MR. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman-With emotions of painful diffidence, proceeding from a profound veneration for the talents and patriotism with which I am surrounded; I rise to solicit from this honourable committee, permission, briefly to explain the reasons which will govern my vote on the question before

you.

Sir, I have listened with attention, to the arguments of gentlemen who advocate the report of your select committee; and although, these arguments have been enforced by the fascinating powers of eloquence, yet, when disrobed of this magic dress, the subject presents itself to us, in the form of this simple proposition. Which will best protect the public interest, a negative power in the executive, over two-thirds of your legislature, or a control which shall not extend beyond the majority elect of both houses?

This government is founded upon the principles of a representative democracy the sovereign power is solemnly recognized to be in the people, and to emanate from them: In delegating their trust, the people have disposed of this power to public agents, in such portions, and for such uses, as they, in their wisdom, have deemed best calculated to promote the public happiness.

The framers of the constitution of 1777, borrowed freely from that government, whose chains they had recently broken, and in organizing the legislature, they placed in the hands of the judiciary, a strong check upon the deliberations of that body. This check originated with the British policy of government, and was yielded to the throne for the purpose of defending the sceptre from what, in court phraseology, is termed an encroaching spirit in the people; or in other words, to shield the monarch from the inroads which liberty has occasionally attempted upon the rights and prerogatives of the crown. Sir, I have followed the gentlemen over the extended field, which they have explored in the present debate, and lament that it should have been thought necessary to enforce their arguments, by impeaching the purity of your public functionaries. Imputations dark and vague have been, with a lavish hand, showered upon the legislative and judicial departments of your government. Even the sages and patriots of your revolution, have not escaped this contumely. The illustrious dead, who pillowed their heads for seven long winters upon the mountain snow; and bared their breasts during seven sanguinary campaigns, in the glorious struggle for American independence and freedom, have been upon this floor accused of profligacy and waste, and of having corruptly dissipated the funds of your state.

It is, sir, to me a subject of regret, that at a moment when a little ray of sunshine has broken through the clouds, which have long darkened your political horizon, to beam its genial warmth upon your citizens; it should have been thought discreet to scatter the seeds of distrust and suspicion, by repre.senting your legislature as corrupt and profligate.

This Convention, sir, represents a moral and a thinking community-we come here, not as accusors, not to destroy, but to protect—not to attenuate, but to strengthen-not to innovate, but to reform. Therefore, it is neither salutary nor proper, to weaken the public confidence in a government, under whose auspices, by the blessings of Providence, your state, from the feebleness of infancy, has grown to the strength and stature of manhood. We have heard much of legislative encroachment; but not a word of executive combination. Can gentlemen refer us to a single incident, where the representatives of a free people have conspired against the liberties of their constituents? History records no such event; but her pages are filled with a long and black catalogue of executive usurpations.

We are now persuaded to distrust the honesty and discretion of the legislative power, and to improve upon the modern science of checks and balances-We are urged to place the public welfare in the safe keeping of the executive, who is to be made the constitutional organ of the public will, and the supreme judge of the public good.

Sir, the amendment of the honourable gentleman from Montgomery, comes to the committee in the spirit of conciliation; for by conceding two-thirds to all objections arising out of the constitution, it meets gentlemen who are in favour

of a strong veto more than half way, and if adopted, it would give to the execu tive an efficient control, which might at all times be fearlessly exercised under the same guarantee, of popular support and protection.

After all, sir, you may resort to your checks and your balances, and may rely upon the equipoise which you establish, to perpetuate your system; yet be assured, that the columns which support the temple of your freedom, derive their beauty and strength from the virtue and intelligence of the people. Corrupt that virtue, and obscure that intelligence, your checks are lost; and the fair fabric reared by the wisdom and sustained by the honesty of your sturdy ancestors, will crumble into ruins.

Should that evil day come upon you, to use the language of the honourable gentleman from Orange, you may then flee to the wilderness and resume the savage state, for the only alternative left you will be the melancholy privilege of kissing the thirsty sword of military despotism, or of seeking the mountain wilds as your city of refuge. I again repeat, sir, on that day which your citizens shall yield the reins to vice, and shall permit folly to usurp the seat of intelligence, liberty will be heard to shriek in the agonies of despair, and will be seen to drop a tear of bitter lamentation over the ashes of your republic.

MR. BACON said, that the only question now before the committee was, whether instead of adopting the proposition reported by the select committee, which makes two-thirds of each branch of the legislature necessary in all cases to the passage of a bill which has been returned with objections by the governor, (whether those objections relate to its constitutionality or its expediency} we should accept of the project moved by the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Dodge,) which requires a concurrence of two-thirds, only when the objections are of a constitutional nature, but a bare majority when those objections relate only to its expediency.

