?#^': 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 JK3429.C7 S91 
 
 The Council of Revision of the state of 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 032 658 233 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032658233 
 
THE 
 
 COUNCIL OF KEYISION 
 
 STATE OF NEW YORK; 
 
 ITS 
 
 HISTORY, A HISTORY OF THE COURTS WITH WHICH ITS MEM- 
 BERS WERE CONNECTED; BIOGRAPHICAL 
 SKETCHES OF ITS MEMBERS : 
 
 AHD ITS 
 
 VETOES. 
 
 BY ALFEED B. STREET. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 WILLIAM GOULD, PUBLISHER. 
 1859. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year MDCCCLIX, in the Cleric's Office of the 
 District Conrt of the United States for the Northern District of New York, by AXFEED 
 B. STEEET. 
 
 Weed, Pahsohs 4 Co.. Stereotypers and Printers, 
 Albany, 
 
CO^TEiiTS. 
 
 I. History op the Counoil and the Coitets. 
 II. Biographical Sketches of the Members. 
 
 III. Vetoes of the CotrNoiL. 
 
 IV. Appendix. ( Objections not sanctioned bt the Council.) 
 
 V. Appendix A. Reports of the Select Committee of the Assemblt, 
 (Michael Ulshoeffer, Chairman), on the subject of the Convention 
 (of 1821), AND the subsequent proceedings. 
 VI. Chronological list of bills vetoed bt the Council. 
 VII. Chronological list of bills in the Appendix. 
 VIII. Chronological list of bills that did not become laws from the vetoes 
 of the Council. 
 IX Chronological list of bills that became laws notwithstanding the 
 objections of the Council. 
 X Alphabetical index of bills vetoed bt the Council. 
 XI. Alphabetical index of bills in the Appendix, 
 
HISTORY 
 
 coinsrciL of eetision; the court for the trial of im- 
 peachments AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS ; THE 
 SUPREME COURT, AND THE COURT OF 
 ADMIRALTY. 
 
 The Council of Eevision was created by the third section of 
 the Constitutioii of 1777. The section was introduced on the 1st 
 of April of that year, by Eobert E. Livingston (afterward Chan- 
 cellor of the State), in the Convention of Eepresentatives of the 
 State of New York,' and the original draft is in his handwriting.' 
 After stating that "laws inconsistent with the spirit of this Con- 
 stitution or with the public good may be hastily and unadvisedly 
 passed;" it ordains "that the Governor for the time being, the 
 Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court, or any two of them, 
 together with the Governor, shall be and hereby are constituted a 
 Council to revise aU bills about to be passed into laws by the 
 Legislature, and for that purpose shall assemble themselves from 
 time to time, when the Legislature shall be convened; for which, 
 nevertheless, they shall not receive any salary or consideration 
 under any pretense whatever. And that all biUs which have 
 passed the Senate and Assembly shall, before they become laws, 
 
 ■ Joiomal Provincial Convention, N. T., vol. 1, p. 860. 
 " Miscellaneous Papers (MSS.), 37, p. 540, in the Secretary of State's office, 
 N. Y. 
 
6 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 be presented to the said Council for their revisal and considera- 
 tion; and if, upon such revision and consideration, it should appear 
 improper to the Council, or a majority of them, that the said bUl 
 shoidd become a law of this State, that they return the same, to- 
 gether with their objections thereto in writing, to the Senate or 
 House of Assembly, ia whichsocTer the same shall have originated, 
 who shall enter the objections sent down by the CouncU, at large 
 in their minutes, and proceed to reconsider the said biH. 
 
 "But i£i after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the said Senate 
 or House of Assembly shall, notwithstanding the said objections, 
 agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be 
 sent to the other branch of the Legislature, where it shall also be 
 reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of the members pre- 
 sent, shall be a law." 
 
 To prevent any unnecessary delays, it was ordained that if any 
 bill should not be returned by the Council, within ten days after it 
 should have been presented, the same should be a law, unless the 
 Legislature should, by their adjoiirnment, render a return of the 
 bill within ten days impracticable; ia which case the bill should 
 be returned on the first day of the meeting of the Legislature, after 
 the expiration of the said ten days. 
 
 It was also provided by the act entitled "An act further to 
 organize the Government of this State," passed the 16th of March, 
 1778, "that whenever and as often as a bill shall have been re- 
 vised by the Council, and they shall have thereon declared that it 
 did not appear to them improper that the said bill should become 
 a law of this State; or if the said bill shaU have been before the 
 said Council, by the space of ten days, and shall not have been 
 returned by the said Council, with their objections thereto, as by 
 the Constitution of this State is required; whereby the same shall 
 have become a law of this State, a certificate thereof, as the case 
 may be, to be subscribed by the person administering the govern- 
 ment of this State for the time being, shall be indorsed on such 
 law. Whereupon the said person administering the government, 
 shall, with his own proper hand, deliver such law to the Secretary 
 of the State for the time being, or his sworn Deputy; who shall 
 cause the same to be deposited in the Secretary's office, and re- 
 corded in a book or books, to be kept for that purpose. 
 
The Council. 7 
 
 "And that whenever, and as often as a bill returned by the said 
 Council to be reconsidered, shall, notwithstanding, be passed into 
 a law, the President of the Senate, or Speaker of the Assembly, in 
 whichsocTer the same shall, upon such reconsideration, last pass, 
 shall deliver such law, with his own proper hand, to the Secretary 
 of the State for the time being, or his sworn Deputy, to be depo- 
 sited and recorded as aforesaid ; and the said Secretary or his said 
 Deputy shall attend at every session of the Legislature, for the 
 purpose of receiving laws to be delivered to him as aforesaid." 
 
 The Council had a Clerk, and sat with closed doors. At first 
 the Senate by one, and the Assembly by two of their members, 
 sent to the Council the bills passed by them, and the Council 
 directed the Chancellor, Chief Justice or one of the Justices, to 
 deliver a copy of the resolution, signed by the Governor, that it 
 did not appear improper that the bills submitted to them should 
 become laws, to either the Senate or Assembly. If the Council 
 objected to any of the bills, a copy of the objections, signed by the 
 Governor, with the bill, was also delivered as above to the branch 
 of the Legislature which last passed it. 
 
 Li 1785, the Assembly reduced their number to one, but in 
 1788 restored it to two, the Senate then raising theirs also to two, 
 which continued till 1808, when the Clerk of the Council, and the 
 Clerks of the two Houses were directed to deliver the messages. 
 
 During the existence of the Council, they returned one hundred 
 and sixty -nine bills with their objections to the Legislature. Fifty- 
 one of the bills, so returned, were passed into laws by the Legis- 
 lature by a two-third vote; the remainder (one hundred and 
 eighteen) failed, in consequence of the objections, to become laws. 
 
 Objections to thirty-one bills, in addition, were submitted to the 
 Council, by the members thereof, in whose charge they were 
 placed, but were not sanctioned by a majority of the Council, and 
 consequently not communicated to the Legislature. 
 
 The Council, after an existence of about forty-four years, was 
 abolished by the Convention of 1821, and its power lodged solely 
 in the hands of the Governor by the Constitution of that year. 
 
 The Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Cor- 
 rection OF Errors, being the court of last resort in the State, was 
 created also by the Constitution of 1777. 
 
8 The Council of. Eevision. 
 
 A court of final resort was known in the earliest Dutch period 
 of the Colony of New York. From the decrees of the Council of 
 Peter Minuet, Governor of the Colony in 1626 (which Council was 
 invested with judicial as well as legislative and executive powers), 
 lay an appeal to the Amsterdam Chamber of the "West India Com- 
 pany. A right of appeal was also reserved in the charter granted 
 by the above Company to the Patroons of the Colony, from their 
 courts, where, judgment was rendered for a sum exceeding fifty 
 guilders, to the Director-General and Council of New Amsterdam. 
 This right, however, was rendered nugatory by the Patroons exact- 
 ing from the tenants, as a preliminary condition to their entering 
 the manor, that they should not appeal from the decisions rendered 
 in the courts of the former. A right of appeal also lay from the 
 decisions of William Kieffc, Colonial Governor in 1638, and his 
 CouncU, to the Amsterdam Chamber, although that right was also 
 defeated by the imposition of fine and imprisonment on the per- 
 son who attempted it. 
 
 From the Court of the "Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens," 
 granted by the Amsterdam Chamber to the colonists during the 
 governorship of Peter Stuyvesant, lay an appeal to the Supreme 
 Court (composed of the Governor and Council) of the Province, at 
 New Amsterdam. 
 
 The Court of Assize, estabhshed under the Code (framed by 
 direction of the Duke of York, and known as the "Duke's 
 Laws") in 1665, when Eichard NichoUs was Governor, possessed 
 an appellate jurisdiction over all inferior courts. 
 
 The Court of Oyer and Terminer, created by the act of the 
 General Assembly, under the administration of Governor Dongan, 
 passed on the 29th of October, 1683, entitled "An act to settle 
 courts of justice," held a general appellate jurisdiction .over the 
 other courts of the Colony, subject to an appeal to the King. From 
 the judgments and decrees of the Court of Chancery (held by the 
 Governor and Council), also erected by the act, lay an appeal 
 likewise to the King. 
 
 The act of 1691, under Sloughter's administration, established 
 appeals in the following manner: From the Court of Mayor and 
 Aldermen, and Courts of Common Pleas to the Supreme Court, for 
 any judgment above the value of twenty pounds; and from the 
 
Cootx OF TyTK^nT^rrv T^ a^cd Ebbobs. 9 
 
 Supreme Court at New York to the Goxat of Appeals, con^sting 
 of the Goremor and Coimci], for any judgment abore fiie yalue 
 of one hundred pounds; and from the latter jurisdiction to their 
 Majesiiffi (William and Mary) in Coundl for any decree or judg- 
 ment above the Talue of three hundred pounds. Provided the 
 party or parties, so S5)pea]ing, first paid all the costs of tiie judg- 
 ment or decree from which the appeal arose, and entered iato 
 recognizance, with two suf&eient sureties for double the debt or 
 matter recorded against him or them, to the court from which they 
 appealed, that he or thev would prosecute the said appeal with 
 efiEect, and make retum thereof within twelve months after the 
 said appeal was made. If de&ult should happen thereon, then 
 execution to issue upon the judgment against the party or the 
 sureties of course withoxrt scire jadas. 
 
 In Chief Justice Smith's letter to Bellamoni^ in Noyember, 
 17cX), he states that the above recognizance was to the court to 
 which parties appealed, "that they would prosecute the said appeal 
 with effect, and make return thereof; if from the Supreme Court 
 to the Governor and Coundl, in sis months; if from the Grover- 
 nor and Coundl to his Majesty in Coundl, within twelve mondis 
 after the said appeal or appeals so made." * 
 
 Tn 1753 the amount determining the right of appeal from the 
 Supreme Court to tiie Governor and Coundl was altered from 
 one hundred to three hundred pounds, and from the latter tribu- 
 nal to the King and Privy Council from three hundred to five 
 hundred pounds. 
 
 The thirtv-second section of the Consiinition of 1777, declared 
 that a court should be instituted for the trial of impeachments 
 and the correction of errors under the r^nlations which should be 
 established by the Legislature, and to consist of the President of 
 the Senate, for the time being and the Senators, Chancellor and 
 Judgffi of the Supreme Court, or the major part of them. If 
 the Chancellor or Judges should be impeached, they should be 
 suspended from exercising their offices until acquitted ; and when 
 an appeal from a decree in equity on a question of law brought 
 up by writ of error on a judgment of the Supreme Court should 
 
 ■4CdLDoc,82& 
 
XO The Counctl of Revisioh-. 
 
 be heard, the ChaneeUor or Judges should inform the court of the 
 reasons for the decree or judgment, but have no Toice in the final 
 
 matter. . 
 
 The power of impeachment of aU officers of State was vested in 
 the House of Assembly, the requisite for finding of which impeach- 
 ment was by a vote of two-thirds of the members present ; and no 
 judgment of the court was vahd unless assented to by two-thirds 
 of the members thereof present, the members having, previous to 
 the trial, been sworn truly and impartiaUy to try and determine 
 the charge according to evidence. The judgment extended only 
 to removal from office and disqualification to hold any place of 
 honor, trust or profit under the State; although the convicted 
 party was subject to indictment, trial and punishment under the 
 general laws. The impeached or indicted party was allowed coun- 
 sel on the trial, as in civil cases. 
 
 The act passed on the 23d of November, 1784, instituting the 
 above court in pursuance of the Constitution, gave directions 
 for the sittings of the court, for a seal and a clerk, and the man- 
 ner of proceeding upon impeachment; directed that all errors 
 in the Court of Chancery, Supreme Court, Court of Probate and 
 Admiralty, except in cases of captures, should be corrected in 
 this court; also directed the proceedings in the writ of error, 
 on a judgment of the Supreme Court, or an appeal from a 
 decree of the Court of Chancery, or fi-om an order or sentence of 
 a Court of Probate or Admiralty ; and ferther, that aU appeals 
 fi:om decretal orders of Chancery, or from a sentence, judgment, 
 decree or order of the Court of Admiralty or Probate, should be 
 made within fifteen days next after such sentence, judgment, decree 
 or order ; and all writs of errors upon judgments in the Supreme 
 Court, or appeals from final decrees in Chancery, should be brought 
 within five years next after rendering the judgment or making the 
 decree. The act also directed that the President of the Senate 
 shoiild have a casting vote in case of an equal division of opinion 
 among the other members of the court, but have no other vote ; 
 also, that writs of error in civil cases, and criminal cases not 
 capital, were writs of right and should issue of course, but in 
 capital cases were writs of grace. In aU cases the writs to be 
 issued by the Chancellor ; but in those capital, only on order upon 
 
CouBT OF Appeals. 11 
 
 motion or petition, with notice to the Attorney-General or State 
 prosecutor. 
 
 The Constitution of 1821 reaffirmed the powers of the court 
 without change, except that a majority of the members of Assem- 
 bly present should concur in an impeachment, instead of two-thirds. 
 
 After an existence of nearly seventy years, the court was 
 abolished by the Constitution of 1846. Its powers in cases of 
 impeachment were transferred to a court composed of the Presi- 
 dent of the Senate, the Senators, or a major part of them, and the 
 Judges of the Court of Appeals, or a major part of them, and its 
 jurisdiction as an appellate court to the Court of Appeals. 
 
 The present Court for the Trial of Impeachments is a court of 
 record, having a seal. When summoned, it is directed to be held 
 at the capitol, in Albany, and the clerk and officers of the Senate 
 to be the clerk and officers of the court The President of the 
 Senate to be the presiding officer, and in his absence, the Chief 
 Judge of the Court of Appeals, and in the absence of the two, 
 such other member as the court shall elect. 
 
 The Court of Appeals is composed of eight judges, four elected 
 by the State at large for eight years, and four selected from the class 
 of Justices of the Supreme Court having the shortest time to serve. 
 
 The Judge of the Court of Appeals, elected by the State at large, 
 having (under the classification adopted in section four of article two 
 of the act in relation to the judiciary, passed May 12th, 1847) the 
 shortest time to serve, is constituted the Chief Judge of the said court. 
 
 There is also a clerk of the Court of Appeals (ex-officio clerk 
 of the Supreme Court), elected by the State at large, to hold his 
 office for three years, giving bond to the State in the penalty of 
 $25,000, with two sufficient sureties, for the faithfiil performance 
 of his duties, which bond is filed with the Comptroller. He is 
 directed to keep his office at the seat of government; to appoint a 
 deputy by writing under his hand and seal, who is to take the oath 
 of office, and act as clerk in case of vacancy in the office, or when 
 the said derk is absent or incapable of performing his duties. 
 
 Four terms, viz., on the first Tuesday of January, the fourth 
 Tuesday of March, the third Tuesday of Jime, and last Tuesday 
 of September, are held every year at the Capitol in the city of 
 Albany, to continue as long as the court shall deem necessary. 
 
12 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Six judges constitute a quorvun, and the concixrrenoe of five ia 
 necessary to pronounce a judgment. The case must be reheard 
 if five do not concur, but no more than two rehearings shall be 
 had, and if, on the second rehearing, five judges do not concur, the 
 judgment is affirmed. 
 
 There is a reporter appointed by the Governor, Lieutenant-Gov- 
 ernor and Attorney-General, called the State Eeporter, holding his 
 office for three years, but removable by the concurrent vote of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 The Legislature may authorize the judgments, decrees and deci- 
 sions of any local inferior court of record of original civil juris- 
 diction established in a city, to be removed for review directly iato 
 the Court of Appeals. 
 
 Chanceet Jurisdiction is first traced ia our Colonial annals 
 to the courts organized under the "Duke's Laws." The courts in 
 the various towns heard matters in equity for a sum not exceed- 
 ing five pounds, but in the Courts of Sessions in the three (east, 
 west and north) ridings, there was no limitation, while the Court 
 of Assize (the highest tribunal) had equitable cognizance where 
 the amoimt exceeded twenty pounds. The mode of proceeding 
 was by bill and answer. Witnesses were examined ia the same 
 manner as ia the English Court of Chancery, and all matters were 
 determined without a jury. 
 
 From this period (1665) the above judicial organization con- 
 tinued (with the exception of an interruption from August, 1673, 
 to October, 1674. during which time the Dutch again possessed 
 the Province under Colve) until 1683, when the General As- 
 sembly, convened by Governor Dongan, erected, under the act 
 to "settle courts of justice," among other tribunals a separate 
 Court of Chancery for the province at large.' This court was 
 held by the Governor and CouncU. The former had authority 
 to choose a Chancellor ia his stead, and be assisted by such other 
 persons as he should see fit, together with necessary clerks and 
 other officers. The court had cognizance of all equitable matters, 
 and was moreover the highest Colonial tribunal. 
 
 ' The Court of Chancery in England is of great antiquity. It is traced to the 
 reign of Alfred, (872-901), and was not then a court instituted, but affirmed to be 
 then existing.. 4 Gohe's Institutes, p. 78. 
 
Court of Chancery 13 
 
 On the sixteenth of February, in the above year, the first Court 
 of Chancery was lield by the Governor and Council, the terms 
 thereaiter being on the first Thursday of every other month during 
 the year. 
 
 In the act of 1691, passed by the General Assembly convened 
 by Governor Sloughter in the commencement of that year, was a 
 provision for a Court of Chancery, the same as in the act "to settle 
 courts of justice." 
 
 The act of 1691 was limited to two years, but the judicial organi- 
 zation under it was (with some changes) continued by thi-ee other 
 acts till April, 1698, when the organization ceased with the expi- 
 ration of the last act. But although the other courts were revived 
 by an ordinance of Governor Bellamont and Council in 1699, there 
 was no organization of the Court of Chancery until 1701, when 
 Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan, under an order from the Lords of 
 Trade, establisbed a court by an ordinance issued on the second of 
 April of that year, to be held by the Governor and Council, or 
 any two of the board, on the first Thursday of every month. He 
 also appointed masters, clerks and a register.^ The court was 
 opened on the first Thursday in September of said year." 
 
 The General Assembly, questioning the right of the crown to 
 establish an equity court in the colony, commenced an opposition 
 against it An opposition to the court had long existed among 
 the people, and continued for years after this act of the Assembly, 
 if it ever entirely ceased. Public complaint was made from time 
 to time, not only as to the erection of the court, but the exorbi- 
 tance of the fees and the unjustness of the decrees. 
 
 This opposition was not against a Court of Chancery as such. 
 On the contrary, a court of that character was considered neces- 
 sary, as is sbown by the address of the General Assembly ia 1737, 
 when George Clarke was Governor; and "by the declaration of the 
 historian, Smith, that "a Court of Equity is absolutely necessary, 
 but whether private property ought to be in the hitnds of the 
 Governors I leave others to determine."' 
 
 > Smith's History, N. T. (Carey's ed), p. 113. 
 
 * Letter of Attorney-General Sampson Shelton Broughton to the Lords of 
 Trade. Land. Doc, 914; Col Doc, voL 4. 
 » Smith, pp. 274, 276. 
 
14 The CouNcni of Eevision. 
 
 The opposition was directed against the erection of the conxt by 
 ordinance of the Crown and the Governors acting as Chancellors, 
 the inhabitants being of opinion that the creation of the court 
 shonld be by act of the G-eneral Assembly of the Province. 
 
 In June, 1702, by an ordinance of the Governor (Lord Corn- 
 bury), in Council, the Court of Chancery was suspended until the 
 Chief Justice and Second Justice of the Supreme Court reported 
 "such method as would render the said court most useful and least 
 burthensome to the subject," and also a just and reasonable table of 
 fees.' In February, 1703, these of&cers made their report, and laid 
 before the Governor a table of fees "by them made and moderated." 
 Consequently Lord Combury, by an ordinance in November fol- 
 lowing, revived and established the said court according to the 
 method of the High Court of Chancery in England. 
 
 Such was the feeling against the suspended tribunal, that in 
 ISTovember after the ordinance of June, 1702, a bill passed the 
 General Assembly "to declare the illegahty, and frustrate the 
 irregular proceedings, extortions and decrees of the late pretended 
 Court of Chancery."" 
 
 In the Assembly which met in August, 1708, the Committee of 
 Grievances reported, among other resolutions (leveled against the 
 administration of Lord Combury, who continued as Governor 
 until the arrival of Lord Lovelace in December following), one 
 declaring "that the erecting a court of equity without consent in 
 General Assembly is contrary to law, without precedent, and of 
 dangerous consequence to the liberty and properties of the sub- 
 jects."' 
 
 In 1711, Governor Hunter (who had arrived the«year before, 
 as the successor of Lord Lovelace) began to exercise the office of 
 Chancellor, having, in October of that year, appointed two mas- 
 ters, a register, an examiner and two clerks, and proclaimed the 
 sitting of the court to be on Thursday of every week.* 
 
 The Assembly upon this reiterated the resolution of 1708, and 
 remonsta:ated to the Lords of Trade, who, however, in a letter 
 
 ' 2d Vol. Reyised Laws 1813, Appendix. 
 
 2 Journal General Assembly, New York, voL 1, p. 157. 
 
 ' The same, vol. 1, p. 224. 
 
 * Smith, p. 148. (Carey's ed.) 
 
CouET OF Chanceey 15 
 
 to the GovemoT, approved his conduct, blamed the Assembly, and 
 declared the right of the Crown to the erection of an equity court. 
 
 The court was continued for sixteen years subsequently without 
 interruption, although the colonists manifested, throughout that 
 period, their hostility to it. 
 
 In November, 1727, a report was made by the Committee of 
 Grievances in the General Assembly, reflecting severely upon the 
 court, its arbitrary and tyrannical conduct; that its extraordinary 
 proceedings and extortionate fees were the greatest grievance and 
 oppression the Colony had ever felt. The dissolution of the 
 Assembly by Governor Burnett alone prevented that body from 
 passing an act declaring nuU and void all the court's proceedings. 
 
 An ordinance, however, was made in the following spring, 
 remedying the abuses in the practice of the court and reducing 
 very materially the fees. 
 
 Governor Montgomery, who succeeded Burnett in 1728, as- 
 sumed the duties of Chancellor with great reluctance.' 
 
 The opposition to this tribunal still existed in the General 
 Assembly and among the people. 
 
 Sir Joseph Eyles and others filed a bill in the Court of Chan- 
 cery to vacate the Equivalent land' or Oblong Patent, granted to 
 Hauley and Company by Governor Montgomery, the complain- 
 ants claiming under a prior patent, granted May 15, 1731, in Lon- 
 don. The defendants, proprietors of the lands (50,000 acres), by 
 Messrs. Alexander and Smith, who were also interested in the 
 Hauley Patent, excepted to the jurisdiction of the Governor as 
 Chancellor; the exception was overruled, and the defendants 
 (about fifty ih number), in October, 1735, petitioned the General 
 Assembly, stating they conceived the fihng the bill, as aforesaid, 
 unwarrantable, of dangerous consequence to them and to the hb- 
 erties and properties of the people, and prayed the house to pro- 
 tect them and the said people. The excitement against the court 
 was stimulated by Alexander and Smith. Petitions were also 
 
 ' See the admirable "Historical Sketch of the Judicial Organization of New 
 Tork," by Charles P. Daly. 
 
 " So called because ceded by Connecticut in consideration of a like quantity of 
 land yielded to that colony by New York, upon the settlement of their respect- 
 ive boundaries in 1731. Record Commissions, vol. 4. 
 
16 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 presented to tlie Assembly by the inhabitants, requesting the dis- 
 solution of that body, urging frequent elections as a great privilege, 
 which petitions were seconded by the unanimous order of the 
 Assembly, and deliyered to Governor Cosby. 
 
 The latter, however, refused to dissolve the Assembly, and it, 
 in November of the above year, on the report of the Committee 
 of Grievances, that they had considered the petition of the defend- 
 ants in the matter of the Oblong Patent, and by their recommend- 
 ation, resolved "that the Court of Chancery in the hands or under 
 the exercise of a Governor, without consent of the General Assem- 
 bly, is contrary to law, unwarrantable, and of dangerous conse- 
 quence to the liberties and properties of the people." ' 
 
 In September, 1737, on the occasion of a bill being introduced 
 for the frequent elections and meetings of the General Assembly, 
 an address was presented by that body to Governor Clarke, in 
 which they reiterated their complaint of a Court of Chancery 
 being erected by ordinances of the Governors, and their convic- 
 tion it should be by act of the General Assembly; and also of the 
 inefficiency of many of the Governors holding said court.' 
 
 Erom this time, the Assembly ceased their attacks upon the 
 Court, and it was held regularly until the Eevolution. 
 
 From the commencement of a Court of Chancery in the Province, 
 no Chancellor was appointed. The Governors acted as such, 
 sometimes assisted by the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme 
 ' Court, generally members of the Council, or by one or more of 
 these Judges, together with the legal memljers of the Council. 
 
 Generally, however, the Governors acted as sole Chancellors, 
 and those who succeeded Sir Charles Hardy (who arrived in 1753, 
 and who associated the Supreme Court Bench with him in his 
 equity duties) entirely so, down to the end of the Colonial period. 
 
 At the breaking out of hostilities in the spring of 1775, a Pro- 
 vincial Congress for the Colony of New York assembled, com- 
 posed of delegates from the various counties. A second, third and 
 fourth Congress were held. The latter, which convened July 9th, 
 1776, changed its name the next day (on the receipt of the Dec- 
 laration of Independence of the fourth of that month, passed by 
 
 ' Journal General Assembly, vol. 1, p. 687. 
 ' Journal General Assembly, vol. 1, p. 707. 
 
Court of Chancery. 17 
 
 the Continental Congress), to " Convention of Eepresentatives of the 
 State of New York." On the 20th of April, 1777, the Convention 
 adopted the first Constitution of the State. In this Constitution 
 mention is made of the Court of Chancery as an existing court. 
 
 On the eighth of May following, the Convention adopted a plan 
 for organizing a temporary form of government imtil the Consti- 
 tution could be carried into effect by the election and appointment 
 of the officers provided in that instrimient. As many of the. 
 officers were immediately necessary for the execution of the laws 
 and for holding the elections, they were appointed in the above 
 plan. Thus Robert E. Livingston (having been elected by the 
 Convention, on the third day previous to the eighth, to the office) 
 was appointed the first Chancellor of the State. On the seven- 
 teenth of October succeeding, he was commissioned as ^ch by the 
 Council of Appoiutment, the elections imder the Constitution 
 having taken place during the summer, and the Legislature having 
 assembled on the ninth of September at Kingston. 
 
 On the 22d of June, 1783, Chancellor Livingston was reap- 
 pointed, from doubts whether, by his acceptance of the Secretaryship 
 of Foreign Affairs in 1781, he had not vacated his Chancellorship. 
 
 On the 28th of October, 1801, Mr. Livingston, having resigned 
 his office on being appointed Mtaister to France, was succeeded 
 by John Lansing, Jr., who was succeeded in turn on the 25th of 
 of February, 1814, by James Kent. 
 
 Li 1814 (April 13th), the Reporter of the Supreme Court was 
 also made Reporter of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 The Constitution of 1821 provided that equity powers should 
 be vested in the Circuit Judges created by that instrument, subject 
 to the appellate jurisdiction of the Chancellor. Li accordance 
 with this provision, an act was passed on the 17th April, 1823, 
 conferring on the Circuit Judges (eight in mmiber) concurrent 
 jurisdiction with the Chancellor of all matters and causes in 
 equity, subject to the latter's appellate jurisdiction; authorized 
 each Judge to appoint a clerk for the Court of Equity to be held 
 by him, which clerk should also perform all the duty of register 
 of said court ; and provided that the Judges should devise a seal 
 for the clerks in all equity proceedings.' 
 
 ' Sections 10, 11, 12 of chapter 182, Laws 1823. 
 
18 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 These courts were however subsequently abolished ; the Chan- 
 cellor was invested with general equit4 jurisdiction, and the Cir- 
 cuit Judges acted as Vice-ChancellorsV their respective circuits. 
 
 The Constitution also ordained that t!k Chancellor should hold 
 his office during good behavior, or until 1^ should attain the age 
 of sixty years. 
 
 It further provided that the masters and e^^biiners in Chancery 
 should be appointed by the Governor and Senate for three yeai-s, 
 unless sooner removed, and the registers and alSsistant rogistei^s 
 should be appointed by the Chancellor during pleasure. Heretofore 
 the former had been appointed by the Council of Appointment. 
 
 In 1752 (Governor Hardy, Chancellor) the officers of the court 
 consisted of two masters, two clerks, one examiner, a register and 
 a sergeant-at-arms, all without salary.' 
 
 In 1823 there were five hundred and ten masters and twenty- 
 five examiners; in 1846 there were one hundred and eightj'-eight 
 masters and one hundred and sixt3^-eight examiners. 
 
 On the 1st of August, 1823, Nathan Sanford succeeded James 
 Kent as Chancellor; on the 19th of January, 182(3, Samuel Jones 
 succeeded Sanford; and on the 22d of April, 1828, Jones was 
 succeeded by Eeuben H. Walworth, who continued as Chancellor 
 till the abohshment of the office in 1847. 
 
 In January, 1831, a separate Vice-Chancellorship for the first 
 circuit was established by act, in the city of New York, the officer 
 to be appointed by the Governor and Senate, aiid hold during 
 good behavior, or till the age of sixty. On the 16th of March, 
 following, W. T. McCoun was appointed. On the 27th of March, 
 1839, an assistant Vice-Chancellorship for the same circuit was 
 established by act, in the same city, which was to continue for 
 three years from the first Monday of May following, and the 
 appointee to hold for two years from the said first Monday. In 
 April of that year Murray Hoffman was appointed to the office, 
 by the Governor and Senate, pursTiant to the act. In 1840 tiie 
 office was made permanent, and the incumbent directed to hold 
 special terms, as the Chancellor should appoint, out of the city of 
 New York, in addition to the other terms in the city. 
 
 ' Smith's History, New York (Carey's ed.), p. 276. 
 
CoDBT OF Cha:n'cebt. 19 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1839, a Vice-Chancellorship for the eighth 
 circuit was also created, the appointment to be made in the same 
 manner and held by tbe same tenure as the Vice-Chancellorsliip of 
 the first circuit Li April following, the appointment was conferred 
 on Frederick Whittlesey, of Kochester. 
 
 On the 11th of Marcli, 1843, Lewis H. Sanford succeeded Mur- 
 ray Hoffinan as Vice-Chancellor of the first circuit, and on the 12th 
 of May, 1846, Mr. Sanford was succeeded by Anthony L. Robert- 
 son. 
 
 From and after the first Monday of July, 1847, the Court of 
 Chancery was abolished by the Constitution of 1846. Its powers 
 generally were transferred to the Supreme Court organized under 
 that Constitution, and its records deposited in the office of the 
 clerk of the Court of Appeals. 
 
 The Constitution also directed that the Legislature might confer 
 equity jurisdiction in special cases upon the County Judge. 
 
 On the 24th of March, 1774, James Jauncey, the younger, was 
 appointed keeper or master of the rolls, books, writs and records 
 of the Court of Chancery. He was empowered also to examine, 
 bear and determine aU matters and causes then or thereafter pending 
 in the said Court of Chancery, and in all other things to execute 
 the said office the same as the Master of the Eolls in the High Court 
 of Chancery in England, subject to appeals to the Grovemor of 
 the Province of New York. No order or decree was to be en- 
 rolled until tbe same was delivered to and signed by the said 
 Governor. The office was during pleasure, the King reserving to 
 himself the appointment of all officers in the said Court of Chan- 
 cery, as by the letters patent might be claimed to be appointed by 
 the said Jauncey as incident or appurtenant to bis office. 
 
 As the Bevolution broke out about this period, and the court 
 is not alluded to in the Constitution of 1777, no fertber mention 
 of it is necessary, except that in 1780 Greorge D. Ludlow (one of 
 the New York Colonial Judges of tiie Supreme Court, at the com- 
 mencement of the Revolution, and who, adhering to the cause of 
 the Crown, was considered by its adherents still in office, notwitb- 
 standing, under the Constitution adopted by New York in 1777, 
 an entire new bench of Judges bad been created) was appointed, 
 by the Crown, Master of fiie Rolls and Superintendent of Police 
 
20 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 on Long Island, "with powers on principles of equity to hear and 
 determine controversies till civil government could take place." 
 
 In 1783 Mr. Ludlow retired to his Majesty's dominions, in New 
 Brunswick. 
 
 That branch of Chancery proceedings which relates to the duties 
 of surrogates has an earlier date in the province than the Court of 
 Chancery itself The College of Nineteen (representing the five 
 Chambers of the Dutch West India Company, as well as the States 
 General of Holland, one of the members of said College being 
 appointed by the latter), ordained in a charter adopted by them in 
 1640, that the Governor and Council of New Netherlands should, 
 among other matters, act as an Orphan's and Surrogate's Court. 
 
 The Court of the Sohout, Burgomasters and Schepens, under the 
 
 administration of Governor Stuyvesant, acted, among its other 
 
 duties, as a Court of Probate, in 'taking proofs of last wills and 
 
 vtestaments, and exercised jurisdiction over the estates of widows 
 
 and orphans.' 
 
 But in 1665, so great was the number of widows and orphans, 
 consequent upon a massacre committed by the Indians on the 
 whites of Manhattan Island and its vicinity, that the Director-Gen- 
 eral (Stuyvesant) and Council created a separate court entitled the 
 Court of Orphan Masters, whose duties were similar to those of 
 surrogates of our day. The burgomasters presided over this court 
 at first, but soon afterward were relieved of that duty at their 
 request, and distinct orphan masters were annually appointed. 
 This continued till the transfer of the Province to the English in 
 1664. 
 
 In the "Duke's Laws," provision was made to administer intes- 
 tates' estates and for the recording of wills and letters of adminis- 
 tration. The Court of Sessions in each of the three ridings into 
 which the laws divided the Province, acted as a Court of Probate 
 and a Surrogate's Court, and the Mayor's Court also exercised, 
 occasionally, jurisdiction in matters appertaining to these courts. 
 
 The record of wills and other instruments of administration, 
 where the estate exceeded one hundred pounds, was required to 
 be in the city of New York, and the recording office was placed 
 
 ' Daly's Judicial Organization of the State. 
 
Surrogate's Court. 21 
 
 in charge of the Secretary of the Province, who was Secretary to 
 the Governor. The latter official at length assumed the powers of 
 probate, which were confirmed by an act passed in 1692, which also 
 declared that two freeholders elected in every town should have 
 charge of intestates' estates; Kkewise that proof of wills should 
 be before the Grovemor, and letters of administration be granted 
 by him or his delegate. Proof of wills relative to estates in coun- 
 ties adjoining the city of New York was required to be in that 
 city, but in counties more remote the Court of Common Pleas was 
 authorized to take the proof and transmit the proceedings to the 
 record office in New York. A delegate was appointed by the 
 Grovemor in the above city, who held a Prerogative Court, possessing 
 appellate jurisdiction over the Common Pleas in probate matters 
 and the acts of the two freeholders of the towns. 
 
 The Governor also appointed subordinate delegates in various 
 parts of the Province, while the aforesaid freeholders of the towns 
 were also called delegates. 
 
 In 1754, the appointment of a Judge of Probate was made, with 
 jurisdiction over the proof of wills and administration of estates, 
 the Prerogative Court still continuing in separate existence. 
 
 In 1778 an act was passed divesting the Governor of aU powers 
 in the Prerogative and Probate Courts and transferring those powers 
 to the Judge of the Court of Probates of the State, except in the 
 appointment of Surrogates, which appointment was vested in the 
 Council of Appointment.^ 
 
 In 1787 the Governor and Council were empowered to appoint 
 Surrogates in every county of the State; the Judge of the Court of 
 Probates of the State holding jurisdiction in cases of decease out 
 of the State, or of the decease of non-residente within the State. 
 Appeal also lay to this Court from the Surrogate Courts. 
 
 In 1797 (March 10th) it was enacted, that from 1798 the Court 
 of Probates should be held and remain in the city or county of 
 Albany, and the judge and clerk of said court should remove the 
 papers and documents belonging to said court, to and reside in the 
 said city or county.' 
 
 1 Act to organize the Govemment of the State, passed 16th llardi, 1778. 
 1 GreerJeaf, 17. 
 ' 3 Greenleaf, 393. 
 
22 The Council of Eevision". 
 
 On the 21st Marcli, 1823, the Court of Probates was abolished 
 by act; its records and proceedings were directed to be deposited 
 in the Secretary of State's office, and its jurisdiction was conferred 
 upon the Chancellor. The office of Surrogate, however, was left, 
 and the appointment to it (to continue for four years) vested in the 
 Governor and Senate. 
 
 The Supreme Couet of Judicatuee, as it existed prior to 
 1821, was created by the celebrated ordinance of 1691. It is neces- 
 sary, however, to go still further back to accoiint for the know- 
 ledge of jurisprudence possessed by the colonists, thus enabling 
 them to erect a court which, surviving all the discontents and 
 changes of colonial times, existed for a period of one hundred 
 and thirty years, and in a different form for a quaiier of a century 
 longer. 
 
 During the administration of Governor Stuyvesant, the people of 
 the province elected eighteen persons, from whom Stuyvesant 
 appointed a body of nine, to confer with him and his Council on 
 public matters.' This body becoming dissatisfied, as well as the 
 people generally, with the arbitrary conduct of the Governor (or 
 Director-General, as he was called), designated Adriaen Van Der 
 Donck to prepare memoranda from which a subsequent remon- 
 strance should be drawn to the States-General relative to the com- 
 plaints of the Colony.' Stuyvesant seized the memoranda, tem- 
 porarily imprisoned Van Der Donck, and expelled him from the 
 body of nine men. He, however, drew a remonstrance, which 
 was laid before the States-General by him and two other delegates, 
 sent to HoUand for that purpose. This proceeding eventuated, in 
 1650, in the erection of a tribunal (after a struggle on the part of 
 Stuyvesant, and the Amsterdam Chamber against it), composed 
 of a schout (the presiding officer and sheriff), two burgomasters 
 and five schepens. In addition to executive and legislative duties, 
 this tribunal exercised judicial functions. These were very com- 
 prehensive, and appear to have been fully adequate to the admin- 
 istration of justice among the colonists. The proceedings of the 
 tribunal were principally those of arbitration, making it really a 
 
 > O'Callaghan's History New Netherlands, vol.' 2, p. 37. 
 * Remonstrance of New Netherland, by Adriaen Van Der Donck. Trans- 
 lated from a copy of the Dutch MSS., by B. B. O'Callaghan, p. 48. 
 
Supreme Court. 23 
 
 court of conciliation. THs tiibxmal had moreoTer a regalar srs- 
 iem of pleading by declaration, plea and rejoinder; it took the 
 depositions of witnesses, issaed commissions for the examination 
 of witnesses beyond the jurisdiction of the court on interit^tories 
 and cxoss-inierrc^atories, entered judgments "which directed the 
 sale of goods by the officer of the court (the bidding upon the 
 sale being regulated by the time a hghted candle should bum), 
 and lery upon and sale of real property. The origin of the fee 
 bill is also traced to Srayresani.' 
 
 In 1664 the Province was surrendered to the £jiglish, under 
 ^SichoEs ; it, with other terriiorT. having been granted March 12:h, 
 in the above year, by Charles H to his brother, the Duke of York.* 
 The latter's fether-in-law, the Earl of Clarendon, as is supposed, 
 framed a code of laws for the government of the Province.' Under 
 tins code (called "The Dukes Laws") courts were established; 
 the principal one of which was the Court of Assize, held once a 
 year by the Groveraor and Council, togiether with the Justices of 
 the Peace throughout the Province that wished to attend. It had 
 original jurisdiction in criminal matters, and in those civil and 
 equitable of twenty pounds and upwards ; ■• held trials by jury, 
 and to it lav appeals from the inferior courts. 
 
 In 16s3 the General Assembly, by an act *■ to serJe ootirts of 
 justice," erected four courts, viz. : A monthly court in every town, 
 held bv three persons commissioned lor the purpose, for deter- 
 mining cases of debt and trespass of forty shillin gs or tmder, 
 which were tried without a jury, unle^ one was desired by the 
 plaintiff or defendant 
 
 Setjondfy. A Cburt of Sessions in each of die twelve counties 
 of the Province, to be held twice a year ; except in the county of 
 Albany and city and county of Xew York, to be held in the 
 former three times and in the latter four times a year. In Ihikes 
 and Cornwall counties (surrendered to Massachusetts soon after 
 
 ■ Daily's HistoiT of d»e Jodidal Oigsniiatksi rf ihe Siate. 
 
 * Charies made a new grant d this temtoir. June 29. 1674, to the Dnke to 
 prevent doubts as to the latter's title, 
 
 ' See Dalj- s Historr. The code is in tdL 1 ^^ew Toik Hfettmeal Society 
 CoDecQons. 
 
 « Smiths Histtay </ Isew T{si ((irey's ed.), 43. 
 
24 The Council of Revision. 
 
 1693), the times for holding the said court were to be appointed 
 by the Governor and Council. 
 
 This court was held by the justices of the peace, or three of 
 them, of the respective counties, except in the city of New York, 
 where it was held by the mayor and four aldermen. It deter- 
 mined all causes, civil and criminal, by a jury, and to it belonged 
 a clerk to draw, enter and keep the records of the pleadings, and 
 a marshal or crier. 
 
