CHANCELLOR KENT assigned the reasons, which induced him to vote in favour of the amendment. It was perfectly harmless, and might be a security. No judge would think of making any particular religion a part of the law of the land. He repeated that if he were to decide to-morrow, in a case similar to the one referred to by the gentleman from Delaware, he should give such a decision as had been read in debate yesterday.

GEN. ROOT offered the following amendment, that "no witness shall be questioned as to his religious faith."

COL. YOUNG said if by religious faith, were meant a belief in a Supreme Being, and in future rewards and punishments, he should oppose it. The testimony of the atheist and infidel, ought not to be placed upon an equality with others, as he could feel no responsibility.

CHANCELLOR KENT fully concurred in the sentiments of the gentleman from Saratoga, (Mr. Young.) Why should a witness be sworn on a book in which he did not believe-in the name of the ever living God, in whose existence he had no faith-with reference to a future retribution, which he treated as a dream? What was the testimony of such a witness worth? The oath was mockery, and the evidence ought not to be admitted.

MR. BRIGGS was in favour of the amendment, and replied to the gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Kent.) It was impossible to ascertain who were atheists, and who not. In this age of light and knowledge, he regretted to see such narrow views entertained; we should be above such prejudices, and act on the broad principles of liberty.

GEN. ROOT said his object in offering this amendment, was, in some measure, to purify the morals of the people, and the incorrect practice of our courts. He was anxious to adopt some plan by which they might be prohibited from making men hypocrites and liars. This was a kind of judicial farce, which had been played off upon mankind long enough; that a jury should be told that this or that man is not to be believed, because he does not think as they may believe, with regard to future rewards and punishments. By this method, men of veracity are frequently rejected, and the man who has no scruples against swearing to the prejudice of his neighbour, being prepared to answer the questions, which may be put to him, is considered a good witness. Thus a man who has no religion at all, who feels not the force of any moral obligation, will make a good witness in our courts; but if he feels a regard for truth, and has a sense of his responsibility to his great Creator and Redeemer, then he must be rejected. He must agree to some particular tenets, otherwise he is excluded from being a witness, or the jury are informed, that he is an incredible witness, and his testimony is not to be believed. When a man is questioned by a court as to his belief, if he comes with a lie in his mouth, he will not hesitate to answer in such a manner as will entitle him to the privilege of testifying; and he may then proceed to swear his neighbour out of his life, liberty, and property. Mr. R. said he had heard of atheists, but he had never seen any, and he did not believe he ever should; and if there were such men, he should hot consider it a wise or certain test to take their own word for it ;-it should be determined by some person other than the one suspected. If a man is questioned, whether he believes in a Supreme Being, he will always answer in the affirmative. Ask him whether he believes in a state of future rewards and punishments, his answer is, yes,; if he is a Universalist, he will say he believes there has been a great atonement made for all men. Then he is excluded as not being competent to tell the truth but if he is an unprincipled fellow, who has no regard for any moral obligation whatever, he has only to answer yes, to these judicial interrogations, and he becomes a good witness. It was enough to fill one with horror, to see a child catechised in a court of justice, as was the practice; if he has learnt at school, so that he can repeat the catechism arranged by the assembly of divines at Westminster, he is then prepared to swear just as he has been instructed to swear. Mr. Root remarked, that a paper had been put into his hand the morning before, relating the circumstances attending a trial at a circuit in this state, which were as follows:A witness was first asked if he believed in a Supreme Being, to which he answered in the affirmative. The next question was, whether he believed the

Bible was the work of inspiration; his reply was, that he did not know that it was any more so than any other book. The jury were charged to lay aside his testimony, and the party was thereby deprived of this evidence, which would have been admitted as good, if he had only been a hypocrite or a liar.

Mr. Root wished that all men might be religious; but not hypocrites and liars, for there was enough of them in all conscience.

