entitled them to.

The question was taken on Mr. Livingston's motion, and carried.
The third section was next under consideration.

COL. YOUNG moved to strike out the word "inhabitants," in the first line of the third section, for the purpose of inserting in lieu thereof the word "electors."

MR. NELSON Suggested a modification of the motion, so as to read" inhabitants and electors;" to which Mr. Young subsequently assented.

CHANCELLOR KENT thought the question of retaining the term "inhabitants," was entitled to much consideration. It had not indeed been distinctly brought before the select committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, but he was disposed to think it ought to be retained.

There now appeared to exist considerable alarm of the overbearing weight and influence of the city of New-York. He had been desirous to restrain the right of suffrage within such bounds as would exclude that kind of population which, in large cities especially, could not be expected to exercise it with purity and discretion. But after the limitation was made, the representatives came into the legislature not merely to represent the electors, but the inhabitants also, male and female-widows and minors-and the property that they might respectively possess.

The city of New-York was the pride and glory of the state, and although discretion was required in its governance, it was entitled, and ought to enjoy, its full and proportional weight and influence.

MR. EDWARDS. I presume, sir, that it is the intention of this Convention to distribute equal and exact justice to all the people of this state. This intention will be defeated by the adoption of the proposition of the honourable gentleman from Saratoga, (Mr. Young.) Consider, sir, for one moment, the operation upon the city of New-York, of the rule that representation is to be apportioned according to the number of electors: In that city, no person is bound by law to work on the highways, and they have but very few highways to work. In the country, every person above twenty-one years of age, is required by law to work on the highways; you have consequently adopted a rule, with respect to the right of suffrage, which must necessarily be partial in its operation. The consequence of it is, that multitudes are admitted to the enjoyment of the elective franchise in the country, when corresponding classes of society are excluded from it in the city. To make this subject still more plain, I will suppose that the elective franchise was confined to those alone who labour on the highways. The consequence of this would be, that not a man in the city of New-York would be permitted to vote. Then, if the proposition is adopted that representation is to be apportioned according to the number of electors, it would follow that that city would not have a representation in either branch of the legislature. Now, sir, if this proposition is adopted, though that city will not be entirely disfranchised, yet it will be, so far as it goes to deprive it of the representation which it is entitled to in consequence of its comprising a population who are neither taxed nor perform military duty, and who, if they resided in the country, would be required to work on the highways.

It must be fresh in the recollection of every gentleman who hears me, that the highway qualification was opposed by most of the members from New-York, and among other reasons, because it would be partial in its operation-because it extended privileges to every man above twenty-one years of age in the country, which never would be extended to one half of the men in the city. That rule, however, was established, and the consequence is, that, so far as it respects the choice of the chief magistrate of the state, that city will not have a voice by any means in proportion to its population. Now, sir, the gentleman, not content with this, is pushing his points further; and the very fact of our being deprived of our rights heretofore, is urged as a reason why we should be deprived of our due representation in the legislature of the state.

But it is urged, that, according to the present provisions of the constitution, representation is to be apportioned according to the number of electors. True: and it is also true, that, according to the present provisions of the constitution, certain peculiar privileges are conferred upon the freeholders.

The patriotic, venerable, and venerated men who formed our constitution, did, to be sure, deem it wise to insert that provision. But, sir, we were then but just emerging from a state of subjugation to a monarchical government. The principles of civil liberty were then, as it were, in their cradle. We have had the benefit of practising upon them for nearly half a century; and I think I may now say, without giving offence, that they are now better understood. We have, by an overwhelming majority, expunged the freehold qualification from the constitution. We have disclaimed the supremacy of property, as well as of birth, and of privileged orders. We have proceeded upon the broad principle, that all men are free and equal;' and in regulating the elective franchise, we have endeavoured to govern it by such rules as would only exclude those whom we were apprehensive would not exercise it with independence or integrity. We have proceeded upon similar principles with reSpect to them, which we have with respect to our wives and children. They were not included; not because their rights were not equally dear to us with our own, but because public feeling and their good, as well as the good of the whole, required it. And, sir, because we have not thought proper to invest them with the elective franchise, does it follow, that they are not to be duly represented through those who are their natural guardians? because they are not permitted to vote, that they are not to have any weight in the government? No, sir; they are represented by us. So all, who live in the same community with those who exercise the elective franchise, have a common interest with them, that the community should have a due representation in the legislature. Laws must be equal in their operation; and all who live in the same community will be sure of having their rights equally respected. People, living in different parts of the state, in different states of society, and pursuing different avocations, have, of course, as communities, different interests; and it is equally important to them, whether they are voters or not, that the community in which they reside should be duly represented. Sir, bave we deprived the freeholders of their exclusive privileges, upon the broad ground, that we would tolerate no privileged orders for the purpose of establishing another class, the electors? And are we now going to sanction the principle, that the government is made for the electors, and not for the people? Are we going to sanction the principle, that the government is not made for the people, but for a certain privileged class? If so, let the apportionment be according to the electors: if not, it must be according to the number of inhabitants.