 Thirdly. A Court of Oyer and Terminer, held in the respective 
 counties, composed of one judge, assisted by four of the justices 
 of the peace of each county commissioned for that purpose. In 
 the city of New York, the mayor, recorder and four aldermen 
 were associated with the judge. It had cognizance of all causes, 
 capital, criminal or civil, and trials at common law, and of actions 
 for five pounds or upwards removed there ; and possessed general 
 appellate jurisdiction over the inferior courts. 
 
 The act lastly erected a Court of Chancery, which has been 
 described. 
 
 In 1688 Lieutenant-Governor Francis Nicholson was left in 
 charge of the Colony, Governor Dongan having been recalled. 
 
 The accession of William and Mary to the throne in January, 
 1689, instituted a new order of things in the Province. Nicholson 
 refusing to proclaim the two sovereigns, Jacob Leisler seized the 
 government in their name and held it until 1691. In January of 
 that year, Governor Sloughter, under a commission from William 
 and Mary, arrived. Leisler, Jacob Milbourne ( his son-in-law), and 
 others who had formed his council, were imprisoned. 
 
 On the twenty -fourth of March, the Governor and Council or- 
 dered for the trial of the prisoners a special Oyer and Terminer, 
 directed to the Judges, which the Governor named with Sir Eob- 
 ert Eobertson, Col. Wm. Smith, Wm. Pinhorne and John Law- 
 rence, Esqs., Capt. Jasper Hicks, Maj. Kichard Ingoldsby, Col. 
 John Young and Capt. Isaac Arnold, they or any six of them, one 
 of the Judges always being one, to proceed in the said court.' 
 
 On the thirtieth of March, the Governor and Council appointed 
 Col. Nicholas Bayard, Stephen Van Cortlandt and Wm. Pinhorne 
 
 ' Life of Leisler by C. T. Hoffman (Sparks' Am. Biog., 3, 2cl series); Doc. 
 Hist, 2, 362. 
 
Supreme Coubt. 25 
 
 to prepare evidence against the prisoners, and "Wm. Nicholls, James 
 Emmott and (Jeorge Faix?well were assigned as the Crown's Council. 
 
 Chief Justice Dudley presided in the court Six of the infe- 
 rior prisoners were convicted of high treason. They were, how- 
 ever, subsequently reprieved. 
 
 Leisler and Milbourne vainly excepted to the Governor's power 
 to institute a court for judging a predecessor. Leisler then re- 
 fused, after having fruitlessly appealed to the Crown, to plead to 
 the charge of high treason preferred against him. The jury, how- 
 ever, convicted him and Milbourne of the charge. The Governor, 
 hesitating to order the execution, was invited to a feast, and pre- 
 vailed upon, while overcome with intoxication, to sign the death 
 warrant Before he recovered his reason, Leisler and Milbourne 
 were executed, both on the same scaffold.' This was on the 16th 
 of May. 1691. 
 
 Sloughter being authorized in his commission so to do, convened 
 a General Assembly, which met on the 9th of April, 1691, and 
 continued until the ISth of the succeeding May.* 
 
 ' Chandlers American Trials, 1, 263. 
 
 * Se\-enteen members composed tliis body. The laws made bv it were con- 
 sidered paramount to all others in the Province. The compilers of the lairs of 
 17o2 (Livingston aud Siuith) were directed to commence at this Assembly. 
 Smith (Carey's ed.), S7. !>& 
 
 The munber of seventeen became enlarged at the subsequent elections, until 
 it reached that of twenty-seven. In 177-1 the Assembly was composed of 
 thirty-one members. Thfon's Report on the Prorince, 4 Doc Bisl. (Jtio), oil. 
 
 Previous to 1743. the members were elected for no definite time, and new 
 elections were held whenever the Governor dissolved the Assembly. Sometimes 
 a few months or a year intervened between the elections, but generally they 
 were held every two years imtil 1710, when the General Assembly then elected 
 continued from Jmie 5th of that year, until Augiist 10th, 1726; over ten years. 
 Four General AssembU^ then succeeded, the last ending May 3d, 1737. On 
 the loth June following, a new House met. Great dissatisfaction had for 
 vears existed among the Colonists at the long continuance of the Assemblies;, and 
 efforts had been made for more frequent elections, which were foiled by Gov- 
 ernor Cosby. On the 16th of December of the above year, however, a bill pro- 
 vidiing for triennial elections, having passed the House and Coimcil, was 
 sanctioned by Lieutenant-Governor Clarke. The latter sent the bill with a 
 written recommendation to the King, but the Lords of Trade \irged its repeal. 
 on the ground of infringement of the Crown"s ri^t to call and dissolve the As- 
 sembly, and on the 30th November, 1738, the act was repealed by the King in 
 pri\-\- Council In October preiious, however, the above Hou^e had been dis- 
 solved by Clarke from dissatisfaction on his pan. A new A^embty succeeded 
 
 4. 
 
26 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 On the sixteenth of April the General Assembly appointed a 
 committee, consisting of Messrs. Cortland, Pell, Van Schaick, 
 Beekman, Pierson, Stilwell and Duskberry, to prepare a bill for 
 the establishment of Courts of Judicature in the Province, and to 
 revise the former laws made for that purpose. 
 
 The next day the committee reported, and the Attorney -General, 
 Mr. Newton, was directed to draw up a bill in pursuance of a plan 
 for the organization of the courts settled upon by the Assembly. 
 
 Mr. Newton, however, at this time leaving the Province for 
 Boston, and Mr. Farewell, who was deputed in his place, neglect- 
 ing to draw a bill as required, the General Assembly, on the 
 twenty -fourth of April, directed their Speaker, James Graham, to 
 perform that duty; accordingly, the following day, Mr. Graham 
 laid before the Asssembly a bill,' which, on the sixth of May (0. 
 S.),^ was passed by that body into an act "for establishing 
 Courts of Judicature, for the ease and benefit of each respective 
 city, town and county within the Province." ' 
 
 in Marcli, 1739, continuing until September, 1743, 'when it was dissolved by 
 Grovernor G-eorge Clinton. The next House met on the eighth of November 
 in that year, and on the Dfecember following, an act passed hmiting the contin- 
 uance of the Assembly to seven years. Under this act the House was elected 
 septennially down to the Revolution. 
 
 The G-ovemor had an absolute veto upon all bills passed by the Assembly and 
 Council, and the power over the former body of prorogation and dissolution. 
 AU laws passed were subject to the King's approbation or disapproval. Such 
 as he disapproved became void. 
 
 The Assembly was composed of freeholders elected by the freeholders of the 
 several counties, viva voce, upon writs of election issued by the Governor in 
 Council 
 
 It elected its own Speaker (the Governor, however, recommending the 
 choice ), chose its ovra clerk, and originated all bills appropriating money. Its 
 Journals are contained in three printed volumes. 
 
 The General Assembly met for the first time on the 17th of October, 1683 
 under the administration of Governor Dongan. After an existence of about 
 ninety-two years, this body adjourned on the 3d of April, 1775, and never again 
 assembled. Journals General Assembly; 4 Doc. Hist. (8vo), 244; James Kents 
 & B. F. Butler's Discourses be/ore Jf. T. Mist. Society; HougKs Civil List. 
 
 ' Journal General Assembly, New York, vol, 1. 
 
 " Livingston and Smith's New York Colonial Laws, 1691-1763, p. 4. 
 
 ' This act is found in the Parliamentary Roll, MSS., deposited in the State 
 Library at Albany, indorsed Anno. R. R. & R. Will et Mariae tertio, first 
 Assembly, first session; and, also, in Laws of New York, Bradford's ed., 1694, 
 p. 2, in Secretary of State's of&ce. 
 
Supreme Court. 27 
 
 On the sixteenth of May (0. S. ) this act was assented to by the 
 Governor and Council, and ordered to be enrolled.' 
 
 The act organized Courts of Justices of the Peace for every 
 town; affirmed the powers of the Courts of Mayor and Aldermen 
 in the cities of New York and Albany; provided for a High 
 Court of Chancery the same as in the act of 1683 ; created a Court 
 of Sessions, and one of Common Pleas for every county, and a 
 Supreme Court of Judicature. 
 
 This Court, to be composed of five judges at least, "appointed 
 and commissionated for that purpose," two of whom, together with 
 one Chief Justice, to be a quorum, was to be held on the first 
 Tuesdays of April and October in. every year, for the space of 
 eight days, at the city of New York. It was empowered to try all 
 pleas civil, criminal and mixed, as fully and amply as the English 
 Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer. Any 
 action, the debt or damages whereof amounted to upwards of 
 twenty pounds, could be commenced in or removed to said court. 
 Any judgment, information or indictment had or depending in the 
 Courts of Mayor and Aldermen, Sessions or Common Pleas could 
 be removed to said Court, which might correct errore in judgment 
 or revise the same, provided the judgment removed was upwards 
 of twenty pounds. 
 
 The judges were also authorized to make rules and orders to 
 guide the practice and proceedings of the court 
 
 The act likewise established trials by jury in all the courts 
 (except the Justices' Courts, and there by consent of parties), in 
 all cases, except in those of defaidt or where matters of fact were 
 acknowledged. 
 
 ' The folio-wing extract from the Journal of the Greneral Assembly shows the 
 manner in those quaint times of procedure in such cases : 
 
 " The house went to the fort to his Excellency and Council, who altogether 
 went to the Town Hall, and there read off and proclaimed the several acts fol- 
 lowing, viz. : 
 
 "A list or catalogue of the several bills sent up from this house to the Gover- 
 nor and Council for their assent and ordered to be enrolled as follows, viz : 
 
 "A bill for establishing Courts of Judicature, <fec. 
 
 "A bill," &c., &c., &c. See Jcmmal of the General Assembly, New York, 1691, 
 1692-1765, voL 1, p. 14. 
 
28 The Council of Revision. 
 
 Appeals lay from the court to the Governor and Council' for 
 any judgment above one hvmdred pounds. This amount, in 1753, 
 was altered to three hundred pounds. 
 
 No provision was made in the act for a Court of Oyer and 
 Terminer. Its name, however was retained in. the Supreme Court 
 to designate the latter's criminal circuits.' 
 
 The act was limited to two years, and until the end of the next 
 Assembly after the expiration of the above period. 
 
 On the 11th of November, 1692, another act was passed estab- 
 lishing the courts for two years longer after the expiration of the 
 former act. This act changed a provision of the former act by 
 providing that the terms of the court should be holden for the 
 county of Orange, as well as for the city and county of New York, 
 on the first Tuesdays in April and October annually, in every 
 year; for the city and county of Albany, the first Tuesday in 
 May ; for Ulster and Dutchess counties, the third Tuesday in May ; 
 for the county of Westchester, the last Tuesday in June; for 
 Kings county, the first Tuesday in August ; for Queens county, 
 the second Tuesday in August; for Suifolk county, the third 
 Tuesday in August ; and for Eichmond county, the second Tues- 
 day in June. 
 
 ' The Council consisted at first of seven, but was increased to twelve mem- 
 bers, any three forming a quorum. In acts of civil government they acted as a 
 Privy Council to the Q-overnor. They could be appointed and suspended by 
 the latter until the pleasure of the Crown could be ascertained. They were, 
 however, more regularly appointed by the mandamus and sign manual of the 
 King. They formed the Upper House or Senate in the Colonial Legislature, 
 and, with the G-overnor, a court of last resort. When they sat as a Court or a 
 Privy Council, they assembled at the Fort; when as a legislative body, at Uie 
 City Hall. They were convened by the Governor, who met with them in tlieir 
 capacity as Court or Council, but not when in their legislative meetings. They 
 sat according to seniority, and the oldest member present was speaker. The 
 chairman had no voice in a committee. One of then- members bore their mes- 
 sages to the Assembly, wliich always rose at his entrance and received the 
 messages standing. 
 
 The members received no salary, although tlieir duties were, from about 
 1756, quite onerous. The board had great weight in tlie Colony, as about the 
 same period lawyers of distinction were made members. 
 
 Neither the Council nor General Assembly permitted strangers to be present 
 at their meetings. 
 
 " Daly's Judicial Organization New York. 
 
Supreme Court. 29 
 
 It also provided that one of the justices should, once in every 
 year, at the above times and places, go the circuit and hold the 
 Supreme Court in each of the above counties where process was 
 issued and pleas were depending, assisted by two or more of the 
 Justices of the Peace of the respective counties where the court 
 was holden ; and that the sessions should continue five days only 
 in the city of New York, and two days at the other places.* 
 
 On the 24th of October, 1696, a further act was passed, extend- 
 ing the provisions of the last act for two years ; ^ and on the 21st 
 of April, 1697, a last act continued them for one year longer .^ 
 In 1698 no other act relative to the extension of the courts was 
 passed, consequently the Province was left without any judicial 
 organization. This state of things continued until 1699, when the 
 courts (with the exception of the Court of Chancery), by an ordi- 
 nance of Governor BeUamont and Council, issued on the fifteenth 
 of April, were established on the same footing as when they 
 expired.' 
 
 On the 15th of May, 1691, nine days after the passage of the 
 first act, Joseph Dudley was appointed Chief Justice, Thomas 
 Johnson second judge, and William Smith, Stephen Van Cortlandt 
 and William Pinhorne, associate judges of the Supreme Court. 
 
 James Graham was shortly after appointed Attorney-General. 
 
 Dudley and Johnson were allowed salaries, the first one hundred 
 and thirty pounds, and the second one hundred pounds per annum, 
 but the other judges and the Attorney-General were allowed 
 nothing for their services.'' In 1693, however, the salary of Attor- 
 ney-General Graham was fifty pounds per annum. 
 
 On the 30th August, 1692, (the day after the arrival of Colonel 
 Benjamin Fletcher as Governor), Joseph Dudley was removed from 
 his office of Chief Justice by reason of his being a non-resident.^ 
 
 On the 7th June, 1698, William Pinhorne and Chidley Brooke, 
 Justices of the Supreme Court, were suspended from their offices 
 by Governor Fletcher ; the first for speaking disrespectful words of 
 the King, and the second for "carelessness, negligence and back- 
 wardness.'" 
 
 ' New York Laws (Bradford's ed., 1694), 64. 
 
 « ParUamentary RoU, MSS. Laws. = Smith (Carey's ed.), 93. 
 
 5 2 Revised Laws, 1813. Appendix. * Council Minutes, vol, 8, 46, 47. 
 
 * Smith (Carey's ed.), 89. 
 
80 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 From the period of Grovernor Bellamont's ordinance in 1699, the 
 court had a continuous existence down to the Eevolution. 
 
 The terms were changed from time to time to accommodate the 
 business of the court and the convenience of parties. 
 
 On the 3d of April, 1704, Lord Cornbury, succeeding Nanfan in 
 the administration of affairs, issued with his Council, an ordinance 
 that the court should be held on the first Tuesdays in June and 
 September and second Tuesdays in October and March in every 
 year, at the city of New York, or at such other places as the Gov- 
 ernor should appoint by proclamation issued twenty days before 
 the holding of said court ; and that each term should continue 
 only for the space of five days.' 
 
 On the 6th of August, 1750, an ordinance was issued by Gov- 
 ernor George Chnton and Council, stating that by reason of the 
 cold and difficulty of travehng in January, and the heat and har- 
 vesting in July, and the October and April terms being too short 
 for the business to be performed, thereafter the court should be 
 held at the city of New York, viz., on the third Tuesdays in 
 October, January and April, and last Tuesday in July in every 
 year. The terms of April and October to be held every day ex- 
 cept Sunday, from the commencement until the end of Thursday 
 in the week next ending, and the terms of January and July from 
 the commencement until the end of Saturday next ending. 
 
 In the October and April terms it was directed there should be 
 four return days, viz., the first day, and Friday, Monday and 
 "Wednesday following ; and in the January and July terms there 
 should be two return days, viz., Tuesday and Friday. 
 
 On the 30th October, 1760, this ordinance was reiterated by 
 Lieutenant-Governor Golden and CouncU, extending at the same 
 time the April and October terms until the end of Saturday instead 
 of Thursday of the next ensuing week. 
 
 The ordinance also empowered the justices, one or more, every 
 year to go into every county in the Province and hold a court 
 for the trial of such causes arising in the respective counties as 
 were brought to issue in the said Supreme Coiirt, which causes 
 the said justices, one or more of them, were empowered to try 
 and give judgment at the next or any subsequent term of said 
 
 ' 2 Revised Laws, Appendix. 
 
SUPEEUE COUBT. 31 
 
 coTirt after the trial; the coiirt to last as long as necessaiy, not 
 exceeding six days. The conrt was to be held in Albany, Dutch- 
 ess, Ulster and Orange comities in June, and in Kings, Queens, 
 Suffolk and Westchester counties in September, and Bichmond 
 county in May. 
 
 The act of 1691 directed that five judges at leas^ viz., a Chief 
 Justice and four assistant justices, should be appointed, but the 
 ordinance of Lord BeUamont made no provision as to the number 
 of the judges." 
 
 Chief Justice Attwood contended, in his memorial to the Lords 
 of Trade' in 1701, that the Chief Justice could alone hold the 
 court He did so in Ms own case until the appointment of Abra- 
 ham De Peyster and Robert Walters, as associate judges in the 
 above mentioned year.' 
 
 This organization of a Chief Justice and two associates, con- 
 tinued until 1758, when David Jones was, on the twenty-first 
 of November in that year, appointed Fourth Justice {i. e., third 
 associate justice), by Lieutenant-Governor De Lancey,* who also 
 continued to act in his capacity of Chief Justice. 
 
 Henceforth, until the Revolution, the court consisted of a Chief 
 Justice and three puisne or junior judges. 
 
 • Ch. J. Attwood to Lords of Trade. CoL Doc 4; Load. Doc^ 15. 923. 
 
 * The Board of Trade and Flantatioiia (succeeding a committee of the King's 
 Priry Conncfl, called the Committee of Trade) Tras erected by a commi^on 
 from TViUiam HI, dated May 15. 1696. This commi^on was revoked, and the 
 Boaid permanently establifhed, with the same powers, by another commission 
 dated Jnly 6, 1697. The Boud oonssted of a Preadent ^id seren membeis, 
 called the Lords of Trade, the objects being the promotion of trade and the 
 superintendence of the Colonic. The violations by the latter, and particularly 
 the city of New York, of the laws of trade, which were vigorous and severe, 
 called for their frequent interference. 
 
 At first the advice and aid of the King's Advocate-General, as well as the 
 Attorney and SolidtOr-Generals, were rendered to the Board, but at length its 
 leg^ basinet became so large as to lead to the special ^pointment of one of 
 the King's Connsel to conduct its law affidrs, although tlie advice of the three 
 former was obtained on q>ecial occasions. 
 
 The Board was abolished by act of 22 George m (ch^ter 82), to take efiFect 
 on or before the 10th of October, 1782, and its powers were conferred on a 
 committee of the Privy ComiciL Tvliich was formally appointed by his Majesty 
 in August, 1786. 2 EddreOi, (1st Series), 197; 3 Bancroft, m, i CoL Doc, 145; 
 Chahneri (Mimial Opimons; Englidi Statutes at Large, 15, 351, 351. 
 
 ^ Attwood to Lords of Tiade, as ahoveL * Becords of C(»niiiisaoiis, voh^ S' 
 
32 The Couets of Revision. 
 
 TVo derks were attached to the court, one at the city of New 
 York attending upon the sessions of the supreme branch, the other 
 upon the circuits. The former sealed all the process, and kept 
 the records.' 
 
 The salaries of Chief Justice Dudley and Justice Johnson, have 
 been already stilted. In 1698 the salary of WiUiam Smith, Chief 
 Justice, was one hundred pounds per annum.' 
 
 Abraham De Peyster, the Chief Justice, immediately preceding 
 Attwood, received no salary. He, however, held the office only 
 for necessary process, and without pretending to judge in any 
 case.' 
 
 In 1702 Chief Justice Attwood's salary was three hundred 
 pounds a year, paid out of the King's own Exchequer;' that of 
 Abraham De Peyster, the then Second Judge, was one hundred 
 and fifty pounds; Robert Walters, the Associate Judge, was 
 allowed fifty pounds,' and James Graham, the Attorney-Greneral, 
 one hundred and fifty pounds; the latter also paid fix)m his Majes- 
 ty's Exchequer.' 
 
 This salary to the Chief Justice must have been temporary, for 
 Grovernor Montgomery, in his letter of 30th June, 1729, to the 
 Lords of Trade,' states that the salary of the above mentioned 
 officer had been one hundred and thirty pounds a year from 1691 
 to 1715, when this sum was raised by a resolve of the Greneral 
 Assembly to three hundi-ed pounds. The resolve, however, stated 
 it was for holding the circuit, and limited the three hundred pounds 
 per annum to five years.' Montgomery also states, in the same 
 letter, that the Second Judge and the Attorney-General, who had 
 before, each of them, one hundred pounds a year salary, had now 
 nothing in the said resolve. 
 
 • Smith ( Carey's ed. ), 272, writing in 1756. Gtov. Tryon in his report on the 
 Province of New York, in 1774, states there was but one clei-k of the Supreme 
 Court, and that the office had always been held as an appendage to that of the 
 Secretary of the Province. I Doc. Sisi., 512 (4to). 
 
 » Bellamont's letter to the Lords of T;ade. Col Doc, 4, 442. 
 3 Ch. J. Attwood to the Lords of Trade. Col Doc, 4, 925. 
 
 * Journal Greneral Assembly, 1, 115. 
 
 ' Daly's Judicial Organization, New Y.ork. 
 
 ' Journal Genersd Assembly, 1, 115. 
 
 ' Colonial Documents, 5, 878. 
 
 ^ Journal Greneral Assembly, 1, 375. 
 
Supreme Court. 88 
 
 In 1765, the General Assembly allowed to Daniel Horsmanden, 
 as Chief Justice, and for holding the circuit, three hundred pounds, 
 from 1st September in the above year, to the 1st September, 1766; 
 to David Jones, as Second Justice, Wm. Smith, as Third, and 
 Eobert R. Livingston, as Fourth Justice, and for holding the cir- 
 cuits, the sum each of two hundred pounds, for the time aforesaid. 
 To John Tabor Kempe, Attorney-General, for certain extraordinary 
 services performed by him in his station, one hundred and fifty 
 pounds.' 
 
 In 1774, the salary of Chief Justice Horsmanden was five 
 hundred pounds sterling, paid by the Crown, and three hundred 
 pounds New York currency, paid by the Province. That of 
 the puisne judges, Robert E. Livingston, George D. Ludlow 
 and Thomas Jones, was each two hundred pounds New York 
 currency, paid by the Province. That of the Attorney-General, 
 John Tabor Kempe, was three hundred and fifty pounds sterling, 
 paid by the Crown, and one hundred and fifty pounds New York 
 currency, paid by the Province, as allowance for extra services." 
 
 The Chief Justices who succeeded Attwood (with the exception 
 of De Lancey) received their appointment from the Crown, as 
 did the Attorney-General, and all held during pleasure. The 
 tenure by which the puisne judges held their offices, was fluc- 
 tuating. They were appointed by the Governor, and, until the 
 period of Governor Clinton, from 1743, held during pleasure. 
 Governor Clinton, however, granted commissions to the puisne 
 judges to hold during good behavior, and he appointed De Lan- 
 cey Chief Justice on the same condition. In 1761, while Cadwal- 
 lader Colden acted as Lieutenant-Governor, the judges applied 
 for new commissions (by reason of doubts as to whether said 
 commissions had not been determined by the death of George II, 
 in 1760), on the condition of good behavior. This was refused by 
 Colden, and the judges threw up their commissions. Horsmanden 
 and David Jones, however, at length accepted comihissions during 
 pleasure. 
 
 The General Assembly, in 1763, memoriaiuzed George III for 
 the appointment of the Chief Justice and Associate Judges to be 
 
 ' Journal General Assembly, 2, 791. 
 
 2 Governor Tryoa's Report on Province of New York 1 Doa, Sist, 521, 523. 
 
34 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 during good beliavior, but the Treasury Board, to wliom tlie 
 matter was referred, decided that the Chief Justice should hold 
 during the Crown's pleasure, and the tenure of the judges, there- 
 after, was according to the will of the King. 
 
 The judges performing an annual circuit through the counties, 
 carried with them a conamission of Oyer and Terminer, in which 
 several of the county justices were associated. A dedimus potesta- 
 tan was also issued by the Governor. 
 
 The judges, and those practicing before them, wore no peculiar 
 costume, nor was there, in 1756, any distmction or degrees among 
 the lawyers. 
 
 The usual requirements for admission to practice were a college 
 or university education, and three years apprenticeship under an 
 attorney. If the above education was wanting, then seven years 
 service under an attorney was required. In either case the Chief 
 Justice recommended the candidate to the Governor, who thereby, 
 under his hand and seal at arms, granted a license to practice. 
 This being produced to the court, the usual State oaths and sub- 
 scription were taken, with an oath for the candidate's upright 
 demeanor, and he was then qualified to practice in every court in 
 the Province.^ 
 
 About 1682, special pleading in the English language and mode 
 came somewhat into use. Previous to this, although the papers 
 before the court were required to be in the above language, the 
 English form of pleading was so blended with that of the Dutch, 
 as rendered it dif&cult of being distiuguished. It was only between 
 1704 and 1718 that the English proceedings and practice were 
 brought into general use." 
 
 On the 27th November, 1741, it was enacted that the Justices 
 of the Supreme Court should hold Circuit Courts, without any 
 special commission from the Crown under the Seal of the Colony.' 
 This act was limited to six years, but by another act in 1746, it 
 was made perpetual.* 
 
 On the 19th of November, 1745, it was enacted that actions 
 under twenty pounds should be brought in the inferior courts, 
 
 ' Smith (Carey's ed.), 271, writing in 1756. 
 ' Daly's Judicial Organization, 29. 
 ^ Van Sohaack's New Tork Colonial Laws, 221. 
 * Van Schaack's New Tork Colonial Laws, 272. 
 
Supreme Court. 35 
 
 and not be removed except by ■vrrit of error into tbe Supreme 
 Court, under the penalty of twenty pounds.' Suits under that 
 sum, brought in inferior courts, were to be tried there, though 
 the cause of action arose out of their jurisdiction.' 
 
 The justices were empowered, by act of May 3d, 1746, to com- 
 mission as many persons as they should see fit, in all the counties 
 in the Colony, to take affidavits, to be read in any cause depend- 
 ing in the Supreme Court, as Masters of Chancery extraordinary 
 used to do.' 
 
 On the 19th of April, 1786, it was enacted that issues joined in 
 the Supreme Court, should be tried in the counties where the lands 
 were situated, or the cause of action arose, or the offense was com- 
 mitted, unless the said court should order a trial at the bar of the 
 said court; only, however, to be done in cases of great difficulty 
 or which required great examination. This, however, was not to 
 extend to any action merely transitory, nor to prevent the said 
 court from ordering trials by foreign juries in aU proper and 
 necessary cases. 
 
 The justices, some or one of them, were once in each year, in 
 the vacations, and oftener if need be, to hold Circuit Courts in each 
 of the counties of the State, for the trial of all issues joined in the 
 Supreme Court, or in any other court, and brought into that court, 
 to be tried, and which were triable in the said respective counties. 
 
 They were to hold the courts without any other commission and 
 return the proceedings to the said Supreme Court at the next 
 term, which should record the same and give judgment thereon 
 according to law. The justices were likewise empowered, without 
 any other commission, to take assizes of Novel Disseisin, or any 
 other assizes at the said several Circuit Courts.* 
 
 From early Colonial times, the authority for holding the court 
 of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, was, by a com- 
 mission issued by the Governor, directed to the judges named in 
 the commission, and the practice so continued until 1788. On the 
 twenty -second of February in that year, however, it was enacted 
 
 ' Van Schaack's New York Colonial Laws, 255. 
 '^ Van Schaack's Colonial Laws, 255, 256. 
 ' Van Schaack's Colonial Laws, 270. 
 * Jones and Varick's Isew Tork Laws, 303. 
 
36 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 that the Justices of the Supreme Court, or any of tHem, with cer- 
 tain designated local magistrates, should hold courts of Oyer and 
 Terminer, without any commission, at the same times as the Circuit 
 Court, and continue to hold them till the business was dispatched, 
 whether the Circuit Court were so long continued or not. The 
 local magistrates were, any two or more of the judges and assistant 
 justices of the courts of Common Pleas of the respective counties 
 of the State, associated in the city of Albany with the Mayor, 
 Eecorder and Aldermen. In the city of New York the local 
 magistrates were, the Mayor, Eecorder and Aldermen alone, two 
 or more of them. These local magistrates were restrained from 
 sitting or acting as justices of any court of Oyer and Terminer out 
 of their respective cities or counties. 
 
 The Governor, however, with the advice and consent of the 
 Council of Appointment, could issue commissions of Oyer and 
 Terminer in manner and form as heretofore used, whenever occa- 
 sion required; the justices of the Supreme Court always to be 
 named in such commissions, with such others as the Governor and 
 said Council should think proper; and no such commissions were 
 to be executed, or proceedings be thereupon had, without the pre- 
 sence of one or more of the said justices. The said courts of 
 Oyer and Terminer were authorized to direct their process into 
 any city or county. 
 
 It was further provided that the Justices of Assize and Oyer 
 and Terminer should, once in every year, send all their records 
 and processes, determined and put in execution to the Exchequer, 
 there to remain of record; and also that the justices to take assizes, 
 and of the Oyer and Terminer, should allow no person, little or 
 great, to sit with them on the bench at their sessions.' 
 
 In 1789, it was enacted that all issues joined or brought into the 
 Supreme Court, triable by a jury of any county in which the 
 said court should sit, might be tried either at the Circuit Court of 
 such county, or at the bar of the said Supreme Court, when it sat 
 in such county, without any order of said court for that purpose." 
 This was, however, altered in 1797, so as to render an order of 
 the court necessary for such trial." 
 
 > 2 Greealeaf, 81-84. ^ 2 Greenleaf, 261. = 3 Greenleaf, 362. 
 
Supreme Court. 37 
 
 On the 12th of February, 1796, the office of Clerk of the Circuit 
 and Oyer and Terminer Coui-ts was abolished, and the County 
 Clerks were made, ex-officio, clerks of said courts. Seven Assist- 
 ant Attorney-Grenerals, for as many districts, to appear in the latter 
 court, were also appointed. 
 
 On the 27th Kovember, 1741, the General Assembly passed an 
 act "to revise, digest and print the laws of the Colony from the 
 happy revolution :" ' viz., from the accession of William and Mary. 
 The execution of the work was deputed to Daniel Horsmanden, 
 then Third Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as Eecorder of 
 the city of New York. He, however, did not undertake it, but 
 compiled, and in 1741, published instead, the History of the Pro- 
 ceedings of the celebrated Negro Plot.' 
 
 In 1752, a digest of the Colonial Laws (the first regular col- 
 lection made), pursuant to an act of the General Assembly, 
 from 1691 to the above year, prepared by TViOiam Livingston 
 and William Smith, Jr., was published. It was extended by the 
 same persons from the 11th of November, 1752, to 22d of May, 
 1762. 
 
 In pursuance of a subsequent act of the General Assembly, 
 Peter Tan Schaack, in 1774, published another Digest of the 
 Laws of the Province, prepared by him, extending from 6th 
 May, 1691, to 8th March, 1773. 
 
 WiUiam Bradford published the following editions, viz., 1694, 
 1710, 1713, 1716, 1719 (this edition was reprinted in London 
 by John Baskett, by order of the Lords Commissioners of Trade 
 and Plantations), and 1726. 
 
 Great irregularity appears ia the pubhcation of these respective 
 editions, making it impossible to show the precise periods they are 
 meant to embrace. They were probably printed sheet by sheet 
 as the acts were passed. 
 
 From 1691 to 1799 no regular reports of cases were made. In 
 1804, a law was passed authorizing the court to appoint a reporter, 
 who collected and published the reports from 1799 to 1803.' 
 From the latter period they were continued so long ^ the court 
 
 ' Journal Greneral Assembly, vol. 1, 827. 
 
 » Smith (Hist. Lib. ed), vol 2, p. 80. 
 
 ' Preface to 1 Johnson's Supreme Court Keporta. 
 
38 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 existed. But althougti there were no systematic reports during 
 the period iirst mentioned, isolated cases, occurring particularly 
 in the first half of this period, have been pubhshed. Miautes 
 of the court also have been preserved. Those from October 4, 
 1693, to October 5, 1700, while "William Smith presided as Chief 
 Justice, are published in the collections of the New York Histori- 
 cal Society. 
 
 Of the early trials, the first we shall mention is that of Col. 
 Nicholas Bayard, in 1702, involving as it did, the liberty of speech 
 and opinion in the Province.' 
 
 During the administration of Leisler, and for some time after 
 his judicial murder, the Province was divided into Anti-Leislerites, 
 or "people of figure," and Leislerites, or the democratic portion of 
 the people. Colonel Bayard belonged to the former faction, and 
 was instrumental in the condemnation and execution of Leisler. 
 
 Governor Bellamont had sided with the Leislerian faction, and 
 the present head of the Colonial government, Lieutenant-Governor 
 Nanfan, took the same position. Information having been re- 
 ceived of the appointment of Lord Cornbury, as the successor 
 of Bellamont, and the Leislerites having a majority in the General 
 Assembly in 1702, the Anti-Leisterites concerted measures to 
 influence the mind of Cornbury to their side. For this purpose. 
 Colonel Bayard procured the signing of three addresses, to the 
 King, the House of Commons, and Lord Cornbury,' containing 
 charges of bribery and oppression against Nanfan, Chief Justice 
 Attwood and the General Assembly, with imputations upon the 
 memory of Lord Bellamont. 
 
 Under an act, the first passed by the Assembly of 1691," which 
 declared that any person endeavoring, on any jjretense, by force 
 of arms or otherwise, to disturb the peace of the Province, should 
 be deemed a traitor, and which Bayard, when his party were 
 uppermost, had himself greatly aided to procure. Bayard was, by 
 Nanfan's order, committed to prison. A special Court of Oyer and 
 
 1 Howell's State Trials, vol. 14, 471-516 ; Chandler's American Criminal Trials, 
 vol. 1, 269-294; 2 Hiklreth's History of the United States (1st 3eries),204. 
 
 « Combury's reasons for suspending Attwood. Land. Doc, 15; Col Doc, vol 
 4, 1011. 
 
 3 Parliamentary Roll MSS., Laws of K Y. (Bradford's ed., 1694, p. 1. ) 
 
SrPKKsrK CouKT. 39 
 
 TennineT. ccoisistiiig ci Chief Jtistice Anwvxxl and the Ajsociate 
 Judge? Abraham De Pexster and Bobeit TValters. was commis- 
 sioned, and cm die. 7ih of ifarch. 17<>2. Bayaid \ras biiought to 
 triad. Sanipeon Siielton Bioughtou. the Attomey-Geneial. having 
 given his opinion s^iainst the pmsecuaon of Bayaid, Thomas 
 "Weaver, appointed Solio::or-G^ner;il m the ptopoise. conducted 
 the proceedings Messis. ISioaoUs and £mot \rei\? counsel fisr 
 Bajwd, who was convicted of treason and condemned to be e:xe- 
 ctrted. Loid Corabury. however, whose oi^iaior.? coincided with 
 those of the Anti-leislerites, arrived during this period, suspended 
 AtTwood. De Peyster and Walters firom their offices, ai? well in the 
 Coundl as on the Bench, and succeeded in having the attainder 
 of Bavard and ria- of Alderman John H-.i:,l-.-is, convicted of the 
 sar^e c^ense with Bayaid. reveised bv Queen Anne. The latter, 
 "ix^n a hearing of the case beB>re tie Privy Council, sanctioned 
 also the removal of tiie Chief Justice and the associate judges, as 
 well as Weaver, from the Council of :ie Province.' Attwood. 
 against irhoau. moreover. chaK:^?s lay of corruption and rarriaBty 
 caa the Bench.* being removed fiwm his Chief Justiceship. "Wiiiiam 
 S;:;idi, who had held the office ft>r several years previous, and 
 who had been one of the C cr-^^- ssioneK of Oyer and Tenniner, 
 appcdnled by Governor Slo\-.i:irer, that tried Leisier.' was ap- 
 pcontedin his place,* Attwood ard Weaviex fled to Tiiginia, 
 therioe :o England, under assumed naji'-es.' Dr. John Bridges was 
 made Second Justice of tie ? .tpresie Court in place ef De Pevs- 
 ter.' and the act under which Bayard was convicted was presently 
 repealed by Queoi Anne's special oider,' 
 
 Tie second trial noticed, viz.. ti^st of Francis McKemie. in 1707. 
 was one bv which not csoly religious TOlerati<m wss viudKated a::! 
 snshdned. bnt arbitrsiy conduct and an attempt at tyraimy were 
 rebnked and foiled. 
 
 » Cblonnl IVvc=;e£::s. ret i. 10--4 : Loodon IXx-,::::«:ts. li 
 
 * Coiamal Docnmrals; ToL i 1010; LsiAm Dotsnnant^ 15. 
 s ThompiC-5 SQsexj of Leer IstMri, vol 2, Appendii, iU. 
 < JtmeS, :"-t^ 
 
 * 52r-.h (C«reTS eiX 119- 
 
 * Juoe 14i ITOe. 
 
 ' 2Hadiedi.20& 
 
40 The Council of Revision. 
 
 At this period, the people of the city of New York were com- 
 posed of Calvinists of the Holland Dutch Chiu-oh, Frouch refugees 
 of the Geueva platform, a few English Episcopalians, and a still 
 smaller nmnber of English and Irish Presbyterians who assembled 
 for worship every Sunday at a private house, having ueitlior 
 church nor preacher. In January, 1707, Francis MeKomio and 
 John Hampton, two preachers of the Presbyterian faith, arrived 
 at the city of New York. The Dutch Calvinists consented to 
 McKemie's officiatuig in their church, but Lord Cornbury, who 
 was opposed to the whole persuasion, forbade it; consequently, 
 upon the next Sunday, the service was conducted at a private 
 house with open doors. Mr. Hampton officiated the satoe day at 
 the Presbyterian church in New Town, a few miles distant. 
 
 Two or three days after, McKemie and Hampton were arrested, 
 on Cornbury's warrant, for preaching without his license. Al- 
 though the English ecclesiastical statutes did not extend to tlie Pro- 
 vince, Protestants of all denominations having there equal rights 
 and privileges, the defendants unskilled in the law supposed they 
 did, but relied as their defense upon the toleration act, oH'ering to 
 show they had complied with the act in Virginia and Maryland, 
 and promised to certify the house at the next sessions in which 
 McKemie had preached. 
 
 Lord Cornbury, however, assisted by May Bickley, the then 
 Attorney-General of the Province, insisted that as the statutes 
 did not extend to the Province, neither did the toleration act. 
 His license to preach being therefore uct'.ossary, the defendants 
 not possessing it had violated his orders (which, however, had 
 never been published), and consequently he connnittcd them to 
 jail. 
 
 After a confinement of about six weeks, the defendants were 
 brought before Chief Justice Mompesson on Jiaheas corpus, and 
 Cornbury, apprised of the illegality of the first warrant, and know- 
 ing the legal ability of the Chief Justice, issued another on the 
 ground that the defendants were not qualified as the toleration .act 
 required. They were then bailed to the Supreme Court shortly 
 about to sit; and exertions having been made to obtain a grand 
 jury for the purpose, an indictment was found, several Dutch 
 and French Protestants being on the jury. 
 
Supreme Cocbt. 41 
 
 On the 6tli of June, McKemie (Hampton being discliarged, no 
 evidence against him having been presented to the grand jury) 
 was brought to trial before Chief Justice Mompesson, and the 
 Associate Justices Milward and Wenham. Attorney -Greneral Bick- 
 Icy, "who was rather remarkable," says Smith, "for a voluble 
 tongue than a penetrating head or much learning," managed the 
 proceedings in behalf of the Crown, Messrs. Mcholls, Jamison and 
 Reignere on the part of the defendant The indictment was that 
 McKemie, pretending "to be a Protestant dissenting minister, 
 contemning and endeavoring to subvert the Queen's ecdesiastieal 
 supremacy, unlawfully preached, without the Governor's license 
 first obtained, in derogation of the royal authority and preroga- 
 tive ; and that he used other rites and ceremonies than those con- 
 tained in the common prayer book." 
 
 The indictment farther charged that the defendant, not being 
 legally qualified to preach, did nevertheless preach and at an 
 illegal conventicle being contrary to the form of the ecclesiastical 
 statutes of England. 
 
 Bickley insisted upon the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Queen; 
 that it was delegated to the Governor, and hence that the latter's 
 instructions had the force of a law. He contended also for the 
 extension of the statutes of uniformity. 
 
 Reionere, on the contrary, contended that, by the common law, 
 preaching was no crime; that the Grovemor's instructions were not 
 laws, and that the statutes of uniformity and the toleration act did 
 not extend to the Province. NichoUs and Jamison spoke to the 
 same effect McKemie concluded with a speech in his own de- 
 fense, which according to Smith placed "his capacity in a very 
 advantageous light" 
 
 A special verdict was advised by Chief Justice Mompesson, but 
 the jury acquitted McKemie, who was not, however, freed fiom his 
 recognizance until he had been compelled to pay all the fees of 
 his prosecution.^ 
 
 The trial of Van Dam, in 1733, and of Zenger, in 1735, wiU be 
 noticed in the description of the Court of Exchequer. The former, 
 by being the means of Chief Justice Morris' removal by Cosby, on 
 
 > For a fiill report of this trial, see Force's Historical Collectioiis, voL 4. 
 6 
 
42 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 account of liis opinion that the Supreme Court had no authority to 
 proceed in equity, contributed largely to the division of' the 
 Colony into two parties. The controversy between the two existed 
 for many years, with the Court of Chancery as the principal bone 
 of contention. 
 
 The latter trial vindicated humble weakness and the liberty 
 of the press against oppressive proceedings on the part of power, 
 as well as the doctrine that truth should constitute a defense in 
 libel, and that the jury are the judges both of the law and the 
 fact.' 
 
 The last to be noticed is the Negro Plot. In its narrative will 
 be found such credulity and cruelty, and such a prostration of all 
 that appertains to a manly nature before universal fear, as have 
 been rarely recorded. 
 
 True, the acts were committed when the whole community 
 lived in dread of the slaves; -but even with the greatest allow- 
 ance, it is difficult to realize how men of education and ability, 
 of stainless reputation and moral worth, could so far warp the 
 sanctities of law, and so far forget the common instincts of 
 humanity, as to commit such acts, and that too without mercy or 
 remorse. 
 