THE CHANCELLOR made a few remarks, in which he treated the language of the gentleman from Delaware, in relation to the judiciary, as unworthy of notice. The anonymous calumnies of a newspaper had been cited as authority; and such slanders he should not be at the trouble to refute.

The question on the motion of Gen. Root, was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the negative as follows:

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Beckwith, Breese, Brinkerhoff, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Casc, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Hunt, Hunter, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Nelson, Paulding, Pike, Pitcher, President, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Rose, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, Seaman, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, R. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, I. Sutherland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Taylor, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, Wheeler, N. Williams, Wooster, Yates, Young-94.

AYES.-Messrs. Briggs, Howe, Humphrey, Park, Price, Root, Schenck, Van Fleet.-8.

MR. RADCLIFF moved to strike out "ministry," and to insert the words, "minister of the gospel." Carried.

The section, as amended, was then adopted.

The sixth section, relative to the creation of new counties, was then read. MR. RADCLIFF, Chairman of the committee, explained.

MR. DODGE was opposed to it: he thought it should be left to the legislature. MR. JAY, from the committee, made a few explanatory remarks, when the question on the section was taken and lost.

The seventh section was read, and passed as reported.

Tire question, next in order, was stated to be the amendment of Mr. Bacon on the subject of senatorial districts.

MR. BACON proposed two modifications of his amendment, which were as follows:

In the second section of the report, strike out "seventeen," in the first line, and insert" as many districts as there are senators ;" and strike out the rest of the section after the word, "districts," in the second line, and insert, so that the whole section will read as follows:

That the state shall be divided into as many districts as there are senators to be elected. That each district shall elect one senator, except that the county of New-York, together with the counties of Kings and Richmond, compose one district, and elect three senators, shall be composed of contiguous territory, and shall conform as near as may be to county lines, and be laid off, and the senators apportioned by the present legislature at their next session, according to the num» ber of free inhabitants, excluding aliens persons of colour not taxed, paupers, and convicts, in each district, which apportionment shall continue until a census of the inhabitants of the state shall be taken, as hereinafter directed, unless altered by the first legislature which shall be elected after such apportionment, who may if they see cause, alter such districts, and re-apportion the senators on the principles herein before provided for, and such last mentioned apportionment shall then continue until the next census."

MR. DUR said, there were fewer objections to the plan proposed by the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. Williams) than he had supposed, before he had

given it a more thorough examination. He, however, believed, that a multiplication of districts would diminish the importance of the senate. We were, in his opinion, carrying our innovations too far; and if we went on in this way, we should jeopardize the whole of the amendinents, and form a constitution which would be rejected by the people. He replied to the arguments that had been advanced in favour of a subdivision and multiplication of districts. He was opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oneida, (Mr. Bacon,) and in favour of that proposed by Mr. Tallmadge, which he wished might be referred to a select committee.

GEN. TALLMADGE feared, that the Convention was spreading its labours too wide; but he was warranted in the belief, that a different arrangement of senatorial districts was among the alterations anticipated by the people, and which would meet their approbation, if a plan could be devised, in which there were less evils than in the one contained in our present constitution. This being correct, we have only to proceed in our deliberations, and produce the plan which we shall consider best adapted to the principles of our government and the happiness of the people. With these considerations to guide him, he hoped he should be indulged in making a few remarks upon this subject.

The report of the select committee, together with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oneida, (Mr. Bacon,) had both been laid before the Convention; and likewise the proposition of the gentleman from Columbia, (Mr. E. Williams) applicabe to the plan suggested by the gentleman from Oneida. He would proceed to examine these two plans, and contrast them before the committee, that they might be the better prepared to judge of their relative merits or demerits. He had no hesitation to say, that he had once been predisposed in favour of thirty-two districts; but on an investigation of the subject, he was satisfied that it was impracticable to accomplish it consistently with the principles of equal representation, and it was inconsistent with the true spirit of our government, from which he felt himself bound not to depart.