I hope, sir, that no gentleman is indulging any unreasonable prejudice against the city of New-York: if any such prejudices exist, a little reflection must remove them. Pray, sir, what is the city of New-York, and who compose it? Why, it is the great mart of your state: it is to that place where you send the produce of your farms and your manufactories; the inhabitants of it are your agents, your factors. They purchase your produce, and explore every sea in search of markets for it, and return with the products of every clime to minister to your necessities and comfort. It is true that they have accumulated great wealth: but this wealth is necessary to enable them to transact your business to your advantage. The inhabitants of that city enjoy no exclusive advantages. You, and your sons can, at your pleasure, participate in all the benefits attendant upon their local situation. There is, sir, throughout, a community of interest between them and you: the city and country are equally necessary for rach other, and equally dependant upon each other: and as well might the head of the human body jangle with the other members, as the country with the city. If great wealth is there concentrated, the country enjoys the benefit of it; for the city now pays one-fourth of the taxes of the whole state.

We ask no exclusive privileges. All we ask is justice; equal and exact justice: we want nothing more. And you can, as consistently with justice, provide in express terms, that the country shall be represented in proportion to its population, and that the city shall only be represented in proportion to two

thirds of its population, as to adopt the proposition now made; for the effect will be the same.

After some desultory discussion between Messrs. Sharpe and Young, on motion of the former, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

MR. BRIGGS moved, that the Convention hereafter meet at 10 o'clock..
MR. EASTWOOD opposed the motion, and it was lost.
Adjourned.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1821.

The President took the chair at nine o'clock, when the minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

The Convention then went into committee of the whole on the unfinished business of yesterday, (the legislative department.)—Mr. Van Buren in the chair.

The question before the committee, was stated from the chair to be upon the modified proposition of Mr. Young, to insert in the third section, (directing a state census to be taken in 1325) before the word "inhabitants," in the first line, the words "electors and."

MR. PRESIDENT hoped that the amendment offered yesterday by the gentleman from Saratoga, to make electors the basis of representation, would prevail. He certainly was not disposed to take from the city of New-York any portion of the representation to which she should be justly entitled; but it must be admitted, that there would always in that city, be a great number of foreigners who never contemplated to become citizens, and who, therefore, ought not to be taken into the account, in determining the representation to which that city should be entitled. Again-there was now in the city of New-York, a populaLion of free people of colour, greater in amount than the whole white population of the county of Richmond-and this was a species of population which they had reason to believe would be very large in that city. He could not consent that this city, from a population of aliens and free blacks, should have a greater share in the representation of the state, than the county of Richmond would have for its whole number of white citizens. He should, he said, vote for the amendment, as affording a more just, and equitable rule than that proposed by the report of the select committee.

MR. KING said he saw no reason to object to the amendment proposed, of inserting the words "electors and” in the first line, it would not vary the plan of the report.

COL. YOUNG said he meant to follow up that motion by others, which would effect the object he had in view. He would move to insert, in the ninth line, after the word "census,” “according to the numbers of the electors in such districts or counties respectively."

MR. KING. It was not the intention of the committee to have free people of colour, or aliens, taken into the account, but to limit to the free white citizens. COL. YOUNG. The term inhabitant, used by the committee, would, he said, embrace both aliens and free blacks. The apportionment of senators, and of members of assembly, under the old constitution, were both regulated by the number of electors for each. This rule had not been limited to the apportionment of senators according to the number of freehold electors, as might possibly be inferred from some of the arguments which had been used. An experience of more than forty years had shown it to be a just and equitable rule; why then part with it for an untried scheme? Some of the gentlemen from the city of New-York, complained of the application of this, because by the qualifications established for electors, there would be many admitted to vote,

and therefore counted in the country, who, if in the city, would not be entitled to vote, and would not be taken in the estimate of numbers by which the apportionment was to be made. But, he would ask how this had happened? A large majority of the delegation from that city had voted against extending the right of suffrage to this class, and had assigned as a reason, that it would include an unsound portion of their population, and such as they supposed could not safely be entrusted with the right of voting. Why, then, find fault with having them excluded in fixing the ratio of representation? He hoped they were not desirous of having this unsound and floating population of the city, placed on the same footing with the purer population of the country. He contended that the rule of taking the electors only, was the only just rule, and one which would operate more equally and uniformly. The population of the city of New-York would vary many thousands, depending on the state of its commerce and its health. When commerce flourished, they would be crowded with foreignerswhen it languished, both foreigners and their own citizens would resort to other places. So also, in respect to its health-when sickly, great numbers would leave it, and the footing of a census of that city would vary many thousands, depending on the time when taken.