 The narrative of the Plot was drawn by a participant in its ex- 
 citements and a firm believer in its existence. Daniel Horsmanden 
 was the author, then the third justice of the Supreme Court and 
 Recorder of the city of New York. He, in connection with Chief 
 Justice De Lancey, or Frederick Philipse, Second Justice, sat on 
 the bench on nearly if not all the trials of those charged with 
 this (to use his own language) "inhumane, horrible enterprize," 
 in which trials, "so many of the wicked instruments of it were 
 brought to justice, whereby a check has been put to the execrable 
 malice and bloody purposes of foreign and domestic enemies, 
 though we have not been able entirely to unravel the mystery of 
 this iniquity ; for 'twas a dark design, and the veil is in some 
 measure still upon it." 
 
 In the spring of 1741, a strange rumor began to creep through 
 the little city of New York, numbering about ten thousand inhabi- 
 
 ' Gouvemeur Morris declares this trial to be tlie germ of the American Revo- 
 lution. 
 
Supreme Court. 43 
 
 tants, of whom between seventeen and eighteen hundred, men, 
 women and children, were slaves.' 
 
 The rumor was, that a plot existed among the slaves to burn the 
 city and massacre the inhabitants. This received countenance, 
 from the fact, that in 1712 an insurrection had occurred among 
 the slaves, who had set a house in flames, and before their disper- 
 sion by the train band had put several citizens to death. 
 
 The commencement of this excitement was the robbery, on the 
 night of the 28th of February, 1741, of a house belonging to 
 Eobert Hogg, a merchant of the city of New York, of coins, 
 medals, wrought silver, &c. 
 
 Suspicion was pointed at John Hughson, the keeper of a low 
 tavern, to which negroes were in the habit of resorting. A girl 
 of sixteen, Mary Burton, an indented servant of Hughson, informed 
 against the latter, who acknowledged that a portion of the goods 
 had been brought to his house, which portion he delivered to the 
 magistrate. 
 
 ■ The city extended then from Fort George (a square with four bastions), at 
 the present Battery, north along the east side of Broadway, as far as the present 
 Spruce street, a httle beyond the commencement of the city commons, which 
 extended upward. Along the East river the houses were quite compact, and 
 there were pubHo markets at the foot of each street. The Dutch, BngUsh and 
 French churches, and the City Hall (the latter in Wall street), were near each 
 other, toward the upper part of the city. The winding streets were, in the 
 summer, embowered in the foHage of the water beach and locust. The com- 
 mons (the present park) were uninclosed, bounded to the east by the road to 
 Boston (Chatham street), and by Broadway, to the west. This area, tlie site of 
 an Indian village, was in early Dutch times known as the Vlachte, and was 
 the pasturage ground of the gables scattered • around a fort, known as New 
 Amsterdam, where the kine grazed under the superintendence of a city herds- 
 man; in it, on the 30th of July, 1673, Colve's troops formed for their march 
 down Broadway to the successful attack on Fort James (as the fort was at 
 that time called ), then under command of Captain John Manning, and it was 
 the scene of the executions in the Negro Plot. Valentine's Manual and History 
 of New York. 
 
 A line of pahsades extended from the Hudson to the East river, about where 
 runs the present Chambers street, with a block-house a little east of Broadway. 
 Beyond the pahsades to the north were the two Collect ponds. On the west 
 side of Broadway was the King's Farm, and in the comer, formed by George 
 and Frankford streets, was the grave of the patriot Leisler. 
 
 A paUsade also extended at the north or land side of Fort George. 
 
44 Ti-iK Council of Bevision. 
 
 Another inmate of Hughson's, Peggy Kerry, who had previouly 
 resided atone John Komme's, was also implicated by Mary in the 
 robbery. 
 
 Both Hughson and Peggy, although they denied the charge, 
 were committed to prison. 
 
 On the eighteenth March following, a fire occurred by which 
 the Government House, the King's Chapel, the Secretary's office, 
 the barracks and stable, all situated at Fort George, were con- 
 sumed. This created alarm, and in the evening the captain of a 
 militia company beat to armn and had over seventy men ready 
 for service all night. 
 
 This fire was followed day after day by other burnings, many 
 of them, however, merely those of chimneys. Although the con- 
 flagration at Fort George was accounted for by Lieutenant-Gover- 
 nor Clarke himself, in a message to the Assembly, from the sparks 
 of a fire-pot, carried by a plumber who that morning had repaired 
 the gutter between the Government House and Chapel, others 
 were most probably incendiary, and the whole lashed the com- 
 munity into the greatest terror. 
 
 Some time previous, a Spanish vessel, a portion of its crew 
 being negroes, had been brought to New York as a prize, and the 
 negroes sold at vendue, having been condemned by the Court of 
 Admiralty as slaves. Asserting themselves frcjcmen, they com- 
 plained of being thus sold. A cry was immediately raised against 
 them as being implicated in the fires; they were imprisoned and 
 at length the slaves of the city, as a body, became the objects 
 of suspicion. Many were hurried off tf; jail, and the panic in- 
 creasing, the Lieutenant-Governor, at the request of the Common 
 Council, issued a proclamation offering one hundred j)Ounds to 
 any white person and a pardon (if conceniod therein); twenty 
 pounds, freedom and pardon to any slave with twenty-five pounds 
 to his master, and forty -five pounds with pardon to any free negro, 
 mulatto or Indian, who should discover any one concerned in the 
 fires. 
 
 Mary Burton, after this proclamation, at the session of the 
 Supreme Court, held on the 22d April of the said year (1741), 
 stated to the grand jury that she had heard three negroes, Cuffec, 
 Csesar and Prince, who were in the habit of meeting at Hughson's, 
 
Supreme Court. 45 
 
 talk while there of a plan to burn the town in the night, and when 
 the white people came to extinguish it, to destroy them; that her 
 master (Hughson) and mistress promised to aid the negroes, and 
 when aU was accomplished that Caesar was to be Governor 
 and Hughson King; and further, that she never saw any white 
 persons present when the burning of the town was talked of, but 
 her master, mistress and Peggy Kerry. 
 
 The Second and Third Justices holding the court, viz., Frede- 
 rick Philipse and Daniel Horsmanden, summoned the seven 
 lawyers of the city, Messrs. Murray, Alexander, Smith, Chambers, 
 Nicholls, Lodge and Jamison (the Attorney -General, Bradley, 
 being indisposed), for counsel in the emergency; the term of the 
 Supreme Court, limited to eight days, was enlarged, and the above 
 lawyers offered their assistance in their turn at every trial of the 
 conspirators. 
 
 Every day there were examinations and confessions. Peggy 
 Kerry at first denied all knowledge of the alleged conspiracy, but 
 at length, Hughson, his wife Sarah, and herself, having been con- 
 victed as receivers of the stolen goods belonging to Hogg, Peggy 
 implicated John Romme (who also kept a low tavern) and his wife, 
 in the conspiracy, with several negroes other than Prince and 
 C^sar who had previously been convicted as principals in the 
 robbery of the said goods. The latter were hanged for the rob- 
 bery, denying to the last, however, any knowledge of the conspi- 
 racy, and the body of Csesar, was hung in chains. The negroes 
 implicated by Peggy were arrested, as was Eomme's wife, but 
 Eomme absconded, although subsequently retaken. 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of May, Quack (another negro implicated) 
 and Cuffee were brought to trial for the conspiracy. 
 
 The Attorney-General appeared for the prosecution, assisted by 
 Messrs. Murray and Smith. The prisoners had no counsel. 
 Mary Burton was the principal witness; other witnesses, among 
 whom was Arthur Price, a thief, and two negroes, also bore 
 evidence against the prisoners. Witnesses on their side- were 
 called, but the prisoners were convicted and sentenced to be burned 
 at the stake. Although they had previously asseverated their inno- 
 cence, while at the stake they made all the required admissi9ns 
 and, in compliance with the wishes of the excited populaca 
 
46 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 (althougli a discretionary reprieve was allowed by the Lieutenant- 
 Governor, on the representations of Mr. Moore, the Deputy Secre- 
 tary and Clerk of the court, that the reprieve might produce more 
 discoveries), they were burned. Hughson and his wife were already 
 under sentence of death as receivers of the stolen goods, but they 
 were, together with Sarah their daughter, and Peggy Kerry, on 
 the fourth of June, brought to trial for the conspiracy. Again the 
 Attorney-General conducted the prosecution, assisted by Messrs. 
 Murray, Alexander, Smith and Chambers. Again no counsel 
 appeared for the prisoners. Mary Burton and Arthur Price, with 
 other witnesses, testified against them. Witnesses were called on 
 their part, but the prisoners were convicted and sentenced to death, 
 although they severally spoke in their justification, protested their 
 innocence, " declared that all the witnesses had said against them 
 was false, and- called upon God to witness their asseverations." " 
 Hughson, his wife and Peggy (the daughter being respited in the 
 hope of confession), were hanged, protesting to the last their inno- 
 cence; Peggy, the evening before her execution, declaring to Justice 
 Philhpse, that she had forsworn herself, and that all she had 
 testified to about Roome and his wife, except as to being receivers 
 of stolen goods, was false. The body of Hughson was hung 
 in chains. His daughter Sarah, after being respited for three 
 weeks, was ordered to be executed, she continuing to deny all 
 knowledge of the conspiracy. On the day fixed for her execution, 
 however, she confessed her knowledge of the matter, and was 
 farther respited. Again and again, however, did she recant what 
 she confessed, "until the judges thought themselves under a 
 necessity of ordering her execution as the last experiment to 
 bring her to a disposition to unfold this infernal secret, at least so 
 much of it as might be thought deserving a recommendation of 
 her, as an object of mercy." " Under threats of execution from 
 day to day, she would still confess and recant, until on the twenty- 
 ninth of July, over six weeks after her first respite, "she produced 
 and pleaded his Majesty's most gracious pardon" before the court, 
 who read and allowed it,' and she was used as a witness against 
 John Ury. 
 
 ' Joiirnal Proceedings in the Negro Plot, 1741, by D. Horsmanden, 58. 
 " Journal Negro Plot, 130. ^ j^^ 155, 
 
SuPEEME Court. 47 
 
 In tlie meanwliile, examinations, confessions, implications, trials 
 and executions (burning and hanging) took place among the un- 
 fortunate negroes, Mary Burton being the standing witness against 
 those tried. Five of the Spanish negroes sold as slaves were 
 arraigned, and on the seventeenth of June brought to trial for 
 co\mseling the negro Quack to burn the fort ; Messrs. Murray, 
 Alexander and Chambers, counsel for the prosecution, and Mary 
 Burton the sole witness to prove the connection of the said ne- 
 groes in the conspiracy. They were found guilty, though, like 
 the others, strongly alleging their innocence. 
 
 From day to day the court adjourned, and trials and condemna- 
 tions of new victims (all negroes) were had. On the nineteenth 
 of Jime, the Lieutenant-Governor issued a proclamation, offering 
 pardon to all who should confess on or before the first of July. 
 Terrified by their condition, the negroes rushed to make confes- 
 sions, so that in a week after the proclamation thirty additional 
 slaves were accused, and before the fifteenth of July forty-six 
 arraigned negroes pleaded guilty. Daily, before this time, sus- 
 pected negroes had been arrested, until by the fourth of July the 
 jails (the apartments in the City Hall being so called) became so 
 crowded that disease was apprehended,' and a hst of forty -two 
 negroes, who had confessed their guilt, was made out by the 
 judges to the Lieutenant-Governor for transportation. 
 
 Suspicion of Popery in connection with the conspiracy began 
 now to pervade the community, intimations having been given 
 that Popish priests were lurking about the city. Accordingly, 
 John Urv, a nonjuring minister, who had lately come to New 
 York and entered into partnership with one Campbell to teach a 
 Greek and Latin school, was arrested, and not giving a satisfactory 
 account of himself, was committed to jail. 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of July he was brought to trial before 
 Chief Justice De Lancey and Justices Plulipse and Horsmanden, 
 on an indictment charging him with having counseled and abetted 
 the negro Quack in burning the government house at the fort. A 
 second indictment charged that he, being a Eomish priest, had en- 
 tered and dwelt in the Province after the time limited by a statute 
 
 ' 1 Dunlap, 351. 
 
48 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 of 11th William HI/ He was, however, tried on the first indict- 
 ment. The Attorney-General, assisted by Messrs. Murray, Alex- 
 ander, Smith and Chambers, conducted the trial against the 
 prisoner, who, as usual, had no counsel. Mary Burton, Will- 
 iam Kane (a soldier from the fort who had been accused of par- 
 ticipating in the plot, and had escaped by confessing his knowl- 
 edge of it) and Sarah Hughson testified against the prisoner, who, 
 on his part, introduced witnesses. He was found guilty, and on 
 the twenty -ninth of August was hanged, leaving a last speech 
 with a friend (repeatiag somewhat the substance at the gallows), 
 in which, about "to appear before an awful and tremendous God," 
 he solemnly protested his innocence of any participation in the 
 plot. 
 
 After this the excitement very much subsided, and on the 
 twenty -fourth of September there was kept, thoughout the Pro- 
 \T.nce, "a day of public thanksgiving for the deliverance of his 
 Majesty's subjects from the destruction whercTTith they were so 
 generally threatened by the late execrable conspiracy."' 
 
 On the 15th of February, 1742, however, live coals were found 
 in the gutter of a shed adjoining a house in the city of New York, 
 and -a negro named Tom, described as a simple half-witted fellow, 
 was arrested, and, on his own confession, convicted of the offense 
 and hanged. Tom's confession implicated other negroes, who, in 
 conjunction with negroes from Long Island intended, when the fire 
 of the shed should communicate to the whole town, to murder the 
 white inhabitants. But the public mind had now become quieted. 
 "It seemed as if the people," says Horsmanden in his Journal of 
 the Plot, under date of March 16th, 1742,' "had almost generally 
 composed themselves into a tranquil security, some by discrediting, 
 others (as one would imagine) forgetting that there had been a 
 real conspiracy." 
 
 The day before the sixteenth, afire occurred in some tan works, 
 and, says Horsmanden, "it seemed agreed on all hands that the 
 fire must have been put there on purpose," yet the inquiries elic- 
 
 ' Viz., after November, 1700; the punishment for so doing being perpetual 
 imprisonment, and if the person, so sentenced, should escape and be retaken, the 
 penalty being death. 
 
 2 Journal Negro Plot, 177. ' Journal Negro Plot, 189. 
 
Supreme Court. 49 
 
 ited nothing to fasten the guilt on any one. On the twenty-third 
 of the same month "a bundle of linen set on fire," was thrown in 
 the gutter near a brew-house, and thence carried by the wind on 
 an adjoining shed, but the examination of the matter proved 
 fruitless. 
 
 The witness Mary Burton commenced now also to implicate as 
 members of the plot men of known and established credit aiid re- 
 putation, whose characters and fortunes elevated them above all 
 suspicion, and her veracity began at last to be questioned. "On 
 the whole," says Horsmanden, "there was reason to conclude that 
 this girl had at length been tampered withal." ' 
 
 On the 2d of September, 1742, the Mayor of the city issued his 
 warrant to the treasurer for the one hundred pounds promised to 
 the discoverer or discoverers of the plot, and the money was paid 
 to Mary Burton. 
 
 Thus ended, after a duration of nineteen months, this wonderful 
 delusion darkened into a most fearful tragedy. 
 
 During its continuance, one hundred and fifty-four persons 
 were committed on account of the conspiracy. Of these twenty 
 were white, of which four were females; also, of these were the 
 seven Spanish negroes, one free negro, and one Indian slave ; the 
 rest were negro slaves, of which four were females. Of the whites, 
 two, Sarah Hughson and William Kane, confessed and were par- 
 doned, the latter enlisting in the West Indies. Ury, the Hughsons 
 (husband and wife) and Peggy Kerry were executed; John Komme 
 and wife discharged, the former on security for his leaving the Pro- 
 vince, and the latter from want of evidence against her; five others 
 (a father and four sons) were pardoned on their also leaving the 
 Province, and the rest were discharged. 
 
 Of the Spanish and other negroes, seventy-seven confessed, of 
 whom three were hanged; two (confessing at the stake) were 
 burned; fifty-seven transported; thirty discharged without con- 
 fession; thirteen (iucluding the two mentioned) burned; eighteen 
 hanged, of whom one (York), with John Hughson, was hung in 
 chains. There were seven negroes indicted but were never found. 
 
 Ten white witnesses and nineteen negroes were examined in the 
 course of the trials. 
 
 • Journal Negro Plot, 204. 
 
50 The Council of Revision. 
 
 Between 1691 and the Eevolution, the following were the eleven 
 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, viz. : 
 
 Joseph Dudley,' "William Smith," Stephen Van Cortlandt,' 
 William Smith (reappointed),* Abraham De Peyster,' "WilUam 
 Attwood," William Smith (reappointed),' John Bridges,' Eoger 
 Mompesson," Lewis Morris," James De Lancey," Benjamin Pratt," 
 and Daniel Horsmanden." 
 
 Of these, Dudley studied divinity in early life, then entered the 
 political arena. Attwood, Bridges, Mompesson, Morris, De Lan- 
 cey,' Pratt and Horsmanden were lawyers ; and Smith, Van Cort- 
 landt and De Peyster, merchants. 
 
 During the same period, the following were the Associate or 
 Puisne Judges, viz.: Thomas Johnson," William Smith," Stephen 
 Van Cortlandt," William Pinhorne," Chidley Brooke," John Law- 
 rence," Abraham De Peyster," Eobert Walters," John Bridges," 
 Robert Milward," Thomas Wenham," Adolph Philipse," James 
 
 ' Appointed May 15, 1691. 
 
 ^ Appointed November 11, 1692, in room of Dudley. 
 
 ^ Appointed October 30, 1700, in room of Smith. 
 
 * 25th November, 1700, in room of Van Cortlandt, deceased. 
 
 ^ Appointed January 21, 1701, in room of Smitli. 
 
 ^ Appointed August 5, 1701, in room of De Peyster. 
 
 ' June 9, 1702, in room of Attwood. 
 
 ° Appointed April 5, 1703, in room of Smith. 
 
 ' Appointed July 15, 1704, in room of Bridges, deceased. 
 '° Appointed July 1, 1718, in room of Mompesson, deceased. 
 " Appointed August 21, 1733, in room of Morris. 
 "i Appointed November 11, 1761, in room of De Lanoey, deceased. 
 " Appointed March 16, 1763, in room of Pratt, deceased. 
 " Appointed May 15, 1691, Second Judge. 
 
 '= Appointed May 15, 1691, Third Judge, and Cliief Justice November 11, 
 1692. 
 '« Appointed May 15, 1691, Fourth Judge, and Chief Justice October 30, 1700. 
 " Appointed May 15, 1691, Fifth Judge, and Second Judge April 3, 1693. 
 's Appointed April 3, 1693. 
 " Appointed April 3, 1693. 
 
 "' Appointed October 4, 1698, Second Judge, in room of Johnson ; Chief 
 Justice January 21, 1701, and reappointed Second Judge August 5, 1701. 
 =■ Appointed August 5, 1701, Tliird Judge. 
 
 " Appointed Second Judge June 14, 1702, and Chief Justice April 5, 1703. 
 " Appointed Second Judge April 5, 1703. 
 =* Appointed Third Judge April 5, 1703. 
 «= Judge in 1711. 
 
Supreme Codbt. 51 
 
 De Lancey,' Frederick Philipse,' Daniel Horsmanden,' John 
 Chambers,' David Jones,' William Smith, the elder,' Eobert R 
 Livingston,' George D. Ludlow,' and Thomas Jones.' 
 
 Of these, Messrs. David Jones, Chambers, Smith, the elder, 
 Livingston, Ludlow and Thomas Jones were lawyers, and Pin- 
 home, Walters, Wenham, Adolph and Frederick Philipse, were 
 merchants. 
 
 The following were the Attorney-Generals during the same 
 period, viz.: 
 
 James Graham," Sampson Shelton Broughton," May Bickley," 
 Sampson Broughton," John Eayner," David Jamison," James 
 
 ' Appointed Second Judge June 24, 1731, and Chief Justice August 21, 
 1733. 
 
 * Appointed Third Judge June 24, 1731, and Second Judge August 21, 
 1733. 
 
 ^ Appointed Third Judge January 24, 1736; removed September 22, 1747; 
 reappointed July 28, 1753, and October 14, 1761. Appointed Second Judge 
 March 26, 1762. and Chief Justice March 16. 1763. 
 
 ^ Appointed Second Judge July 30, 1751 ; reappointed October 14, 1761 ; 
 reagned November 19, 1761. 
 
 ° Appointed Fourth Judge November 21, 1758 ; reappointed October 14, 
 1761 ; appointed Third Judge March 31, 1762, and Second Judge March 16, 
 1763. 
 
 « Appointed Third Judge March 16, 1763. 
 
 ' Appointed Fourth Judge March 16, 1763. 
 
 ' Appointed December 14, 1769. 
 
 ' Appointed September 29, 1773. 
 " Appointed May 15, 1691. 
 " Appointed February 4, 1702. 
 
 '* Appointed April 18, 1704, at decease of Broughton, and on tiie 7th July, 
 1709. reappointed to execute the duties of Attomey-GeneraJ, in the absence of 
 John Eayner. 
 
 '^ Received letters mandatory from Queen Anne, dated 18th June, 1705, di- 
 recting Lord Combury to constitute him Attomey-Gieneral in place of his father, 
 Sampson Shelton Broughton, deceased. Combury did not comply, however, on 
 the plea that trials were at hand in Tvhich Broughton could not be timely in- 
 structed, and it was, therefore, necessary that the officiating Attomey-Gieneral 
 (May Bickley) should have the management of them. See Address Lords of 
 Trade to Ihe Queen, CoL Doc., voL 5, 49. Mr. Broughton was never commis- 
 sioned as Attomey-GeneraL 
 
 " Appointed March 24, 1708. He had leave to reside in England. 
 '= Appointed June 10, 1712, to execute the duties of Bayner during his absence 
 from the Province. Mr. Jamison succeeded Bickley, and on the decease of 
 Eayner was regularly appoiated Attorney-General, Jantiary 23d, 1719. 
 
52 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Alexander," EicHard Bradley," "William Smith,' William Kempe,* 
 John Tabor Kempe,' James Duane° and John Tabor Kempe 
 (reappointed), 
 
 At the commencement of the American Eevolution the court 
 ■was composed of Chief Justice Horsmanden and Justices Eobert 
 E. Livingston, Greorge D. Ludlow and Thomas Jones. 
 
 The court then suffered a disruption on account of the political 
 sentiments of its members. Justice Livingston siding with the 
 Colonists, while the Chief Justice and Justices Ludlow and 
 Jones adhered to the cause of the King. The , two latter retired 
 into Westchester county, a portion of which was still under the 
 royal jurisdiction, and continued to exercise their duties there, 
 while the Chief Justice remained in New York, also in the occu- 
 pancy of the royal adherents, performing likewise the duties of 
 his oifice.' 
 
 Thus, although the bench became scattered, the court itself 
 existed. 
 
 On the 28th of April, 1775, soon after the tidings of the 
 battle of Lexington, the New York committee, of which Isaac 
 Low was chairman, directed a letter to the several counties of the 
 Province of New York, requesting them to elect delegates to a 
 Provincial Congress. Consequently, on the twenty -third of May 
 following, the first New York Provincial Congress, composed of 
 deputies from the cities and counties of New York and Albany, 
 the counties of Dutchess, Ulster, Orange, Suffolk, Westchester, 
 
 ' Appointed July 28, 1721. 
 
 = Appointed March 11, 1722; reappointed October 23, 1728. 
 
 ^ Appointed in room of Bradley, deceased, August 28, 1751. 
 
 ■• Appointed November 4, 1752. 
 
 s Appointed in room of William Kempe, deceased, July 30, 1759; reap- 
 poitned October 30, 1761. 
 
 « Appointed in 1767 to execute the duties of Attorney-General during the 
 absence of Kempe. 
 
 ' Appointed May 27, 1768. 
 
 " He acted as Chief Justice until his death, in September, 1778. Justice Lud- 
 low then acted as sole judge. Ludlow continued to act as principal judge till 
 the close of the war, when he retired to Canada. Daly's Sketch. 
 
 Both Ludlow and Jones, with fifty-seven others, were by an act of the New 
 York Legislature, passed the 22d October, 1779, attainted of the offense of adher- 
 ing to tlie enemies of the State, and their property, real and personal, was con- 
 fiscated. Jones and Varich, 39, 40. 
 
Supreme Couet. 53 
 
 Kings and Eiclimond, assembled at the city of New York, and 
 adjourned on the fourth of the succeeding November. A second, 
 third and fourth Provincial Congress followed, the latter assem- 
 bling at White Plains in consequence of the city of New York 
 being in the occupancy of the British troops. The counties rep- 
 resented were those of New York, Albany, Orange, Suffolk, 
 Dutchess, Westchester, Queens and Cumberland, the deputies from 
 Charlotte county not producing any credentials. 
 
 On the fifteenth of May preceding, the Continental Congress at 
 Philadelphia had recommended to the United Colonies, where no 
 government suitable to the circumstances ia which they were 
 placed was established, to create by their respective conven- 
 tions some form of government to meet the exigencies of the 
 times. All the thirteen Colonies followed the advice, except 
 JRhode Island and Connecticut, over whose iaternal policy the 
 Crown had no control. The Convention of New York having, 
 on the tenth of July (the day after the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence was received), changed their name from the "Provincial 
 Congress of the Colony of New York" to the "Convention of Eep- 
 resentatives of the State of New York," adjourned on the twenty- 
 ninth of July, by reason of the vicinity of the enemy, to Harlem 
 and thence to Fishkill, assembling there on the fifth September 
 following, arming themselves for defense, should they be attacked 
 by the British.' Thence, on the 19th February, 1777, they adjourn- 
 ed to Kiagston, and on the twentieth of April succeeding, adopted 
 (agreeably to the recommendation of the Continental Congress) the 
 first Constitution of the State of New York. In it, the existence 
 of a present Supreme Court was recognized, and on the 3d of 
 May, 1777 (ten days before the final adjournment), the Convention 
 elected John Jay Chief Justice, and Eobert Yates and John 
 Morin Scott Associate Justices. The latter, however, decUned 
 acceptance of the oflELce, and John Sloss Ilobart, who received 
 the next nulnber of votes, was declared elected to it. Eobert E. 
 Livingston was at the same time elected Chancellor, and Egbert 
 Benson, Attorney-General. 
 
 ■ Journal Provincial Congress, vol. 1, 600-609 ; B. F. Butler's Discourse be- 
 fore New York Historical Society, 1847. 
 
54 The Council of EEYisioisr. 
 
 Fifteen persons were, on the same day, elected to compose a 
 Council of Safety to carry on a temporary government until tlie 
 Constitution could be put in operation. 
 
 On the eighth, following, a plan of government was reported in 
 which were the names of the above members of the Supreme 
 Court, as were those of the Chancellor and Attorney-General, and 
 was adopted by the Convention. The plan also provided for 
 the election of a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, a Senate and 
 Assembly. In consequence of the Southern District being occu- 
 pied by the British troops, precluding an election. Senators from 
 thence, and Assemblymen from the counties composing said dis- 
 trict (except Westchester county) were also named in the plan, as 
 weU as the judges, sheriff and clerks of the various counties of 
 the State, in addition to the officials first named, for the immediate 
 execution of the laws, the distribution of justice and holding the 
 contemplated elections.' 
 
 The Convention dissolved on the thirteenth of May, and on the 
 fourteenth the Council of Safety went into operation. On the 
 twentieth, a commission for holding Courts of Oyer and Terminer 
 and General Gaol Delivery in the State, drafted by Chief Justice 
 Jay, was issued by the Council.' On the fifth of June following, 
 the Council directed that until the Legislature should otherwise 
 provide, the Supreme Court should sit at Kingston, and that the 
 terms be the same as throughout 1774.' These terms were the 
 same as provided for in the ordinance of 1760. The seal of the 
 Supreme Court was likewise ordered to be delivered to the 
 CouncU. 
 
 During the ensuing summer, the elections were held under the 
 auspice of the CouncU of Safety. George Clinton was elected 
 both Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. He accepted the for- 
 mer office, and Pierre Yan Cortlandt, the President of the Coxmdl 
 of Safety, was chosen to the latter. 
 
 The summer was threatening to the American cause. Bur- 
 goyne was advancing along the northern frontier of the State, 
 with an army of between seven and eight thousand men. Hi a 
 Colonel, St. Leger, was investing the American post, Fort Stanwix, 
 
 ' Journal Provincial Congress, voL 1, 917, 918. ' Jour. Cooncil Safety, 957. 
 2 Journal Council Safety, 948. 
 
SUPEEiCE COUBT. 55 
 
 at the head of the Mohawk Talley, and the enemy were preparing 
 an invasion up the Hudson from the city of New York. To 
 darken the aspect of affairs, certain parts of Albany, Charlotte, 
 Cumberland and Gloucester counties, by a Convention which 
 met in June, declared, under the name of the State of Vermont, 
 independence of the State of New York. 
 
 These counties had been represented in the New York Provincial 
 Convention, and had been included in the Constitution of April.' 
 
 Consequently, the Legislature, which was appointed by the 
 Council of Safety to meet on the first of August,^ was prorogued 
 to the first of September, at Kingston. It did not, however, 
 assemble until the tenth, owing to a portion of its members being 
 detained by their military duties in the field' 
 
 On the ninth at the same place, the first term of the Supreme Court 
 under the Constitution was held, and Chief Justice Jay delivered 
 the first charge to the grand jury.' 
 
 In 1778, the judges of the Supreme Court were empowered to 
 devise a seal, and it was directed that all proceedings of the court 
 should be before the people of the State, instead, of, as heretofore, 
 before the King. 
 
 In October, 1779, Eichard Morris was appointed Chief Justice 
 in the place of John Jay, the latter having been appointed minis- 
 ter to the Court of Spain. 
 
 In 1784 (18th May), the first grand jury of the court of Oyer 
 and Terminer, after the Revolution, sat in the city of New York, 
 and James Duane, Mayor of the city, associated with Judge Hobart 
 in the Oyer and Terminer commission, delivered the charge.* 
 
 In 1785, the terms of the Supreme Court were directed to be 
 held at Albany on tbe last Tuesday of July and third Tuesday in 
 October, and at the city of New York the third Tuesday of 
 January and April in every year, the April and October terms 
 to continue for three weeks, and the January and July terms for 
 two. Also, that the office of the clerk of the court should be held 
 in the city of New York, and that of a deputy, to be appointed by 
 
 ' Kent's Discourse before the New York Historical Society, 1828. 
 ' Butler's Discourse before the New Tork Historical Society, 1847. 
 ' Jay's Life, by Jay. 
 « Life of Duane, by Samuel W. Jones. 4 Doc Hid., p. 1078. 
 
56 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 liim, in Albany, and all the papers and records filed in the office 
 of the deputy, to be removed once iu every six months to the 
 clerk's office in New York. 
 
 In 1792 (December 24th), Morgan Lewis was appointed a Third, 
 and in 1794 (January 29th), Egbert Benson a Fourth Associate 
 Justice by the Council of Appointment. The bench was thus 
 erected iuto the same number of judges it possessed at the creation 
 of the court by the act of 1691. 
 
 At the April term of the Supreme Court in 1796, the first rules 
 of the court under the Constitution, drawn by Judge Benson, were 
 introduced, and were the foundation of all the subsequent rules 
 of said court. 
 
 In these rules it was required that any person admitted to 
 practice as an attorney of the court, should previously serve a 
 clerkship of seven years with a practicing attorney, deducting, 
 however, the time passed in classical studies after the age of four- 
 teen, not exceeding four years; and that every person admitted 
 and practicuig as an attorney of the court for four (altered at No- 
 vember term, 1804, to three) years, should be admitted to practice 
 also as counsel. Both attorneys and counsel passed an examina- 
 tion as to their qualifications, by lawyers appointed by the court, 
 previous to their admission to practice. 
 
 On the 10th of February, 1797, it was enacted that the judges 
 of the court should designate, iu April term of every year, one of 
 their number to hold Circuit Courts ia the western, one in the 
 eastern, one ia the middle and one in the southern districts of the 
 State. 
 
 On the following tenth of March, the judges were authorized 
 to appoint an additional clerk to keep his office in the city of 
 Albany; and the justices were empowered to direct from time to 
 time such records and papers as they should think proper, to be 
 removed from the clerk's office, in the city of New York, and de- 
 posited iu the office in the city of Albany. The said justices were 
 likewise required to cause an additional seal of the Supreme Court 
 to be prepared. 
 
 On the 6th of February, 1798, James Kent was appointed a 
 jiistice of the court. He introduced the practice, subsequently 
 followed by the members of the court, of presenting written 
 
SrPRESIE CODBT 57 
 
 opinioDS in all matters decided, of importance snflident to become 
 a precedent 
 
 In ISO-l (April "til), tiie justices ■were empowered, time, to 
 appoint, by license, under tlie hand and seal of the coiut, diiiing 
 pleasure, a reporter, wiik a, salary of $S50 per annnni, xo report 
 the decisions of lie said court, as well as the Court for the Corr«>- 
 tion of Errors, and publish the same. Under tids authority George 
 Caines ■\ras appointed the first reporter." 
 
 On the ith of April, 1S07, the judges were authorized in their 
 discretion to establish an additional clerk's office in the town of 
 Whitestown, Oneida county, to appcnnt a derk, and prepare an 
 additional seaL Accordingly, a derk was appointed to keep his 
 office at Uiica. 
 
 It was made the duty of the derks to deUver each to the other, 
 CHI or before the last day of every term, at the place where the 
 court should then be hdd, a transcript oi the docket of aU judg- 
 ments that had been docketed in his office during the preceding 
 term and vacation. 
 
 After the 30th March, 1811, the terms of the court were hdd 
 on the 3d Monday in October, the 1st Mondays in January, May 
 and August, and continued thence every day except Sunday, until 
 and inducing Saturday in the next ensuing week. The May and 
 October terms were hdd in the city of Xew York, and the Jan- 
 uary and August terms in Albany. 
 
 As r^ards the sal;mes of the judges, on the 4th of April 177S. 
 it was enacted that the salary of the Chief Justice should be £300 
 (^$750 New York currency ) per annum; and the Associate Justices 
 £200 i^^^W Xew York ctirrencv) per annum. In addition to the 
 salaries of the Assodate Justices, they were allowed 40 s l i il lingg 
 per dav, for attendance on the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and 
 travel fees. 
 
 From this time, flie Legislature annually (generally in the sup- 
 ply biU) and gradually increased the above salaries untO, in 1797. 
 die salaries of the Chief Justice and Assodate Justices were re- 
 spectivdy $2,000 per aninim. 
 
 On the 19th of June. 1S12. it was enacted that, annually, three 
 thousand dollars should be paid them, respectiTely, for three years. 
 
 > 1 SeTised Laws, 32a 
 
58 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 On tlie 17tli of April, 1816, the sum was increased by law to 
 $4,500 annually, without any limit as to time. 
 
 On the 20th April, 1818, it was enacted that the Judges of the 
 Supreme Court residing in the city o± New York should be en- 
 titled to receive fees for chamber business in the said court, and 
 - for other services appertaining to their of&ce in the same manner 
 as any other officer might do for the like services. 
 
 In 1820, the salaries of the judges were reduced to $3,500 each 
 per annum. The next year (April third) they were reduced to 
 $3,000 each, which sum was continued until the Constitution of 
 1821. 
 
 There were several compilations of the laws between 1774 and 
 1821. Pursuant to a law passed the 15th of April, 1786, Samuel 
 Jones and Eichard Varick published, on the 25th ISTovember, 
 1789, an edition of the acts from the first session of the Legislature, 
 held at Poughkeepsie, in 1778, to the twelfth session, in 1789. 
 The first act passed in the State, was passed on the 4th of Febru- 
 ary, 1778. 
 
 In February, 1798, Thomas Greenleaf published an edition of 
 the Eevised Laws of the State from the first session of the Legis- 
 lature to the twentieth (1797), in three volumes. 
 
 On the 8th of April, 1801, an act was passed, authorizing James 
 Kent and Jacob Eadcliff, to revise the laws of the State, and ac- 
 cordingly, in 1802, they published an edition of the acts from the 
 sixth session, in 1783, to the twenty-fourth session, in 1801. 
 
 From the twenty-fourth session, C. E. and Gr. "Webster, and E. 
 W. Skinner, published the laws up to the thirty -fifth session, in 
 1812, embracing, also, the Eevised Laws, by Kent and Eadcliff. 
 This publication extended to six volumes, the Eevised Laws form- 
 ing the first two volumes. 
 
 On the 4th of April, 1811, an act was passed, authorizing 
 William P. Van Ness and John 'Woodworth, to revise the laws of 
 the State; and, accordingly, they published an edition of the laws, 
 in two volumes, known as the Eevised Laws of 1818. 
 
 The Constitution of 1777 declared, in its twenty-fourth and 
 twenty -fifth sections, that the Judges of the Supreme Court should 
 hold their offices during good behavior, or until they attained the 
 age of sixty. This latter provision was inserted in consequence, 
 
Supreme Court. 59 
 
 it is said, of Daniel Horsmanden having been continued in office 
 as Chief Jiistice, notwithstanding his advanced age and growing 
 infirmities. 
 
 The Constitution also declared that the judges should not hold 
 any other office excepting that of delegate to the General Congress, 
 on special occasions. If, however, they should be appointed or 
 elected to any other office, except as before mentioned, it should be 
 at their option in which to serve. 
 
 This provision carried out d resolution of the General Assembly, 
 adopted unanimously May 17, 1769, that no Judge of the Su- 
 preme Court should in future have a seat as a Member of that 
 body. 
 
 Consequently, in the following November, Eobert E. Living- 
 ston (father of the Chancellor), then one of the Supreme Court 
 Justices, and who held a seat in the General Assembly, was de- 
 clared disqualified. In the succeeding December, he was reelected 
 and again voted disqualified. In 1770 he was once more elected, 
 and on the 25th January, 1771, again ousted. In 1772 he was 
 excluded for the fourth time, after which he rehnquished the 
 contest. 
 
 Between 1777 and 1821, the following were the Chief Justices, 
 viz.: 
 
 John Jay,' Eichard Morris," Eobert Yates,' John Lansing, Jr.,' 
 Morgan Lewis,' James Kent,' Smith Thompson,' and Ambrose 
 Spencer.' 
 
 Between the same periods, the following were the Associate 
 Justices, viz.: 
 
 ' Appointed by Convention of Eepresentatives, May 8, 1777, and commis- 
 sioned by Council of Appointment, October 17, 1777. 
 
 * Appointed by Council of Appointment, October 23, 1779, in place of Jay, 
 appointed Minister to Spain. 
 
 ' Appointed September 28, 1790, in place of Morris, resigned, having attained 
 the age of sixty. 
 
 < Appointed February 15, 1798, in place of Tates, resigned, having arrived 
 at the age of sixty. 
 
 5 Appointed October 28, 1801, in place of Lansing, appointed Chancellor. 
 
 ' Appointed July 2, 1804, in place of Lewis, elected Governor. 
 
 ' Appointed February 23, 1814, in place of Kent, appointed Chancellor. 
 
 8 Appointed February 9, 1819, in place of Thompson, resigned. 
 
60 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Eobert Yates,' John Sloss Hobart,' John Lansing, Jr.,' Morgan 
 Lewis,' Egbert Benson,' James Kent,' John Cozdne,^ Jacob Ead- 
 chfl^' Brockholst Livingston," Smith Thompson," Ambrose Spen- 
 cer," Daniel D. Tompkins," WiUiam W. Van Ness," Joseph C. 
 Yates," Jonas Piatt,'' John Woodworth." 
 
 During the game period, the foUowing were the Attomey- 
 Grenerals. 
 
 Egbert Benson," Richard Tarick," Aaron Burr," Morgan Levris," 
 Nathaniel Lawrence," Josiah Ogden Hoffinan," Ambrose Spencer," 
 JohnWoodworth," Matthias B. Hildxeth," Abraham Tan Vechten," 
 
 ' Appointed by Convention of EepresentatiTes, ilay 8, 1777, and commis- 
 sioned by Covmcil of Appointment, October 17, 1777. 
 
 " Appointed by CJonvention of Eepresentatives, May 8, 1777, and commis- 
 sioned by Council of Appointment, October 17, 1777. 
 
 ^ Appointed September 28, 1790, in place of Yates, appointed Chief Justice. 
 
 * Appointed December 24, 1792, Third Associate Justice. 
 
 * Appointed January 29, 1794, Fourth Associate Justice. 
 
 * Appointed February 6, 1798, in place of Lansing, appointed Chief Justice. 
 ' Appointed August 9, 1798, in place of Hobart, resigned, having arrived at 
 
 the age of sixty. 
 
 ^ Appointed December 27, 1798, in place of Cozine, deceased. 
 
 ' Appointed January 8, 1802, in place of Lewis, appointed Chief Justica 
 
 '° Appointed January 8, 1802, in place of Benson, appointed Judge of United 
 States District Court 
 
 " Appointed February 3, 1804, in place of Eaddifi^ resigned. 
 
 '* Appointed July 2, 1804, in place of Kent, appointed Chief Justice 
 
 " Appointed June 9, 1807, in place of Tompkins, elected Grovemor. 
 
 •' Appointed February 8, 1808, in place of Livingston, appointed a Justice of 
 United States Supreme Court 
 
 '^ Appointed February 23, 1814, in place of Thompson, appointed Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 " Appointed March 27, 1819, in place of Spencer, appointed Chief Justice. 
 
 " Appointed by Convention of Eepresentatives, May 8, 1777, and commis- 
 sioned by Council of Apportionment, January 15, 1778. 
 
 " Appointed May 14, 1789. 
 
 " Appointed September 29, 1789. 
 
 *° Appointed November 8, 1791. 
 
 " Appomted December 24, 1792. 
 
 "' Appointed November 13, 1795. 
 
 '^ Appointed February 3, 1802. 
 
 " Appomted February 8, 1804. 
 
 '^ Appointed March 18, 1808, reappointed February 1, 1811. 
 
 '^ Appointed February 2, 1810, reappointed February 13, 1813. 
 
Supreme Coubt. 61 
 
 Thomas Addis Emmett,' Martin Van Buren," Thomas J. Oakley,' 
 Samuel A. Talcott." 
 
