Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

MR. HOGEBOOM, wished to assign his reasons for the vote he was about to give on the question before the committee. He was not in the habit of speaking in public assemblies, and would not therefore probably be able to communi cate his sentiments with as much facility and clearness, as some other gentlemcn on the floor. He had, he said, voted to abolish the council of revision, because he considered that an improper body to have a voice directly or indirectly in the enactment of laws. That a check on the proceedings of the legislature was necessary, he was fully persuaded, and one at least as efficient as that contemplated by the report of the select committee: What its operation would be could not be foreseen; he was, however, willing to make the trial of it, as at present he could think of no better, and he was sure it could not be worse than the old one, that had been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

The state, said Mr. Hogeboom, once owned a vast and very valuable property in land; a property, which if it had been husbanded with ordinary care and prudence, would have produced an income adequate to meet all our public burthens; and also provide a fund for the support of schools, sufficient to educate all our children to the latest posterity, free of expense. A law had been passed authorising the sale of this land. This law the council had not objected to. The land had been sold for a mere trifle. This great property had been squandered and lost. He did not impute improper motives to the council for not objecting to the law-the legislature were more to be blamed than they. This among other reasons, convinced him that a check was necessary, and one different from what had hitherto existed.

Not many years ago, a law had passed the legislature, enabling all who were dishonestly inclined, to defraud their creditors of their honest dues. The council made no objection to this law; and the consequence was, very many honest men lost their property, and roguery and corruption were encouraged.

The

Banks had also been a fruitful subject of legislation: These were forced through the legislature in rapid succession, until the state was literally overrun with them. And these were all approved by the council of revision. At. the onset, a few of these institutions were in the hands of one political partythe federalists. They were enabled to make liberal accommodations. republicans got into power, and said we too must have banks; and unless we have, we shall be ruined-our opponents derive great influence and power from them they will destroy us if we have not the means put in our hands to resist them. In this way, bank after bank was erected until the credit and currency of the state was ruined.

We boast of our state as large and powerful, we are wealthy, populous, and enterprising. But have we honesty? No, we have no honesty.

Some years ago he had the honour of a seat in the legislature; we then had some lands left, and he wished to have them set apart for the purpose of erecting a fund for the support of common schools-the measure was popular, and approved by many. But there was also a college to be endowed; and it was insisted that a provision should be made for this college at the same time. To the endowment of colleges he had no great objection, though he supposed they could be well enough supported without. However, to secure the great object of getting a permanent fund for common schools, he had consented, among others, to the endowment of the college.

Another evil existed in the state, created by the legislature, and approved by the council of revision-he meant lotteries. To be sure it has been attempted to sanctify the object by appropriating the avails to the advancement of literature. In every city and village you see public advertisements of the places where, and the persons by whom, this legalized gambling is conducted. This he considered disgraceful to the state, and destructive of the morals of the community. He did not mean to say that the council of revision were alone to blame for these improper acts of legislation-the legislature were undoubtedly most in fault; and it was therefore that he wished to have a check on their proceedings, and a different one from what we have heretofore had. He begged that he might not be misunderstood; he meant not to insinuate any thing against the integrity of the judicial members of the council of revision-they were highly to be commended for their faithful, intelligent, and upright discharge of

their official duties; all he intended to say, was, that they were not proper per sons to exercise the power of a qualified negative on the passage of laws.

MR. Hogeboom thought it safest and best to lodge this power in the hands of the executive singly. He was not disposed to withhold from the legislature a reasonable confidence. In the choice of the executive he had a voice; he had none in the election of members of assembly, other than those from his own county; it was therefore but reasonable that he should be willing to put greater confidence in an agent in whose selection he had a voice, than in those who were chosen without his concurrence. He should therefore vote against striking out, GEN. ROOT had hoped, from the unanimous vote on this question a few days since, that the debate would have been confined to narrow limits. But notwithstanding the remark of the gentleman from Albany, (Mr. Spencer) that the subject was exhausted, and that of the gentleman from Dutchess, (Mr. Livingston) that there is not a flower left unculled in the garden of fancy; yet as the gentleman from Oneida (Mr. Platt) had thought proper to defend the council of revision-to give a history of its acts-and to chant a requiem over its tomb, the discussion had taken a wide range, and did not yet appear to be exhausted. The object now seemed to be, to discuss the merits and demerits of the council of revision. The question on striking out was indeed confined to one point; but different opinions were entertained with respect to filling the blank. The honourable mover wished it filled in one way, and the gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Tompkins) in another; and other gentlemen perhaps would be in favour of filling it with three-fifths. It is not known preciely what majority would be finally agreed on, whether two-thirds or three-fifths, or any other proportion.