As he had not been ambitious of taking a part in the interesting debate which had occurred on the general question which had been before them, because his aid had not been needed, merely for the sake of discoursing on matters and things in general, he should not now have risen had he not feared that there was something a little catching to some gentlemen on a first view of what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Wheeler) had called a conciliatory proposition, and one which he seemed to think ought to unite all sides of the Convention in its adoption. He hoped we should not be so indiscreet as to sanction it, because it came under that guise. So far from conciliating his good will in its favour, he should of the two prefer to reverse the proposition, and require a majority of two-thirds where the objections related solely to the expediency of a bill, and a bare majority only when they were on constitutional grounds, and for this obvious reason ;-constitutional difficulties it was always within the competence of the judiciary power to correct; and should a law clearly unconstitutional, at any time make its way through all branches of the legislature, there was still a redeeming power left by an appeal to the judiciary, through whose decision the law might be annulled, the great principles of the constitution preserved, and the sacredness of private rights effectually maintained. The worst that could happen, even were there no revisionary power to check the passage of an unconstitutional law, would be but temporary; and every error would ultimately be corrected, so soon as time and opportunity to test the objectionable principle was given by judicial interposition. Not so, however, when the question was one of expediency. There, the judiciary power could afford no relief, because with the exercise of discretionary powers in the other branches of the government, they could in no shape interpose in their judicial capacity. The act once passed, however prejudicial to private interests or public good, must have its full operation; and in many cases even its repeal could be of no avail to repair the mischiefs it might have occasioned, because from its nature it might be irrevocable. To say that hasty, ill-advised, and destructive acts were not to be presupposed of the representatives of the people, clothed with their power, identified with their interests, and thus, as some gentlemen maintain, being in truth the people themselves, was arguing against all experience and the most notorious facts. Who can shut his eyes against the occurrences which have taken place in various legislative assemblies in this country, which, even

while in their progress, were the subjects of wonder and indignation to every reflecting man who was not himself a party to them. He would not advert to any thing which had taken place in our own state in confirmation of this position. He thought it an invidious and indelicate task to allude to transactions, in which, perhaps, many who heard him, may have had a share,-of the merits of which, different opinions might still be entertained, and a discussion of which could have no good effect here. He preferred drawing his illustrations from other states, and from cases of the most notorious and unquestionable character. If we want examples of legislation, the most hasty, ill-advised, and destructive that can be well imagined, to the great interests of the community, let us look only to what has occurred within our own recollections in the great and enlightened state of Pennsylvania.

To relieve the pecuniary embarrassments of the people, and to put money in the pockets of every man who wanted it, the wise men of the legislature of that state took it into their heads, but a few years since, that the institution of a new brood of local banks in all parts of the state was necessary. A bill was suddenly pushed through both branches at one sweep, incorporating the round number of forty independent banks. A project which bore on the face of it the character of madness to every man, whose wisdom had not grown up within the walls of the legislative halls. It passed by overwhelming majorities both branches; and though resisted in every stage by the governor, and returned by him with objections that did the highest honour to his sagacity and independence, was again passed notwithstanding, by the same overwhelming majority in both branches and an act thus consummated, which has entailed increased distress upon that great community, and under the operation of which, they have ever since been bleeding at every pore; and yet Pennsylvania is a great and enlightened state-its representative bodies emanate from the people, and as gentlemen will have it, are the people themselves; and to predicate of their acts, either folly, rashness, or corruption, is the highest presumption-is an insult to the majesty of the people! And yet here is a case of acknowledged, and most notorious folly and rashness, if no worse; for corruption need not always be presumed, which even the constitutional veto of the executive was insufficient to check, although a majority of two thirds was necessary to its enact ment.

Not to multiply numerous other cases of the same character, he would only call the attention of the committee to the famous Yazoo case in the state of Georgia, alluded to by another gentleman in a former stage of this debate, (Mr. Tallmadge.) An instance of an act granting away for a song, the great public domains of the state, under circumstances of the most gross corruption, passed by like overwhelming majorities in both branches, at first returned with objections by the executive; but with some small modifications again returned to him -pressed upon him by a current which he had not either the power or the firmness to resist; and which, left to the people, no other remedy but its forcible repeal by a subsequent legislature, and its destruction by the hands of the common hanginan. Do cases of this sort afford any countenance to the idea, that either improvident or corrupt legislation is not ever to be supposed, or that a revisionary power in distinct hands is of too strong and dangerous a nature to be entrusted with any other branch of the government? Experience has proved that even on the ground on which it is proposed to be placed by the report of the committee, it is not always strong enough to effect its proper object. Let us not then weaken and narrow it still more.-But was there not danger of the results growing out of unrestrained and unchecked legislation on another ground, which, in the situation and circumstance of this extensive state, was more particularly to be guarded against? He meant that which grew out of local interesis and combinations—an interest which was usually more deeply felt and more diflicult to be resisted by the representative, than perhaps any other, and to which all communities, and more especially this one, were peculiarly exposed. It was true, as had been remarked, that the state had already parted with some of their great interests, which ought to have been cherished and sustained for the common benefit of the whole. But had they not in the mean time come into the possession of others, probably much greater? We have a most valuable

and increasing school fund which ought never to be diverted to local or partial objects. We have a general interest, as has been remarked by a gentleman from Saratoga, in those exhaustless salt springs, which are a source of permanent and increasing revenue to our treasury. Their consumption is mostly at present confined to the people in the western and northern districts of the state. It is not to be concealed that the population of those districts already exceeds the other portions of the state, and that they will of course return a majority in both branches of the legislature. Suppose that the people of those sections should take it into their head to relieve themselves from the duty now imposed upon salt manufactured at the state springs ?-How many of their representatives would or could, long successfully resist their will?