 The Constitution of 1821 made an organic change in the Su- 
 preme Court. It reduced the number of judges to a Chief Justice 
 and two Associate Justices. They sat four times a year, in review 
 of decisions made at the Circuit and for the determination of ques- 
 tions of law. In 1823 it was directed that the terms of the court 
 be on the third Mondays of February and October, and first Mon- 
 days of May and August; the May term to be in the city of New 
 York, the August term at Utica, and February and October terms 
 at Albany; the several terms to continue from the commencement, 
 every day, except Sunday, until and including the fourth Satur- 
 day ; no process, however, to be tested or made returnable in the 
 third or fourth week. All records and proceedings were, as here- 
 tofore, to be before the justices of the people of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature of the same people. 
 
 These terms were subsequently altered as follows, viz. : On the 
 first Mondays of January, May and July, and third Monday of 
 October ; the January and October terms in each year to be at the 
 Capitol, in the city of Albany, the May term at the City Hall, in 
 the city of New York, and the July term at the Academy, in the 
 city of Utica. These terms were continued from the commence- 
 ment, until and including the fifth Saturday, but no argument was 
 to be heard during the fifth week, unless by the consent of parties 
 or their covmsel; and each term, so far as respected the issuing, 
 teste and return of process, except subpoenas, attachments and 
 writs of habeas corpus, ended on the second Saturday after the 
 commencement. 
 
 In 1841 the October terms were changed from Albany to Eoch- 
 ester, and the clerk, residing at Geneva, was directed to reside at 
 that place. 
 
 It was also required that some or one of the justices should sit 
 at the Capitol, in Albany, to decide such non-enumerated business 
 as should arise in said court, except such as the said justices should 
 by rule direct to be heard in term time. 
 
 All process was to be tested in the name of the Chief Justice, 
 or if there be none, in that of any justice of the court. 
 
 • Appointed August 12, 1812. ' Appointed July 8, 1819. 
 
 = Appointed February 17, 1816. * Appointed February 12, 1821. 
 
62 The Cottncil of Eevision. 
 
 The court had power from time to time, by general rules, to 
 establish, modify, alter and amend its practice in cases not pro- 
 vided for by statute, and were directed every seven years to 
 revise said rules with regard to the abolishment of fictitious and 
 unnecessary process and proceedings; the simplifying of pleadings 
 and proceedings ; expediting the decision of causes ; the dimin- 
 ishing of costs and the remedying of abuses and imperfections in 
 the practice. 
 
 The judges of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Gov- 
 ernor, with the advice of the Senate, in consequence of the Coun- 
 cil of Appointment having been abolished by the Constitution of 
 1821. They held their of&ces during good behavior, or until they 
 attained the age of sixty, and could be removed by joint resolution 
 of the Legislature, concurred in by two-thirds of the Assembly 
 and a majority of the Senate. They could hold no other office, 
 were exempted from military duty, could receive no fees or per- 
 quisites of office, could not sit as judges in causes in which they 
 were parties, or interested by consanguinity or affinity, or any 
 other way, or in any appellate court decide or take part in the 
 decision of any matter decided by them in any other court, or 
 practice as attorneys or counselors in any court of which they 
 were judges, except in suits in which they were parties or inte- 
 rested, or have a partner practicing in a court of which they were 
 judges, or be interested directly or indirectly in the costs of any 
 suit in any court of which they were judges, except where they 
 were parties or interested. 
 
 The judges were likewise made members of the Court for the 
 Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors. 
 
 In addition to the offices of clerks of the court held in the cities 
 of New York, Albany and Utica, an office in 1829 was established 
 and a clerk appointed at Canandaigua. In 1830 the clerk was 
 directed to remove his office to Geneva, where, in 1831, he was 
 established until 1841. 
 
 There was a seal of the court in the keeping of each of the said 
 clerks. 
 
 The clerks were appointed by the justices of the court, and held 
 their offices for three years, unless sooner removed by those 
 appointing them. 
 
Circuit Couet. 63 
 
 Each clerk was directed to appoint a deputy, wlio should, per- 
 form the duties of the clerk during the absence or inabinty of 
 the latter, or in case a vacancy occurred in his of&ce. 
 
 The jxistices were empowered to direct, from time to time, the 
 removal of any papers in a cause from one clerk's office to 
 another. 
 
 The 'reporter of the court, who was also the reporter of the 
 Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of 
 Errors, and called the State Eeporter, was appointed by the Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor, the Chancellor and Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court, and held his office during their pleasure. He was required 
 to be, at the time of his appointment, a counselor at law or in 
 chancery, of at least five years standing. 
 
 From 1823, the annual salary of the judges was $2,000 each. 
 In 1835 it was raised by act to $2,500 per annum each, which 
 amount, in 1839, was increased permanently to $3,000. The act 
 of 1835 abohshed the compensation to the judges for travel and 
 attendance as members of the Court of Errors. 
 
 For the trial of issues joined in the Supreme Court, eight Cir- 
 cuit Judges were appointed, one from each of the eight Circuit 
 Districts into which the State was divided, corresponding with the 
 eight Senate Districts. 
 
 Bach of these Circuit Judges possessed the powers of a justice 
 of the Supreme Court at chambers. 
 
 Two Circuit Courts, at least, were held ia each year, in every 
 county of the State separately organized, except in the city and 
 county of New York, where there were four. 
 
 Each Circuit Judge appointed the times and places of holding 
 the Circuit Courts, within his circuit, for the period of two years ; 
 and the said courts were held as many days as the judge holding 
 the same deemed necessary. 
 
 The said Circuit Courts had power to try all such issues, and 
 take all such inquests by default or otherwise, as were to be tried 
 or taken in the said courts; to record all nonsuits and defaults 
 before them, and to return all proceedings had before them into 
 the Supreme Court, or the court directing the same. 
 
 Each justice of the Supreme Court as well as the Circuit 
 Judges, had power to hold any Circuit Court, either for the 
 
64 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 whole time for which such court should continue or for any part 
 of thtt time. 
 
 The clerks of the several counties were the clerks of the Circuit 
 Courts, except in the city and county of New York, where the 
 clerk of the Supreme Court was the clerk of the Circuit Court. 
 
 A Court of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery was 
 also organized under the authority of the Constitution. 
 
 Two courts at least of this description were directed to be held 
 in each year, in each of the counties of this State, separately or- 
 ganized, except in the city and county of New York, where four 
 at least were directed. 
 
 The Circuit Judges were the presiding judges of the above 
 court, when held by them. 
 
 Each judge appointed the times and places of holding these 
 courts, within his circuit, which might be held at the times and 
 places where the Circuit Courts were appointed to be held. 
 
 They were held, in the city and county of New York, by one 
 or more of the Justices of the Supreme Court, or of the Circuit 
 Judges, or by the first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of 
 the said city and county, together with the Mayor, Recorder and 
 Aldermen of that city, or with any two of them. 
 
 In all the other counties of the State they were held by a Justice 
 of the Supreme Court, or a Circuit Judge, together with at least 
 two of the Judges of the County Courts of the county. 
 
 In four counties of the State (Albany, Columbia, Rensselaer, 
 and Scheneptady), the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen (in the 
 latter county, the Mayor and Aldermen), or any two of them, 
 might sit and act in the Court of Oyer and Terminer with or 
 instead of the County Judges. 
 
 Every Court of Oyer and Terminer had power to inquire, by a 
 grand jury of the same county, of all crimes and misdemeanors 
 committed or triable in such county; to hear and determine all 
 such crimes and misdemeanors, and deliver the jails of the said 
 county, according to law, of all prisoners therein; to try all in- 
 dictments found in the Court of General Sessions of the Peace of 
 the same county, which had been sent, by order of that court, to 
 and received by the said Court of Oyer and Terminer, or which 
 had been removed into. the latter court; and which were proper, in 
 
COUET OF OtEE and TERMINER. 65 
 
 its opinion, to be there tried. Tke said court ooidd send all iadict- 
 ments found at any sucli court, for offenses triable at the Court of 
 General Sessions of the same county, to the latter court for trial. 
 
 Each Justice of the Supreme Court, and each of the Circuit 
 Judges, had power to preside in any Court of Oyer and Terminer 
 in this State, either for the whole time such court should continue 
 or for any part of that time. 
 
 The Goyernor, with the consent of the Senate, was authorized 
 to issue commissions of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Dehvery as 
 often as occasion should require. One of the Supreme Court 
 Justices or Circuit Judges was always to be named, in the said 
 commission, and no proceedings could be had upon any such com- 
 mission without the presence of such justice or judge. Every 
 such commission specified the time and place where the court was 
 to be held, and was recorded in the Secretary of State's office, and 
 a copy was sent by said secretary to the district attorney of the 
 county for which such commission was issued. 
 
 A special Court of Oyer and Terminer for any county could 
 also be appointed by the judge of the circuit in which the county 
 was situated, by warrant, under his hand and seal, whenever the 
 number of prisoners confined in the jail of any county, or the 
 importance of the offenses charged upon such prisoners, rendered 
 the said court necessary. 
 
 The judge transmitted the said warrant to the district attorney 
 of the county, who, twenty days at least before the holding of said 
 court, was required to issue a precept, directed to the sheriff of 
 the county, requiring him to summon grand and petit jurors ; bring 
 before the court all prisoners in the county jail, and publish a pro- 
 clamation, notifying all pejsons bound to appear at said court to 
 appear thereat; and requiring all officers to return all their 
 recognizances, inquisitions and examinations to the said court on 
 its opening. 
 
 Every Court of Oyer and Terminer possessed a seal, and aU 
 process issuing thence was tested in the name of the Circuit 
 Judge of the circuit; or in case of a vacancy in his office, in the 
 name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 
 
 The said Court of Oyer and Terminer, could direct its writs into 
 any county in the State as occasion required. 
 
66 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 The coTinty clerk -was also the clerk of the aboTe court, except 
 in the city and county of Few York, where the clerk of the Gene- 
 ral Sessions officiated. 
 
 In 1827, the salaries of the Circuit Judges were $1,250 per year. 
 
 In 1835, these salaries were increased to $1,'600. 
 
 Attorneys and counselors were admitted to practice on the same 
 terms as prescribed by the rules of 1796. 
 
 Between 1821 to and including 1846, the following were the 
 Chief Justices, viz.: 
 
 John Savage,' Samuel Nelson," Greene C. Bronson' and Samuel 
 Beardsley.* 
 
 During the same period the following were the Associate Jus- 
 tices, viz.: 
 
 John Woodworth," Jacob Sutherland," William L. Marcy,' 
 Samuel Nelson,' Greene C. Bronson,' Esek Cowen," Samuel 
 Beardsley," Freeborn G. Jewett,". Frederick "Whittlesey," Thomas 
 McKissQck." 
 
 During the same period the following were the Circuit Judges: 
 
 1st Circuit, Ogden Edwards," Wm. Kent," John W. Edmonds." 
 
 2d Circuit, Samuel E. Betts," James Emott," Charles H. Eug- 
 gles,"" Selah B. Strong," Seward Barculo." 
 
 ' Appointed by Grovemor and Senate January 29, 1823. 
 
 ^ Appointed by Grovernor and Senate August 31, 1837. 
 
 ' Appointed by Governor and Senate March 5, 1845. 
 
 * Appointed by GrOvemor and Senate June 29, 1847. 
 
 ^ Appointed by Q-overnor and Senate February 7, 1823. 
 
 ^ Appointed by Governor and Senate January 29, 1823. 
 
 ' Appointed by Governor and Senate January 21, 1829. 
 
 ^ Appointed by Governor and Senate February 1, 1831, in place of Marcy. 
 
 ' Appointed by Governor and Senate January 6, 1836, in place of Sutherland. 
 '° Appointed by Governor and Senate August 31, 1836, in place of Nelson. 
 " Appointed by Governor and Senate February 20, 1844, in place of Cowen. 
 •^ Appointed by Governor and Senate March 5, 1845, in place of Bronson, 
 appointed Chief Justice. 
 
 '^ Appointed by Governor and Senate June 30, 1847, in place of Jewett. 
 " Appointed by Governor and Senate July 1, 1847, in place of Beardsley, 
 appointed Chief Justice. 
 
 •= Appointed AprU 21, 1823. "^ Appointed February 21, 1827. 
 
 " Appointed August 21,1841. »» Appointed March 9, 1831. 
 
 " Appointed February 18, 1845. »■ Appointed March 27, 1846. 
 
 " Appointed AprU 21, 1823. 22 Appointed AprO 4, 1846. 
 
Supreme Court. 67 
 
 3d Circuit, "William A. Duer/ James Vanderpoel,' John P. 
 Cusbnan,' Amasa J. Parker." 
 
 4tli Circuit, Eeuben H. "Walwortli,^ Esek Cowen,' John WiUard.' 
 
 5th Circuit, Nathan Willianis,' Samuel Beardsley,° Hiram 
 Denio," Isaac H. Bronson," Philo Gridley." 
 
 6th Circuit, Samuel ISTelson," Eobert Monell," Hiram Gray." 
 
 7th Circuit, Bnos T. Throop," Daniel Moseley," Bowen Whiting." 
 
 8th Circuit, William B. Eochester," Albert H. Tracy,'" John 
 Birdsal," Addison Gardner,'"' John B. Skinner," Nathan Dayton." 
 
 During the same period the following were the Attorney-Gene- 
 rals, viz. : 
 
 Samuel A. Talcott," Greene C. Bronson,"' Samuel Beardsley," 
 Willis HaU," George P. Barker" and John Van Buren." 
 
 In the summer of 1846, the Convention met which framed the 
 present Constitution of our State. 
 
 By it the Supreme Court, as it then existed, was abolished, and 
 the present one, having general jurisdiction in law and equity, 
 erected. 
 
 The State is divided into eight judicial districts, of which the 
 city of New York is one. Four justices of the Supreme Court 
 are elected in each district, except the first, in which five are 
 elected; the term of ofBice of each being eight years, removable 
 by concurrent resolution of the Legislature; two-thirds of the 
 Assembly and a majority of the Senate assenting to said resolu- 
 tion. They can hold no other office or public trust. 
 
 ' Appointed April 21, 1823. " Appointed January 16, 1829. 
 
 ^ Appointed January 12, 1830. " Appointed April 7, 1844. 
 
 3 Appointed February 9, 1838. " Appointed April 21, 1823. 
 
 * Appointed March 6, 1844. «» Appointed March 26, 1826. 
 
 = Appointed April 21, 1823. " Appointed April 18, 1826. 
 
 « Appointed April 22, 1828. ^^ Appointed September 29, 1829. 
 
 ' Appointed September 3, 1836. "' Appointed February 9, 1838. 
 
 8 Appointed April 21, 1823. "* Appointed February 23, 1838. 
 
 ' Appointed April 12, 1834. "^ Reappointed by the Legislature Feb- 
 " Appointed May 7, 1834. ruary 8, 1823. 
 
 " Appointed AprU 18, 1838. =« Appointed February 27, 1829. 
 
 ■2 Appointed July 17, 1838. " Appointed January 12, 1836. 
 
 1^ Appointed April 21, 1823. "^ Appointed February 4, 1839. 
 
 '< Appointed February 11, 1831. »« Appointed February 7, 1842. 
 
 '^ Appointed January 13, 1846. '" Appointed February 3, 1845. 
 " Appointed April 21, 1823. 
 
68 The Council of Revision. 
 
 Four justices are annually selected to serve in the Court of 
 Appeals, from the class of justices having the shortest time to 
 serve, and serve for one year; they are taken alternately, first from 
 the first, third, fifth and seventh, and then from the second, fourth, 
 sixth and eighth judicial districts. 
 
 The justice of the Supreme Court in each judicial district 
 having the shortest time to serve, and who is not a member of the 
 Court of Appeals, becomes the Presiding Justice of said Supreme 
 Court; and in case of his inability to hold any general term 
 appointed to be held by him, any three justices convened to hold 
 said term may designate one of their number to preside. 
 
 These thirty -two justices are so classified that in each district 
 the term of one justice expires every two years. 
 
 The said justices possess the powers and exercise the jurisdic- 
 tion possessed and exercised by the justices of the preceding 
 Supreme Court, and of the late Chancellor, Vice-Chancellors and 
 Circuit Judges, so far as the powers and jurisdiction of the said 
 officers were consistent with the Constitution of 1846, and the 
 provisions of the act in relation to the judiciary, passed May 12, 
 1847. 
 
 Four general terms of the Supreme Court for the determination 
 of questions of law, are held annually in each judicial district. 
 The justices of each district are empowered to appoint as many 
 more terms as they may think proper, at the times and places 
 appointed by a majority of them. 
 
 Two terms, at least, of the Circuit Court and Court of Oyer 
 and Terminer are held annually in each of the counties of the 
 ^tate, and as many more thereof, and as many special terms as 
 the justices of each judicial district shall appoint therein; but 
 at least one special term is required to be held annually in each 
 of said counties, Fulton and Hamilton being considered one county. 
 
 The Circuit Courts and Courts of Oyer and Terminer are re- 
 qiiired to be held at the same places and to commence on the same 
 day. 
 
 The justices appoint the times and places of holding the terms, 
 general and special, of the Supreme Court, those of the Circuit 
 Courts and Courts of Oyer and Terminer, which appointment 
 continues for two years. 
 
Supreme Coubt. 69 
 
 The Governor, Secretary of State and Comptroller are directed 
 also, wlieneTer tlie Supreme Court omit to appoiat in any county 
 as many general and special terms of said court, or as many terms 
 of tlie Circuit Court or Court of Oyer and Terminer as tlie law- 
 requires for any year, to appoint the deficient terms, and assign 
 some justice or justices of tlie said Supreme Court to preside at 
 or hold said terms. The above officials are also required to appoiat 
 terms of the said courts in any county, in addition to those 
 appointed by the Supreme Court, whenever, in their opinion, the 
 pubhc interests or those of suitors require the same, and to desig- 
 nate the justice or justices as above. The Governor, alone, is 
 also required to designate some justice or justices of the Supreme 
 Court to hold the terms above specified whenever they are in 
 danger of failing. 
 
 The concurrence of a majority of the justices holding a general 
 term is necessary for a judgment. If a majority do not concur, 
 the case is reheard. 
 
 The clerks of the several counties of the State are clerks of 
 the Supreme Court. The clerk of the Qourt of Appeals is, ex- 
 officio, also a clerk of this court. 
 
 The salaries of the justices were at first $2,500 each, per 
 annum. They have since been iacreased to $3,500. 
 
 Every male citizen applying to be admitted as attorney, solici- 
 tor and counselor in the courts of the State, is to be examined by 
 the Justices of the Supreme Court, at a general term thereof, and 
 if the applicant is of good moral character, and of requisite quali- 
 fications, the court, by order entered by the clerk, admits him to 
 practice. No term of clerkship or period of study is required for 
 such admission. 
 
 The said court can suspend or remove any counselor, solicitor 
 or attorney for deceit, malpractice or misdemeanor, but only upon 
 charges and opportunity given for defense. 
 
 In 1829, the statutes were revised by John C. Spencer, B. F. 
 Butler and John Duer. Four later editions have been pubhshed, 
 viz., in 1836, 1846-48, 1852 and 1859. 
 
 In 1848 (April 12th), the Legislature adopted a "Code of Pro- 
 cedure " to simplify and abridge the Practice, Pleadings and Pro- 
 ceedings of the Courts of the State ; prepared by A. Loomis, David 
 Dudley Field and David Graham. 
 
70 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 As a branch of the Supreme Court, we will now consider the 
 Court of Exchequer. This court was erected, by Grovernor Don- 
 gan, in December, 1685, and was held by himself and council on 
 the first Monday of every month, to hear matters between the 
 Crown and Colonies relative to lands, rents and revenues. 
 
 The Supreme Court, organized under the act of 1691, had cogni- 
 zance of matters in exchequer the same as the Court of Exchequer, 
 in England.' These matters were heard at the regular terms of the 
 court; but accumulated to such an extent as to preclude their adju- 
 dication as amply as was desired at those terms. Consequently, by 
 order of Lieut.-Goy. Nanfan and Council, in April, 1702, separate 
 terms of the Supreme Court were held for their determination. 
 
 Shortly afterward, these terms were discontinued, and there 
 appear to have been no exchequer proceedings until 1733. In 
 that year the Attorney-General of the Province, Eichard Bradley, 
 filed a bill in the Supreme Court as a Court of Exchequer, in 
 behalf of Governor Cosby, against Kip Van Dam, for half the 
 amount of the salary received by the latter, as acting Governor, 
 between the death of Governor Montgomery and the arrival of 
 Cosby. Van Dam, in his turn, endeavored to sustain an action 
 at common law against Cosby for half the emoluments and per- 
 quisites of the ofiice received by the latter while continuing in 
 England, but after fihng his declaration in the Supreme Court, he 
 was compelled to defend himself against the former suit. He re- 
 tained Messrs. Alexander and Smith, who excepted to the juris- 
 diction of the Court especially in matters of equity. The exception 
 was overruled by Judges De Lancey and Philipse, against the 
 written opinion of Chief Justice Lewis Morris. The latter was 
 removed by Cosby, and De Lancey appointed in his place. The 
 institution of the suit had renewed the old feeling of opposition to 
 an Equity Court, and the overruling of the plea and removal of 
 Morris raised that feeling to the highest degree of excitement. Two 
 parties sprang up, one being "the people of figure," siding with 
 the Governor, and in favor of the equity jurisdiction of the court; 
 the other, with Van Dam (who acted as their leader), against said 
 
 ' It consists of two divisions : the receipt of the exchequer which manages 
 the royal revenue; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again divided°in 
 to a Court of Equity and a Court of Common Law. 
 
Court of Exchequer. 71 
 
 jurisdiction, and composing tlie democracy. Petitions were pre- 
 sented to tlie Greneral Assembly for tlie repeal of tlie exchequer 
 brancli of the Supreme Court, and for a reestablishment of aU the 
 courts by a law emanating from that body. 
 
 Two distinguished lawyers, Messrs. Smith and Murray, argued 
 the above points, the former for and the latter against, before the 
 Assembly; which, however, came to no decision. 
 
 The New York Weekly Journal, published by John Peter 
 Zenger, a Palatine,^ sided with the Van Dam party, while the New 
 York Gazette, published by "William Bradford, advocated the 
 cause of the Governor and his adherents. 
 
 The people were generally on the side of Van Damj and so 
 great was the excitement that the ringing of the Exchequer Court 
 beU produced the greatest confusion in the city." 
 
 At length an inforjnation was filed of the term of January, 1735, 
 in the Supreme Court by Attorney-General Bradley, against Zen- 
 ger (four numbers of Zenger's Journal with two printfed ballads 
 reflecting upon the Government having, by order of the Governor 
 and Council, in November, 1734, been burned by the common 
 hangman, and he imprisoned) for publishing in his Journal 
 two articles reflecting upon the Governor and >" Ministers and 
 officers of the King" in the Province.' "^Villiam Smith and 
 James Alexander, volunteers in Zenger's cause and the supposed 
 authors of the libels,* defended him, but excepting to the authority 
 of the court composed of Chief Justice De Lancey and Frede- 
 rick Philipse, second Judge, were stricken from the roll of attor- 
 neys of the court by De Lancey. Andrew Hamilton, a Quaker 
 lawyer of Philadelphia, of learning, and although four-score, cele- 
 brated for his eloquence, appeared then, in connection with John 
 Chambers, for Zenger, whose trial came on the foiirth of August 
 in the above year. Hamilton set up the truth of the libel as a de- 
 fense, and when evidence to that effect was excluded by the court 
 on the ground that the truth constituted no defense, appealed to 
 the jury, contending they were judges of the law as well aa the 
 
 '..Kew York Documentary History, 3, 340. 
 
 * Smith (Carey's ed.), 266. 
 
 ' Tryal of John Peter Zengefyp. 10. 
 
 * Memoir of C. J. De Xariciey, by Edward F. De Lancey. 4 Doc. HiM., 1042. 
 
72 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 fact. Tlie jury brought in a verdict of acquittal. "Tlie instant 
 the verdict was known," says Smith, "the impetuous accla- 
 mation shouted by the audience shook the hall, and a mixture 
 of amazement, terror and wrath appeared in the bench." Ham- 
 ilton was conducted from the hall to a splendid entertainment, 
 and presented with the &eedom of the city iu a gold box, by the 
 corporation. 
 
 No proceedings were had on the exchequer side of the Supreme 
 Court after those of Van Dam, until 1786, when ia February of 
 that year an act passed providing that the junior justice, or in his 
 absence one other of the puisne judges, should hold a Court of 
 Exchequer during the whole or part of every term, near the 
 sittings of the said court. The Supreme Court Justices were 
 authorized to appoint a clerk, and prepare a seal for the said 
 Court of Exchequer. On the SOth July, 1786, WiUiam Popham 
 was appointed clerk and so continued until 1830.' 
 
 On the 3d of April, 1803, the law authorizing the above court 
 was with some alterations reenacted." 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1830, the court was abolished pursuant 
 to the general repealing act passed December 10, 1828. The 
 Comptroller thereafter exercised the duties which had devolved 
 on this court.' 
 
 Admiealtt Jtteisdiction in the Colony of New York, was 
 as follows: 
 
 It extended to the decision of all maritime causes, the proceed- 
 ings of the court being the same as in the High Court of Admi- 
 ralty in England. 
 
 Trials were held by the court as to whether the captures taken 
 in hostilities between Great Britain and any other power were 
 lawful prizes. 
 
 It heard oases of penalties and forfeitures incurred by the breach 
 of any Parliamentary act relating to the trade and revenues of the 
 Colony. Its jurisdiction in these matters was concurrent with 
 that of the Courts of Eecord, the informer or prosecutor proceed- 
 ing at bis election, for the recovery of those penalties or forfeitures, 
 
 ' Hough's Civa List, 345. 
 
 '^ Jones and Varick, Laws 1786, 240. 
 
 3 Hougli's Civil List, 345. 
 
Court of Admiralty. 73 
 
 either in the Court of Eecord or Admiralty, where the offense 
 was committed.' 
 
 The first regular Court of Admiralty in the Proviace of New 
 York was established by Grovemor Fletcher, who was empowered 
 so to do by a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty in Eng- 
 land.' 
 
 Admiralty proceedings, however, were known in the Province 
 at an earlier period. The Court of the Schout, Burgomasters and 
 Schepens ia 1653 (during the time of Governor Stuyvesant) had 
 authority to try admiralty cases. 
 
 Knowledge of maritime law was familiar to the Dutch from the 
 institutions appertaining to the subject existing in the mother 
 country. Commercial Holland possessed, as early as the sixteenth 
 century, five admiralty colleges established respectively at Eotter- 
 dam, Amsterdam, Middleburg in Zealand, Hoom in North Hol- 
 land, and Harhngton in Friesland.' 
 
 In the time of Andros, in 1678, admiralty cases were tried in 
 the Mayor's Court, composed of the Mayor and Aldermen of the 
 city of New York, under the charter granted by him in 1675, and 
 also under special commissions which he issued. But he erected 
 no regular court,' although authorized by King James so. to do. 
 Governor Dongan was also authorized by the Crown, in 1682, to 
 institute a Court of Admiralty, but he went no further than the 
 appointment of a judge, who heard several cases. 
 
 While Leisler had possession of the government he, on the 17th 
 of September, 1690, issued a commission appointing Peter De 
 Lanoy, Judge of a Court of Admiralty, together with eight asso- 
 ciates (they, or any six of them, of which Lanoy was always to be 
 one, to compose the court), on account of several vessels belonging 
 to Prance (then in hostilities against England) having been brought 
 
 ' Stake's Tiew of the Constitution of the British Colonies, p. 270. 
 
 = Combury's letter to the Lords of Trade. 4 Col. Doc, 1000. 
 
 ' Their office was to determine every diflferenoe arising along the coast, in the 
 forts or on the open sea. Bach college had its admiral, vice-admiral, captains, 
 subordinate officers and counselors appointed for the towns of its particular 
 department. Their jurisdiction embraced everything connected vfith naviga- 
 tion, the security of the ports and the efficiency of the navy. Dutch Battle of the 
 Baltic, by J. Watts De Peyster. 
 
 * Andros' Report to Lords of Trade, on Province of New York. 1 Doc. ERst., 
 60 ; Daly's Judicial Organization, 30. 
 
 10 
 
74 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 ■with their lading into the harbor of New York. He at the same 
 time appointed a register and marshal of the court. The said 
 commission continued in force for five days.' 
 
 On the 2d of July, 1696, "William Pinhorne was appointed 
 Judge of Admiralty by Governor Fletcher and Council.'' 
 
 It has been observed that Fletcher erected the first regular 
 Court of Admiralty in the Province. In his letter to the Lords of 
 Admiralty in England, dated 19th November, 1694, he states he 
 had been informed that the Province of New York, as well as the 
 other Provinces in America, had ventured to hold Admiralty Courts 
 without any commission from the Admiralty; he complained, 
 further, that although the King's commission had empowed him 
 to erect an Admiralty Court, the commission he had received from 
 the Lords restrained him from appointing a judge, register and 
 marshal, who were the principal ofB,cers of the court.' 
 
 On the 29th of April, 1697, however, the commissioners for 
 executing the office of the Lord High Admiral of England 
 directed commissions to be issued to William Smith as Judge, 
 John Tudor as Eegister, and James Graham as Advocate of the 
 Court of Vice- Admiralty of New York, Connecticut and East 
 Jersey, and in case of their deaths or inability, others to be appointed 
 in their room, and the names of the persons so appointed to be 
 transmitted to the said commissioners. Mr. Jarvis Marshall was 
 also commissioned on the same terms, a marshal of said court* 
 
 Lord Bellamont was also authorized to appoint judges, registers, 
 marshals and advocates for the Admiralty Courts of New York, 
 Connecticut and East Jersey, and transmit the names of those 
 appointed to the Lord High Admiral of England for approval or 
 disallowance.' 
 
 In 1701, "William Attwood arrived from England as Judge of 
 the Court of Admiralty as well as Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court, he having been commissioned as such judge by the Lords 
 of Admiralty.' 
 
 ■ 2 Documentary History (8vo.), 296. 
 
 ^ Council Minutes, 7, 199. 
 
 3 4 Colonial Documents, 112. 
 
 * Record of Commissions, vol. 2, 124. 
 
 " Record of Commissions, vol. 2, 123. 
 
 " Lord Combury to the Lords of Trade, 4 Col Doc, 1000. 
 
Court of Admiralty. 75 
 
 A court being tHus permanently established, it was considered 
 expedient to nnite the office of Advocate-General, who was the 
 Attorney of the Admiralty Court, witB that of the Attorney- 
 Greneral, and accordingly the latter officer was thenceforth also 
 commissioned as the former. 
 
 On the 13th of June, 1702, John Bridges was appointed by 
 Governor Cornbury and Council, Judge of Vice- Admiralty of the 
 Proviace of New York. 
 
 In 1703, April 1st, Eoger Mompesson was commissioned as 
 Judge of the Admiralty Court of Massachusetts Bay, ISTew Hamp- 
 shire, Connecticut, Ehode Island, ISTew York, the Jerseys and 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 This extended jurisdiction was subsequently curtailed. On the 
 5th of October, 1721, Francis Harison was appointed Judge, of 
 Admiralty for New York, Connecticut and the Jerseys, ia place 
 of Caleb Heathcote,^ deceased. 
 
 In 1738, on the 16th of January, Lewis Morris, Jr., was 
 appelated a judge of the Admiralty Court for New York, Con- 
 necticut, and East and West Jerseys, and on the twenty-third, 
 Capt. John Fred was made marshal and sergeant at mace, of the 
 said court. 
 
 On the 5th of November, 1760, a commission issued to Lewis 
 Morris, John Chambers, Daniel Horsmanden, David Jones, 
 William Smith, John Cruger, Simon Johnson and Eobert E. 
 Livingston, to hold a court for trying and punishiug crimes and 
 offenses committed upon the seas.' 
 
 On the 2d of August, 1762, Eichard Morris was commissioned 
 by Governor Monckton and Council, Judge of the Court of Vice- 
 Admiralty of New York, to hold his office during pleasure. In 
 1763 (April 7th) Eichard Nicholls was appointed by the High 
 Court of Admiralty, ia England, register and scribe of acts, causes 
 and busiaesses depending in the respective Courts of Vice- Admi- 
 ralty of New York, Connecticut, and East and West Jerseys.^ 
 
 Judge Morris and Mr. Nicholls stni held their offices in June, 
 1774, as appears from a report of that date, made by Governor 
 Tryon, relative to the Province of New York. Thomas Ludlow 
 was then marshal. The report also states that the judge, register 
 
 ' Record of Commissions, 5, 178-180. " Record of Commissions, 4, 149. 
 
76 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 and marshal held their offices from the Crown, and were without 
 salary; and that the court proceeded after the course of the civil 
 law in matters within its jurisdiction which, at the time, had 
 been so enlarged by divers statutes as to include almost every 
 breach of the acts of trade." 
 
 In 1763, the fourth year of George III, an act was passed in 
 Parliament relative to the trade of the American Colonies and 
 Plantations; in the forty-first section of which it was directed 
 "that all the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this or any 
 other act or acts of Parliament relating to the trade and revenues 
 of the said British Colonies or Plantations in America, which shaU 
 be iacurred there, shall and may be prosecuted, sued for and 
 recovered ia any Court of Eecord, or in any Court of Admiralty 
 in .the said Colonies or Plantations where such offense shall be 
 committed, or in any Court of Vice- Admiralty which may or shall 
 be appointed over all America (which Court of Admiralty or 
 Vice- Admiralty is hereby respectively authorized and required to 
 proceed, hear and determine the same) at the election of the 
 informer or prosecutor.'" 
 
 This section was altered, ia 1768, by an act ia which it was 
 directed as suits for such penalties and forfeitures "in one court 
 only of Vice- Admiralty over all America" might, from the distance 
 from where the cause of action should arise, be attended with 
 great iaconvenience, that, from the first of September of that year, 
 "aU forfeitures and penalties inflicted by any act or acts of Parlia- 
 ment, relating to the trade or revenues of the British Colonies or 
 Plantations in America, may be prosecuted, sued for and recovered 
 in any Court of Vice- Admiralty appointed or to be appointed, and 
 which shall have jurisdiction within the Colony, plantation or place 
 where the cause of such prosecution or suit shall have arisen.'" 
 
 This and the preceding section led to the act of February 14, 
 1787, subsequently alluded to. 
 
 Up to 1768, appeals from this court lay to the High Court of 
 Admiralty in England. In that year, however, it was enacted 
 that in all cases of prosecution or suit commenced and determiaed 
 
 ' 1 Documentary History, 512. 
 
 ' British Statutes at Large, vol. 12, p. 249. 
 
 ' British Statutes at Large, voL 13, p. 14 
 
Court of Admiralty. 77 
 
 in any Court of Admiralty in the Colony or Plantation where the 
 offense was committed, for any penalty or forfeiture inflicted by 
 any parliamentary act relating to the trade and revenues of the 
 British Colonies and Plantations in America, the aggrieved party 
 might appeal to any Court of Vice- Admiralty appointed or to be 
 appointed, and which should have jurisdiction within such Colony, 
 Plantation or Place; which court was directed to hear and deter- 
 mine the appeal.' 
 
 Governor Tryon, in the report of 1774, alluded to, says: "Prom 
 this court (the Court of Admiralty) an appeal lies to a Supreme 
 Court of Admiralty, lately established in North America, by 
 statute; before this estabhshment, an appeal only lay to the High 
 Court of Admiralty of England." 
 
 About 1774, Judge Morris resigned his office, having sided with 
 the Colony agaiust the encroachments of the British Crown. On 
 the 31st of July 1776, the New York Provincial Convention 
 appointed him Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of the State 
 of New York. It also appointed John McKesson Eegister, and 
 Eobert Benson Marshal and Provost Marshal of said court." Mr. 
 Morris declined the office,' and on the fifth of August ensuing, 
 Lewis Graham was appointed by the said Convention in his stead,* 
 and commissioned on the 17th February, 1778. 
 
 On the 25th of November, 1775, the Continental Congress 
 recommended the several Legislatures of the United Colonies to 
 erect, as soon as possible. Admiralty Courts to determine concern- 
 ing captures taken in the war existing between said Colonies and 
 Great Britain, and to provide that all trials in such cases be had 
 by a jury, under qualifications which the said legislatures should 
 deem expedient. Congress, likewise, declared that in all cases an 
 appeal should be allowed to them, or to such person or persons as 
 they should appoint for the trial of appeals." 
 
 In 1777, Congress, after appointing and discharging two other 
 committees, appointed on the thirteenth of October a standing com- 
 
 ' British Statutes at Large, vol. 13, p. 15. 
 " Journal Provincial Convention, New York, 1, 550. 
 ' Journal Provincial Convention, New York, 1, 554. 
 ' Journal Provincial Convention, New York, 1, 556. 
 " Journal of Congress, 1, 260. 
 
78 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 mittee of five of its members, they or any three to liear and finally 
 determine upon appeals brought to said Congress from the Admi- 
 ralty Courts of the respective States." Three more members -were 
 added on the twenty-seventh of July in the next year, any three 
 of the whole committee to hear and determine appeals." 
 
 The Articles of Confederation (entered into by the States, July 
 9th, 17.78), by their ninth article, declared that the United States, 
 ia Congress assembled, should have the sole and exclusive right 
 of establishing rules for deciding in all cases what captures on 
 land or water should be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by 
 land or naval forces in the service of the United States should be 
 divided or appropriated; also, the same right of appointing courts 
 for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, 
 and of establishing courts for receiving and determining, finally, 
 appeals in all cases of captures. They also provided that no mem- 
 ber of Congress should be appointed a judge of any of said courts. 
 
 On the 6th of March, 1779, Congress declared that they or those 
 appointed to determiae appeals (viz., a committee of their own 
 members) from the Admiralty Courts, had necessarily the power 
 to examine as well into decisions on facts as decisions on the 
 law, and decree finally thereon; and that no findiag of a jury in 
 any Admiralty Court, or court for determining the legahty of 
 captures on the high seas, could or ought to destroy the right of 
 appeal and reexamination of facts reserved to Congress; and that 
 no act of any one State could or ought to destroy the right of 
 appeals to Congress in the sense above declared.' 
 
 In 1780, however, on the fifteenth of January, there was estab- 
 lished a court for the trial of appeals from the Courts of Admi- 
 ralty in the United States, in cases of capture, denominated, by a 
 resolution of Congress, May twenty-four of that year, "the Court 
 of Appeals in Cases of Capture," to consist of three judges ap- 
 pointed and commissioned by Congress, either two of whom, in 
 absence of the other, to hold the said court for dispatch of 
 business. The court appointed its own register. Congress farther 
 declared, that the trials in the said court should be according to 
 the usage of nations and not by jury.* 
 
 1 Journal of Congress, 3, 430. » J-Qurnal of Congress, 5, 87. 
 
 2 Journal of Congress, 4, 429. * Journal of Congress, 6, 14. 
 
CouET OP Admiralty. 79 
 
 The salaries of tte judges were fixed at $2,250 eacli.' 
 
 On the 28th of October, 1779, Congress ordered that a Board 
 of Admiralty should be established to superintend the naval and 
 marine affairs of the United States, to consist of three commission- 
 ers, not Members of Congress, and two Members of Congress, 
 any three of whom to form a board for the dispatch of business, 
 to be subject in all cases to the control of Congress; no more 
 than one member of the board, at any time, should belong to 
 the same State ; that there should be a secretary to the board, 
 appointed by Congress, and a clerk, appointed by the board, 
 and that the said board should sit in the place where Congress 
 should be held, and all its proceedings should be inspected by 
 Congress, or a committee appointed for that purpose, as often as 
 might be thought proper or convenient; that the salary of each 
 of the three commissioners who should conduct the business of 
 the Admiralty Board should be $14,000 per annum, and that 
 of the secretary of the board be $10,000 per annum; said salaries 
 to be annually or oftener, if Congress should judge it expedi- 
 ent, revised and altered agreeably to the appreciation of the Con- 
 tinental currency.' 
 
 On the 5th of April, 1781, Congress, by an ordinance pursuant 
 to the Articles of Confederation, established courts for the trial of 
 piracies and felonies committed on the high seas.' 
 
 la 1786, the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals were 
 abolished by Congress, "as the war was at an end, and the busi- 
 ness of the court, ia a great measure, done away." In lieu thereof, 
 t-en dollars a day were allowed them for attendance on and travel 
 to and from said court.* 
 
 On the 14th of February, 1787, the New York Legislature 
 passed an act to prevent encroachments of the Court of Admiralty 
 of the State, in which it was directed that the said court should 
 not meddle or hold plea of anything done within this State, but 
 only of things done upon the sea "as it had been formerly used." 
 That of all manner of contracts, pleas and quarrels, and of all 
 other things done, arising within the body of any county in this 
 State, as well by land as by water, and also of wreck of the sea, 
 
 ' Journal of Congress, 6, 182. ' Journal of Congress, 7, 76. 
 
 ' Journal of Congress, 5, 395-397. * Journal of Congress, 11, 33-123. 
 
80 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 the said court should hare no cognizance, power or jurisdiction, 
 but all the above matters should be tried and remedied by the 
 laws of the land, and not by the said court. Cognizance should 
 be had, however, by the said court of the death of any person, 
 and of mayhem done, in vessels in the main stream of great rivers 
 out of the body of any county, or nigh to the sea, and in no other 
 places of said rivers. 
 
 It was provided, however, that nothing in the above act should 
 extend to any hbel, information or suit in said court, for or con- 
 cerning the forfeiture of any goods, wares or merchandise seized 
 by virtue of an act imposiag duties on certain goods, wares and 
 merchandise imported into this State.' 
 
 On the 17th of September, 1787, the present Constitution of 
 the United States was adopted by the Federal Convention. 
 
 In its formation it was thought proper, by reason of the relation 
 of maritime commerce to the intercourse of the whole people with 
 other nations, or to the intercourse between themselves, to vest 
 the entire admiralty jurisdiction in the Federal Government. 
 
 Consequently, by section second of that Constitution, it was 
 decreed that the judicial power of the United States should 
 embrace "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," ■ and 
 in 1789, at the adoption by our State of the said Constitution, 
 the Admiralty Court of the State of New York ceased to exist. 
 
 In following out the section above referred to. Congress, by an 
 act passed on the 24:th of September, 1789, vested in the District 
 Courts of the United States exclusive original cognizance of aU 
 civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,, including all 
 seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United 
 States, where the seizures were made on waters navigable from 
 the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respec- 
 tive districts, as well as upon the high seas, saving to suitors in 
 all cases the right of a common law remedy, where the common 
 law was competent to give it." 
 