His honourable and venerable friend from Rensselaer (Mr. Hogeboom) had had experience enough to induce him to try a new course. Sufficient information might be gathered from the legislative journals to justify such sentiments. He should not inquire whether party views had mingled in the proceedings of the council-it was enough that its acts afforded just grounds for the opinion expressed by the gentleman from Rensselaer. But he asked if the course now proposed would remedy these evils. Would the governor be more safe than the council of revision, in checking bills for the sale of state property, in passing insolvent laws, and the establishment of a multitude of banks? Would not these bills have passed if the veto had been deposited solely with the governor? When we apply a remedy to any defect in the constitution, he wished it might be effectual; and such he did not think the one proposed by the committee.

Having been on a short excursion out of town, he took his seat too late yesterday to hear the whole of the argument of the honourable gentleman from Otsego (Mr. Van Buren); but he was in season to hear some positions, which appeared to him untenable. Because, forsooth, certain concurrent resolutions, which were unconstitutional, had passed the legislature, it was therefore necessary that the veto should be taken from that body and given to the governor. This appeared to be a non sequitur. He denied that money had been drawn from the treasury by concurrent resolutions, and explained the case of $50,000, said to have been drawn on such authority in 1812. Neither the late nor the present comptroller would dare to draw a warrant on the treasurer under such circumstances. He believed the legislature had never gone farther in this respect, than to authorize the clerks of the two houses to make some slight expenditures of the public money in fitting up committee rooms. But what if such abuses had happened? Would it take two-thirds of both houses to correct them? By no means—a simple majority would be sufficient.

In 1814 a law passed the legislature to aid in apprehending deserters from the United States army and navy. It was objected to by the council of revision, upon the ground that it was an infraction of personal rights, which ought in all cases to be held sacred. Then it was, if ever, when the council should have bent from its strictness, in aid of the country involved in war, and in apprehending deserters, who were stalking through the state in their laced coats with impunity; and when apprehended, sheriffs and jailors refused to receive them. This was in September, 1814. In 1801 and in 1813, all the acts of the legislature were carefully revised; yet a law to prevent vice and immorality

was suffered to remain on our statute book, authorising the arrest of a person who was found travelling on the Sabbath, and that without warrant founded on oath or affirmation. The law entitling mortgagors and mortgagees on the same property to vote at elections; the law authorising trials for pettit offences without jury; and the law authorising sheriffs to hold their offices more than four years, had passed the council without objections. We had had a council that had been governed by circumstances, and we were about to place the veto in hands, where it will be administered in the same manner.

The honourable gentleman from Otsego was in favour of having the qualified negative placed with the governor, although he admitted it would rarely if ever be exercised. It was said the governor would not dare oppose the will of the legislature, on which he was dependent for support; and because he would not do it, he must therefore be invested with a portion of the prerogative of a sove reign. If this were the case, it was quite immaterial whether one half or twothirds of the legislature were required for the passage of a law.

The gentleman from Oneida, in his history of the council of revision, had not informed us how many bills have been lost for the want of two-thirds. Twothirds were not found to pass the Convention Bill last fall, although public sentiment called loudly for the measure; and in such cases, no power under heaven should be able to resist the will of the legislature.