Again-The state has a still greater, and, I might almost say, invaluable, interest in the future revenues to be derived from those great monuments of her pride and her wisdom, the western and northern canals. Suppose that the people of those districts should feel it to be for their particular interest to divert that revenue from the purpose to which it is very properly pledged, or after that pledge is redeemed to greatly diminish or entirely abolish the tolls, that their productions might pass upon them free? Is it certain that their representatives would withstand the pressure which might be made upon them for that object? Would it not be of vital consequence in the event, to the other sections of the state, that their interests should be guarded by a department who represented the whole state, was elected by no local views, and stood pledged to no narrow or partial objects? Will they feel that those interests are perfectly secure with a merely nominal control-a control over a bare majority of the legislature, acting under local views, and perhaps temporary excitements? This is no imaginary or highly improbable case, but one which may come home to the business and bosoms of a large portion of those who hear me, and of their immediate constituents, and is submitted to the serious consideration of those representing the ancient and respectable county of Suffolk, and the other seaboard and southern districts of the state. I repeat, therefore, that for all practical purposes, I should prefer to take the reverse of the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, and leave all constitutional objections to be settled by judicial interposition; but prefer intrusting both powers in the first instance to the revisory power of the executive, subject to be overruled by two-thirds of both branches as recommended by the committee.

A few words only on the ground of precedent. Most of the projects which we have before this had pressed upon us, have been more or less sanctioned by some precedent of some state or government in their favour. The one now under consideration is sustained by no one relative in any government of the nation, or of the world. Let us not, for the sake of trying some new experiinent, or adding some new check to the machinery, hazard ourselves upon a distinction never before made, or upon a project which the accumulated wisdom of our country never before dreamed of.

The motion of Mr. Dodge was lost.

The question was then taken on the substitute reported by the committee to the third article of the constitution, and it was carried in the affirmative 100 to 17, as follows:

YES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdscye, Breese, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Case, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Cramer, Day, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunting, Huntington, Hurd, Jansen, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, Lansing, Lawrence, Lefferts, M'Call, Munro, Moore, Nelson, Paulding, Pitcher, Platt, Porter, Pumpelly, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Rockwell, Rogers, Rose, Ross, Russel, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, Schenck, Seeley, Sharpe, I Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, Stagg, Starkweather, Steele, I. Southerland, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Ten Eyck, Townley, Tripp, Tuttle, Van Buren, Van Horne, Van Ness, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, E. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, N. Williams, Woods, Woodward, Yates, Young-100.

NOES-Messrs. Carver, Collins, Dodge, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, Millikin, Park, Pike, Richards, Root, R. Sanford, Swift, Taylor, Tompkins, Townsend, Wheeler, Wooster-17.

The committee of the whole then rose and reported the same to the Conven

tion.

Adjourned.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1821.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. DE WITT. The President took the chair at 10 o'clock, when the minutes of Saturday were read and approved.

THE LEGISLATIVE YEAR.

On motion of GEN. ROOT, the Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the report of the committee to whom it was referred, to inquire into the expediency of establishing the commencement of the legislative year, and also whether any, and what alterations ought to be made in the term for which any elective officer may be elected, reported the following resolutionMr. Sharpe in the chair.

The report was read in the words following:

Resolved, That the following amendments, ought to be made to the constitution of this state, viz :--

And be it further ordained by the people of this state, That the general election for governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and members of assembly, shall be held at such time, in the month of October, or November, as the legislature shall direct, and the persons so elected, shall, on the first day of January following, be entitled to the exercise of their respective functions in virtue of such election.

The governor and lieutenant-governor, shall be elected annually, and senators for three years.

MR. TOMPKINS moved to divide the subject, so as first to consider the proposed alteration of the term of holding the general election, and the commencement of the legislative year. Adopted.

MR. BRIGGS moved to strike out the words "October, or," for the purpose of fixing the time of holding the election in November.

GEN. ROOT preferred that the report should stand as it does; and let the people, through the legislature, fix the time of holding the election in October or November, at they please.

If we

MR. BRIGGS thought the time too indefinite. November, he said, would be the most suitable time to hold the election, especially for the farmers. leave it discretionary which month to take of the two, we may as well leave it altogether so.

The motion of Mr. Briggs was lost.

MR. LANSING wished the phraseology of the report altered. He thought we had better preserve the words of the constitution—" Ordain, determine, and de-. clare in the name of the good people of this state."

GEN. ROOT preferred the language used by the committee in their report. The old constitution was made by the Convention and they of course used the language in the name of the people; but this is to be made by the people themselves.

MR. FAIRLIE thought it an improper time to discuss the phraseology. That will be settled hereafter, when a committee will be appointed to put the whole into a proper shape.

MR. LANSING withdrew his motion.

CHIEF JUSTICE SPENCER spoke a few words in favour of the first part of the report of the committee. Too long a period now elapses between the election and the time of the meeting of the legislature; and circumstances may occur