 An act, five days later, directed that the forms and modes of pro- 
 ceeding in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction should be 
 
 • Laws of New York (Loudon's ed. ), 47. 
 
 ^ Laws of United States (Bioren & Duane's ed.), 2, 60. 
 
Court of Admiealty. 81 
 
 according to the course of the civil law. The second section of 
 an act passed in 1792, prescribed that the forms and modes of the 
 above jurisdiction should be according to the principles, rules and 
 usages which belong to the Courts of Admiralty as contradis- 
 tiaguished jfrom courts of common law, except so far as may 
 have been provided for by the act to establish the Judicial Courts 
 of the United States, subject, however, to such alterations and 
 additions as the said courts should ia their discretion deem expe- 
 dient, or such regulations as the Supreme Court of the United 
 States should think proper from time to time by rule to prescribe 
 to any Circuit or District Court concerning the same. 
 
 On the 29th of April, 1812, it was enacted that the District 
 Court, in the N^ew York district, should consist of two judges who 
 should reside in said district; that the senior judge should preside 
 in the District Court, and in case of difference between the judges, 
 his opinion should prevail, and that said court should be held by 
 one judge in the absence of the other. The senior judge, or ia 
 his absence the other judge, and one of the justices of the Supreme 
 Court should compose the Circuit Court of the United States in 
 said district' 
 
 This arrangement was altered on the 11th of April, 1814, by an 
 act dividing the State of New York into two Judicial Districts, the 
 Northern and Southern, for each of which a judge was to be 
 appoiated, and directing the Circuit Court to be thereafter held 
 for the Southern District only. The Northern District Court, 
 besides the ordinary jurisdiction of a District Court, was to have 
 jurisdiction of all causes (except of appeals and writs of error), 
 cognizable by law in a Circuit Court of the United States ; writs 
 of error to lie from decisions thereia to the Circuit Court ia the 
 southern district of New York in the same manner as from other 
 District Courts to their respective Circuit Courts." 
 
 Appeals now lie from all final decrees of the District Courts, in 
 causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and cases of prize 
 .where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $50, 
 exclusive of costs, to the next United States Circuit Court to be 
 holden ia the district where the decree is pronounced; and from 
 
 ' Laws United States, 421, 422. " Laws United States, 679. 
 
 11 
 
82 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 all final decrees in the Circuit Court, to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States in the same cases, where the matter in dispute 
 exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $2,000, at any 
 time within five years after the decree is rendered, or in case of 
 insanity, coverture, infancy or imprisonment, after such disability 
 shall have ceased.' 
 
 The officers of the District Courts are a clerk and marshal 
 appointed for each of the two districts. 
 
 Commissioners are likewise appointed by the Circuit Courts to 
 take admiralty stipulations, as well as acknowledgments of bail, 
 depositions and affidavits in the Circuit and District Courts, and 
 they have all the powers that a Judge or Justice of the Peace may 
 exercise under the sixth section of the act of 20th July, 1790, for 
 the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service. 
 
 During the colonial period, the Court of Admiralty met with 
 the same opposition manifested toward the Court of Chancery. 
 Like the latter, it was instituted by the Crown under the authority 
 of which its judges, registers and marshals were appointed, hence 
 awakening that feeling of independence in the Colonists which 
 seems ever to have possessed them, and which they exhibited 
 whenever they deemed it encroached upon by the kingly power. 
 The undisturbed existence of the Colonial Supreme Court may be 
 traced to the fact that the Colonists claimed the court to have been 
 created by the act of the Assembly of 1691, and not from the sub- 
 sequent ordinance of Lord Bellamont reviving that act and those 
 emanating from it. 
 
 The forty-first section of the act of 1763, relative to the suing 
 for penalties and forfeitures in the Yice- Admiralty Court, created 
 great dissatisfaction among the Colonists. The course of the 
 General Assembly probably led to the subsequent act of 1768. 
 
 On the 18th of October, 1764, the General Assembly addressed 
 a petition respectively to the King, Lords and Commons, in the 
 former of which they say that "the unavoidable delegations of 
 the royal authority which necessarily expose us to the designs ol 
 wicked men, leave us, neither rest nor security, while a custom 
 house officer may wantonly seize what a judge of your Majesty's 
 
 1 Coakling's United States Admiralty, 2, 372. (Ed. 1857.) 
 
Court of Admiralty. 83 
 
 Court of Vice- Admiralty may condemn in his discretion, or at 
 best restore to the honest proprietor without a possibility of a 
 restitution for the injury." In the second they declare "that the 
 amazing powers vested by some of the late acts of trade in the 
 Judges of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, who do not proceed accord- 
 ing to the course of the common law, nor admit of trials by juries, 
 one of the most essential privileges of Englishmen, has so unfavor- 
 able an aspect on the property of the subject, that we could not, 
 consistent with our duty, suppress our apprehensions;" and in the 
 third they say, "we cannot stifle our regret that the laws of trade 
 in general change the current of justice from the common law, 
 and subject controversies of the utmost importance to the decisions 
 of the Vice- Admiralty Courts who proceed not according to the 
 old wholesome laws of the land, nor are always filled with judges 
 of approved knowledge and integrity." ' 
 
 On the 11th of December, 1765, the General Assembly again 
 addressed a petition respectively to the King and both Houses 
 of Parhament, in which they complain that the right of trial by 
 jury, till lately uninterruptedly enjoyed, was "infringed by several 
 late acts of Parhament extending the jurisdiction of the Admiralty 
 Courts to causes altogether foreign to their nature and to such 
 as could constitutionally be only tried by a jury, and this in a 
 manner the most inconvenient and grievous imaginable;" and 
 also "by our municipal law, all admiralty jurisdictions have been 
 confined to marine causes. We therefore tremble at the great 
 alterations which have been made in that wholesome system of 
 laws which, as Enghsh subjects inheritably, belongs to us, by 
 giving the Courts of Admiralty a jurisdiction in causes arising on 
 penal statutes, and only triable by the courts of common law." " 
 
 The General Assembly once more, on the 31st December, 1768, 
 in another petition to the Lords in Parliament, complain "that by 
 the late extension of the admiralty jurisdiction to penalties, forfeit- 
 ures and even trespasses upon the land, we lose the unspeakable 
 advantages of the ancient trial by jury, so deservedly celebrated 
 by Englishmen in all ages as essential to their safety."' ' 
 
 ' Journal General Assembly, 2, 772, 775, 779. 
 ' Journal General Assembly, 2, 795, 800. 
 ^ Journal General Assembly, 1769, p. 14. 
 
84: The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Among the last proceedings of tlie last General Assembly, 
 whicli, conTening on the 4th of April, 1769, and continued by 
 sucoessire prorogations till the 10th of January, 1775, was dis- 
 solved on the third of April following, were petitions respectively 
 to the King, Lords and Commons, emanating from a resolution 
 moved by Colonel Philip Schuyler, on the third March of the last 
 mentioned year. The resolution declared that so far as the act of 
 4:th George III, extended the Admiralty Courts beyond their 
 ancient limits, and deprived the Colonists of a trial by jury it was 
 a grievance. 
 
 On the 25th of March, 1775, the above petitions were adopted 
 by the Assembly. 
 
 In the petition to the King they denounced the "extending the 
 Courts of Admiralty beyond their ancient limits, giving them a 
 concurrent jurisdiction in causes heretofore cognizable only in the 
 courts of common law, and by that means depriving the Ameri- 
 can subject of a trial by jury, as grievous and destructive of our 
 rights and privileges." In the petition to the Lords, they state 
 that "the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts has been extended 
 beyond its ancient limits; and the judges of those courts invested 
 with new and unconstitutional powers;" and in that to the Com- 
 mons they complain of these matters as destructive to freedom 
 and injurious to their property.' 
 
 1 Journal General Assembly, 1775, pp. 109-117. 
 
LIST OF BIOGRAPHHS. 
 
 GOVERNORS. 
 
 G-EOKGE Clinton, Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 
 John Jat, De Witt Clinton, 
 
 Morgan Lewis, Joseph C. Tates, 
 
 Lieutenant^GrOvernor John Tatieb. 
 
 CHANCELLORS. 
 
 Egbert E. Livingston, James Kent, 
 
 John Lansing, Jr. 
 
 John Jat, 
 EioHARD Morris, 
 EoBEET Tates, 
 John Lansing, Jr., 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICES. 
 
 Morgan Lewis, 
 James Kent, 
 Smith Thompson, 
 Ambrose Spenoee. 
 
 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Egbert Yates, Henry Brockholst Livingston, 
 
 John Sloss Hobart, Smith Thompson, 
 
 John Lansing, Jr, Ambrose Spencer, 
 
 Morgan Lewis, Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 
 Egbert Benson, Willlam W. Van Ness, 
 
 James Kent, Joseph C. Tates, 
 
 Jacob EADOLirr, Jonas Platt, 
 
 John Woodworth. 
 
GOVERNOES. 
 
 GEOEGE CLINTON, 
 
 YOUNGEST SON OF OHAELES CLINTON, 
 
 "Was born at Little Britain, in tlie county of Ulster (afterward 
 Orange), on the 26tli of July, 1789. 
 
 When lie was about sixteen (in 1755), lie entered on board a 
 privateer wMch sailed from the port of New York, and endured 
 many trials and hardships. 
 
 In 1758, at the age of nineteen, he joined, as a subaltern (with 
 Ms father. Colonel Charles Clinton, and Captain James Clinton, 
 his brother), the successful expedition of Colonel Bradstreet 
 agaiast Fort Frontenac, near Lake Ontario, and with his brother, 
 succeeded, at the head of a small force, in capturing one of the 
 French vessels. 
 
 He then entered the office of William Smith, historian of the 
 New York Colony, and subsequently Chief Justice of Canada. 
 
 On the 80th of August, 1759, he was appointed by letters 
 patent, under the great seal of the Province, from George II, 
 Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, Clerk of the Peace and of 
 the Court of Sessions of the Peace of Ulster county, in room of 
 John Crook, deceased. Christopher Tappan was his Deputy. 
 
 In 1760 (December 12th), Mr. Clinton was reappointed as above, 
 during good behavior, and held the reappointment until his 
 death. 
 
 On the 12th of September, 1764, he was commissioned by the 
 Governor, attorney at law, to practice in the Mayor's Court in 
 
88 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, and inferior Courts of Common Pleas in the counties of 
 the Province, except in the Mayor's Court of the city of New 
 York. 
 
 In 1765 (26th of August), he was appointed surrogate in room 
 of Petrus E. Elmendorph, and on the 27th of October, 1768, he 
 took his seat as a member of the General Assembly from Ulster 
 county. 
 
 The next year, on the fourth of April, he again entered the Gene- 
 ral Assembly as a representative from the same county, on a reelec- 
 tion (the preceding Assembly having been dissolved by Governor 
 Sir Henry Moore), and continued a member until its adjournment 
 on the 3d of April, 1775, which proved its final dissolution. 
 
 In 1775, he was a member of the Provincial Convention which, 
 by a previous call from a Committee of the city and county of 
 New York, assembled on the twentieth of April, at the Exchange 
 in the said city, to choose delegates to represent the New York 
 Colony ia the second Continental Congress, and on the twenty- 
 second of April was elected one of the delegates. 
 
 On the fifteenth of May following, he took his seat in the 
 above body, which had assembled on the fifth previous, at Smith's 
 tavern in Philadelphia, and afterward at Carpenter's hall in said 
 city. 
 
 On the nineteenth of the succeeding December, the second New 
 York Provincial Congress, appointed him Brigadier-General of the 
 militia of Ulster and Orange counties, formed into one brigade.' 
 
 In the following year he was present at the Continental Con- 
 gress and voted for the resolutions introduced in that body on the 
 seventh of June,' which finally resulted, on the fourth of July, in 
 the Declaration of Independence. His duties as Brigadier-General, 
 however, compelling him to leave for New York before that instru- 
 ment was regularly signed, his name is not attached to it. 
 
 In 1776, he was appointed a Deputy to the fourth New York 
 Provincial Congress, which assembled on the ninth of July at 
 White Plains, Westchester county; changed their name to "Con- 
 vention of Eepresentatives of the State of New York," July tenth, 
 on occasion of receiving and adopting the Declaration of Indepen- 
 
 ' See Journal of New York Provincial Congress, vol. 1, p. 226. 
 " Journal of Congress, 1776, vol. 2, p. 204. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 89 
 
 dence, the day before; and dissolved finally on tlie 13tli of May, 
 1777. 
 
 This Convention framed and adopted the first Constitution of 
 the State of New York. 
 
 On the 8th of August, 1776, he was, as Brigadier-General, 
 appointed to the command of all the levies raised and to be raised 
 in Ulster, Orange and Westchester counties, and directed to march 
 them to the posts at and above the Highlands.' This was to pre- 
 vent the ascent of the river by the British from the city of New 
 York. 
 
 On the following first of January, he was directed to raise one 
 thousand men from the counties of Dutchess, Ulster, Orange and 
 Westchester.' On the succeeding twenty -fifth of March, the New 
 York Convention requested the General Congress to appoint a 
 commandant of the forts in the Highlands. General Clinton 
 received this appointment, and was made also Brigadier-General 
 in the continental service.' 
 
 On the 13th of May, 1777 (the last day of the session), he 
 received the thanks of the New Tork Convention for "long and 
 faithfiil services, as a delegate in the Continental Congress, to the 
 Colony of New York, and to the State.'" 
 
 In 1777 (July 9th), the Council of Safety (invested by the 
 Convention of that year with powers to carry on the Govern- 
 ment of the State till the meeting of the Legislature) declared that 
 on examination of the poll lists and ballots, returned by the 
 sheriffs of the respective counties, of the elections held in said 
 counties, Mr. Clinton was elected both Governor and Lieutenant- 
 Governor of the State.' He accepted the former station, and on 
 the thirtieth of July took the oath of ofiice administered to him 
 by the President of the Council of Safety.' Pierre Van Cort- 
 landt, President of the Council, discharged the duties of Lieutenant- 
 Governor. 
 
 ' Journal New Tqrk Provincial Convention, vol. 1, p. 563. 
 
 2 Journal of New York Committee »f Safety, 754. Jovir. N. Y. Prov. Cong. 
 
 ' Journal of Congress, vol. 3, 100. 
 
 * Journal of New York Provincial Convention, 1, 931. 
 
 « Journal of New York Council of Safety, 1, 990. Jour. N. Y. Prov. Corig. 
 
 • Journal of New York Council of Safety, 1, 1021. Jour. N. Y. Prov. Cong. 
 
 12 
 
90 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 The Legislature assembled on the tenth of September foUomng, 
 and Governor Clinton delivered his Message orally, chiefly con- 
 fined to matters of the war. 
 
 On the succeeding fourth of October, Sir Henry Clinton, the 
 British commander, left the city of New York with five thousand 
 men in flat boats and transports, on his way to cooperate with 
 Burgoyne at Bemis Heigh.ts. 
 
 There were at that time four American posts at the Highlands, 
 viz. : Forts Montgomery and Chnton on the west side of the Hud- 
 son, separated only by a small stream called Poplopen's Kill 
 emptyiag iuto the river; Fort Independence south of Fort Clinton 
 and on the east side of the river, and Fort Constitution opposite 
 West Point. From the mouth of the above kill, and extending 
 across so as to obstruct the river, were chevaux de frise and a 
 boom with a heavy iron chain, placed there by the Americans. 
 
 Grovemor Clinton left the Legislature about the fourth of Octo- 
 ber, and took command- at Fort Montgomery. His brother Colonel 
 Charles Cliaton commanded at Fort Clinton (both Forts number- 
 ing about six hundred men, one half without bayonets), while 
 Greneral Putnam with about one thousand five hundred troops 
 had his head-quarters at PeeksMU. 
 
 On the sixth, about ten in the morning, an advanced party of 
 about thirty Americans was attacked by the vanguard of the 
 British force at Doodletown, two and a half miles from Fort 
 Montgomery. The enemy, on the party's refusal to surrender, 
 fired upon them; the Americans returned the fire and retreated to 
 Fort Clinton. Soon after, Governor Chnton received intelligence 
 that the British were advancing on the west side of the Dunder- 
 berg or Thunder mountaiu to attack the forts in the rear. He 
 immediately threw out a detachment of over a hundred men, 
 under Lieutenant-Colonels Bruyn and McClaghry, toward Doodle- 
 town, with another of sixty and a brass field piece, who took 
 post in Bear Hill defile, a rough pass, skirted with forest. These 
 detachments were soon attacked by the enemy with his whole 
 force, which attack was resisted gallantly by the Americans. The 
 party at the defile were reinforced to a hundred, and they swept 
 the pass with their field-piece, ,but were soon obliged to give way 
 before the advance of the British through the bordering woods. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 91 
 
 They spiked their piece, being driven from it by tlie bayonet, and 
 retreated in good order to a twelve-pounder under Colonel Lamb, 
 wMch. Clinton bad ordered to cover tbeir retreat, and thence to 
 Fort Montgomery. 
 
 It was now afternoon. Governor Chnton had previously dis- 
 patched a messenger to General Putnam for reinforcements, but 
 the treacherous messenger (one Waterbury) had delayed his 
 movements, and consequently no aid or tidings were received by 
 Chnton. He, however, posted his men in the most advantageous 
 manner for the defense of his fort. At about four o'clock, the 
 British invested both posts, and the commander sent a flag, the 
 sun an hour high, with summons for the posts to surrender within 
 five minutes to prevent slaughter. Governor Clinton dispatched 
 Lieutenant-Colonel Livingston to receive the flag, but was in- 
 formed there were no orders to treat except on proposals to surren- 
 der the whole force as prisoners of war, in which case good usage 
 was assured. Governor Clinton determined to defend the forts to 
 the last. Ten minutes after, they were invested on all sides (the 
 British vessels also firing upon the forts), and a desperate conflict 
 ensued. Eoused by the firing, a detachment from General Put- 
 nam's force hastened toward the scene of conflict, but did not 
 reach the river until twihght and when it was too late to aid 
 Clinton. 
 
 Soon after dusk, the British, by their superior numbers, forced 
 the lines and redoubts at both posts. The garrisons fought their 
 way out, and it being a cloudy night, many of the men escaped. 
 Both officers and men behaved with great gallantry. Colonel 
 Charges Chnton was wounded, but eluded the enemy by fleeing 
 down a precipice chnging to the shrubs, and the next day reached 
 his residence in Orange county, sixteen miles distant. The Gov- 
 ernor escaped by min gling with the enemy as they rushed into 
 the fort; crossed the Hudson in a boat and reached General Put- 
 nam the same night at Continental village, three miles from 
 PeekskiU, there to concert further plans for resistance. The loss 
 of Americans in killed, wounded and prisoners (among the latter 
 Lieutenant-Colonels Livingston, Bruyn and McClaghry), was about 
 three hundred; that of the enemy about one hundred and forty, 
 among the killed being Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell, command- 
 
92 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 ing the 52d and 57tli Britisli regiments, and Count GrabousH, a 
 Pole, acting as aid to Sir Henry Clinton. 
 
 The next day Governor Chnton rallied about two htmdred of 
 his men, who had scattered themselves after retreating from the 
 forts, ia the mountains, and joined his brother. Colonel Clinton, at 
 the latter's dweUing. 
 
 The British cut through the obstructions at the mouth of the 
 Poplopen Kill, and then swept up the river. Above the boom the 
 Americans had two frigates, two galleys and an armed sloop.' 
 The same night the forts were taken, the vessels were abandoned, 
 set on fire and destroyed. The next day (the 7th) Fort Constitu- 
 tion was demolished by the Americans ; both the burning of the 
 vessels and destruction of the fort being without Governor Clia- 
 ton's orders. There was nothing now to obstruct the passage of 
 the British up the river. 
 
 Sir Henry Clinton devolved the command of the expedition on 
 Sir James S. Wallace and General John Vaughan. The former 
 commanded a flying squadron of light frigates, with barges, bat- 
 teaux and boats for the landing of troops, while under the latter 
 was a force of three thousand six hundred men. As the expedition 
 passed up, they destroyed every American vessel, fired upon the 
 dwellings of those friendly to the American cause on the banks, 
 and, landing in small parties, made havoc, with weapon and torch, 
 of hamlets and neighborhoods. On the sixteenth they reached 
 Kingston," then the Capital of the State, with a wealthy population 
 of between three and four thousand. Most of the houses were 
 built of stone. The Legislature, however, was not there; it had 
 received the tidings, on the seventh preceding, of the loss of Forts 
 Montgomery and Clinton, and in view of the crisis, and so many 
 members absenting themselves by reason of their military duties 
 and to protect their families, it had dissolved." 
 
 Landing his forces, Vaughan, having been faintly opposed by 
 about one hundred and fifty mihtia,^ marched in two divisions to 
 Kingston and reduced it to ashes, with the exception of one house 
 
 ' Losaing'3 Field Book of the Revolution, 2, 168. 
 
 * Journal of New York Provincial Congress, 1, 1072. 
 ' New York Senate Journal, 1777-79, p. 26. 
 
 * Journal of New York Provincial Congress, 1, 1072. 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 93 
 
 belonging to a Mrs. Hammersley, wlio was acq^uainted with several 
 British ofi&cers.' 
 
 In the meantime Governor Clinton had established his head- 
 quarters at a point about four miles west of the village of New 
 Windsor, in Orange county, for the purpose of collecting a force 
 sufficient for marching to the defense of Kingston. On the tenth, 
 a horseman named Daniel Taylor entered Chnton's camp. He 
 proved a messenger bearing a letter from Sir Henry Clinton to 
 Burgoyne, informing him of the British approach ; the messenger 
 supposing he was entering a loyahst camp." The letter was 
 inclosed in a silver ball lite a fasee biiUet, and closed with a screw 
 in the center. When the messenger was brought before Governor 
 Chnton, he discovered his mistake and swallowed the bullet ; an 
 enietic was administered, the bullet discovered but again concealed; 
 and Taylor only produced it at a threat ftom the Governor of 
 being immediately hanged and cut open in search of it.' 
 
 Governor Clinton's force consisted, on the twelfth, of the militia 
 of the region, two small Continental regiments and a regiment of 
 one hundred and thirty men under Colonel Southerland. From 
 these he had detached strong guards along the river bank, with 
 orders to keep pace with the British vessels and interpose should 
 they attempt a landing at Kingston. His particular object was to 
 collect his whole force at one point, so as to be able to oppose the 
 progress of the enemy, or throw himself between them and such 
 places as they might wish to gain.' 
 
 With this object, he advanced by a forced march, toward Kings- 
 ton, and on the sixteenth, only two hours after the enemy had 
 reached there arrived at Hurley, a few nules distant. Thence 
 he saw the flames, of the village without the power, from the 
 inferiority of his force, to prevent the catastrophe or attack the 
 invaders. While the fire was in progress, the messenger, Daniel 
 Taylor, who was a major in the British service, and who had been 
 tried and condemned by a court martial summoned by the Gover- 
 nor, was hanged." 
 
 ' Barber's History of New York, 342. 
 
 a Lossing's Field Book, 2, 116. 
 
 3 Journal of Council of Safety (Letter of CUnton), 1068. 
 
 * Journal of Council of Safety (Letter of Clinton), 1069. 
 
 5 Journal of Council of Safely, 1, 1072. 
 
94 ' The Council of Eeyision. 
 
 On the seventeenth, Burgoyne, having lost the two battles of 
 Bemis Heights, surrendered to Gates ; and on the receipt of the 
 tidings, Vaughan hastUy retreated, with the whole British expedi- 
 tion, to the city of New York. 
 
 The valley of the Hudson being now free from invasion, Grov- 
 ernor CKnton issued his proclamation from Poughkeepsie, on the 
 fifteenth December following, convening the Legislature at that 
 place on the-5th January, 1778. Several members of the Senate 
 and Assembly accordingly met, and adjourning day after day from 
 want of the necessary numbers, finally commenced the session on 
 the fifteenth.' Thenceforward the Legislative sessions were con- 
 tinuous. 
 
 On the twenty -third of February succeeding. Governor Clinton 
 issued a proclamation from Poughkeepsie (which, at the destruc- 
 tion of Kingston, became the Capital of the State until the final 
 removal of the Legislature to Albany), pursuant to certain resolu- 
 tions, passed two days previous by the Legislature, concerning the 
 dispute which had so long existed between the State of New York 
 and the New Hampshire Grants, and known as the Vermont con- 
 troversy. * 
 
 1 Journal of Senate, 1778, 26. Journal of Assembly, 1778, 28. 
 
 ' The controversy between New York and Vermont dates from the grant of 
 a township six miles square, twenty miles east of the Hudson river, made on 
 the 3d of January, 1749, by Benning Wentworth, Grovernor of New Hamp- 
 shire (he claiming the territory to be within the limits of that Province), and 
 which was called ( after his baptismal name ) Bennington. The knowledge of 
 this grant was communicated by Wentworth to the elder George Clinton, then 
 Grovemor of the Province of New York, in a letter dated the 25th of April, 
 1750. The township was situated within the limits of a grant under New York 
 to the Rev. Grodfrey DeUius, dated September 3d, 1697, and extending from 
 Saratoga along the east side of Lake Champlain to Crown Point. 
 
 Governor Clinton, claiming for the eastern boundary of New York the Con- 
 necticut river, resisted Wentworth's grant as being within the hmits of the 
 former Province. Both Governors then agreed to refer the matter of boundary 
 to the British Crown. In the meantime, however, Wentworth, desirous of the 
 patent fees, continued to make further grants west of the Connecticut, until, up 
 to 1764, he had granted over one hundred and twenty townships. 
 
 CadwaUader Colden, at the above period, Lieutenant-Governor of New York, 
 to arrest the progress of these grants, issued, on the 28th of December, 1763, 
 a proclamation commanding the Sheriff of the county of Albany to make a 
 return of the names of all persons who had taken possession of lands under the 
 
Biographical Sketches. 95 
 
 On the 23d of October, 1779, Governor Clinton was made, by 
 virtue of bis ofiice, one of a CouncLl to carry on the government 
 of the State in the southern portion thereof, between the time the 
 
 New Hampsliire grants, and claiming jurisdiction for New York as far east as 
 the Connecticut river, under the charter of Charles II to the Duke of York. 
 
 On the 13th of March, 1764, "Wentworth issued a counter proclamation, pro- 
 nouncing the Duke of York's patent obsolete, denying the above jurisdiction, 
 encouraging the inhabitants of the grants to persevere in then- improvements, 
 and commanding the civil officers vrithin his Province to deal with all persons 
 who should presume to interrupt the settlers on said grants, the pretended right 
 of jurisdiction claimed by New York notwithstanding. 
 
 On the 20th of July following, the King, in Council, decided the west banks of 
 the Connecticut river, "from where it enters the Province of Massachusetts Bay 
 as far north as the forty-fifth degree of northern latitude," to be the boundary 
 line between New Hampshire and New York. 
 
 Although the Governor of the former Province remonstrated against this 
 change of jurisdiction, he at length, by proclamation, recommended obedience 
 to it. 
 
 New York claiming the decision to be retrospective as well as prospective, 
 declared the grants under New Hampshire void, and divided the territory as 
 follows : The southwestern part was annexed to Albany county, the north- 
 western was erected into Charlotte county, while on the east side of the 
 Green Mountains were formed Gloucester andOumberland counties, the former 
 north and the latter south. Courts of Justice were erected in each of the 
 counties. 
 
 The settlers of the grants under New Hampshire, being required to surrender 
 their charters and repurchase their lands under titles from New York, and 
 refiising, the latter Province issued new grants to other persons in whose names 
 judgments in ejectment were obtained in the Albany courts, under which pro- 
 ceedings were instituted to dispossess the former owners. 
 
 These proceedings were resisted by the New Hampshire settlers. Foremost 
 in defending the claims of New Hampshire were Ethan AUen and Seth 
 Warner. The former distributed pamphlets, written by himself, among the 
 settlers, inciting them to resistance ; and the latter wounded and disarmed an 
 oiEcer who attempted to arrest him as a rioter. 
 
 Associations were also formed among the people of the grants; a convention 
 was called, and an agent appointed who laid "the whole subject before the King. 
 The latter interdicted New York from making more grants in the disputed 
 territory, until his further pleasure was known. The Governor of New York, 
 however, still continued his grants, under which .writs of ejectment still issued, 
 until a convention assembled at Bennington, which resolved to resist by force 
 the unjust claims of New York. Ethan Allen was made Colonel-Commandant 
 and Seth Warner Captain of a military association of the Green Mountain 
 Boys, to carry into execution the New Hampshire plan of resistance, while 
 Committees of Safety were appointed in several towns west of the Green 
 Mountains, where the feeling against New York raged the highest 
 
96 The Gounoil of Eevision. 
 
 enemy should abandon or be dispossessed of the said portion and 
 the convening of the Legislature, accordiag to an act of the Legis- 
 lature of the above date, composing the Grovemor, Chancellor, 
 
 On the other hand, the militia of New York -were called as a posse comiiatus 
 to aid the sheriff in the execution of his duties, and' the GrOTernor offered a 
 reward,, of one hundred and fifty pounds for the apprehension of AJlen, and fifty 
 pounds each for Warner and five others. Allen, Warner and the others offered 
 in their turn five pounds for the apprehension of the Attomey-Q-eneral of New 
 York. 
 
 Committees from the several towns of the New Hampshire Grants formed, 
 themselves into a Convention which, among other acts, ordained that "no per- 
 son should take grants or confirmations of grants under New York," and forbid 
 all inhabitants in the districts of the Grants to accept office under that Province. 
 
 On the 9th of March, 1774, the General Assembly of New York passed a law 
 punishing with imprisonment, and in some cases with death, those who resisted 
 the authority of the Province, specifying, among others, Allen and Warner. 
 
 On the 13th of March, 1775, a collision occurred between sundry inhabitants 
 of Cumberland county and the sheriff with other officers of the court of that 
 county, at Westminster, in which the officials fired upon the people, who had 
 taken possession of the Court House, killing one man and wounding others. 
 This massacre, as it was called, roused the whole county, particularly as the offi- 
 cers engaged in it, and who had been imprisoned in the Northampton jaU, were 
 released on application to the Chief Justice of New York. 
 
 Committees of inhabitants on the east range of the Green Mountains held a 
 meeting on the eleventh of AprU following, which voted it the duty of the said 
 inhabitants to whoUy renounce and resist the administration of the Government 
 of New York, till the Uves and property of such inhabitants could be secured by 
 it, or tiU their grievances were laid before the King, together with a proper 
 remonstrance against the unjustifiable conduct of that Government, with a peti- 
 tion to be fi:eed from New York, and either annexed to another government or 
 be erected into a new one till such time as his Majesty should settle the contro-; 
 versy. 
 
 Then followed the battles of Lexington and Concord on the 19th April, 1775, 
 and the further continuance of the controversy was arrested by the aspect of 
 affairs between the mother country and the Colonies. Although the inhabit- 
 ants of the New Hampshire Grants still resisted the authority of New York, 
 their opposition settUng every day into a more firm and decided character, their 
 patriotism urged them to the Colonial side. Colonel AUen, on the 10th of 
 May, 1775, stormed and took the fortress of Ticonderoga from the jBritish, 
 and Warner, two days after, captured from the same the post of Crown Point. 
 Through the exertions of these two in the Continental Congress and Provincial 
 Congress of New York, a regiment of Green Mountain Boys or settlers of the 
 New Hampshire Grants was raised to aid in the common effort for inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 The visit of the two to the Provincial Congress was under peculiar circum- 
 stances. A reward, as is seen, had been oifered by New York fdr their appre- 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 97 
 
 Judge of the Supreme Court, Eepresentatives in the Senate and 
 Assembly, Secretary of State, Attorney-General and Judges of 
 the several counties into such Council. 
 
 hension as rioters, and as defying the rightful authority of the State. Opposition 
 was manifested at first to their admittance, but at length, by vote, the Congress 
 on the 4th July, 1775, admitted them, when having been heard on the object 
 of their mission, they withdrew. 
 
 On the twentieth of July succeeding, AUen wrote from Ticonderoga to tlie 
 Provincial Congress, assuring them he would use his influence to promote a 
 reconciUation between Kew York and her former discontented subjects on 
 the New Hampshire Grants. Warner was commissioned by the Continental 
 Congress as colonel, with authority to name the officers of the regiment which 
 was raised on the Grants, independent of New York. 
 
 StiU, although all active controversy of the people of the Grants with New 
 York had ceased, the feeling that had dictated it survived. 
 
 On the 16th of January, 1776, they assembled in Convention at Dorset, and 
 on the seventeenth dispatched a petition by Captain Heman AUen and Lieu- 
 tenant Brackenridge to the Continental Congress, in which petition, after declar- 
 ing their willingness to join in the common defense, they stated they were not 
 willing so to do under New York, as it would be an acknowledgment of its 
 authority ; and they further requested Congress to call upon them, when neces- 
 sary, as inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants. 
 
 This was the first application of these people to Congress. That body, how- 
 ever, recommended submission to New York for the time being, without preju- 
 dice to the subject matter of controversy when the present national difficulties 
 should cease. 
 
 Next came the general Declaration of Independence. This placed the people 
 of the New Hampshire Grants in a more precarious condition than before. 
 They had originally, as is seen, purchased their lands under royal grants from 
 the Governor of New Hampshire. They had reUed upon the Crovm for redress 
 between them and New York, and now the connection between the Crovm and 
 the contending parties was suddenly broken, leaving no superior party to decide 
 the controversy. 
 
 On the 2d of August, 1776, also, the Convention of Representatives of New 
 York resolved that the quit rents formerly owing to the Crown, were now due 
 to that State.* 
 
 * Before the Revolution, lands in the Colony of New York were granted with a 
 reservation of a certain rent to be annually paid in money or in kind to the Gov- 
 ernment of Great Britain. The usual rent charged, it will be observed, was on every 
 hundred acres of land two shillings and six pence sterling or currency. This was 
 originally the only pecuniary consideration given for these lands to the Govern- 
 ment. Some of these rents were, in comparison with the immense extent of the 
 lands granted, not much more than nominal. In time, however, they arose on 
 several of the patents to a large sum. During the Revolution the collection of the 
 rents was in a great measure suspended, but on the 1st of April, 1786, "an act for 
 the collection and commutation of quit rents" was passed in which the manner of 
 payment and collection was clearly defined. 
 13 
 
98 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In 1780, on the night of the 14th of October, Six John Johnson, 
 at the head of a large force, consisting of his Greens, a company 
 of Yagers, one of British regulars, - and a number of Butler's 
 
 To submit to New York was to yield all their property, by yielding the 
 whole question of controversy (independently of the minor fact that the annual 
 quit rents reserved to the Crown in the New Hampshire Grrants on every 
 hundred acres were one shilling proclamatioii money, equal to nine pence ster- 
 Hng, while, in the grants of the New York Governors, the rents were two 
 shillings and sis pence sterhng) ; to oppose, was to hazard a contest, not only 
 with New York, but Congress. They had renounced all allegiance to the 
 Crown, and the time they thought had consequently arrived (for to remain 
 without any government at all was impossible) to erect a separate government 
 of their own. 
 
 A Convention of fifty-one members, representing thirty-five towns, had as- 
 sembled on the twenty-fourth of July preceding the above second of August, at 
 Dorset; an association among themselves had been there agreed upon, in defense 
 of the liberties of the country, but declaring they would not associate with either 
 of the counties of New York or with its Convention, and further declaring any 
 of the inhabitants of the Grants, enemies to the common cause, who should thus 
 associate. 
 
 The Convention, after appointing a committee of three to invite the people of 
 every town in Cumberland and Gloucester counties to unite in the creation of 
 a new State, adjourned to meet at Dorset on the following twenty-fifth of 
 September, where, having been joined by several members from the above 
 counties, they unanimously resolved " to take suitable measures, as soon as may 
 be, to declare the New Hampshire Grants a free and separate district;'' and also 
 that "no law or laws, direction or directions ft'om the State of New York should 
 be accepted." 
 
 A committee, consisting of Ira Allen and William Marsh, was then appointed 
 to father urge upon the counties of Cumberland and Gloucester, the expediency 
 of making the Grants a separate State. 
 
 On the 15th of January, 1777, the Convention met at Westminster and 
 published the declaration that the New Hampshire Grants were a free and inde- 
 pendent jurisdiction or State, under the name of New Connecticut alias Ver- 
 mont; and ordained that a Bill of Eights be prepared and a form of government 
 estabhshed, at the next session of the Convention. They furthermore sent a. 
 declaration and petition, signed by Jonas Pay, Thomas Chittenden, Heman 
 Allen and Reuben Jones, to the General Congress, announcing the district to be 
 a free and independent State; narrating the history of the controversy, and 
 praying to be received " among the free and independent American States, and 
 delegates therefrom admitted to seats in the grand Continental Congress." 
 
 The Convention of New York, indignant at this procedure, appealed by letter 
 under date of January 20th, 1777, to Congress, complaining of the designs of the 
 Grants. 
 
 On the contrary. Colonel Thomas Young, of Philadelphia, published on the 
 11th April of that year, an address to the "Inhabitants of Vermont, a free and 
 
BlOGEAPHIOAL SKETCHES. 99 
 
 rangers, ■vritli Brant and the Seneca warrior, Corn Planter, leading 
 a throng of Indians, left Unadilla for an incursion into the valleys 
 of the Schoharie and Mohawk. In addition to this force. Sir John 
 
 independent State, bounding on the river Connecticut and Lake Champlain," in 
 which he told them to persevere in their efforts to be free and independent; 
 and referred to the recommendation of Congress (10th May, 1776), for all com- 
 munities returning to a natural state to adopt such government as was fitting 
 for them and the Union. 
 
 On the twenty-eighth of May following, the New York Council of Safety 
 addressed another letter to Congress, complaining that, according to report, the 
 Grrants were privately countenanced in their designs by certain members of that 
 body. 
 
 On the 30th of June, Congress (the pubhcation of Young being laid before 
 them) resolved that the independent government attempted to be established 
 by the people styling, themselves inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants, 
 could derive no countenance or justification from the act of Congress declaring 
 the TJnited Colonies to be independent of the Crown of Great Britain, nor from 
 any other act or resolution of Congress ; and that the Westminster declaration 
 and petition be dismissed. They also excused their raising and officering the 
 Green Mountain regiment, commanded by Colonel Warner; declaring they 
 thereby never meant to give any encouragement to the claim of the Grants to be 
 an independent State, and stigmatized paragraphs from Young's address as "a 
 gross misrepresentation of the resolution of Congress " referred to. 
 
 Meanwhile, on the fifth of June preceding, the adjourned Westminister Conven- 
 tion, had reassembled at Windsor, appointed a Committee to draft a constitution 
 and recommended a convention of delegates from each town to meet on the 
 second of the following July again at Windsor. On that day (next succeeding 
 the one on which Burgoyne encamped with his forces before Ticonderoga) the 
 Convention met. The draft of a Constitution was presented, but while reading 
 it, paragraph by paragraph, for the last time, tidings arrived of the evacuation of 
 Ticonderoga by the American General, St. Clair. The Convention, alarmed for 
 its safety, was about to leave forthwith, when a thunder storm prevented it, 
 and the reading of the Constitution was finished. It was adopted, and the Con- 
 vention, after appointing a Council of Safety for the government of the State 
 during its recess, adjourned. 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1778, Governor CHnton issued his proclamation, in 
 pursuance of certain resolutions of the New York Legislature, passed two days 
 previous, specifying said resolutions. They were to the effect that while New 
 York should maintain her rightful supremacy over the persons and property of 
 her disaffected subjects, she would make overtures to induce their voluntary 
 submission, viz. ; By confirming to those actually possessing and improving the 
 lands their titles under the grants of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay, 
 and which had not been granted under New York, as well as the possession of 
 those actually possessing and improving lands not granted by either of the three ; 
 in the latter case, to make, with other contiguous lands which were vacant, a 
 farm not to exceed three hundred acres ; and by confirming also the actual pos- 
 
100 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 had two mortars and tlie same number of field-pieces. The expe- 
 dition passed the Upper Fort in the Schoharie valley, before morn- 
 ing, unperceived, and laid siege to the Middle Fort, but meeting 
 
 session of lands under the grants of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay, 
 and which had been subsequently regranted by New York, notwithstanding the 
 posterior regrant ; disclaiming, however, all determinations of title or posses- 
 sion that might "arise between different persons claiming under New Hamp- 
 shire or Massachusetts Bay, or between persons claiming under New Hamp- 
 shire on the one, and Massachusetts Bay on the other part, independent of 
 any right or claim under New York," but that the Legislature of New York 
 would provide for the determination of all such cases concerning the contro- 
 verted lands aforesaid, as could not be decided by the aforesaid articles, 
 according to justice and equity and not by strict rules of law. Quit rents under 
 new grants or confirmations from New York, of lands heretofore granted by 
 New Hampshire or Massachusetts Bay, were to be the same they were under 
 the original grants ; and a certain future commutation for quit rents was pro- 
 posed. Finally, the overtures were to be of no avail to any person who should, 
 "after the first day of May next, yield or acknowledge any allegiance or subjec- 
 tion to the pretended State of Vermont, the pretended government thereof, or 
 to any power or authority pretended to be held or exercised thereunder." 
 
 Furthermore, that the Legislature of the State of New York would concur 
 in all necessary measures to protect the loyal inhabitants of said State, residing 
 in the counties of Albany, Charlotte, Cumberland and Gloucester, and to compel 
 all persons residing within the State and refusing obedience to the government 
 and Legislature thereof, to yield the obedience and allegiance due. 
 
 The Grovernor then commanded all persons within the State, at their peril, to 
 take due notice of the proclamation and govern themselves accordingly. 
 
 On the 12th of March, 1778,' the first election under the Constitution of Ver- 
 mont, took place, resulting in the choice of Thomas Chittenden as Governor. 
 
 No sooner, however, had Vermont formed a government than she found herself 
 involved in a dispute with New Hampshire. 
 
 The State of New Hampshire originally was composed of sundry gi-ants from 
 the Council of New England (formed of several of the prominent nobihty 
 of Great Britain, to whom, by that name, had been granted "all the land in 
 America between the fortieth and forty-eighth north latitude," called New Eng- 
 land) to John Mason, between 1621 and 1635, bounded by a fine drawn sixty 
 miles from the sea. Between that line and the Connecticut river the lands were 
 Crown grants and annexed to New Hampshire by Crown commissioners. 
 