He admired the facility with which the honourable gentleman from Otsego can lately resort to European governments for precedents. He had traversed the waves of the Atlantic for models to teach us how to frame and administer republican governments. That gentleman has informed us, that from a writer he has seen, it appears that the royal assent to a bill which had passed the two houses of parliament, had not been refused since about the year 1692. Hence he concludes that this qualified negative will be quite harmless here. Whether this fact in the parliamentary history of that country be correctly stated or not, he could not say; it had not come within his particular examination. But admitting it to be a fact, will the honourable gentleman pretend to deny, that the royal dissent was not very freely exercised in the latter part of the reigns of the Tudor family, and during the reign of the Stewarts. In those days, the com mons of England were stoutly contending for the rights of the people, in opposition to the usurped prerogatives of the crown. Whigs could then raise their voices with effect. The same principles which brought the first Charles to the block, and compelled the last of the Stuarts to abdicate his throne, procured the passage of bills which met the royal dissent. But upon the revolution of 1688, when William of Orange was called to the throne, a whig ministry was formed. There being no political conflict between the parliament and ministry, of course there was no exercise of the royal dissent. A whig ministry was continued, with the exception of a few freaks of Queen Anne, till the Hanoverian branch of the house of Brunswick was called to the British throne. Soon after, a tory ministry was formed, with a tory parliament at its command, which has continued to the present day. When the greatest statesman that ever directed the British sceptre or guided the two houses of parliament, was at the head of the ministry, there was no occasion for the exercise of the royal dissent. Sir Robert Walpole could prevent the passage of any bill which would not meet the approbation of his sovereign. Since that time no bill of public importance has passed the two houses of parliament which was not in accordance with the views of the ministry.

Let us, said Mr. Root, apply this to our case. It has been correctly said, that the governor will always be a partisan, and will probably have the two houses with him. In that case, should an improper bill be originated, would he not advise some friend that it be withdrawn? if against his party, he would oppose it. Should only one house be with him, the other house would operate as a check, and there would be no need of the qualified negative. The governor would be more likely than the council of revision to be actuated by party views, and to resist the will of his political opponents. But we have been told, that some check upon the representatives of the people will be salutary, in order to preserve them from their own worst enemies-themselves. The honourable member from New-York, (Mr. Edwards,) while descanting on this

subject, had not thought proper to cite any instances in his place; but he had understood it had been whispered out of doors, that if the governor had possess. ed the veto, the six million bank would not have been established.

But let us, said Mr. Root, examine the case of 1812. Sir, that corruption will creep into the legislature, and into other departments of government, this and other instances have fully proved. But would the evil be corrected, if the veto were lodged with the governor alone? In the instance alluded to, the torrent of corruption might have been checked; but it should be remembered, that we shall not always be blest with such a chief magistrate as we had in 1812. Could not the governor be approached? and would it be more difficult to pollute one, than four or five? It was true, as had been urged, that the governor is amenable to the people, and might forfeit his office by his misconduct; but his corruption would fix a stain upon the character of the state, which would not easily be washed away. There was no safety in the governor.

He was opposed to the proposition requiring two-thirds, because it savoured of aristocracy. Whatever the gentleman from Queens (Mr. King) might say, the governments of this country were democracies. He was aware, that there were aristocratic features in our constitution, and he hoped this was the time for expunging them, and rendering our government democratic. It was feared by the gentleman from Dutchess, that our constitution would be made too weak, rather than too strong. He had heard the same sentiments expressed in 1797, '8 and 9; but such doctrines were then called federalism, and those who opposed them were branded with the appellation of democrats, jacobins, &c. In 1801, there was a political revolution, and the epithets which were before odious became honourable and fashionable.

Here Mr. Root went into a definition of the several kinds of government, and asked if ours did not answer to the description of a democracy. No, says the gentleman from Queens, the Grecian states were democracies, when the people assembled en mass, to transact their own affairs. Was there any difference he asked, whether the people assembled in a body, or by their representatives? It is a maxim, what one does by an agent, he does himself. The titles of our acts and official papers were in the name of the people, who are present by their delegates. If half a dozen merchants should send an agent to NewYork, instead of going themselves, the transaction would in effect be theirs, though performed by another.

We have been referred for a precedent to the constitution of the United States, because that had been adopted by all the states. The gentleman from Richmond had yesterday pointed out the distinction between a state government, and that of the United States; and the gentleman from Dutchess has today done the same. The president of the United States had never abused his power. It was said he had never given the veto but to two bills; he did not recollect but one, and that was so strong an instance, that its unconstitutionality was almost unanimously acknowledged. The people will not complain till their rights are invaded; and then they will rise in their majesty.

