jangle between the governor and the council of appointment over the nomination of state officers, and the power of judges and great courts of record. The newspapers were full of protests, and demands for constitutional changes. Tammany Hall, as leader of the cry for reform, urged a convention (Aug., 1820). The legislature voted in favor of one, but the council of revision vetoed it. The latter body, and especially Chancellor Kent, was severely censured for having thwarted the will of the people in order to keep the state in the hands of lawyers and landlords. Finally the question of holding a convention for revising the constitution was submitted to the people and favored by a vote of 109,346 to 34,901 (March, 1821). The farmers, the Democrats, and the New-Englanders from central and western New York desired the convention, while the people from the older parts of the state the Dutch, the lawyers, the professional men, and the large landowners -opposed it.

Prominent Members.-The delegates (110) met at Albany August 28, and finished their work November 10, 1821. Among those present at this remarkable convention were Chancellor James Kent, Martin Van Buren, a future President, Daniel D. Tompkins, ex-governor and now Vice-President, Rufus King, United States senator, Stephen Van Rensselaer of patroon descent, Peter A. Jay, son of John Jay, General James Tallmadge, and Peter R. Livingston. Tompkins, "the favorite farmer's son," was made president by the Democrats, who were in the majority.

Changes in the Constitution. It was evident from the outset that a new and more democratic constitution

would be framed.

The council of revision, whose members, except the governor, held office during good be havior, was abolished because it was beyond the reach of the people, and the veto power which it exercised was placed in the hands of the governor, who was directly responsible to the people. The council of appointment, from whom 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their commissions in 1821, and which had been a source of trouble and corruption for years, had not a single defender and was dropped. Officers were to be appointed by the legislature or by the governor, or else elected directly by the people. The governor's term was shortened to two years.

Franchise. A great advance was made toward universal male franchise. The Charter of Liberties (1691) had given every freeholder who had "forty shillings per annum in freehold" and every "freeman in any corporation" the right to vote for assemblymen. After 1697 three months' residence and a freehold worth £40 were the qualifications, but Catholics and Quakers were excluded. In 1777 actual residents owning freeholds valued at £100 could vote for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, while all males residing six months in a county before election and owning a £20 freehold or paying a yearly rent of forty shillings could vote for assemblymen.1

In 1821 the ballot was given to every man who was a resident taxpayer, or a soldier, or a fireman, excepting criminals and colored men not owning land worth $250.

1 These values were changed April 9, 1811, to $250, $50, and $5 respectively.

Thus all poor whites, who paid no tax, and the masses of the blacks were still refused the right to vote.

The

Courts. There was less change in the judiciary. The court of errors was retained as the court of last appeal. The supreme court was reduced to a chief justice and two associates, aided by eight circuit courts. chancellor and an associate judged equity cases. The minor courts were unchanged. The governor appointed the judges. The courts were brought nearer to the people, and the judges made more dependent upon them. The law of the state was more clearly defined, also, and provision was made for future amendments.1

The Constitution of 1821, which was to be the public law for another quarter of a century, was ratified by a vote of 74,732 to 41,402 (Feb., 1822). Fundamental principles of government had been changed not by bloody revolution, but in peace, by law, to meet the needs of a more democratic epoch. At that time the action was thought to be radical, to-day it seems very conservative. Popular government had made a big advance. Civil revolution had been affected "by the votes of those who voluntarily surrendered political power into the hands of their fellow citizens."

1

Up to 1846 ten amendments were submitted to the people, mostly to extend the franchise and to make offices elective.

CHAPTER XXIX.-PARTY AND PERSONAL POLITICS

Hostility to Clinton. The last legislature under the first constitution was overwhelmingly Democratic. Governor Clinton's "speech" to the two houses was denounced as a 66 remnant of royalty" (1822), and henceforth written "messages" were used. So hostile was the feeling towards Clinton that in the first election under the new constitution (Nov., 1822) his friends induced him to withdraw from the contest. Joseph C. Yates of Schenectady, who had been mayor of his native city, state senator, and now served as judge of the supreme court, was nominated for governor and received. all but 3,000 votes, which were given to Solomon Southwick, a stump candidate."

66

The Democrats were in complete control of the state government. They had not a single opponent in the senate and only a few in the assembly. The state offices from that of city mayor to secretary of state were at their disposal. With no opposition and no state. issues, personal likes and hates divided the party into factions that scrambled for place and power. The Democratic politicians were triumphant and their power centered in the famous "Albany Regency," composed chiefly of Martin Van Buren, William L. Marcy, Governor Yates, Robert Skinner, Samuel L. Talcott, Benjamin F. Butler, Edwin Croswell, and Benjamin Knower. They planned to control the state patronage and to become a deciding factor in national politics. For almost twenty-five years they dominated the Democratic party.

Choice of Presidential Electors. In the coming national election the "Regency" favored William H. Crawford for President, while the Adams, Clay, Calhoun, and Jackson men formed a party of opposition composed of two main branches—the Clintonians, and the Democrats hostile to the "Regency," who called themselves the "People's Party." At this time presidential electors were chosen by the legislature. It was feared that the "Regency" would secure the election of Crawford electors if this method were not changed. The selection of electors by popular vote was made the issue of the coming state election (Nov., 1823), since the legislature would have to decide the question. The "Regency" candidates won a majority in the legislature. After a bitter contest the assembly passed a bill favoring the choice of electors by the people, but the senate rejected it.

Result of the Defeat of the Measure.-The measure was popular. Its defeat caused great indignation. The names of those who defeated it were printed in the newspapers in bold-faced type and posted in public places. The "Regency's " enemies held Governor Yates responsible for the failure of the bill and resolved to defeat him for re-election. The "Regency" used him as a scapegoat and nominated Colonel Young to succeed him, because Young favored the proposed electoral law. The "People's Party" had favored him for governor, but protested against his alliance with the "Regency.' They called a convention of the friends of the electoral law to meet at Utica September 21, 1824, and consequently were accused of working for the re-election of Clinton,