 On the aforesaid twelfth of March, sixteen towns east of the Connecticut 
 river (and lying, of course, in the above territory) petitioned Vermont to be 
 admitted within her union, on the ground that the above territory having been 
 held by New Hampslure by virtue of Crown commissions, those commissions 
 had been vacated by the assumed independency of the Colonies, and that, there- 
 fore, the inhabitants had, according to Congress, " reverted to a state of nature," 
 and were at Hberty to choose their own government. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 101 
 
 ■with resistance from the American garrison there, abandoned the 
 seige and marched down the valley, burning and destroying. 
 They assaulted the Lower Fort, but being repulsed, continued 
 
 On the eleventh of the following June, the General Assembly of Vermont 
 (after taking the sense of the people) admitted these towns, resolving further, 
 that any other towns east of the Connecticut might be admitted, should a 
 majority of the inhabitants so vote, or should they send a representative to the 
 Vermont Assembly. 
 
 Mesheck Weare, President of the State of New Hampshire, thereupon 
 addressed, on the nineteenth of August succeeding, by order of the Council and 
 Assembly of his State, a letter to the New Hampshire Delegates in Congress, 
 informing them of the action of the ''pretended State of Vermont," relative to 
 the sixteen towns ; and also another letter, on the twenty-second following, to 
 Governor Chittenden, claiming said towns as part of New Hampshire. 
 
 Ethan AUen was, on the receipt of this letter, dispatched by the Governor 
 and Council of Vermont to Philadelphia, to ascertain the feehng of Congress 
 as to the action of the State in the admission of the sixteen towns. Allen, on 
 his return, reported that Congress was so opposed to said action that the recog- 
 nition of Vermont itself as a State would not be made by that body should 
 she persist in retaining the towns. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 21st of October, 1778, the General Assembly of Vermont 
 refused to include the said towns in the county of Cumberland, or erect them 
 into a county by themselves. Finding, by these and other indications, that 
 Vermont was disposed to do nothing further to extend her jurisdiction to the 
 east of the Connecticut river, the members from these sixteen towns, after a 
 protest against the said action of the Assembly, and that they looked upon 
 themselves "as being thereby discharged from any and every former confedera- 
 tion and association with the State," withdrew from the Assembly. They were 
 followed by fifteen representatives from other towns in Vermont, adjoining the 
 Connecticut, together with the Deputy Governor and two of the Council, all 
 of whom had joined in the protest. These seceding members formed them- 
 selves immediately into a Convention, and invited the towns on both sides the 
 Connecticut to unite and meet with them at Cornish, one of the sixteen towns. 
 Accordingly, on the 9th of December following, the Cornish Convention met 
 (eight, towns only of Vermont, however, meeting with them), and in their pro- 
 ceedings disclosed what had been the ulterior intention of the leading men of the 
 sixteen towns in proposing the union with Vermont. This intention was the 
 formation of a government, either by connecting a considerable portion of New 
 Hampshire with Vermont, or by breaking up the government of the latter, and 
 connecting her with New Hampshire, with the seat of government upon the 
 Connecticut river. 
 
 The latter project was upon the ground "that a large number of charters of 
 incorporation of certain tracts of land were formerly issued from then Excel- 
 lencies Benning Wentworth and John Wentworth, Esqs., in the name of the 
 King of Great Britain, lying and being west of the Mason grant, and east of a 
 north hne drawn from the northwest corner of the now State of the Massachu- 
 
102 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 downward, firing the dwellings and outhouses and destroying the 
 fields of those attached to the American cause, until they reached 
 the intersection of the valley with that of the Mohawk, and thence 
 
 setts Bay to Lake Champlain, and from thence to the latitude of forty-five 
 degrees. That in the year 1764, the aforesaid King of Great Britain, in viok- 
 tion of his contract with the grantees, and in an arbitrary manner, passed a 
 decree that there should be a division of the aforesaid grants between the 
 Provinces of New York and New Hampshire, to which decree the inhabitants, of 
 said grants were then, and have ever since been, averse ; as they were thereby 
 deprived of privileges which they, of right, claimed, and in their settlement 
 reasonably expected, within the jurisdiction of New Hampshire." 
 
 Vermont, now awake to the danger of the union with these sixteen tovnos, 
 on the 12th of February, 1779, dissolved the said union. 
 
 In view of the dissensions apparent in Vermont during the agitation of the 
 above matter, New Hampshire, at this juncture, in pursuance of the intention 
 manifested by the Cornish Convention, laid claim (June 25, 1779) to all the terri- 
 tory belonging to her before the Royal decree in 1764, viz., "to the juris- 
 diction of the whole of the New Hampshire Grants, so called, lying west- 
 ward of the Connecticut river," in other words, to the whole of Vermont; 
 referring the disputed matter to Congress; acquiescing, however, should Con- 
 gress "allow the said Grants westward of the river to be a separate State, as 
 now claimed by the inhabitants thereof, by the name of Vermont; " and further- 
 more, that New Hampshire would exercise jurisdiction as far west as the western 
 bank of the Connecticut river, and no further,'' untU the dispute should be 
 settled by Congress. 
 
 At this period also, Massachusetts interposed a revived claim to the southern 
 part of Vermont (decided against her by the British Privy Council in her terri- 
 torial dispute with New Hampshire) viz., all within " a due west Hne from the 
 junction of the two principal branches of the Merrimac." 
 
 The controversy between New York and Vermont began also to assume a 
 most threatening aspect. A MiUtary Association, to resist Vermont, appears at 
 this period to have been formed among the friends to New York, in Cumber- 
 land county, and Governor Chittenden directed Ethan AUen to raise the Ver- 
 mont MiUtia for its suppression. Colonel Patterson, acting in Cumberland 
 county, under a commission from New York, vsrrote to Governor Chnton, May 
 5, 1779, for directions, suggesting that the Albany County Militia should be sent 
 to his assistance. Everything betokened a speedy coUision between the two 
 great parties to the dispute, by mihtary force. 
 
 On the 18th of May, 1779, therefore. Governor Chnton, in behalf of New 
 York, applied to Congress to interpose and settle the difficulty. 
 
 The subject of both the New York and New Hampshire controversies came 
 before Congress on the twenty-ninth succeeding; was referred to a com- 
 mittee of the whole, and on the first of June that body resolved to appoint 
 a committee of five to repair to the New Hampshire Grants " and enquire why 
 they refiase to continue citizens of the respective States which heretofore exer- 
 cised jurisdiction over the said district," and also to "take every prudent measure 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 103 
 
 pursued tlieir course up the latter valley devastating, until they 
 reached Fort Plain. 
 
 On the tidings of the invasion at Albany, Governor Clinton and 
 
 to promote an amicable settlement of all differences and prevent divisions and 
 animosities so prejudicial to the United States." 
 
 The next day Congress appointed Messrs. Ellsworth, Edwards, Witherspoon, 
 Atlee and Boot to be the said committee, with power to any three to act. 
 
 While Congress was engaged on this subject, Ethan Allen, at the head of an 
 armed force, made prisoners of Colonel Patterson and the militia officers who 
 were acting under the authority of New York. 
 
 This was communicated to Congress on the seventh of June, by G-ovemor 
 Clinton. That body resolved that the prisoners '' ought to be immediately 
 liberated." 
 
 Of the above committee appointed by Congress, two only attended, viz., Dr. 
 Witherspoon and Mr. Atlee. 
 
 They repaired to Bennington in June, held conferences with the friends of 
 Vermont and New York, and reported their proceedings July thirteenth to 
 Congress ; from those proceedings, however, it appeared they had not accom- 
 plished the object for whioh they had been sent. 
 
 On the second of October following Grovernor Clinton's application, Congress 
 recommended to New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay to pass 
 laws referring all controversy of jurisdiction over the Grants to that body to 
 be heard and determined by commissioners or judges, to be appointed in the 
 mode prescribed by the ninth article of the Articles of Confederation, specifying 
 the 1st of February, 1780, for that purpose. 
 
 Upon the receipt of this recommendation, the General Assembly of Vermont 
 resolved, on the 21st of October, 1779, that "this State ought to support then- 
 right to independence, at Congress and to the world, in the character of a free 
 and independent State." 
 
 The Assembly also appointed five agents, they, or any three of them, to appear 
 before Congress on the aforesaid first of February, to vindicate the right of Ver- 
 mont to independence and agree upon articles of union with the United States. 
 
 New York, by a law passed October 21st 1779, and New Hampshire, by one 
 passed in November of the same year, acquiesced to submit their respective 
 claims, pursuant to the Federal recommendation. Massachusetts, however, 
 passed no law. Vermont continued to deny the right of Congress to adjudicate 
 upon the question of her independence, and published, on the 10th December, 
 in the above year, "An Appeal to the candid and impartial world," written by 
 Stephen R. Bradley, which declared that the liberties and privileges of the State 
 of Vermont, by said resolutions of Congress, were to be suspended upon the 
 arbitrament and final determination of that body, when in their opinion they 
 were things too sacred ever to be arbitrated upon at aU. 
 
 The subject matter, however, was not taken up by Congress on the 1st of 
 February, 1780, and did not definitely engage their attention until the succeed- 
 ing September. 
 
 Although Vermont denied to Congress the right of adjudication, Governor 
 Chittenden nevertheless commissioned, on the 16th of August, Ira Allen and 
 
104 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 General Eobert Van Eensselaer, leading a large militia force, 
 pressed forward in pursuit of Jolinson, who was overtaken by 
 Van Eensselaer at Klock's Field in Stone Arabia. After a warm 
 
 Stephen R. Bradley as agents to attend the Congressional proceedings at Phila- 
 delphia. The inhabitants of Cumberland county, by a convention of committees, 
 appointed, on the thirtieth of the same month Luke Knoulton agent for the 
 same purpose. The towns in the northern part of the Grants, on both sides of 
 Connecticut river, had already, viz. : on the 1st of January, 1780, appointed two 
 agents, Peter Oloott and Bezaleel Woodward, to attend the proceedings of 
 Congress. 
 
 On the 19th, 20th, and 27th of the above month, of September, 1780, New 
 Tork and New Hampshire stated to Congress their respective claims to the 
 Grants. The decision, however, was on the twenty-seventh postponed. Allen 
 and Bradley had declined to attend after the twentieth, and on the twenty- 
 second had sent to Congress a remonstrance against the whole proceeding, 
 reprobating "every idea of Congress sitting as a Court of Judicature to 
 determine the dispute by virtue of authority given them by the act or acts of 
 the State or States that make but one party," Vermont not having yielded her 
 consent to the adjudication. 
 
 In 1780, a project was commenced by Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick 
 Haldimand, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, and the govern- 
 ment of Great Britain, to place Vermont as a separate Government under the 
 British Crown. It was first broached by Colonel Beverley Robinson, in a letter 
 dated New York, March thirtieth, in the above year, to Ethan AUen. Tempta- 
 tions were subsequently held out to Governor Chittenden, the said AUen, Ira 
 Allen, Jonas Pay, John Passett and others to enter into the project. A diplo- 
 matic correspondence was carried on between Haldimand, Great Britain and 
 the above named persons, which displayed the most marked abUity on the 
 part of the last. By their skill in evading a positive determination of the 
 question, the matter was continued unto, the peace of 1783 rendered the pro-- 
 ject hopeless. "Whether the above named people of Vermont, stung by their 
 supposed -wrongs relative to the controversy, had entered into a really treason- 
 able project, or were endeavoring i to use Great Britain to the advantage of Ver- 
 mont, in the avoidance, during its agitation, of all hostilities of the enemy 
 against her, single-handed as she had been made by her unfortunate circum- 
 stances, has not been definitely ascertained. The better opinion, however, is to 
 the latter. 
 
 In the meanwhile, Vermont, adopting the poUoy of New Hampshire and 
 New Tork against her, extended a claim over a large part of the territories 
 belonging to the two. She initiated measures on the 14th of Pebruary, 1781, 
 whereby, on the fifth of April succeeding, a union of the grants east and west 
 of the Connecticut river was consummated between her and the Cornish Con- 
 vention, representing the several towns east of the Connecticut. 
 
 By this arrangement, thirty-four towns in New Hampshire, of which num- 
 ber, twelve had been included in the union of 1778, were annexed to Vermont. 
 
 At a session of the General Assembly in April, thirty-five representatives 
 from the grants east of the Connecticut were received by Vermont as members. 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 105 
 
 contest Johnson was defeated, but escaped with his force by way 
 of Oswego into Canada. 
 
 Subsequently, in the same year, learning that a marauding 
 
 Directly after the consummation of this Eastern Union, the attention of Ver- 
 mont was directed to perfecting one at the west, embracing a portion of New 
 Torli This was effected, on the sixteenth of the following May, by the Cam- 
 bridge Convention (in which twelve districts, within the jurisdiction of New 
 York, were represented) and a committee of the Vermont Assembly (the 
 arrangement sanctioned by the Assembly, Jmie sixteenth) whereby a territory 
 north of a line extended from the north boundary of Massachusetts west to 
 Hudson river, and between that river and the west hne of Vermont, was an- 
 nexed to the latter. 
 
 On the twenty-second of the same mouth, Vermont sent agents to Congress 
 to negotiate her admission into the Union. Congress, on the twentieth August, 
 prescribed, as a prehminary, the former's rehnquishment of the territory acquired 
 by the union of April and May. Although Vermont refused at first to comply, 
 she at ifength, on the 22d February, 1782, acquiesced in the condition, resolv- 
 ing that " the west bank of Connecticut river and a line beginning at the north- 
 west corner of the Massachusetts State, thence northward twenty miles east of 
 Hudson's river," to her western limits before the Cambridge Union, should be 
 considered as the east and west boundaries of the State. Congress nevertheless, 
 on the matter coming before them on the 17th April, 1782, again postponed it, 
 in effect indefinitely. 
 
 Several years then passed with notliing done in the premises. It was not 
 untU 1789 that the controversy assumed an aspect of drawing to a close. 
 
 On the fourteenth July of that year, the Legislature of New Tork passed an 
 act appointing certain commissioners to declare the consent of the State " that 
 such district or territory within the jurisdiction, and in the northeastern and 
 northern parts thereof, as the said commissioners should judge most convenient, 
 should be formed and erected into a new- State." It was provided, however, 
 that nothing in the said act should be construed "to give any person claiming 
 lands in such district, so to be erected into an independent State, any right to 
 any compensation whatsoever from tliis State." 
 
 Vermont, on her part, on the twenty-third October following, appointed Isaac 
 Tichenor, Stephen E. Bradley, Nathaniel Chipman, BHjah Paine, Ira Allen, 
 Stephen Jacob and Israel Smith commissioners to meet with those of New 
 Tork relative to the settlement of the controversy. 
 
 To supply certain omissions in the act of July fourteenth, the Legislature of 
 New York on the 6th of March, 1790, passed another act repeaUng the former 
 and appointing Robert Yates, Robert R. Livingston, John Lansing, Jr., G-uhan 
 Verplanck Simeon De Witt, Egbert Benson, Richard Sih and Melancton Smith 
 commissioners. The only point of difficulty, at the assembhng of the commis- 
 sioners of the two States, related to compensation for the lands claimed by the 
 New York grantees and wjiich had been regranted by Vermont. After two or 
 three meetings, however, the New York commissioners on the 7th of October, 
 1790, declared the consent of their State for the admission of Vermont into the 
 Union, and that immediately upon such admission all claims of jurisdiction of 
 14 
 
106 The Coukcil of Eevision. 
 
 party had debarked at Crown Point, on Lake Champlain, for 
 another incursion into the Mohawk valley, Governor Clinton 
 marched with a strong force to the former place to cut off the 
 retreat of the invaders, who escaped only by an Indian stratagem. 
 
 In 1780, Mr. Clinton was reelected Governor of the State, and 
 again in 1783; both times without opposition. 
 
 On the twenty-fifth of November, in the latter year, he entered 
 the city of New York on its evacuation by the British, side by 
 side with Washington, heading a civic and military procession. 
 
 Shortly after the evacuation, a British officer, who had been 
 seized by the Whigs of the city, was about to be tarred and feath- 
 
 the State of New York within tlie State of Vermont should cease, and hence- 
 forth the perpetual boundary line between the two should be the west lines of 
 the most western towns which had been granted by New Hampshire, and the 
 middle channel of Lake Champlain. 
 
 It was agreed, also, on the part of New York, that if the Legislature of Ver- 
 mont should declare, on or befbre the 1st of January, 1792, that on or before the 
 1st of June, 1794, Vermont should pay |30,000 to New York, that immediately 
 from such declaration all rights and titles within the State of Vermont, under 
 grants from New York, should cease, those excepted wliich had been made to 
 confirm the grants of New Hampshire. 
 
 On the 28th of October, 1790, the Legislature of Vermont directed the said 
 sum of ^30,000 to be paid New York at the time proposed, adopting as the 
 perpetual boundary between the two States, the western lines and the middle of 
 Champlain, and declaring aU the New York grants void, except the confirma- 
 tory grants aforesaid. 
 
 Thus terminated this famous controversy, after a stormy existence of twenty- 
 six years, (as dated from 1764) during which the territory in dispute had been 
 overlaid with conflicting grants under New York and Vermont, and on both 
 sides great hostility of feeling excited, and deeds of violence perpetrated. 
 
 On the 6th of January, 1791, the Vermont Convention, to take into con- 
 sideration the expediency of entering the Union, assembled at Bennington. On 
 the tenth they ratified the federal Constitution, and on the eighteenth February 
 following, Congress resolved "that on the 4th day of March, 1791, the said 
 State, by the name and style of 'the State of Vermont,' should be received and 
 admitted into this Union as a new and entire member of the United States of 
 America." 
 
 On the 6th of April, 1795, the New York Legislature appointed Robert Yates, 
 John Lansing, Jr., and Abraham Van Vechten Commissioners to decide the claims 
 of the New York grantees to the lands situated in, and ceded by New York to 
 Vermont and determine the amount each claimant should receive of the $30,000. 
 
 The sum was divided among seventy-six claimants; and on tae 23d of April, 
 1799, the commissioners reported their proceedings to the Legislature of New 
 York. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 107 
 
 ered, after having been placed in a cart for that purpose. Gov- 
 ernor Clinton came to the rescue with his sword, and at the hazard 
 of his life saved the victim. 
 
 In 1784, Mr. Cliaton became a member of the Board of Eegents 
 of the University, by virtue of his of&ce as Governor.' 
 
 In 1786, he was again elected Governor without opposition. 
 
 In the early part of 1787, a number of the Insurgents partici- 
 pating in Shay's rebellion of that and the preceding year having, 
 after the dispersion of the main force by General Lincoln in 
 Massachusetts, concentrated at Lebanon, New York, for further 
 hostilities. Governor Chnton, though not invested with specific 
 power, called out the militia of the State and dispersed them. 
 
 On the 17th of July, 1787, he was appointed the first Chan- 
 cellor of the second Board of Eegents, of which he was also, ex- 
 officio, a member. 
 
 ' The first Board of Eegents of the University was created by an act made 
 by the Legislature, pursuant to a recommendation of Governor CUnton in his 
 message on the 1st of May, 1784, granting additional powers to King's (then 
 changed to Columbia) College in the city of New York. The Board consisted of 
 twenty-four members, with the addition of the Governor and Lieutenant-Gover- 
 nor of the State, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Mayors of New York and 
 Albany, the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General,' by virtue of their 
 ofSces. One clergyman was also to be chosen to the Board by each rehgious 
 denomination in the State. No such appointments, however, it is supposed, 
 were ever made. 
 
 On the twelfth of November following, by an act passed on that day, thirty- 
 three additional Regents were appointed. 
 
 The above acts proving defective, on the 13th of April, 1787, through the 
 exertions of Alexander Hamilton, James Duane, Ezra L'Hommedieu and others, 
 the Legislature of New York passed an act creating the present Board of 
 Regents to consist of twenty-one members, including, ex-officio, the Governor 
 and Lieutenant-Governor. On the 8th of April, 1842, the Secretary of State, 
 by virtue of his office, was added. The State Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
 tion was flxrther added, by an act of the Legislature passed on the 30th of March, 
 1854. The Board now therefore consists of twenty-three members. Its officers 
 are a Chancellor, a, Vice-ChanceUor and a Secretary. It has seven standing 
 committees elected by the Board yearly, viz., on the Incorporation of Colleges 
 and Academies, State Library, Appropriations for purchase of Books and Appa- 
 ratus, Cabinet of Natural History, System of Meteorological Observations, Instruc- 
 tion of Common School Teachers, and Annual Report and Distribution of Lite- 
 rature and United States. Deposit Funds. The Regents receive no salary or 
 other compensation for their services, neither are their travel fees or other 
 expenses paid. The Secretary receives a salary. 
 
108 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In April, 1788, a desperate riot broke out in the city of New 
 York known as tlie "Doctors' Mob" occasioned bj violations of 
 the grave by persons of the medical profession. 
 
 For two days Governor Clinton went among the mob to restore 
 quiet, but being unsuccessful he at last called out the militia and 
 ended it. 
 
 In 1788, he was president of the State Convention which, 
 assembling (agreeably to a resolution of the Legislature passed 
 February first in that year) at Poughkeepsie June seventeenth 
 and ending July twenty-sixth, ratified the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 In 1789, he was once more elected to the Governorship over 
 the first opponent for the of&ce he had ever encountered, viz., 
 Eobert Yates. 
 
 In accordance with Governor Clinton's recommendations, lands 
 in that year were by legislative acts set apart in the new town- 
 ships and other places for the promotion of Literature and the 
 support of Common Schools. 
 
 In his annual address, on the 5th of January, 1791, he recom- 
 mended the organization of a society for the promotion of agricul- 
 ture, arts and manufactures, and an act was passed accordingly. 
 Pursuant to his recommendation an act was also passed "concern- 
 ing roads and inland navigation," directing the Commissioners of 
 the Land Office to cause the lands between the Mohawk river and 
 "Wood creek, in Herkimer county, and between the Hudson river 
 and Wood creek, in Washington county, to be explored, and 
 estimates made of the probable expense of constructing canals 
 between these points. 
 
 In the winter of 1792, the Legislature, on receiving the report 
 of the above commissioners communicating the practicability of 
 the object, and a strong appeal from Governor Clinton on its im- 
 portance, passed acts creating the northern and western Inland 
 Lock Navigation Companies ; the germs of our system of Intemal> 
 Improvements. 
 
 In 1792 Mr. Cliaton was again made Governor, his opponent 
 being John Jay.' 
 
 ' At this election nearly seventeen thousand votes vrere cast, of which Mr 
 Jay received the majority. Six Senators and six Assemblymen, chosen by their 
 
Biographical Sketches. 109 
 
 His administration during tMs period of office was not specially 
 marked by any event except a controversy between liim and tbe 
 Council of Appointment relative to tbe power of nomination to 
 office; he, as Governor, claiming tlie exclusive riglit of suck nomi- 
 nation.' 
 
 respective houses, composed the oanVassing committee. Objections were made, 
 on their assembling, to the votes of Otsego, Tioga and CKnton counties being 
 received, on account of alleged informalities. Eufus King and Aaron Burr, the 
 two United States Senators from this State, were selected as referees on the 
 subject, but they did not concur in opinion. The majority of the canvassers 
 then decided to reject the above votes, and Mr. CUnton received the certificate 
 of election, being declared elected by a majority of one hundred and eight. 
 
 It was subsequently ascertained that illegal votes had been cast for Mr. Jay in 
 Otsego county, and that high official personages there had, by use of their 
 authority, as well as by threats and intimidations (unknown however to Mr. 
 Jay), induced individuals who would have supported Mr. Ohnton to vote for 
 his antagonist. 
 
 ' The Council of Appointment was created by section twenty-third of the 
 Constitution of 1777. The Assembly, once in each year, openly nominated and 
 ■ appointed a Senator from each of the four districts (southern, middle, eastern 
 and western) to form the Council. The Grovernor Lieutenant-Grovernor or 
 President of the Senate (when they respectively administered the Grovernment) 
 was the President of the Council, having a casting voice, but no other vote, and 
 with the advice and consent of the Council, appointed aU of&cers other than 
 those who, by the Constitution, were directed to be otherwise appointed. A 
 majority of the Council formed a quorum, and th^ Senators were not ehgible to 
 the said Council for two years successively. , 
 
 The Council for attendance during the recess of the Legislature were entitled 
 to the Hke allowance per day and for traveling as was allowed to members 
 of the Legislature. They also had a messenger and doorkeeper, paid by the 
 State, and the Secretary of State for the time being was, ex-ofScio, clerk 
 of the Council, exercising his office in person, or by his sworn deputy. 
 
 On all nominations or appointment to office within the State by the Council, 
 the order or orders of the same thereupon were directed to be entered on the 
 minutes of their proceedings, which were declared pubUo records of the State, 
 and to be subscribed by such majority of the Council as should agree to each 
 respective order ; whereupon the clerk of the said Council was directed forth- 
 with to cause commissions to be made out agreeably to such orders and dehvered 
 to the Grovernor to be sealed. 
 
 Doubts were entertained at first as to the length of each member's tenure of 
 office, but at length it became established th*t the members of the Council held 
 their office for a full year from the date of their appointment, although their 
 duties as Senators had expired within the year. 
 
 Their meetings were held from time to time, the Governor possessing the sole 
 power of convening the Council. 
 
110 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 On the 22d of January, 1795, Mr. Clinton, in an address to 
 the freeholders of the State, declined being a candidate for the 
 GoTernorship at the ensuing election, stating that for nearly thirty 
 
 Up to 1794, the G-ovemor exercised the sole power of nomination, although 
 doubts had arisen previously as to this power, but on the twenty-ninth of January 
 in the above year, the Council, claiming ■ concurrent powpr, nominated (the 
 Governor, George Clinton, declining to do so) Egbert Benson as a puisne 
 Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, and by a majority of three appointed 
 him. Governor Clinton formally protested against the proceeding, insisting on 
 his sole right as Governor to nominate, but took no further action in the premises. 
 
 The succeeding Governor (John Jay) submitted the question as to the right 
 of nomination to the Legislature, in his first address on the 6th of January, 
 1796, but that body did not act upon the subject. On the 24th of February, 
 1801, on the nomination, by Governor Jay, of a number of persons as sheriffs 
 of several counties in the State, the Council openly arrayed themselves against 
 the right of sole nomination by the Governor. They negatived several of his 
 nominations, and at length, on the nomination of John Nicholson, by the Gover- 
 nor, as sheriff of Orange county, the members of the Council (except one) 
 explicitly refused to vote, and one of the members proceeding to nominate 
 another person for the ofSoe, the CouncU was adjom-ned. On the twenty-sixth, 
 the Governor addressed a special message to the Legislature, narrating the cir- ' 
 cumstances and referring to it the settlement of the question. A report on 
 behalf of the Council, signed by Robert Roseboom, Ambrose Spencer and De 
 Witt CKnton, was, on the seventeenth of the following month, submitted to the 
 Assembly.* Although the Senate, on the seventh preceding, had passed a resolu- 
 tion that a joint committee of both houses be appointed to consider the question 
 of the Governor's right to exclusive nomination in the CouncU, no definitive 
 action w&s taken by the Legislature. That body, however, on the sixth of 
 AprU following, passed a law caUing a Convention, having for its specific object, 
 in addition to that of altering the Constitution respecting the number of Sena- 
 tors and Members of Assembly, with power to reduce and limit the same, to 
 determine the relative powers of the Governor and Council of Appointment in 
 originating nominations for office. 
 
 The Convention assembled in 1801 (October 13th) and declared the Council 
 to have equal powers of nomination with the Governor. 
 
 The patronage of tliis Council was enormous. AH military, civil and judicial 
 officers (except those specially excepted by the Constitution) were appointed 
 by it, and at its abohshment, eight thousand two hundred and eighty-seven 
 military, and six thousand six hundred and sixty-three civil officers held their 
 commissions from it, and in most instances at will.t 
 
 At first the Council entertained charges against their appointees in presence 
 of the accused, with reference to the truth of the charges, but at length its pro- 
 ceedings became summary. 
 
 * Assembly Journal New York for 1800, 1801, pp. 122, 123 and 198-201. 
 t Hough's Civil List. 
 
BioaRAPHicAL Sketches. Ill 
 
 years successively he had held elective offices, and that he desired 
 now a retirement from public life. 
 
 In 1800 he was a member of the Assembly (twenty-fourth ses- 
 sion) from the city and county of New York. 
 
 In the spring of 1801 he was elected Governor for the last time, 
 over Stephen Van Eensselaer. 
 
 On the 15th of February, 1802, he was reappointed Chancellor 
 of the Regents of the University. 
 
 On the 15th of February, 1805, he was elected Vice-President 
 of the United States. 
 
 In 1808 he was reelected to the same office, and while in that 
 office, on the 20th of April, 1812, he died at Washington, aged 
 seventy -three years. 
 
 Mr. Clinton was prepossessing in his appearance ; his stature 
 moderate but "massive. His demeanor was dignified, and his 
 countenance indicative of courage,, decision and energy. He pos- 
 sessed frankness and amiability in private life ; was kind and 
 affectionate in his personal relations, warm in his friendship and 
 decided in his enmity. His patriotism was undoubted, and from 
 first to last he was trusted by Washington. His boldness and 
 decision of character are illustrated in the events of his life, and 
 by none more than by the necessary exercise of his authority in 
 the impressment of a large quantity of flour at a period when 
 Washington's army was on the eve of dissolution, and was thereby 
 saved.' 
 
 Mr. Clinton married Cornelia Tappen, daughter of Christopher 
 Tappen, of Kingston, Ulster county, New York, by whom he had 
 one son and five daughters. 
 
 The Council was at last abolished by the Convention of 1821, without a dis- 
 senting voice, it having existed about forty-four years. 
 
 Its journals are contained in fourteen MSS. volumes, deposited in the Secre- 
 tary of State's office, civil and miUtary offices being entered, after 1798, in 
 separate volumes. 
 
 ' Life of Clinton, by Jenkins. 
 
112 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 JOHF JAY, 
 
 SON OF PETER JAY, 
 
 Was born in the city of New York, on the 12th of December, 
 1745. 
 
 In 1760 he entered Klings College," and graduated thence on the 
 15th May, 1764, when he delivered the Latin salutatory, the high- 
 est collegiate honor." 
 
 About the first of the following June, he entered the law of&ce 
 of Benjamin Kissam, in the above city ; was admitted to the 
 bar in 1768, and became a partner of Eobert K. Livingston, after- 
 ward Chancellor of the State. About this latter period, Mr. Jay 
 was secretary of the commissioners to settle the disputed boundary 
 line between the Colonies of New York and Nova Caesarea or New 
 Jersey.' 
 
 In 1774 he was one of a committee of fifty, called the Commit- 
 tee of Correspondence, appointed by a meeting of citizens held in 
 the city of New York, on the 16th May, of that year, on intelli- 
 gence of the act (known as the Boston Port Bill) shutting up the 
 harbor of Boston and removing the seat of government to Salem, 
 having passed the British Parliament. The committee was chosen 
 to correspond with the sister Colonies, and Mr. Jay prepared the 
 draft of a letter (answering one from the Boston committee), in 
 which was the first suggestion of a general congress from the Colo- 
 nies. On the following twenty-eighth of July, he was apppointed 
 a Delegate from New York to the first Continental Congress, and 
 on the fifth of the next September joined that body. 
 
 ' Incorporated October 1st, 1754. The first stone of the building was laid by 
 the then G-overnor under the Crown, Sir Charles Hardy, August 23d, 1756. On 
 the 1st of May, 1V84, the name was changed to Columbia College. 
 
 " Life of John Jay, by his son, William Jay, vol. 1, 15. Dunlap, however, in 
 his history of New York (vol. 2 Appendix, 191) states that Richard Harrison 
 delivered the Salutatory, and John Jay a dissertation on the Blessings of Peace. 
 
 ^ These Commissioners were appointed by George III in 1767. The hne was 
 determined by them October 7th, 1769, and confirmed February 16th, 1771. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 113 
 
 On tlie foUowing day Congress appointed a committee to state 
 the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which 
 those rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper 
 to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them. 
 
 Mr. Jay was made a member of this committee, and on the 
 eleventh of October, of a committee to draft a memorial to the 
 people of British America, and an address to the people of 
 Great Britain. Mr. Jay (the yoxmgest member of the House, 
 as is supposed) was elected by the committee, consisting, besides 
 himself, of Eichard Henry Lee and Mr. Livingston, to prepare the 
 address. He withdrew from his regular lodgings into the private 
 room of a tavern, and there drew up that masterly effort which 
 Thomas Jefferson, while stiU in ignorance as to the author, has 
 characterized as proceeding from "the finest pen in America.'" 
 It was reported to the House on the nineteenth, and on the 
 twenty-first, after a few immaterial amendments, was adopted.' 
 
 After a session of about six weeks, this important body (num- 
 bering among its members, besides Mr. Jay, George "Washington, 
 Patrick Henry and Eoger Sherman) finally adjourned, after 
 recommending that another Congress be held at Philadelphia on 
 the tenth of May following, imless a redress of grievances should 
 in the meanwhile be obtained. 
 
 On his return to the city of New York, Mr. Jay was, on the 
 eighteenth of November, elected by the citizens upon a Conmiittee 
 of Observation, composed of sixty members. This committee had 
 been recommended by the New York Committee of Correspond- 
 ence (which thereupon dissolved), in pursuance of a recommenda- 
 tion by Congress for the appointment of town and county com- 
 mittees to carry into effect its agreement to the non-importation 
 and non-consumption of British goods, one of the results of which 
 was the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor. 
 
 The Committee of Observation recommended a Provincial Con- 
 vention, of deputies from all the counties of the Province, which 
 accordingly assembled on the 20th of April, 1775. Mr. Jay was 
 a deputy from the city of New York to this Convention, and was 
 chosen by it a delegate to the second Congress. 
 
 ' Jefferson's Works, vol. 1, 8. 
 
 « Journal of Congress, 1774, pp. 23, 57, 78. 
 
 15 
 
114 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Tlie above cominittee, proving too limited ia its powers for the 
 exigencies of tiie times, suggested the election of a larger committee 
 clothed -with general powers, and also (to the exertion of an 
 authority recognized and respected throughout the Colony, any 
 committee, however extended in its powers, being at the best 
 local) a Provincial Congress of deputies from every county. Both 
 suggestions were adopted. On the twenty -eighth of Aprila "Com- 
 mittee of Association" of one hundred members were appointed 
 by the citizens of New York, with undefined powers. Mr. Jay 
 was chosen one of the committee. Two of its objects were, to pro- 
 vide for the safety of the city and to enforce the measures pro- 
 posed by Congress to obstruct the commerce of the mother country 
 with her Colonies. 
 
 On the fifth of May a letter was issued by the committee to 
 the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, praying their . 
 interposition and aid for the redress of the wrongs of the Colonies, 
 and declaring "that Americans will not be deceived by concilia- 
 tory assurances while it is evident that the ministers were aiming 
 at a solid revenue to be raised by acts of ParUament; " and further, 
 that "the minions of power in New York may inform the admi- 
 nistration that this city (of New York) was as one man in the 
 cause of liberty." Mr. Jay's name was signed (next to the chair- 
 man's Mr. Low) to this letter. 
 
 Previous to this letter (the Provincial Congress not having yet 
 assembled), the above committee had called on the citizens to arm 
 themselves, and ordered the militia to patrol the streets at night, 
 to prevent provisions from being exported. 
 
 On the tenth of May, the General Congress assembled at Phila- 
 delphia. A redress of grievances had only previously been con- 
 templated, but now (hostilities having been commenced at Lex- 
 ington and Concord) the question of separation was seriously 
 considered. Congress ordered an army to be raised, and subse- 
 quently during the session established rules and regulations for a 
 navy. An address to the people of Canada, written by Mr. Jay, 
 was adopted, and he was placed upon a committee which, on the 
 sixth of July, published a declaration "setting forth the causes 
 and necessity" of the Colonies taking up arms. On his motion a 
 committee was appointed which reported a second petition to the 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 115 
 
 King (written by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania), and which, on 
 the eighth. Congress individually signed. During the session a 
 second address to the people of Great Britain was adopted, as well 
 as an address to fellow-subjects of Jamaica and Ireland. Mr. Jay 
 was the author of the latter address. 
 
 EeconcUiation with Great Britain now appeared hopeless, and 
 Congress initiated more active measures. The city of New York 
 being much exposed to attack, Congress recommended that the 
 militia there should be discipliaed and held liable to active service 
 at any moment. The New York Provincial Congress followed 
 the recommendation. It tendered, in November, 1775, a commis- 
 sion of Colonel of the second regiment of militia of foot of the 
 city to Mr. Jay, which he accepted. He did not, however, join his 
 regiment, as his presence was required in Congress. 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of the above named month. Congress ap- 
 pointed him on the Committee of Secret Correspondence, to corres- 
 pond "with the friends in America, in Great Britain, Ireland and 
 other parts of the world." 
 
 The Colony of New York, swarming with loyalists, particularly 
 on Long Island, was regarded by Congress with great anxiety. 
 Queens county had not only refused to be represented in the Pro- 
 vincial Congress, but had declared itself neutral. A committee 
 was accordingly appointed, upon which Mr. Jay was placed, to 
 take into consideration the state of the Colony. A report was 
 made, exhibiting distinctive indications of his authorship, and 
 recommending that the loyahsts of Queens county "should not be 
 permitted to travel or abide beyond the hmits of the county; " also, 
 that twelve hundred men from New Jersey and Connecticut should 
 be marched there and disarm those disaffected to the American 
 cause, and arrest individuals specified. The report was. accompa- 
 nied by resolutions, both of which were adopted by Congress. 
 
 Mr. Jay was hkewise ajipointed on a committee for preparing a 
 declaration to explain the reasons justifying the letting loose of 
 privateers upon British commerce, that being a most assailable 
 point of the enemy. This declaration was adopted by Congress 
 March 23d, 1776. 
 
 In the following April, while stiU in Congress, Mr. Jay was 
 elected to the third New York Provincial Congress. 
 
116 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 He left the Congress at Philadelpliia, and on the twenty-fifth of 
 May, joined the Provincial Congress at the city of New York; 
 where, on the fourteenth preceding, it had convened. 
 
 The General Congress had, four days previous to the fourteenth, 
 recommended to the Assemblies and Conventions of the United 
 Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their 
 affairs had been hitherto established, to adopt one that best con- 
 duced to the happiness and safety of such Colonies. 
 
 On the thirty -first of May, a committee, of which Mr. Jay was 
 a member, reported in the Provincial Congress resolutions that 
 the electors of the several counties in the Colony authorize either 
 the present deputies or deputies to a new Congress, to establish 
 a State Government; they were adopted, and the ninth of July 
 selected for a new Congress to assemble. 
 
 Meanwhile, the present Provincial Congress continued in ses- 
 sion. On the twenty-ninth of June, Lord Howe appeared with 
 his forces off the harbor of New York. The Congress, apprehen- 
 sive the city would be attacked, directed that all the lead from the 
 windows and leaden weights (except the small weights used in 
 trade) of the city be taken for use by the troops; and on the 
 thirtieth, after ordering that the lead, powder and other military 
 stores of the State be removed from the city of New York to 
 "White Plains^ Westchester county, adjourned. 
 
 On the ninth of July, the new Provincial Congress was con- 
 vened at White Plains. To it, also, Mr. Jay had been appointed 
 a delegate. The same day this body assembled, the Declaration 
 of Independence of the second Continental Congress (inclosed in 
 a letter from the New York Delegates) was received and read. 
 Mr. Jay was appointed chairman of a committee upon the subject, 
 and reported on that day resolutions (unanimously adopted), the 
 first of which was, "That the reasons assigned by the Continental 
 Congress for declaring the United Colonies free and independent 
 States are cogent and conclusive; and that, while we lament the 
 cruel necessity which has rendered that measure unavoidable, we 
 approve the same, and will, at the risk of our lives and fortunes, 
 join with the other Colonies in supporting it.'" 
 
 ' Journal Provincial Convention, 1, 520. 
 
BioGEAPHioAii Sketches. 117 
 
 On the following day the Provincial Congress changed its name 
 to the " Convention of Eepresentatives of the State of New York." 
 
 The next effort of Mr. Jay shows his opposition to the encroach- 
 ment of power, in whatever shape it appeared. The General 
 Congress having passed a resolution for a regiment to be raised in 
 the State of ISTew York, the New York Convention referred the 
 matter to a committee to arrange for the providing of ofB.cers who 
 had served in Canada. Congress, however, itself nominated the 
 ofS.cers, and, explained its reason for so doing to the Convention. 
 The latter's answer to the former's communication, and dated the 
 eleventh July, was written by Mr. Jay. In it he freely criticised 
 and took ground agaiast the action of that body, remarking in the 
 course of the answer, "We are extremely sorry to inform the 
 Congress that the good of the service will not be promoted, nor 
 the danger of delay prevented by the measures which they have 
 taken." ' 
 
 On the sixteenth July, Mr. Jay was associated with Eobert Yates, 
 Christopher Tappen, Eobert E. Livingston, Gilbert Livingston and 
 William Paulding, on a secret committee for obstructing the chan- 
 nel of the Hudson river, or annoying the vessels belonging to Lord 
 Howe's fleet in their navigation up the said xiver. Mr. Jay was 
 clothed with authority to "impress carriages, teams, sloops and 
 horses, and call out detachments of mUitia" in the execution 
 of his duties upon the committee. Twenty cannon were, by his 
 exertions, transported from Salisbury, Connecticut, to West Point, 
 he repairing to the former place for that purpose. 
 
 On the same day (the 16th) he introduced a resolution into the 
 Convention to punish with death, as guilty of high treason, all 
 persons, members af or owing allegiance to this State, who should 
 levy war within the same, or adhere to the cause of the King. 
 
 On the first of August he was appointed chairman of a com- 
 mittee of twelve, consisting, beside himself, of John Sloss Hobart, 
 William Smith, WiUiam Duer, Gouverneur Morris, Eobert E. 
 Livingston, John Broome, John Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, 
 Henry Wisner Sr., Samuel Townshend, Charles De Witt and 
 Eobert Yates, to "take into consideration and report a plan for 
 
 ' Journal Provincial Congress, 1, 205. 
 