He, therefore, felt it a duty to oppose the report of the committee, as not being calculated to effect the great object for which they were striving-to bring home the elected to a knowledge of the elector. His mind was fixed upon eight districts. Let us, in the first place, examine the report of the committee, that we may know the grounds upon which it ought to be rejected, if rejected at all; and here it would be no more than justice to remark, that to the committee who made this report no imputation of carelessness or inattention could be alleged their works proved to the contrary. A preliminary objection to this report was, that there would not be, upon the plan recommended, an equal representation in each and every district. Contrast the following districts:

=20,704 inequal.

Mr. T. said he would next call the attention of the committee to the detail submitted by the gentleman from Columbia, to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oneida. This plan is to divide the state into thirty-two districts, and we have been told that this could be effected without much difficulty or injustice. What is the result? A constant division of towns and counties, which to him appeared inadmissible. It had been urged as a reason for the propriety of dividing counties, that it was frequently done in making congres sional districts. There could be no soundness in this argument, for the representatives in congress stand the same with respect to their individual states, as the members of our assembly do with respect to their particular counties. They all act from one interest, coming from the same portion of the Union, and all having the same general object in view, the good of their state. The questions that arise, then, are of a national character, in which they all feel a common interest. The case is different in our legislature, where the members have all local interests, and local wishes to be gratified. If a county or town is to be divided, it affects the immediate objects of individuals, who have rival interests growing out of village jealousies, market privileges, county cites, &c. If some towns of one county were annexed to another county, to compose a senator district, it would thus often happen, that the representative of the single district thus composed, would oppose the very wishes of those towns. annexed to a county with which they had no alliance. This was sufficient to show the impropriety of dividing counties, and setting off towns. It was not necessary to go into a detail on this subject, as a bare mention of the facts would be sufficient to convince any man who would reflect on them.

He would next call the attention of the committee to the plan proposed by the gentleman from Columbia, by contrasting the different districts, to show the inequality of representation, which must be produced by this method of making single districts.

7 district, Columbia,

4,798 minus.
6,859 plus.

=29,519

Is not this sufficient to induce us to abandon a plan which produces such results? The inequalities produced by this plan, are double to those produced by the report of the committee; and as we have now fifty-two counties in the state, it becomes necessary to unite counties to form these single districts. Look at the districts composed of the counties of Madison and Oswego, between which there is no earthly connection, being separated by the Oneida Lake, which cuts off all social intercourse, and leaves the inhabitants of the different coun. ties strangers to each other. Thus the object of small districts is totally de

feated, and the inadmissibility of the plan satisfactorily demonstrated. It is totally contrary to the genius of our government, and incompatible with the principles upon which it was founded, and with the prosperity and happiness of the people who compose it. We confound the nature of the senate and assembly, and lay a foundation for continual discord between the two branches, and where this evil will end it is difficult to predict. The true spirit of our government requires, that the popular branch of our legislature present the interests and feelings of their constituents in detail, and that the senate stand as the umpire, to pronounce upon the interest of a large district; but if they are elected in small districts, their views will be more limited, and they will lose that independence and elevated rank which they ought to maintain in the legislature, and descend to the little local views, which will always agitate the more popular branch. This, then, is a subject of vital importance, and one upon which must, in a great measure, depend, the future prosperity of our government. Let us, then, endeavour to preserve the regular gradation of the different departments of our government. Let the local and individual views of the people be concentrated in the assembly, narrowed in the senate, and terminated in the executive. We shall then have a fair representation of all the varying interests of the state, from local to general and state interests.

From this view of the subject, he had thought it a duty to submit to the consideration of this committee, a plan for dividing the state into eight districts, by which it would be seen, that the object of equal representation, without the evil of dividing counties, might be effected more nearly than by any plan heretofore proposed. The greatest inequality would be a deficiency in the western part of the state of about 9,000, which would soon be made up by the rapid increase of population in that part of the state.

Free white inhabitants in the state,
Deduct aliens,

1,332,744

15,101 1,317,643

Divided by 32, the whole number of senators, gives 41,176, for each senator, and four senators require 164,705.