JUDGE VAN NESS, in reply to some remarks of Mr. Tompkins, thought that Richmond would not always belong to New-York; and of course not always be placed in the shade. There would be no difficulty, however, on this subject, if his proposition and wishes were regarded, of having as many senatorial districts as there were senators to be chosen. He had, he said, yesterday given it as his opinion, that the apportionment ought to be founded on the number of electors; he was now satisfied, that this would be unjust as it regarded the city of New-York; the regulation, which had been adopted respecting the right of suffrage, would, as had been explained, operate very unequally, and very much against the city. But of this he did not complain: he had yesterday said, that the country ought to guard itself against the influence of the city; that was his opinion still; but this was not to be done by adopting an unjust and unequal rule of apportionment. If the state should be divided into either eight or twelve districts, the one, in which the city of New-York should be located, would always be controlled by its influence. This was one reason why he was in favour of having single districts; then the country will be separated from the city, and will act independent of its control. He would have no objection to let the city remain a district by itself, if the delegation wish it: no injury could arise from that.

With respect to the apportionment, he thought a rule might be adopted which would be satisfactory to all. He would suggest the propriety of taking the free white citizens only, into the account. By this, the large population of free blacks, and of aliens, in the city would be excluded, and the rule would operate equally over every other part of the state; and if the amendment of the gentleman from Saratoga, should be rejected, he would move an amendment conformable to the suggestions he had just made.

MR. VAN VECHTEN said, the question was, whether the representation should be determined by the number of inhabitants, or by the number of electors only.

The principal argument in favour of having it determined by the number of electors only, was, that it was the plan adopted in the Convention of 1777, and recognized in that of 1801. In determining upon electoral qualifications, a large number of the inhabitants in the city of New-York have been deprived of the privilege of voting, on the ground of their unworthiness to exercise that power. It is said, that in the country, there are many who are equally unworthy, but are admitted to the enjoyment of this privilege from the circumstance of their doing work upon the highways, or paying an equivalent therefor.

What is the reason these men in the city of New-York do not work on the highways? It is because they have not an opportunity; there is no such thing known in the city. The effect of this, is, to exclude a great number of electors, by establishing a rule which does not apply to their case. We have, in the first place, narrowed the number of their clectors by establishing a rule

which applies to all parts of the state, except the city of New-York. The same man who would be a voter in Kings county, by coming into the city, would be deprived of voting, because there is no highway work to be done. After depriving that city of a great portion of electors, it is proposed to make the remaining number a criterion by which to regulate their representation; and by so doing, we shall make a rule that will operate unequally upon the inhabitants of the state.

We all profess to have the same object in view, that of making an equal distribution of the privileges and burthens of the community, as far as constitutional provisions can accomplish it. It is alleged that if their representation is in proportion to their population, it will be greater than they are entitled to bave, and because we have done them injustice in one respect, it is right to follow it up. This is not correct.

The rule of representation must always be more or less arbitrary; but the the idea appears to have been entertained by some gentlemen present, that none are represented in our legislature, but those who have a right to a voice in the election of its members. This is a mistake-all classes are represented. There may be a vast amount of property owned by persons not possessing the right of suffrage; and is this to have no weight, or receive no consideration? All classes of the community have a right to representation-and having proceeded thus far in admitting a large portion of voters in the country, we are bound in duty to render an equivalent to the inhabitants of the city of New-York. He should, therefore, be opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Saratoga, (Mr. Young.)

MR. BRIGGS replied to the gentleman from Columbia, (Judge Van Ness,) who, it appeared, was now for making reparation for what had been done to the prejudice of the city of New-York. The gentleman, said Mr. B. has told us, that the result would be the same, whether the one or the other rule should be adopted. If so, he could not perceive why all the discussion had taken place, or why gentlemen should wish to depart from the rule established under the old constitution, and form a new one, when they all agreed it would make no difference in the result. He would, therefore, be in favour of retaining the old rule, which had been tried, and which had been found to answer very well.

MR. RUSSELL thought that most persons who are allowed to vote on the ground of highway labour in the country, would have been admitted on other principles. But as he was disposed to quiet the apprehensions of the city, and to grant equal rights to all, he was in favour of the suggestions of the gentleman from Columbia, (Mr. Van Ness.)

MR. RADCLIFF proposed to amend the amendment of Mr. Young, by ap pending thereto the following qualification: "according to the number of free inhabitants, excluding paupers, aliens, and persons of colour not taxed."

He contended that there was unquestionable injustice in admitting highway labour as a qualification, without any adequate equivalent to the corresponding class of citizens in New-York. He hoped that gentlemen would not be disposed to put their hands to a constitution that should contain such glaring and monstrous injustice. He claimed that the character of the people of the city was equally good with that of the towns and villages. He thought there was an unreasonable jealousy of that city. The history of the state would prove, that the city was comparatively retrograding in its population. Our houses were empty, and our people retiring to the country. Even in the most prosperous times, it was barely able to retain its ratio. Its good fortune was connected with and depended on the country. He asked for no advantage of the country in favour of the city-but he did ask, in the name of eternal justice, that the same measure should be meted out to the metropolis, which the counties in the country enjoyed.

The Chairman decided that Mr. R's amendment could not be received until the motion of the gentleman from Saratoga (Mr. Young) was disposed of.

MR. P. R. LIVINGSTON was opposed to the motion of his honourable friend from Saratoga, (Mr. Young,) and he regretted to witness any expression of hostility on the part of country members towards the city of New-York. He be