118 The Coukcil of Eevision. 
 
 instituting and framing a form of government," and also "to pre» 
 pare and report at the same time, a bill of rights, ascertaining and 
 declaring the essential rights and privileges of the good people of 
 this State, as the foundation for such form of government." ' 
 
 The Convention, on the twenty-ninth following, adjourned to 
 Harlem; thence on the fifth September to FishkiU, the members 
 supplying themselves with arms and ammunition, to repel any 
 attack of the British upon them during their deliberations. On 
 the 19th February, 1777, they adjourned to Kingston, where they 
 remained until their dissolution, May 13th, 1777. 
 
 On the 5th of September, 1776, (a few days before Lord Howe 
 entered, with his troops, the city of New York) the Convention, by 
 resolution, authorized General Washington to cause all the bells 
 iu the churches and public edifices of the city to be transported to 
 Newark (New Jersey), to be converted into cannon. 
 
 On the twenty-first of September following, Mr. Jay was placed 
 by the Convention on a committee (William Duer, Charles De Witt, 
 Leonard Gansevoort, Zephaniah Piatt and Nathaniel Sackett beiag 
 associated thereon) for inquiring into, detecting and defeating all 
 conspiracies which might be formed in this State agaiost the 
 liberties of America. 
 
 This committee were empowered to send for persons and papers ; 
 to call out such detachments of the militia or troops ia the differ- 
 ent counties as they ndght from time to time deem necessary for 
 suppressiag insurrection; to apprehend, secure or remove such 
 persons as they should judge dangerous to the safety of the State; 
 to make drafts on the treasury for a sum not exceeding five hun- 
 dred pounds; to raise, if necessary, ofiicer and put under pay any 
 number of men not exceeding two hundred and twenty, officers 
 included, station them at such places and employ them in such 
 services as they should judge expedient for the public safety; and 
 to enjoin secrecy upon their own members, and the persons em- 
 ployed by the committee whenever they should judge the same 
 necessary ; in general, to do every act and thing whatsoever which 
 might be necessary to enable them to execute the trust reposed 
 in them." 
 
 ' Journal New York Provincial Convention, 1, 552. 
 " Journal Provincial Convention, 1, 638, 639. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 119 
 
 Of this committee, clothed with such enormous powers, Mr. 
 Jay acted as the chairman, and drew a preamble and resolutions 
 relative to those inhabitants of the State professing to owe allegi- 
 ance to the King, and refusing to join their countrymen, and ask- 
 ing that the said committee be empowered to disfranchise and 
 punish them by transportation into the British lines, "that they 
 who ignominiously prefer servitude to freedom, may, by becom- 
 ing vassals and slaves to the King and Parliament, deter others 
 from the like shameful and dishonorable conduct." " 
 
 On the twenty-eighth of September, Mr. Jay was placed upon 
 the committee, appointed by the Convention, relative to the New 
 Hampshire Grants, particularly Cumberland county, receding from 
 New York. 
 
 The aspect of American affairs was now threatening. British 
 troops occupied the city of New York, Staten and Long Islands; 
 their vessels commanded Long Island sound and a portion of the 
 Hudson. Westchester county had been evacuated by the Ameri- 
 can army ; the northern campaign against Canada had failed ; and 
 Washington, with only three thousand strong, almost without, 
 clothing, was making his New Jersey retreat before overwhelm- 
 ing force. 
 
 In such a crisis, Mr. Jay drew the address of the Convention 
 (signed by A. Ten Broeck, as its President, and adopted December 
 23d, 1776) to the inhabitants of New York, inciting them to bold- 
 ness in the defense and vindication of their rights and liberties 
 against the enemy. 
 
 On the 12th of March, 1777, the committee appointed, on the 
 1st August, 1776, to form a plan of government, reported the 
 instrument known as the first Constitution of the State of New 
 York. It was adopted by the Convention on the twentieth of the 
 following April. It was prepared by Mr. Jay. A few days pre- 
 vioiis to its adoption he was summoned to FishkUl to attend his 
 dying mother, and was not present on its final action. He regret- 
 ted the hurry of its conclusion, objected to the additions made 
 during his absence, and complained of the omissions, among them a 
 direction for every of&cer of the government to swear allegiance 
 to it, renouncing all allegiance to foreign powers, ecclesiastical as 
 
 ' Life and Correspondence of John Jay, by Wm. Jay, 1, p. 49, 50. 
 
120 The Council of Eevision, 
 
 well as civil, and a clause against the continuance of domestic 
 slavery.' 
 
 On the 15th April, 1777, Mr. Jay was one of a committee of 
 three of the Convention (viz., Messrs. Gouvemeur Morris, Jay and 
 John Sloss Hobart) to devise the iirst great seal of the State." 
 
 The seal was adopted by act of March 16, 1778, and continued 
 until, by act of January 26, 1798, a new one was prepared. 
 
 On the twentieth of April, immediately after the adoption of 
 the State Constitution by the Convention, Mr. Jay was appointed 
 one of a committee of six (viz., EobertE. Livingston, John Morin 
 Scott, Gouvemeur Morris, Abraham Yates, Mr. Jay and John 
 Sloss Hobart), "to prepare and report a plan for organizing and 
 establishing the Government agreed to by the Convention." 
 
 The plan prepared by the Committee was adopted by the Con- 
 vention May 8th, 1777. It provided for "a Council of Safety 
 invested with all the powers necessary for the safety and preser- 
 vation of the State, until a meeting of the Legislature," to carry the 
 Constitution of the State into effect;' and also for the appoLatment 
 'of certain officers to administer the affairs of the said State imder 
 the direction of the Council during the interim. Mr. Jay was 
 
 ' Life of Jay, by Jay, 1, 69. Allen's American Biographical Dictionary (Life 
 of Jay). 
 
 " The following is a description of this seal: A rising sun; motto, Bxcelsiob; 
 legend, The Geeat Seal or the State op New York. On the reverse, a 
 rock in the ocean; legend, Frustea." 
 
 There have been two other great seals of the State. The second one is de- 
 scribed as follows : " The arms of the State complete, with supporters, crest and 
 motto; around the same The G-keat Seal of the State of New York. On 
 the reverse, a rook, and waves beating against it; motto, Feustra, above; 1798, 
 below." 
 
 The date of the third and present one is 1809. The following is its descrip- 
 tion: "Argent; arising sun proper; crest in a wreath; a demi-globe, and an 
 eagle passant, regardant, all proper; supporters, the figure of Justice on the 
 dexter, and Liberty on the sinister side; motto, Excelsior; legend. The Great 
 Seal of the State of New York." 
 
 The first two were pendant; the last recumbent. 
 
 Sough's Civil List, p. 427. 
 
 ^ The Legislature met for the first time at Kingston, the Assembly on the 1st 
 of September, and the Senate on the 9th, 1777 ; the session ending October 7th, 
 1778, dispersed by the approach of the British expedition under "Wallace and 
 Vaughan. 
 
BlOGBAPHICAL SKETCHES. 121 
 
 named in the plan as one of the members of the Council, and so 
 appointed. 
 
 On the third of May he was -elected, and on the eighth appointed 
 by the Convention, the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
 of the State of New York, as one of the aforesaid of&cers men- 
 tioned iu the plan. 
 
 On the seventeenth of October he was commissioned as such 
 Chief Justice by the CouncU of Appointment, under the Con- 
 stitution of the State; made effective by the Legislature, whose 
 first meeting was on the tenth of September preceding. 
 
 Meanwhile he had received the thanks of the Convention for 
 long and faithfiil services as a delegate, rendered in the Conti- 
 nental Congress, to the Colony and State of New York.' 
 
 On the 4th of November, 1778, he was elected, with reference to 
 the Vermont controversy, a special delegate (without vacating his 
 Chief Justiceship) to the Congress of 1778, under the Articles of 
 Confederation, and so continued till October 15, 1779. He joined 
 that body on the seventh of December following, and on the tenth 
 (his predecessor Henry Laurens having resigned) was chosen its 
 president. While such, he prepared a circular letter to the States, 
 dated September 13th, 1779, urging the furnishing the required 
 funds for the prosecution of the war. 
 
 In September, 1779, he resigned his of&ce of Chief Justice, and 
 on the first of October following was elected one of the five dele- 
 gates of the State to the Congress of the Confederation. 
 
 On the twenty-seventh of September preceding, however, he 
 was appointed Envoy to Spain, to negotiate for the free navigation 
 of the Mississippi, for a loan of $5,000,000, and the recognition 
 of American Lidependence. On the twentieth of October, he left 
 in the United States Frigate Confederacy upon his mission. Brock- 
 hoist Livingston accompanying him as his private secretary. 
 
 The frigate, losing her masts in a tempest, proceeded to Marti- 
 nique, and he did not reach Madrid until the 4th of April, 1780. 
 
 Spain, being unwilling to accede the free navigation of the Mis- 
 sissippi to the United States, the time passed without any favor- 
 able issue to the objects of the mission. On the eleventh of the 
 
 ' Journal of New York Convention, 1, 931. 
 16 
 
122 The Couetoil of Eevisiok. 
 
 following July, however, lie received instructions from Congress 
 to yield the point of difficulty. He submitted, to the Spanish 
 Minister the plan of a treaty, one of its articles relinquishing the 
 claim of the United States to the free navigation of the above 
 river; but at this period the appointment reached him from Con- 
 gress as a commissioner to conclude a peace between the United 
 States and Great Britain. His associate commissioners were 
 Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams and Henry Laurens. 
 
 On the twenty-third of June Mr. Jay arrived in Paris, and pre- 
 liminary articles, drawn by him, were signed at that city by the 
 United States Commissioners, and Eichard Oswald on the part of 
 Great Britain, on the 30th ISTovember, 1782.' On the 3d of Sep- 
 tember, 1783, the definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, 
 signed at the same city by David Hartley (Mr. Oswald's successor), 
 on the part of that power, and by John Adams, Benjamin Prank- 
 hn and Mr. Jay, on the part of the United States, was concluded. 
 
 Spain, after the prehminary articles with Great Britain were 
 signed, invited Mr. Jay to resume negotiations at Madrid, but he 
 declined. , 
 
 On the first of May preceding the signing of the definitive 
 treaty. Congress had. appointed ^^''^i ^th. Benjamin Franklin and 
 John Adams, to negotiate also with Great Britain a treaty of com- 
 merce; but, declining the appointment, he, after the signing of the 
 said treaty, passed the winter in Paris in private pursuit,, j,nd ia 
 the following May left for home. 
 
 While in Paris, viz., on the 8d of February, 1784, he was reap- 
 pointed a delegate to Congress. 
 
 On the 12th of July, 1784, Mr. Jay returned to the city of New 
 York, which honored him with a public reception, presenting him, 
 ia a gold box, with the freedom of the city. 
 
 ^ " Mr. Adams came ia October, about a month before the signature, though he 
 was in correspondence with his colleagues during their preliminary negotiations. 
 Mr. Laurens, who had been for over a year a prisoner in the tower of London, 
 arrived only to indorse what his colleagues had done. Mr. Jefferson never acted 
 under his appointment to negotiate the treaty for peace, but remained in 
 America, as he learned that the preliminaries were arranged before he was 
 ready to embark. As Dr. Franklin, for several weeks during the summer of 
 1782, was confined to his house by sickness, the negotiations were conducted 
 by Mr. Jay and Mr. Oswald, the English Ambassador or Agent." Weld's Life 
 of Frwnhlin, 520. 
 
■Biographical Sketches. 123 
 
 On the seventli of May preceding his return, Congress had 
 elected him Secretary for Foreign Affairs to succeed Eobert E. 
 Livingston, and while he was yet undetermined on accepting the 
 oface, he, on the 26th of October, 1784^ was chosen once more a 
 delegate to Congress. 
 
 It assembled on the first of November at Trenton, but on the 
 twenty-third of December adjourned to the city of New York, 
 where it continued to meet till the adoption of the Federal Consti- 
 tution reported by the Philadelphia Convention on the 17th Sep- 
 tember, 1787. 
 
 The establishment of the seat of government at the place of his 
 residence decided Mr Jay's acceptance of the Secretaryship of 
 Foreign Affairs. He consequently entered upon its duties. 
 
 In 1784, by the act of November 12th, he was appointed one 
 of the thirty -two Eegents of the University, additional to those 
 appointed by the act of May pfecediiig, granting new powers to 
 King's (then changed to Columbia) College. 
 
 On the same day he was chosen, by an act of the Legislature of 
 the State of New York, one of the agents of said State with refer- 
 ence to the controversy between it and Massachusetts as to their 
 conflicting claims to the lands within the present limits of New 
 York. Mr. Jay and Walter Livingston, another of the agents, 
 resigned in 1786, and four others were substituted.' 
 
 Early in 1785, a society was formed in the city of New York, 
 for promotiag the manumission of slaves. Mr. Jay was elected 
 the President (having on the 21st of March, 1784, manumitted the 
 only negro slave he possessed), and so continued until his appoint- 
 ment to the Chief Justiceship of the United States Supreme Court. 
 
 In the summer of this year Congress appointed Mr. Jay to treat 
 with the Spanish Minister, Don Diego Guardoqui, sent by the King 
 of Spain to open friendly relations with the United States. The 
 negotiations were carried on in the city of New York, but no 
 treaty was made, the free navigation of the Mississippi interposing, 
 as heretofore, a difficulty not to be obviated. 
 
 In a letter from Mr. Jay to the President of Congress, dated 
 October 13th, 1785, communicating the declaration of war by the 
 
 ' For a history of this whole matter, see note to the Biography of Eobert E. 
 Livingston. 
 
124 The Council of Eevisioit. 
 
 Algerines against the United States, as -well as in a report on that 
 subject made by him as Secretary of Foreign Affairs to Congress, 
 are to be found the first propositions for a navy made since the 
 independence of the country. 
 
 On the 13th October, 1786, Mr. Jay prepared an elaborate re- 
 port on the relations between Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 In 1787, by the act of April 13th, he was appointed one of the 
 second and permanent Board of Eegents; and on the 17th of July 
 following was chosen Vice-Chancellor of the Board. 
 
 About this period and the succeeding autumn and winter, he 
 wrote the second, third, fourth and fifth numbers of the Federalist 
 (the first number of which, written by Hamilton, appeared on the 
 27th October, 1787). After the fifth number, his labors upon the 
 work were interrupted by a wound received during the preva- 
 lence of a riot in the city of New York called the "Doctors' Mob," 
 in April, 1788. Mr. Jay was struck upon the head and leveled 
 to the earth by a missile, while defending, with Hamilton, sword in 
 hand, the jail of the city from the attack of the populace. 
 
 He wrote, however, subsequently, the sixty -fourth number of 
 the work, on the treaty -making power ; and published also, but 
 without his name, an address to the people of New York in sup- 
 port of the Federal Constitution. 
 
 In April, 1788, he was elected, from the city of New York, a 
 member of the Convention of that year, which ratified (July 26th) 
 the Constitution of the United States, and he offered (July 11th) 
 the resolution by which it was ratified. He was also chosen to 
 draft the circular letter to the States, urging their adoption of the 
 amendments which the Convention had proposed to the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 On the 26th of September, 1789, he was appointed by Wash- 
 ington, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 and as the court was not fully organized till April 3d, 1790, he, 
 at the request of the President, of&ciated as Secretary of State till 
 the arrival from France of Jefferson in the spring of that year. 
 
 In the aforesaid month of April he commenced his duties as 
 Chief Justice; holding, on the fourth day, in the city of New 
 York, the first Circuit Court of the United States held in the 
 State. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 125 
 
 In 1792 (April) lie was a candidate for tlie Grovernorship of New 
 York, but the certificate of election was awarded to Ids competitor, 
 George Clinton. 
 
 On the 16th of April, 1794, he was nominated, and soon after 
 confirmed, as Special 'Envoy to England relative to that country's 
 alleged violations of the treaty of 1783. Without resigning his 
 ofiice of Chief Justice, he left for England on the twelfth of May 
 following, and on the nineteenth of the next November concluded 
 what is known as the Jay Treaty.' 
 
 On the 28th of May, 1795, he returned to the United States. 
 In the preceding April he had been elected Grovernor of the State 
 of New York over Eobert Yates, and having resigned his office 
 of Chief Justice, on the 1st of July he was sworn into the guber- 
 natorial office. 
 
 One of his first acts as Governor was a proclamation recom- 
 mending Thursday, the 26th of November, 1795, as a day of 
 public thanksgiving. He recommended it only, as he considered 
 the question whether the Governor had power to appoint a day 
 and to require an observance of it, more proper for the Legislature 
 than him to decide.' The recommendation, however, did not meet 
 with general favor, and it was not repeated. 
 
 He also recommended the Legislature to mitigate the Criminal 
 Code; establish institutions for the employment and reformation 
 of criminals; laws for more strictly observing the Sabbath, and 
 a plan of internal improvement for facilitating and multiplying 
 the means of intercourse between different parts of the State. 
 
 The Legislature, in conformity with these suggestions, passed a 
 law (in 1796) mitigating the Code, and made provision (1797) for 
 the erection of the first State prison in the State, at the city of New 
 York, criminals having been previously confined in the jails of the 
 counties in which their conviction had taken place. 
 
 On the 18th of January, 1796, an intimate friend of the Gover- 
 nor (James "Watson, Member of the Assembly from New York 
 
 ' Notwithstanding the partisan clamor of those friendly to France, this treaty 
 was highly advantageous to the United States. It obtained payment for British 
 spohations amounting to |10,345,000; stipulated for the surrender of the 
 northwestern posts held by the British, and procured admission for oiu: vessels 
 into the West Indies. 
 
 2 See Life of Jay, by Wm. Jay, 1, 386. 
 
126 The Coubcil of Eevision. 
 
 city and county) brought in a bill for the gradual abolition ot 
 slavery. It was defeated in the House. In 1797, a bill for the 
 same was introduced in the Senate, which was also defeated. The 
 next year a like bill passed the House, but the Senate rejected it. 
 In 1799, however (at the regular session next ensuing the reelec- 
 tion of Mr. Jay as Governor, he having called an extra session, on 
 the second of August preceding, relative to the threatening rela- 
 tions of the United States government with France), another like 
 bUl passed both Houses, the Senate by a majority of ten, and the 
 Assembly of thirty-six. 
 
 On the 20th of January, 1796, Governor Jay was appointed 
 Chancellor of the Kegents of the University. 
 
 In 1798 he was reelected Governor over Eobert E. Livingston. 
 
 On the 10th December, 1800, he was again appointed by the 
 President (John Adams) and Senate, Chief Justice of the United 
 States Supreme Court, but dechned the office. 
 
 In May, 1801, he retired to Bedford, Westchester county. New 
 York. 
 
 In 1821, he was elected President of the American Bible Society, 
 on the decease of Elias Boudinot, and continued in that office till 
 1828, when he resigned. 
 
 On the 17th day of May, 1829, he died at Bedford, in the eighty- 
 fourth year of his age. 
 
 Mr. Jay was nearly six feet in height, slender and well formed 
 in person, but somewhat stooping. His complexion was colorless; 
 he had black piercing eyes, an aquiline nose and pointed chin. 
 The expression of his countenance was amiable; ' he was kind, 
 charitable and generous in his private relations, of unimpeached 
 integrity and unaffected piety.^ 
 
 In 1774, Mr. Jay was married to Sarah Livingston, daughter 
 of William Livingston, Governor of New Jersey, by whom he 
 had six children, two sons and four daughters, one of whom died 
 in infancy. 
 
 ADDRESSES, ETC., OF JOHN JAY. 
 Address to the people of Great Britain. 
 Address to the people of Canada. 
 
 ' Sullivan's Familiar Letters on Public Charaotera. 
 ' Jenkins' Life of John Jay. 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 127 
 
 Address to the people of Jamaica and Ireland. 
 
 Address of New York Convention of 1776 to their constituents. 
 
 Draft of the New York State Constitution of 1776. 
 
 Circular Letter of Congress of 1779, to the States, for fands to 
 prosecute ■flie war. 
 
 Second, third, fourth, fifth and sixty-fourth numbers of The 
 Federalist. 
 
 Address to the people of New York, on behalf of the Federal 
 Constitution. 
 
 Circular Letter of New York Convention of 1778, to the State, 
 on amendments to' the Federal Constitution, proposed by the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Addresses to the American Bible Society in 1822, '23, '24, '25. 
 
 A Prayer. 
 
 Letters, Speeches as Governor, and a volume of Miscellaneous 
 and Official Correspondence. 
 
 A pamphlet of Correspondence between himself and Hugh 
 Littlepage, a native of Virginia, whom Mr. Jay, when in Spain, 
 received into his family, at the request of Benjamin Lewis, uncle 
 to Littlepage, but who subsequently turned against his benefactor, 
 and died in 1802. 
 
 MOEGAN LEWIS, 
 
 SON OF FRANCIS LEWIS, 
 
 Was born in the city of New York on the 16th of October, 1754. 
 In 1773 he graduated at Princeton CoUege, and commenced the 
 study of the law in the office of John Jay. In 1774 he joined a 
 volunteer company raised for military discipline, under the instruc- 
 tion of a soldier of Frederick the Great. This company furnished 
 more than fifty officers to the Revolutionary army. 
 
 In June, 1775, a few days after the battle of Bunker Hill, he, 
 as a volunteer in a rifle company, joined the American army before 
 Boston, and shortly after was appointed to the captaincy of the 
 volunteer company before mentioned. 
 
128 The Council of, Eevision. 
 
 On tHe twenty-fifth of August in the above year, he covered, with 
 his company, a party of citizens engaged in removing the ordnance 
 from the Battery Arsenal at the city of New York, 
 
 In the following month of November, the Provincial Congress 
 organized into regiments the New York militia, and he was 
 commissioned as first major in the second regiment of foot, of 
 which John Jay was colonel. Mr. Jay not joining the regiment, 
 from the pressure of his duties in the Continental Congress, the 
 command devolved upon Mr. Lewis. 
 
 Li June, 1776, he was made chief, with the rank of colonel, 
 of General Gates' staff, and acconlpanied him to the northern 
 frontier. On the return of the army from Canada, he was appointed 
 Quarter-Master-General of the Northern Department, and contin- 
 ued tiU the close of the Kevolution in that oflSce. 
 
 He was present when Ticonderoga was evacuated by General 
 St. Clair, and aided efficiently ia the transportation of the muni- 
 tions and supplies thence to the sprouts of the Mohawk. 
 
 On the 7th of October, 1777, at the second battle of Bemis 
 Heights, General Lewis was in command of a party of videttes, 
 close to the enemy's lines, and communicated every movement to 
 General Gates. 
 
 At the capitulation of Burgoyne on the seventeenth of October, 
 he conducted the British troops to the field of Fort Hardy, where 
 they piled their arms, and thence through the line of the American 
 forces, drawn up to witness the spectacle. 
 
 In the autumn of 1780, he accompanied the expedition of Gov- 
 ernor George Clinton and General Eobert Yan Rensselaer against 
 Sir John Johnson and the Indian Chief, Brandt ; had command of 
 the advance and was present at the head of his men in the suc- 
 cessful engagement of Stone Arabia. 
 
 Subsequently, in the same year, he accompanied Governor Clin- 
 ton and his expedition to Crown Point, to cut off the retreat of 
 the invaders of the Mohawk valley. 
 
 At the close of the Revolutiqn he was admitted to the bar, and 
 commenced practice in the city of New York. He was appointed 
 .Colonel of a volunteer corps of mihtia, and as such, at the head of 
 his men, escorted Washington on his first inauguration as Presi- 
 dent. 
 
BlOGBAPHICAL SKETCHES. 129 
 
 In 1784 he was appointed one of the additional Regents of the 
 University, under the act of November twelfth of that year. 
 
 In 1789-90 he was a member of the New York Assembly 
 (18th session) from the city of New York, and elected to the 
 fifteenth session, of 1792, from the county of Dutchess, he in the 
 interim having removed to that county. 
 
 He was appoiated, about this period, one of the judges of the 
 Dutchess Common Pleas. 
 
 On the 8th of November, 1791, he was appointed Attorney- 
 General of the State of New York, on the resignation of Aaron 
 Burr ; on the 21st of December, 1792, was made a fourth Justice 
 of the New York Supreme Court (the number of justices having 
 been limited previous to this year to three) and on the 28th of 
 October, 1801, Chief Justice. 
 
 In 1804 he was elected Grovernor of .the State over Aaron Burr, 
 and appointed Chancellor of the Board of Eegents of the Uni- 
 versity, on the 4th of February, 1805. 
 
 On the 5th of February, 1805, Grovernor Lewis, in a a special 
 message to the Legislature, recommended that the proceeds of the 
 public lands of the State, amoLinting to one and a half millions of 
 acres, be exclusively appropriated to the purposes of education. 
 An act was, on the second of the following April, accordingly 
 passed, setting apart the net avails of the first five hundred thou- 
 sand acres that should be sold, and three thousand shares of bank 
 stock, as a fund for the use of common schools, to accumulate till 
 the interest amounted to the sum of $50,000 per annum ; when 
 that sum was to be annually distributed for the object in view, as 
 the Legislature might direct. This act was the foundation of our 
 present Comnaon School Fund. 
 
 In 1807, Grovernor Lewis was a candidate for reelection, but was 
 defeated by Daniel D. Tompkins. 
 
 In 1811, 1812, 1813 and 1814 he was a member of the New 
 York Senate (34th, 35th, 36th and 37th sessions) from the middle 
 district, and on January twenty -fifth of the latter year, was chosen 
 to the Council of Appointment. 
 
 In May, 1812, he was appointed Quarter-Master-General of the 
 United States army, with the rank of Brigadier-General, and in 
 March, 1813, was made Major-General. 
 
130 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 He accompanied General Dearborn to the Niagara frontier, and 
 was present at the capture of Fort George. He was second in 
 command to "Wilkinson in the expedition down the St. Lawrence, 
 and commanded at Chrystler's Field. 
 
 In 1S14, he was appointed to the command of the forces 
 destined to the defense of New York. 
 
 During the war he advanced and contributed about $21i<)00 
 of his own private funds toward the objects connected with it ; 
 viz., upwai'ds of $14,000 advanced for the relief of the American 
 prisoners in Canada, in the summer of 1812, and upwards of 
 $7,000 in remissions of rent to his tenants, serving in the company 
 raised by General Leavenwortii in the county of Delaware, at the 
 commencement of the war.' 
 
 In 1828, he was one of the Electors for President from the fifth 
 district. 
 
 In 1835, he was elected President of the New York Historical 
 Society, and in 1838 chosen presiding officer of the Cincinnati 
 State Society, which office he held till his death. 
 
 He died in the city of New York, on the 7th of April, 1844, 
 in the ninetieth year of his age. 
 
 In 1779, he was married to Gei-trude Livingston, sister of 
 Eobert E. Livingston, by whom he had a large family. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was a genfleman of kind and courteous demeanor, 
 and of scholarly attainments ; amiable in private life, and of warm, 
 active and effective patriotism. 
 
 DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, 
 
 SON or JONATHAN G. TOMPKINS, 
 
 Was bom in the present town of Scarsdale (formed in 1788), 
 "Westchester county. New York, on the 21st of June, 1774. 
 
 In 1795, he graduated at Columbia College, city of New York; 
 in 1796, was admitted to the bar, and immediately commenced 
 the practice of the law in said city. 
 
 ' Jenkins' Life of Lewis, 
 
BioGEAPHicAii Sketches. 131 
 
 In 1801, he was appointed a delegate from the city and county 
 of New York to the State Convention of that year, which assem- 
 bled at Albany, October thirteenth (ending October twenty- 
 seventh), and altered the Constitution of the State relative to the 
 Senate and Assembly, so as to fix the number of the former at 
 thirty-two and the latter at one hundred, to be increased after each 
 census, at the rate of two yearly, till it equaled one hundred and 
 fifty. The members of the Council of Appointment were also 
 declared to have equal powers of nomination to office with the 
 Governor. 
 
 In 1803, Afr. TompMns was a Member of the Assembly (26th 
 session) from New York city and county. 
 
 In 1804, he was elected a Eepresentative to the ninth Congress 
 (1805-7) from the second and third Congressional districts, 
 but did not take his seat, in consequence of his appointment, on 
 the second of July in the above year, as Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the State of New York. He was then but thirty years 
 of age. 
 
 In the April election of 1807, he was elected to the Gover- 
 norship of the State, ov^r Morgan Lewis, and (resigning his 
 Justiceship) on the first of July following was inducted iuto the 
 office. 
 
 In 1807, Albany became the seat of the State Government. 
 
 On the 8d of February, 1808, Governor Tompkins was chosen 
 Chancellor of the Eegents of the University, he being a member 
 of the board by -virtue of his office. 
 
 In his annual speech to the Legislature, at the commencement 
 of the session, 30th January, 1810, he recommended encou- 
 ragement, by legal enactments, to domestic manufactures, now 
 springing up all over the Union, consequent upon the restrictive 
 system adopted by Jefferson, and continued by Madison. He 
 also called the legislative attention to the Common School Fimd, 
 and suggested carrying into immediate effect the law of 1805, 
 establishing that fund. 
 
 In AprU, 1810, he was reelected Governor over Jonas Piatt. 
 
 In his speech to the Legislature, at its commencement, on the 
 29th of January, 1811, he agaia urged encouragement of domestic 
 manufactures, and attention to the Common School Fund. There 
 
132 ■ The Council of Eevision. 
 
 had been no distribution of revenue, nor organization of any 
 system witb. regard to tbis fund since tbe passage of tbe act of 
 1805, but tbe subject being tbus a second time called to tbeir 
 attention by tbe Governor, tbe Legislature, at tbis session, took 
 steps to tbe above effect. A law was passed authorizing tbe Gov- 
 ernor to appoint five commissioners to report to tbe Legislature a 
 system for tbe establishment of conmion schools, and tbe distribu- 
 tion of the interest of the School Fund. The commissioners made 
 tbeir report on tbe litb of February, 1812, and on the nineteenth 
 of the following June, tbe last day of tbe prorogued session, an 
 act was passed providing for tbe appointment of a superintendent,' 
 and the organization of a system the same in substance as the one 
 now in existence. 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1812, Governor Tompkins prorogued 
 tbe Legislature till tbe twenty-first of May ensuing. This act grew 
 out of the excitement consequent on tbe application for the charter 
 of tbe Bank of America, and tbe reason for it, assigned by the 
 Governor, was that he bad been furnished with sufficient proof to 
 show corruption, or an attempt at it, on tbe part of tbe appbcants, 
 of members of the Legislature.' 
 
 ' Gideon Hawley, of Albany, was appointed by the Council of Appointment, 
 and continued in the office until the 22d of February, 1821, when he was super- 
 seded by the said Council, and Welcome Esleek appointed in his place. Through 
 the distinguished agency of Mr. Hawley, our present common school system 
 was substantially created. In pursuance of his plan, the several enactments, 
 with the amendments, relating to common schools, were, on the 12th of April, 
 1819, oonsoHdated into one act. During the discussion of the bill in the Assembly, 
 Mr. Hawley, according to the request of the members, took a seat on the' floor 
 of the House, and made verbal explanations of his objects in the details of his 
 bill. 
 
 The removal of this able champion in the cause of common school education 
 in this State, in 1821, was the direct cause of the abolishment of the office of 
 superintendent, on the third of April of the above year, its duties being trans- 
 ferred to the Secretary of State ( then J. V. K Yates ). The duties continued to 
 be discharged by the Secretary of State until the 30th of March, 1854, when the 
 office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction was created by an act of 
 the Legislature and the common school system placed under his control. 
 
 ^ A large amount of capital having been rendered useless by the failure of the 
 old United States Bank to obtain a recharter from the Congress of 1810-11 a 
 scheme was proposed in this State to charter the said Bank of America, to be 
 estabhshed in the city of New York. 
 
BiOGKAPHicAii Sketches. 133 
 
 On the 18th of June, 1812, Congress passed the act declaring 
 war with Great Britain. Immediately after President Madison's 
 proclamation, on the nineteenth, Grovernor Tompkins ordered out 
 the militia of the State, and accepted the offers of volunteers. 
 Where he had not power sufficient by law to protect the State and 
 render assistance to the nation, he assumed it on his own responsi- 
 bility, prudently though firmly. He collected, through his exer- 
 tions, a large mihtia force on the Niagara frontiers, under Greneral 
 Van Eensselaer, in the summer of 1812, and at other points troops 
 were stationed. 
 
 At the legislative session of 1813, Governor Tompkins recom- 
 mended in his speech that a loan should be made, by the State to 
 the Federal Government, for the prosecution of the war. The 
 Senate passed a resolution to that effect, but the Assembly re- 
 fused. 
 
 In the April election of 1813, Governor Tompkins was again 
 eleipted Governor, this time over Stephen Van Eensselaer. 
 
 He still continued his exertions to carry on the war, and keep 
 the State in an attitude of defense. 
 
 G-overnor Tompkins had, before the session of 1812, been informed of the 
 scheme, and had, in his annual speech, on the twenty-eighth of January, to the 
 Legislature, although in impHed terms, denounced it 
 
 Shortly after the commencement of the session an apphcation was made to 
 the Assembly for the charter. As an inducement for granting it, the petitioners 
 offered the payment of a bonus to the State of $600,000; $400,000 of which 
 were to be added to the Common School Fund; $100,000 to the Literature 
 Fundj and the remaining sum was to be paid into the Treasury at the expira- 
 tion of twenty years from the date of the incorporating act, provided no other 
 bank charter should in the meanwhile be granted. 
 
 It was proposed further to loan $1,000,000 to the State, at five per cent, for 
 canal construction, and the same amount at the usual rate of six per cent to the 
 farmers. 
 
 The bill passed the Assembly; a vote in the Senate showed to a certainty it 
 would pass that body, and hence the prorogation. 
 
 When the Legislature reconvened, on the twenty-first of May, the bill passed 
 the Senate, the Council of Revision sanctioned it and the incorporation was 
 thus granted. 
 
 At the legislative session of 1813, an apphcation of the bank to be relieved 
 firom the bonus to the State, and reduce the amount of their capital, was granted 
 in both particulars, with the exception of $100,000, which was to be paid to the 
 Common School Fund. 
 
182 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 had been no distribution of revenue, nor organization of any 
 system ■with, regard to this fund since the passage of the act of 
 1805, but the subject being thus a second time called to their 
 attention by the Governor, the Legislature, at this session, took 
 steps to the above effect. A law was passed authorizing the Gov- 
 ernor to appoint five commissioners to report to the Legislature a 
 system for the establishment of common schools, and the distribu- 
 tion of the interest of the School Fund. The commissioners made 
 their report on the 14th of February, 1812, and on the nineteenth 
 of the following June, the last day of the prorogued session, an 
 act was passed providing for the appointment of a superintendent,' 
 and the organization of a system the same in substance as the one 
 now in existence. 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1812, Governor Tompkins prorogued 
 the Legislature till the twenty -first of May ensuiag. This act grew 
 out of the excitement consequent on the apphcation for the charter 
 of the Bank of America, and the reason for it, assigned by the 
 Governor, was that he had been furnished with sufficient proof to 
 show corruption, or an attempt at it, on the part of the applicants, 
 of members of the Legislature." 
 
 ' Gideon Hawley, of Albany, was appointed by the Council of Appointment, 
 and continued in the office until the 22d of February, 1821, when he was super- 
 seded by the said Council, and Welcome Esleek appointed in his place. Through 
 the distinguished agency of Mr. Hawley, our present common school system 
 was substantially created. In pursuance of his plan, the several enactments, 
 with the amendments, relating to common schools, were, on the 12th of April, 
 1819, consohdated into one act. During the discussion of the bill in the Assembly, 
 Mr. Hawley, according to the request of the members, took a seat on the floor 
 of the House, and made verbal explanations of his objects in the details of his 
 biU. 
 
 The removal of this able champion in the cause of common school education 
 in this State, in 1821, was the dkeet cause of the abolishment of the office of 
 superintendent, on the third of April of the above year, its duties being trans- 
 ferred to the Secretary of State ( then J. V. N. Yates ). The duties continued to 
 be discharged by the Secretary of State until the 30th of March, 1854, when the 
 office of State Superintendent of Pubhc Instruction was created by an act of 
 the Legislature and the common school system placed under his control. 
 
 " A large amount of capital having been rendered useless by the failure of the 
 old United States Bank to obtain a reoharter from the Congress of 1810-11 a 
 scheme was proposed in this State to charter the said Bank of America, to 'be 
 established in the city of New York. 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 133 
 
 On the 18th of Jiine, 1812, Congress passed the act declaring 
 war with Great Britain. Immediately after President Madison's 
 proclamation, on the nineteenth. Governor Tompkins ordered out 
 the militia of the State, and accepted the offers of volunteers. 
 Where he had not power sufficient by law to protect the State and 
 render assistance to the nation, he assumed it on his own responsi- 
 bihty, prudently though firmly. He collected, through his exer- 
 tions, a large militia force on the Niagara frontiers, under General 
 Van Eensselaer, in the summer of 1812, and at other points troops 
 were stationed. 
 
 At the legislative session of 1813, Governor Tompkins recom- 
 mended in his speech that a loan should be made, by the State to 
 the Federal Government, for the prosecution of the war. The 
 Senate passed a resolution to that effect, but the Assembly re- 
 fused. 
 
 In the April election of 1813, Governor Tompkins was again 
 elected Governor, this time over Stephen Yan Eensselaer. 
 
 He stm continued his exertions to carry on the war, and keep 
 the State in an attitude of defense. 
 
 Governor Tompkins had, before the session of 1812, been informed of the 
 scheme, and had, in his aimual speech, on the twenty-eighth of January, to the 
 Legislature, although in imphed terms, denounced it. 
 
 Shortly after the commencement of the session an apphcation was made to 
 the Assembly for the charter. As an inducement for granting it, the petitioners 
 offered the payment of a bonus to the State of |600,000; §400,000 of which 
 were to be added to the Common School Fund ; $100,000 to the Literature 
 Fund, and the remaining sum was to be paid into the Treasury at the expira- 
 tion of twenty years from the date of the incorporating act, provided no other 
 bank charter should in the meanwhile be granted. 
 
 It was proposed further to loan $1,000,000 to the State, at five per cent, for 
 canal construction, and the same amount at the usual rate of six per cent to the 
 farmers. 
 
 The bill passed the Assembly; a vote in the Senate showed to a certainty it 
 would pass that body, and hence the prorogation. 
 
 When the Legislature reconvened, on the twenty-first of May, the bill passed 
 the Senate, the Council of Eevision sanctioned it and the incorporation was 
 thus granted. 
 
 At the legislative session of 1813, an application of the bank to be relieved 
 from the bonus to the State, and reduce the amount of their capital, was granted 
 in both particulars, with the exception of $100,000, which was to be paid to the 
 Conmion School Fund. 
 
134 The Coukcil of Eevision'. 
 
 He recommended in Ms speech, to the Legislature, on the 25th 
 of January, 1814 (with a detail of the events of the war), that the 
 State should assume its quota of the direct tax Congress had 
 authorized to be levied. This also was approved by the Senate 
 but not concurred in by the Assembly. Other measures, likewise 
 intended to aid the National Grovemment, were passed by the 
 Senate but lost in the House. 
 
 Still the Governor continued his exertions. The militia were 
 directed by him to meet frequently for inspection and drill, and 
 the officers to perfect as rapidly as possible the discipline of the 
 men. He directed the State troops to be so disposed as to render 
 aid at any point threatened by the enemy. Many of them at 
 Chippewa and Niagara, under General Porter, rendered good 
 serviQe, and others were the foremost to join General Macomb. 
 
 The city of New York, in the summer of 1814, although defenses 
 for it were in progress under General Morgan Lewis, was as yet 
 insecure; and after the attack upon the city of 'Washington by the 
 British troops, the apprehension throughout the summer was, that 
 the first mentioned city would be the next point of attack. Fede- 
 ralists and Eepubhcans, from the city and its neighborhood, ap- 
 pealed to Governor Tompkins, to exert his authority, and pledged 
 themselves to sustain him if the public safety required him to 
 transgress it. Colonel Willett, Colonel Eutgers, GovernorWolcott 
 and Eufus King, among others, animated him, according to his 
 statement in a letter to Archibald Mclntyre, to the greatest efforts.' 
 
 ' Mr. King, Governor Tompkins narrates, said that "the time had arrived 
 when every good citizen was bound to put his all at the requisition of the gov- 
 ernment; that he was ready to do this; that the people of the State of New 
 York would and must hold him (the Q-overnor) personally responsible for its 
 safety." "What," added he in answer to the statement of the Governor, ac- 
 quainting him vrith the difficulties under which he had struggled for the two 
 preceding years, the instances in which he had been compelled to act without 
 law or legislative indemnity, and that if he should once more exert himself to 
 meet all the emergencies and pecui^iary difficulties which were pressing, he 
 would ruin himself. "What," said Mr. King, "is the ruin of an individual 
 compared with the safety of the Republic. If you are ruined, you will have the 
 consolation of enjoying the gratitude of your fellow-citizens; but you must trust 
 to the magnanmiity and justice of your country, you must transcend, the law, 
 you must save this city and State from the danger with which they are 
 menaced, you must ruin yourself if it becomes necessary, and I pledge you my 
 honor that I will support you in whatever you do." 
 
Biographical Sketches. 135 
 
 Governor Tompkins had. issued his proclamation for an extra 
 session of the Legislature on the twenty-sixth of September, but he 
 did not delay his own exertions. On his personal responsibility, 
 he raised a considerable amount of money and expended it in sup- 
 phes for the troops, and completing the defenses of New York/ 
 Militia in large bodies, from the counties along the Hudson, were 
 ordered to the city until an army of between ten and fifteen thou- 
 sand men were there concentrated. The Governor, by virtue of 
 a temporary appointment as a Major-General in the United Stafes 
 army, assumed the cormnand of this force ; but the enemy, after 
 the capture of Washington, was repulsed at Baltimore, the threat- 
 ened attack passed away, and the alarm at New York ceased. 
 
 In the meantime. Governor Tompkins had been offered by 
 President Madison the post of Secretary of State of the United 
 States, but he declined it. 
 
 On the twenty-sixth of September the Legislature convened in 
 extra session, according to the proclamation. 
 
 In his speech, the Governor chiefly confined himself to the war, 
 recommending various measures for prosecuting it. Laws were 
 passed increasing the pay of the militia while in the United States 
 service, for the encouragement of privateering, for classifying the 
 militia so as to place at the disposal of the national government a 
 force of twelve thousand men, enlisted for two years, for a corps 
 of sea fencibles to defend the city of New York, for reimburse- 
 ment to the Governor of expenditures made on his own responsi- 
 bility, and for completing the Staten Island fortifications. 
 