He wished to express what he believed to be public sentiment, so far as he had been able to collect it. The objection was not that the chancellor and judges were united with the governor; but it was the casting vote of the governor against the Convention Bill, that had excited public indignation. The people ask bread, and you give them a stone; they ask a fish, and you give them a serpent.

COL. YOUNG. I am not disposed at this late hour to enter at large upon the discussion of the subject before the committee; yet I cannot forbear suggesting a few remarks before the question is taken.

The conduct of the council of revision has been referred to in the course of this debate; and an honourable member of that body has requested posterity to write its epitaph. I am not disposed to allude to that subject further than to notice, that this appeal to posterity seems to betray a consciousness that the public sentiment of the present day is altogether against it.

But while on the one hand I cannot extend my courtesy so far as to express my approbation of the doings of that council, neither on the other band can I yield to the very extraordinary positions, assumed by the honourable gentleman

from Dutchess, (Mr. Livingston) who has moved, and the honourable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Root) who has supported the amendment.

They have maintained not only that the people are pure, but by a sort of transmigration, make it out that the legislature are the people themselves.-Than this, nothing, in my view, is more fallacious. The people are not more represented in the legislative than in the other branches of the government. The mantle of the people rests as much on the judicial and executive, as on the legislative departments; and the idea that all the power, virtue, and intelligence of the people is concentered and embodied in the legislative branch, to the exclusion of the others, is as preposterous as it is erroneous.

This train of reasoning involves the argument of the honourable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Root) in a singular dilemma. He has admitted, and with emphasis, that a law constituting a certain bank passed both branches of the ligislature by bribery and corruption. What! were the people bribed? Will be impute to the constituents all the guilt and corruption of their agents? Sir, this preposterous identity is not only unfounded in fact, but it is dangerous in principle. It takes away responsibility from the agent, by confounding him with his constituents; and it transfers to the innocent the transgressions of the guilty.

But, sir, in the very case alluded to, what would have been the result, had the negating power been then vested in the governor alone? The law would have been defeated. Acting on his responsibility, he would have been enabled, without the expense of a prorogation, to have protected the people from that law, which, in the language of those gentlemen, the people had enacted.

And here, sir, permit me to advert to a very singular circumstance in respect to the power of prorogation. It is an unquestionable prerogative of the governor. It has continued so nearly forty-five years; ever since our constitution has been formed. And during all that time, who has thought it a dangerous weapon in the hands of the executive? Where has been the complaint of its exercise? Where the solicitation for its repeal? Have any propositions been made to this Convention to take it away? Has a lisp escaped from either of my honourable friends of the alarming extent of this power?-a power which closes the doors of legislation against the representatives of the people.

Sir, there is not so great, so unlimited, and unchecked a power any where confided by your constitution. And yet this power is acquiesced in without a murmur, when at the same time, the mere authority to arrest and suspend in its passage a pernicious law, has called forth all the anxious sensibility of those who claim to be the exclusive friends of the people. Indeed, sir, they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. And where is the danger of reposing in the executive the qualified veto contemplated by the report of the select committee?

We have been informed by the honourable gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Tompkins,) that our ancestors would not so repose it when our present constitution was formed. Sir, with every respect for that honourable gentleman, I cannot refrain from expressing an opinion that other motives actuated that body. Instead of apprehending that they clothed the executive with too much power, it is my impression that they believed they had given him too little; and in order that he might be induced to exert what was considered a wholesome check, they nerved and fortified his arm with the support of the judiciary.

But, sir, admitting; that the fact was otherwise, what follows? That they had before them the acts of colonial governors, who had usurped legislative powers, and without adverting to the variance of election and responsibility, their eyes were directed to the avoidance of an evil under which they suffered. But, sir, experience has proved to us, that as the cause of the evil was different its effect has not reached us. Those governors were elected by the king of Great Britain; they were responsible only to him. But our executive is elected by the people, and to the people alone he is responsible.

But what has been the result of experience on this subject? Not many years after our constitution was formed, a portion of the same men who assisted in framing it, assisted also in forming the constitution of the United States. And what did they do? That invaluable instrument gives the answer. The same provision, which, from the abuse of it by the colonial governors, they bad been in.

« EdellinenJatka »