 In January, 1815, at the annual legislative session, Governor 
 Tompkins, in his speech, proposed further measures for the prose- 
 cution of the war; but early in the month of February tidings were 
 received that peace had been concluded between the two countries 
 by the treaty at Ghent, December 24th, 1814. 
 
 During the war, internal improvement was suspended in the 
 State. In April, 1816, the law authorizing the commissioners for 
 the improvement of the internal navigation of the State (passed 
 June 19, 1812), to borrow $5,000,000 was repealed; but at the 
 conclusion of the war, the friends of the canal enterprise, to connect 
 the Hudson with the western lakes and Lake Champlain, renewed 
 their efforts. 
 
136 The Council of Eetision. 
 
 In Ms speecli to tlie Legislature of 1816, Governor Tompkins 
 said it would rest witli them to say "whether the prospect of con- 
 necting the waters of the Hudson with those of the western lakes 
 and of Champlain is not sufficiently important to demand the 
 appropriation of some part of the revenues of the State to its 
 accomplishment, without imposing too great a burden upon our 
 constituents." 
 
 Grovemor Tompkins, by his noble and patriotic course during 
 the war, was now at the height of popularity. The Eepublican 
 party rejoiced in the "farmer's boy of Westchester," as the Gover- 
 nor was popularly called. 
 
 In February, 1816, he was unanimously nominated, by the 
 Eepublicans of the New York Legislature, to the Presidency of the 
 United States. The congressional caucus at Washington, on the 
 eighteenth of the following March, howevdt, nominated to the 
 Presidency Mr. Monroe, and Governor Tompkins to the Vice- 
 Presidency. 
 
 Before the result of the congressional caucus was known at 
 Albany, Mr. Tompkins was again nominated to the governorship, 
 and in April, 1816, he was for the fourth time elected; this time 
 over Eufus King. John Tayler was elected Lieutenant-Governor. 
 
 On the 6th of April, 1816, the Governor accepted the nomina- 
 tion to the Vice-Presidency of the United States, and in the fol- 
 lowing December was elected to that office. 
 
 He continued to discharge his duties as Governor until the 24th 
 of February, 1817, and on the preceding twenty-seventh of Janu- 
 ary sent a special message to the Legislature, urgently recommend- 
 iag the entire abolition of domestic slavery in the State, to take 
 place on the 4th of July, 1827. A law was accordingly passed on 
 the 31st of March, 1817, to the above effect. 
 
 On the said twenty-fourth of February, he resigned the Governor- 
 ship, and Lieutenant-Governor John Tayler acted as Governor 
 from that date tiU the first of the following Jtdy, when De Witt 
 Clinton, having been, at the preceding April election (authorized 
 by special act to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation 
 of Tompkins), elected Governor, took the oath of office. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1817, Mr. Tompkins was sworn in the 
 office of Vice-President. 
 
BioGEAPHicAL Sketches. 137 
 
 In the April election of the State of New York in 1820, Mr. 
 Tompkins was again a candidate for the governorship, but was 
 defeated by De Witt Clinton. 
 
 In December, 1820, he was reelected to the Vice-Presidency, 
 the office to take effect from the 4th of March, 1821. 
 
 In 1821, he was a delegate from Eichmond county. New York, 
 to the Convention that formed the second State Constitution (as- 
 sembling at Albany, August 28th, and adjourning November 10th) 
 and was chosen its president. 
 
 In the meanwhile he continued to discharge his duties as Vice- 
 President of the United States, till the 3d of March, 1825, when 
 he retired into private life at Tompkinsville, Staten Island, New 
 York; where, on the 11th of June, 1825, he died, aged fifty-one 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Tompkins possessed a very popular address and conciHating 
 manner. He had the art, in the most eminent degree, of ingra- 
 tiating himself with the people, never forgetting the name or face 
 of a person with whom he had once conversed.' 
 
 He was dignified and prepossessing in his personal appearance, 
 with a form above the ordinary height." 
 
 He was married to the daughter of Mangle Miathorne about 
 1797, and had by her several children. 
 
 ' Eenwiok's Life of De Witt CKnton, p. 66. 
 2 Jenkins' Life of Tompkins. 
 
 18 
 
138 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 DB WITT CLESTTOlSr, 
 
 SON OF GENERAL JAMES CLINTON, 
 
 Was born at New Windsor on the 2d day of Marcli, 1769. He 
 entered Columbia College ia the spring of 1784, and graduated at 
 that institution in 1786, at the head of his class. He shortly after 
 entered as a student of law, the oifice of Samuel Jones, subse- 
 quently Comptroller of the State. 
 
 Mr. Clinton was an attentive observer of the Convention of 
 1788, which ratified the Federal Constitution, attending from day 
 to day as a spectator, and communicating a report of its proceed- 
 ings and speeches for publication in a New York journal. 
 
 In 1789 he became the Private Secretary of his uncle. Gov. 
 Greorge Clinton, in place of his brother Alexander, who died 
 while holding that post. 
 
 On the 21st of January, 1794, he was made Secretary of the 
 Board of Eegents of the University, and, as such, drew the 
 report in favor of the incorporation of Union College, con- 
 tainuig "the earliest official recommendation of the establishment 
 of schools by the Legislature, for the common branches of educa- 
 tion." ' He was also Secretary of the Board of Fortifications. 
 
 In 1795, he was admitted to the bar, and commenced the prac- 
 tice of his profession in the city of New York. 
 
 He was a member of the New York Assembly, from the city 
 of New York, ia the sessions of 1798-9, 1800-1 and 1802; and a 
 State Senator in the sessions of 1806, 1807, and 1808-9, from the 
 southern district. 
 
 On the 7th November, 1800, he was placed upon the Council 
 of Appointment, and in 1801 was a delegate from Queens county 
 to the Convention of that vear. 
 
 On the 9th of February, 1802, Mr. Clinton was appointed to fill 
 a vacancy in the Senate of the United States, caused by the resig- 
 
 Account of the first Semi-Centennial Anniversary of Union College, in 1845, 
 p. 112. Note. 
 
BlOGBAPHICAL SKETCHES. 189 
 
 nation of Jolin Armstrong. In 1803 he resigned his senatorship, 
 in consequence of his appointment as Mayor of the city of New 
 York, on the eleiVenth October of that year, succeeding Edward 
 Livingston. In 1806, January 31st, he was again chosen to the 
 Council of Appointment. 
 
 In the winter of 1807, he was removed from the Mayoralty, but 
 on the 8th February, 1808, was reappointed, and on the 11th 
 of the same month was made one of the Regents of the University. 
 
 In 1810 he was again removed from the Mayoralty, but on the 
 5th of February, 1811, was reappointed. 
 
 In the winter of 1810 he was appointed by the Legislature, on 
 motion of Jonas Piatt, one of seven commissioners (the others 
 being Gouverneur Morris, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De 
 Witt, "WnUam North, Thomas Eddy and Peter B. Porter) to 
 explore the whole route for inland navigation, from the Hudson 
 river to Lakes Ontario and Erie. In the following summer, the 
 commissioners made a survey of the region, Mr. Clinton keeping 
 a journal of his tour. 
 
 The commissioners made their report (drawn by Gouverneur 
 Morris) to the Legislature of 1811, which, by an act prepared by 
 Mr. Chnton, authorized the said commissioners, with Robert R. 
 Livingston and Robert Pulton added to the commission, to con- 
 sider all matters relative to the inland navigation of the State, and 
 make apphcation to Congress, and the States and Territories for 
 aid in fartherance of the object. Mr. Clinton and Gouverneur 
 Morris visited the city of Washington as a sub-committee for the 
 above purpose of aid, but met with no success or encouragement. 
 
 In April, 1811, he was elected Lieutenant-Governor over his 
 competitor, Nicholas Pish, the Federal candidate (a vacancy 
 having happened in August of the preceding year, by the decease 
 of John Broome, the then incumbent), notwithstanding the oppo- 
 sition of the Marthng men (or Madisonian Republicans) in the city 
 of New York, as weU as the Federal party, Mr. Chnton being the 
 leader of the Republican party of the State. 
 
 In the Presidential election of 1812, he was the candidate of the 
 peace party for the Presidency, but was defeated by Mr. Madison, 
 the former receiving eighty -nine electoral votes, and the latter one 
 hundred and twenty-eight. 
 
140 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In. 1814, having been created a Major-General of militia, he 
 made known to Grovernor Tompkins, through a friend, his wish to 
 be employed in active service, to which the Governor promised to 
 accede, provided the city of New York should be attacked. 
 
 In January, 1815, he was again removed from the office of 
 Mayor, and Jacob Eadcliff appointed in his place. 
 
 In 1816 (February 21st), he presented a memorial, drawn by 
 him (previously submitted to and adopted by a large meeting in 
 the city of ISTew York, composed of its most influential citizens), 
 to the Legislature, for the construction of the Erie and Champlain 
 canals, and a law was accordingly passed for the appointment of 
 five Canal Commissioners to make surveys and estimates of the 
 expense, and ascertain if loans could be made on the State credit. 
 Mr. Clinton was appointed one of the commissioners, with Stephen 
 Van Rensselaer, Samuel Young, Myron HoUey and Joseph EUicott 
 as associates. The reports of the commissioners, written in whole 
 or in part by Mr. Clinton, were presented in February, 1817, to 
 the Legislature, and in the following April a law was enacted 
 authorizing the construction of the canals to be commenced. 
 
 In 1817, Mr. Clinton was elected Governor of the State of New 
 York over Peter B. Porter, at a special election (occasioned by the 
 resignation of Governor Tompkins, he having been chosen Vice- 
 President of the United States), took the oath of office on the first 
 of July, and in the autumn of that year issued his proclamation, 
 recommending the thirteenth of November, ensuing, as a day of 
 thanksgiving and prayer. The day was generally observed by 
 the people; he thus introducing the custom subsequently followed 
 to the present time. 
 
 On the 6th of January, 1819, he recommended, in his annual 
 speech to the Legislature, that the entire line of canal navigation 
 from the Hudson river to Lake Erie should be opened, as well as 
 from the head of sloop navigation to Fort Edward, on the above 
 river. This was recommended on account of the Canal Commis- 
 sioners, by the act of 1817, being authorized to construct canals 
 only between the Mohawk and Seneca rivers and between Fort 
 Edward and Lake Champlain. 
 
 The Legislature of 1820 passed resolutions opposed to the 
 admission of any new slave States in the Union, which were 
 cordially approved by Governor Clinton. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 141 
 
 In April, 1820, he was reelected Governor, over Daniel D. Tomp- 
 kins; and in November reconunended the choice of electors by 
 the people by general ballot. In that month the Legislature at their 
 extra session passed an act for a State Convention, but as there was 
 no provision for the submission of the question as to calling one 
 to the people, the bill was lost in the Council of Eevision, Governor 
 Clinton giving the casting vote against it. In the winter of 1821, 
 a new law for a Convention was passed, providing for the above 
 submission at the ensuing April election, which the CouncU, 
 including the Governor, approved. At this election the people 
 decided to call a Convention; in June following delegates to it 
 were chosen, and in August ensuing the Convention assembled. 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1823, Governor Clinton was succeeded 
 in the office of Governor by Joseph C. Yates, chosen over Solomon 
 Southwick, in the preceding November election. He still, how- 
 ever, retained the office of Canal Commissioner, but was removed 
 from that by his political opponents in the spring of 1824. 
 
 In this year he was again elected Governor, Samuel Young 
 being his antagonist. In his message, on the 4th of January, 
 1825, he enlarged on the subject of internal improvements, ad- 
 vised among other things the creation of a board for such matters, 
 an extensive canal system, and an amendment of the Constitution, 
 by rendering citizenship, full age and competent residence the only 
 requisite qualifications for the right of suffrage. 
 
 In February following he was offered the English Embassy by 
 President Adams which he however declined. 
 
 On the twenty-sixth of October, in the same year (the Erie 
 Canal being in readiness). Governor Clinton, accompanied by Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor James Tallmadge and committees from the city 
 of New York and villages along the line of the Canal, embarked 
 from Buffalo on board the canal boat "The Seneca Chief," followed 
 by three other boats, "The Perry," "Superior" and "Buffalo," 
 and, heralded by a signal fire of cannon stationed from point to 
 point (so that in one hour and twenty minutes the citizens of New 
 York were apprized of the departure from Buffalo), proceeded 
 amid rejoicings, addresses and bonfires to Albany. Thence he con- 
 tinued to New York and, accompanied by a fleet, three miles in 
 circumference, of boats and steamers, sailed to Sandy Hook; 
 
142 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 wliere, from the deck of a vessel, ■with an appropriate address, 
 he poured a keg of water brought from Lake Erie into the 
 Atlantic. 
 
 In 1825 and 1826, he recommended that a State road should 
 be constructed, through the southwestern tier of counties, from the 
 Hudson river to Lake Brie. 
 
 In 1826 he was once more elected Governor, this time over 
 WiQiam B. Eochester. 
 
 In his annual message ia 1827, he again recommended internal 
 improvements extensively, a speedy extiaguishment of the pubhc 
 debt and a remodeling of the banking system. 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1828, he sent to the Legislature his last 
 message. In it he advised additional iaternal improvements once 
 more, and the encouragement of domestic manufactures ; enlarged 
 upon the agricultural condition and resources of the State and upon 
 common schools, recommending that schools for the instruction of 
 teachers should be established in every county town. 
 
 On the 11th of February, 1828, he died (almost instantaneously) 
 of a disease of the heart, at his house in Albany, in the fifty-ninth 
 year of his age. 
 
 He was president of the New York Free School Society, of the 
 Academy of Fine Arts and of the New York Literary and Philo- 
 sophical Society, and an honorary member of the Linnean and 
 Horticultural Societies of London. 
 
 Under his auspices, the New York Historical Society, of which 
 he was one of the corporators, and the Academy of Arts were 
 incorporated ; the City Hall in the city of New York was founded, 
 the Orphan Asylum in said city established, and the harbor and 
 city were provided with defenses. 
 
 Mr. Clinton possessed a fine personal appearance, was large and 
 stately in frame, with finely moulded features, a broad, full fore- 
 head and penetratiag eye. 
 
 His industry was great, and although at first his manners ap- 
 peared cold, they upon closer approach warmed into sociality, 
 while his conversation was pleasing and instructive. His feelings 
 were strong, but kind, and he was generous to a fault. 
 
 He was twice married, the first wife being Maria Franklin, 
 daughter of "Walter Franklin, by whom he had seven sons and 
 
Biographical Sketches. 143 
 
 three daughters. His second wife was Catherine Jones, daughter 
 of Dr. Thomas Jones. 
 
 Besides his qualifications as a statesman, Mr. Clinton was a pro- 
 found scholar and an elegant writer. Independently of his 
 speeches, decisions in the Court of Errors, messages and other 
 State papers, he was the author of the following, viz. : 
 
 Speech in the United States Senate on the Mississippi Question, 
 February 23, 1803. 
 
 Address before the Free School Society of the city of New York, 
 December 11, 1809. 
 
 Private Canal Journal from June 30th to August 22d, 1810, as 
 one of the Commissioners to explore between the Lakes and the 
 Hudson, and report to the Legislature the best route for a water 
 communication. 
 
 Address on the Iroquois before the New York Historical Society, 
 December 6, 1811. 
 
 Introductory Discourse before the Literary and Philosophical 
 Society of New York, May 4, 1814: with copious notes and illus- 
 trations. 
 
 Eemarks on the Fishes of the "Western "Waters of New York, 
 February 1, 1815. 
 
 Discourse before the American Academy of the Arts, October 
 23, 1816. 
 
 Memoir on the Antiquities of the Western parts of the State of 
 New York, October 7, 1817. 
 
 The Canal Policy of New York, in a letter to E. Troup. By 
 Tacitus. Albany, 1821. 
 
 Letter on the Natural History and Internal Eesources of the 
 State of New York. By Hibernicus. New York, 1822. 
 
 Account of the Otsego Basse, May 16, 1822 ; and 
 
 Eemarks on the Passenger Pigeon, April 24, 1823. 
 
 Address before the New York Alpha of the Phi Beta Kappa of 
 Union CoUege, July 22, 1823. 
 
 Description of a new species of Fish in the Hudson, 1823, and 
 
 Eemarks on the Hirundo fulvia, of Vieillot, 1824. 
 
 Addresses before the American Bible Society, 1825, 1827. 
 
 Address to the Alumni of Columbia College, May 3, 1827. 
 
IM The Council of Eevision. 
 
 JOSEPH C. YATES, 
 
 SON OF COLONEL CHEISTOPHEE TATES, 
 
 Was bom in the then village of Schenectady, on the 9th of 
 ISTovember, 1768. 
 
 He was first under the tuition of Jacob "WiUde, a tutor in the 
 family of his father, for several years, and then under that of Eev. 
 Dr. Eomeyn, at Caughnawaga, where he remained until the incur- 
 sions of Brandt and the Johnsons (Sir Guy and Sir John) rendered 
 a residence there unsafe. Eetumiag to Schenectady, he, after 
 studying with Eev. Alexander Miller, completed his education 
 under John Honeywood. 
 
 He then entered the office of Peter W. Yates, in the city of 
 Albany as a student at law, was admitted to the bar, and com- 
 menced practice at Schenectady. 
 
 The subject of our notice was one of the founders of Union 
 College, and also one of its first trustees under the Charter of the 
 College granted by the Eegents of the University in 1795. 
 
 By the act of March 26th, 1798, Schenectady was incorporated 
 a city, and on the 31st of the same month Mr. Yates was chosen 
 its first mayor, holding the office until 1808. 
 
 In the years 1806 and 1807 he was a member of the State Sen- 
 ate (29th and 30th sessions) from the eastern district. 
 
 He was appointed on the 3d-of April, 1807, by the Legislature, 
 on a commission consisting, besides himself, of Ezra L'Homme- 
 dieu, Samuel Jones, Egbert Benson and Simeon De Witt, to meet 
 and confer ia behalf of the State, with commissioners appointed 
 by New Jersey, relative to certain claims of jurisdiction and terri- 
 tory made by the latter as to the extension of its eastern boundary.' 
 
 In 1808 Mr. Yates was elected from the eastern district to the 
 Senate (31st session) but vacated his seat on his appointment, on 
 the 8th of February in that year, to the Justiceship of the Supreme 
 Court of the State of New York. 
 
 ' 5 Webster & Skinner's Laws Of New York, 124 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 145 
 
 On tte 28tli of Febraary, 1812, lie was chosen a Eegent of tlie 
 University. 
 
 In 1812 he was chairman of the Presidential (Clintonian) Elec- 
 tors, chosen by the Senate and Assembly November ninth. 
 
 In November, 1822, he was elected Governor of the State over 
 Solomon Southwick, a self-nomiaated candidate. He resigned his 
 office of Justice of the Supreme Court, and on the 1st of January, 
 1823, took the oath of office as Governor. 
 
 In his written message (now for the first time substituted for the 
 oral speeches hitherto annually made by the Governors to the 
 two legislative branches at the commencement of the session), Jan- 
 uary 1st, 1823, he recommended to the Legislature laws for carry- 
 ing the new (second) Constitution into effect, the encouragement of 
 domestic manufactures, and economy in the pubhc expenditures 
 relative to the works of internal improvement now being rapidly 
 completed. 
 
 The question of allowing the people the choice of Presidential 
 Electors instead of the Legislature, had been agitated in the State 
 of New York, pending the canvass for President, ia 1820 (which 
 resulted in the reelection of James Monroe) and it affected the 
 feU election of the State in 1823. 
 
 Governor Yates, in his message of 1824 (January 6th), made 
 mention of the electoral question, the purport of which was that 
 he desired a change in the manner of choosing Presidential Elec- 
 tors, but that it should be general throughout the country, lookiag 
 to Congress for the remedy, and that, in the meantime, the inter- 
 ference of the Legislature, or the surrender of their right to choose 
 the electors was not advisable. He again recommended encourage- 
 ment of domestic manufactures by duties on foreign imported 
 goods, and that the statutes of the States should be revised. 
 
 A discussion was had in the Legislature relative to a change in 
 the State electoral law (which law, as before intimated, vested the 
 choice of the Presidential Electors in the Legislature), and a bUl 
 authorizing the people to choose the electors by general ticket, 
 passed the Assembly, but by a majority instead of a plurality, as 
 was desired by "the people's party" (the original friends of the 
 measure). The Senate, however, disposed of the matter by post- 
 poning its further consideration to the first Monday in the foUow- 
 19 
 
146 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 ing November, on wHcli day the law required the Legislature to 
 meet for the purpose of choosing Presidential electors. 
 
 On the 2d of June, 1824, Governor Yates issued his proclama- 
 tion for an extra session of the Legislature, with reference to the 
 electoral question ; to convene on the second of August following. 
 The Legislature assembled, but after a session of four days ad- 
 journed without transacting any business. 
 
 In 1825 (January), at the expiration of his term of office, Gov- 
 ernor Yates retired into private life at Schenectady. 
 
 In 1828 he was president of the Electoral CoUege chosen by dis- 
 tricts November 4th, in accordance with the electoral law passed at 
 the second meeting of the Legislature, commencing 11th September, 
 1827, Andrew Jackson being chosen President of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Yates died at Schenectady, on the 19th of March, 1837, in 
 the 69th year of his age. 
 
 He was, in person, above the ordinary size ; was dignified in 
 appearance, easy and courteous in manner, and unassuming in 
 deportment. 
 
 He was thrice married. His first wife was Mrs. Anne Ellis of 
 Schenectady; his second was Maria Kane of Albany, and his 
 third was Ann Elizabeth Delancey. He had three daughters ; one 
 by his second wife and two by his last. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 147 
 
 JOHN TAYLEE, 
 
 ( JJEtTTENABT-GOVERNOR, ) 
 SON OF JOHK TAYLER, 
 
 "Was born in the city of New York, on the 4th of July, 1742. 
 
 In 1759, he removed to the city of Albany, and with some 
 adventitious means procured military stores, and removed to Lake 
 George to supply the British garrison there established. In this 
 business he was very successful, winning the esteem of many of 
 the officers. 
 
 In the next year he followed the army to Oswego in the same 
 business, and there acquired a knowledge of the Indian language 
 which subsequently proved highly serviceable. 
 
 On the return of the troops to Lake George, he also returned, 
 still pursuing his occupation until 1771. 
 
 Some time after this period he removed to Stillwater, Saratoga 
 county. New York, purchased a small farm and remained there 
 until 1773. He then returned to Albany and engaged in the 
 mercantile business. 
 
 Early in the Eevolution, Mr. Tayler was intrusted by General 
 Philip Schuyler, then commandant of the northern department, 
 with an important service to Canada. 
 
 In 1776 he was appointed a deputy, from the city and county of 
 Albany, to the third New York Provincial Congress, and in the 
 same year was also a deputy, from the same city and county, to 
 the New York Convention of Eepresentatives. 
 
 He was a member, from the city and county of Albany, of the 
 first Assembly of the State of New York, in 1777-8; of the 
 second in 1778-9; of the fourth in 1780-1; of the ninth in 1786, 
 and tenth in 1787. 
 
 In 1793, September 30th, he was appointed Eecorder of the 
 city of Albany, and on the 17th of February, 1797, First Judge 
 of the County Court of Albany county. 
 
148 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 In 1802, he was a member, from the eastern district, of the ISTew 
 York Senate, the session commencing on the twenty-ninth of 
 January, and ending on the following sixth of April. 
 
 On the first of February of the above year, he was appointed a 
 Eegent of the University. 
 
 He was likewise a member of the New York Senate, from the 
 eastern district, from 1804 to 1812-13, a period of nine consecu- 
 tive years. 
 
 On the 29th of January, 1811, he was chosen President of the 
 Senate- (34th session) in the place of Lieutenant-Governor John 
 Broome, who died in the preceding August. 
 
 In 1813, at the April election, he was elected Lieutenant-Gov- 
 ernor of the State, on the same ticket with Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 elected Governor; and from the 24th of February, 1817, on the 
 entrance of Governor Tompkins upon the duties of the "Vice-Pre- 
 sidency of the United States, until the first of July following, when 
 De Witt Clinton commenced his Governorship (to which he had 
 been elected in the April previous) Lieutenant-Governor Tayler 
 acted as Governor. 
 
 He continued Lieutenant-Governor until 1822. 
 
 On the 14th of March, 1814, he was appointed Vice-Chancellor 
 of the Board of Eegents of the University, and Chancellor of the 
 same board on the 8d of February, 1817. 
 
 In 1824, Mr. Tayler was appointed a Presidential Elector in 
 place of Ebenezer Sage, who did not attend, and on the 4th of 
 November, 1828, he was elected a Presidential Elector at large. 
 
 On the 19th of March, 1829, he died at his residence in Albany. 
 
 In 1771, he married Margaret Yan Yalkenburgh, of the above 
 city. He had no children, but adopted the daughter of his wife's 
 sister, who married Doctor Charles D. Cooper, of the same city. 
 
 Mr. Tayler was tall, vigorous and rather thin in person; 
 accessible and companionable in his manners and conversation. 
 
CHANCELLORS. 
 
 KOBEET K. LIVUSraSTON", 
 
 SON OF EGBERT R. LIVINGSTON (oNE OF THE NEW TORE COLO- 
 NIAL JUSTICES or THE SUPREME COURT), 
 
 Was born in tlie city of New York, on the 27th of ISTovember, 
 1747. 
 
 In 1764, he graduated at King's College, and in 1765, entered 
 •upon the study of the law in his native city, under the direction 
 of WiUiam Smith, historian of the Colony.' 
 
 Mr. Livingston also studied with William Livingston, Governor 
 of New Jersey." 
 
 Li October, 1773, he was admitted to the bar, and soon after 
 was appointed Recorder of the city of New York; but in 1775, was 
 removed for adherence to his country against British oppression. 
 
 In 1775, he was a member from Dutchess county, of the New 
 York Provincial Convention, which assembled at the Exchange in 
 the city of New York, on the twentieth of April, to choose dele- 
 gates to represent the New York Colony in the second Continen- 
 tal Congress, and was appointed one of the delegates. 
 
 In May, 1776, he attended the Congress and was one of the 
 committee composed, beside himself, of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin 
 and Sherman, to prepare the Declaration of Independence. He 
 was unable, however, to sign that document as he was previously 
 called home to his duties as a member, from Dutchess county, of 
 
 ' Francis' Address on Robert R. Livingston, p. 24. 
 ' Sedgwick's Life of William Livingston, p. 73. 
 
150 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 the third New York Provincial Congress. He was also a member, 
 from the same county, of the Convention of Kepresentatives of the 
 State of New York, and he was associated, on the sixteenth of 
 July, with John Jay and others, on the secret committee to obstruct 
 the navigation of the Hudson river, to delay the passage upawrd 
 of the vessels under Lord Howe. 
 
 On the first of August he was appointed upon the committee 
 which prepared the first Constitution of the State, and also chair- 
 mari of a committee of six that reported the plan of the CouncU 
 of Safety, he being included a member.' 
 
 On the nineteenth of October, he was placed by the ISTew York 
 Committee of Safety, upon a committee of twelve, directed to re- 
 pair to Albany to cooperate with General Schuyler on devising 
 and executing measures to repel the invasion of Burgoyne and 
 St. Leger, on the northern and western frontiers of New York, 
 and also invested with power to call out the whole or any part of 
 the militia of the counties of Tryon, Charlotte, Cumberland, Glou- 
 cester and Albany, to such places as might be thought proper.' 
 
 On the 3d of May, 1777, he was elected, by the Convention, 
 and on the 8th appointed by it in the temporary plan of govern- 
 ment, and commissioned October seventeenth following, by the 
 Council of Appointment, the first Chancellor of the State of New 
 York. 
 
 On the 13th, the New York Convention resolved their thanks to 
 him for long and faithful services to the Colony and State of New 
 York as a delegate in the Continental Congress.' 
 
 On the 18th of October, 1779, he was made a special delegate to 
 Congress under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union 
 (adopted November 15th, 1777),' his office "to continue till the first 
 of April following. 
 
 The New York Legislature, on the twenty-third of the same 
 month, appointed him, as Chancellor, a member of the Council to 
 carry on the Government in the southern district of the State, 
 between the time the enemy should abandon or be dispossessed 
 of it and the Legislature could convene. 
 
 ' Journal of New York Provincial Convention, vol. 1, p. 552. 
 ^ Journal of New York Committee of Safety, vol. 1, p. 684. 
 . 3 Journal of New York Provincial Convention, vol. 1, p. 931. 
 * Hildreth's History of the United States, vol. 3, p. 396. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 151 
 
 On tlie 1st of September, 1780, he was again sent to Congress, 
 as a special delegate, till tke first of the succeeding March. 
 
 In August, 1781, he was appointed Secretary of the Department 
 of Foreign Affairs,' an of&ce created that year, the foreign busi- 
 ness of Congress having previously been conducted by the Com- 
 mittee of Secret Correspondence. On the twentieth of October he 
 entered upon his duties, and resigned in 1783. 
 
 He was reappointed, on the 22d of June, 1783, Chancellor of the 
 State of New York, in consequence of doubts whether the Chan- 
 cellorship had been vacated by his appointment of Secretary of 
 Foreign Affairs. 
 
 On the 12th of November, 1784, the Legislature appointed him 
 on an agency, composed of John. Jay, Walter Livingston, Egbert 
 Benson and others, relative to the disputed rights of Massachusetts 
 and New York as to certain, territory, within the (claimed) western 
 limits of the latter.' 
 
 ' Hildreth's History of the United States, vol. 3, p. 404. 
 
 " The great obstacle to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation was in 
 determining whether the immense western territory should be ceded, by the 
 States claiming it, to the Federal Government for the common benefit. The 
 States the bomidaries of which were estabUshed, and which consequently held 
 no share in that territory, viz. : New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, held that as the domain was to be 
 wrested from the British by joint force, it should enure to the benefit of all. 
 
 On the other hand, those States that claimed their respective boundaries as 
 embracing that territory, viz., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, the Caro- 
 llnas, Georgia and New York, from the anticipated increase to their power and 
 wealth in its possession, strenuously opposed the cession. 
 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia and the CaroUnas claimed to the Pacific, 
 or rather to the Mississippi river (which was the western boundary of Great 
 Britain), under their charters. Georgia claimed to that river, under the Proclama- 
 tion of the British Crown, October 7, 1763, annexing to her the region north 
 of the St. Mary's and west of the Altamaha; while New York claimed by ces- 
 sions of jurisdiction made by the Iroquois (whose conquests extended over the 
 region) when she was a Colony. 
 
 After a long debate, the claimant States obtained the incorporation of a provi- 
 sion into the Articles of Confederation that no State should be deprived of terri- 
 tory for the benefit of the United States. Maryland alone, of all the non-claimant 
 States, refused assent to the provision, declaring her disapprobation to the Con- 
 federation without an acknowledgment of the right of aU to the region in dis- 
 pute. 
 
 At length, New York, urged by patriotic motives, on the 19th of February, 
 1780, in an act " to facilitate the completion of the Articles of Confederation and 
 
152 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 On the 2d of December, 1784, he was sent as a delegate (not 
 special ) from New York to Congress. 
 
 In 1786 (May 6th), he was appointed by the Legislature of 
 New York one of the commissioners to represent the State at the 
 General Convention, to take into consideration the trade and com- 
 
 perpetual union among the United States of America," vested a discretionary 
 power in her Congressional delegates (three to be present) to cede certain of 
 her western territory to the Federal Government. Congress, on the sixth of 
 September succeeding, invited the other claimant States to follow the example 
 of New York, the region ceded to be disposed of for the general good, and be 
 admitted, when the proper time arrived, as States, on the same footing as the 
 others, into the Union. 
 
 Accordingly, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, North 
 CaroUna and Georgia executed deeds of cession to the United States of their 
 claims, at different periods and in the following manner, viz. : 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia ceded all her right to the territory north- 
 westward of the Ohio. On the 19th of April, 1785, Massachusetts ceded her 
 claim. On the 14th of September, 1786, Connecticut ceded her claim to the 
 lands lying west of a hne beginning at the completion of the 41st degree of 
 north latitude, one hundred and twenty miles west of the western boundary 
 hne of Pennsylvania as then claimed by her, thence north to 42° 2' north lati- 
 tude. On the 9th of August, 1787, South Carohna ceded her claim to the terri- 
 tory included within the river Mississippi, and a hne beginning at that part of 
 the said river which was intersected by the southern boundary hne of North 
 Carolina, and continuing along said boundary hne until it intersected the ridge 
 of mountains which divides the eastern from the western waters ; then to be 
 continued along the top of the said ridge, until it intersected a Hne to be drawq 
 due west from the head of the southern branch of Tugoloo river to the said 
 mountains, and thence to run a due west course to the Mississippi. In 1789, 
 North CaroUna, by an act of her Legislature, ceded to the United States the 
 territory now constituting the State of Tennessee, and in 1802 Georgia ceded 
 to the same her claim to the territory, to the amount of one hundred thousand 
 square miles, west of what now constitutes her western boundary. 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1781, James Duane, WiUiam Floyd and Alexander 
 M'Dougall, the New' York Delegates in Congress, ceded by deed to the United 
 States all the claim of their State (the cession, however, subject to the ratifica- 
 tion of the New York Legislature, unless the boundaries reserved for the future 
 jurisdiction of the said State by the instrument of cession should be guaranteed 
 by the United States ) to the territory west of a line drawn through the most 
 westerly bent or inclination of Lake Ontario. On the same day, the Maryland 
 delegates signed the Articles of Confederation. 
 
 A controversy had long existed between New York and Massachusetts, rela- 
 tive to their respective rights and boundaries. They clauned under conflicting 
 charters. Massachusetts claimed under the charter, granted by WiUiam and 
 Mary in 1692, incorporating into one Province, under the name of Massachusetts 
 Bay, the old Colony of Massachusetts Bay chartered by the Council at Ply- 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 153 
 
 merce of the United States. His associate commissioners were 
 Alexander Hamilton, Egbert Benson, James Duane, Leonard 
 Gansevoort and Eobert C. Livingston. 
 
 mouth,* March 19, 1627; the Colony of Plymouth chartered by the same 
 Council in 1629 ; the Islands of Nantucket and Martha's Tineyard, purchased from 
 the Indians at an early day; the Province of Maine granted by Charles I to Sir 
 Ferdinando Gorges in 1639, and the French Province of Acadie. New York 
 claimed under the charter, granted by Charles II, in 1664, to the Duke of York, 
 passing through and dividing into two parts, the Massachusetts charter. 
 
 Opposing grants of the territory in dispute, particularly along the eastern 
 portion, were made by the two governments, leading to coUisions attended with 
 violence and bloodshed. So much was this the case, that in 1756, during the 
 old French war, the regulars were interposed to quiet the strife between the 
 belhgerents. In 1773, commissioners met at Hartford, and settled the boundary 
 line between the two parties at the east, although the line was not actually run 
 until 1787. 
 
 It was not until 1784 that Massachusetts followed the example of New York 
 in the cession to the Union of her western territory. In November of that 
 year, she authorized her delegates in Congress to cede such part of her lands 
 between the Hudson and the Mississippi, in such manner and on such conditions 
 as they might think proper and suitable. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 19th of April, 1785, as before remarked, two of her 
 delegates, Samuel Holten and Eufus King, executed a deed of cession to the 
 United States, of kll the territory westward of a hue twenty miles west from 
 the Niagara River down to Pennsylvania. 
 
 * After the charter of Su: Walter Raleigh was forfeited by his attainder of High 
 Treason, James I, for the purpose of colonizing North America between the 34 
 and 45° N. lat., granted a charter, on the 10th April, 1606, to a London company, 
 and one formed principally at Bristol and Plymouth. The former, whose settlement 
 was to be known as the first Colony of Virginia, could colonize between 34 and 41° 
 N. lat. ; the latter, its settlement distinguished as the second Colony of Virginia, 
 was to colonize between the 38 and 45° N. latitude. 
 
 On the 23d of May, 1609, the London Co. obtained a new charter, with a separate 
 grant of territory, viz., two hundred miles north and south of Point Comfort, and 
 west to the Pacific, with the islands within one hundred miles of the Atlantic and 
 Pacific coasts within the above precinct. On the 3d of November, 1620, the Plymouth 
 Co. also obtained a new charter, called the Great Patent, issued to forty noble and 
 wealthy persons, vesting them with jurisdiction over the North American region 
 from the 40 to 48° N. lat., excepting where "any other Christian prince or people" 
 were in actual possession. This Co. was thereafter known as the Council for New 
 England, it and the London Co. dividing between them the whole North American 
 Continent under the English claim, by a line nearly accordant with the present 
 slave and non-slave line, into the New England and Virginia Provinces. 
 
 In 1635, the Council for New England surrendered their charter after dividing 
 their territory into twelve Provinces, to eight of their number (among them the Mar- 
 quis of Hamilton, the Earl of Sterling and Perdinando Gorges) requesting the King 
 to issue charters to them, which was accordingly done. 
 
 20 
 
154 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 The Convention (at wliich Messrs. Hamilton and Benson only 
 attended) was held at Annapolis, September eleventh to four- 
 teenth, in the above year and recommended the JPhiladelphia Coti- 
 
 The only controversy between the two States, after their respective cessions, 
 related to the Indian lands west of the Delaware river. Massachusetts claimed 
 under her charter; New York under treaties with the Iroquois, the former pos- 
 sessors of the soil. 
 
 The ninth article of the Confederation prescribed the erection of a tribunal 
 for the adjudication of territorial claims between the several States, and Massa- 
 chusetts (May 27th, 1784) petitioned Congress for the appointment of a Federal 
 Court, thus provided for, to decide between her and New York. 
 
 On the 11th of November, 1784, the Legislature of Massachusetts appointed 
 John LoweU and James Sullivan, with their then delegates in Congress, viz., 
 E. Gerry, S. Holten, Geo. Patridge and Euius King, her agents, and on the 
 next day. New York appointed as agents on her part, John Jay, James Duane, 
 Eobert R. Livingston, Egbert Benson and Walter Livingston. 
 
 On the twenty-fourth of December foEowing, the respective agents assembled 
 at Trenton, where Congress was sitting, and agreed upon commissioners to form 
 a court for the trial of the controversy; and Congress adjourned to meet at New 
 York on the eleventh of the succeeding January. Delays, however, occurred 
 as to the trial of the matter, and the conferences were extended far into the year 
 
 1785. The agents of both States then, supposing they could settle the matter 
 better among themselves than by a Federal Court, requested their respective 
 Legislatures to authorize them so to do. Consequently, on the 28th of April, 
 
 1786, the Legislature of New York appointed John Haring, Melanothon Smith, 
 Eobert Yates and John Lansing, Jr., associate agents with Messrs. Duane, Benson 
 and Robert R. Livingston, m place of John Jay and Walter Livingston, who, by 
 reason of their offices under the United States, had resigned. The agents, were 
 authorized to settle the controversy otherwise than by the Federal Court, and in 
 such manner as they should judge most conducive to the interest of the State. 
 
 On the fifth of July in the above year, the Legislature of Massachusetts 
 empowered by act her agents, appointed relative to the controversy ( viz., John 
 Lowell, James SuUivan, Theophilus Parsons and Eufus King, appointed 26th 
 April, 1784 ), also to settle the dispute otherwise than by a Federal Court, if they 
 should judge it expedient. 
 
 The agents of the respective States assembled at Hartford, Connecticut, on 
 the 30th of November, 1786, and on the sixteenth of December following, 
 signed their article of agreement in settlement of the controversy. 
 
 Massachusetts ceded to New York all claim to jurisdiction west of the present 
 east hne of the latter, and received from New York the pre-emption right of sale 
 from the Indians, and all her other right and title (she, however, retaining the ju- 
 risdiction) to 230,400 acres between the Oswego and Chenango rivers, and to a 
 tract west of a hne commencing eighty-two mUes west of the northeast corner 
 of Pennsylvania, and running thence due north through Seneca lake to Lake On- 
 tario, amounting to about five millions of acres. One mile in depth along the east 
 shore of the Niagara river, and extending its whole length was, however, re- 
 served to New York. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 155 
 
 vention of 1787, wMcli framed the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 On the 30th of November, 1786, Mr. Livingston, with the other 
 
 These lands to Massachusetts, -were to be exempt from all taxes whatsoever, 
 so long as she retained them, as weE as from rents and services in any grant 
 made by her. It vfas agreed that New York should not cede the jurisdiction 
 without the consent of Massachusetts, virhile the latter remained the owner ; that 
 Massachusetts might hold treaties with the Indians relative to the right of soil, 
 with armed force if necessary ; that she might sell her preemption right, and 
 the grantees be authorized to extinguish the Indian claim; that no purchase 
 from the Indians of such grantee, however, should be vaUd unless in the presence 
 and by the approval of a superintendent, appointed by Massachusetts, and be 
 furthermore confirmed by that State ; and that for fifteen years after such con- 
 firmation the said lands should be exempt from all general and State taxes, but 
 not from duties or imposts, or town and county taxes. 
 
 On the 1st of April, 1788, Massachusetts contracted to Oliver Phelps and 
 Nathaniel Gorham, of that State, and representing a company formed of them- 
 selves and others, associated for the purchase of the lands, the preemption right 
 to the whole of the ceded six miUions, the sum to be paid being |1, 000,000, 
 payable in three annual installments, in certificates of "Massachusetts consolida- 
 ted stock." 
 
 Phelps, on the 8th of July, 1788, held a flreaty at Buifalo with the Seneca 
 Indians, and obtained their title to about two miUion, six hundred thousand acres, 
 lying in the eastern part of the purchase from Massachusetts, the Indians refu- 
 sing to convey west of the Genesee river (the boundary, as they alleged, 
 between the white and red man ), except about two hundred thousand acres, 
 called the MiU Seat Tract, and now comprising the city of Koohester, which, on 
 Phelps expressing a desire for a miU-seat, they conveyed to him. 
 
 On the following twenty-first of November, Massachusetts conveyed to Phelps 
 and Gorham all her right and title to the above two miUion, six hundred thou- 
 sand acres. 
 
 This tract was divided by the grantees into townships, six miles square, 
 which were subdivided into lots of various sizes. Up to November, 1790, they 
 had sold in it about fifty townships. On the eighteenth of that month they sold 
 to Robert Morris, of Philadelphia (the celebrated financier of the Revolution), 
 the residue of the tract (except two tovniships), amounting to upwards of a 
 million and a quarter acres, mostly in the north and south parts of the tract. 
 Morris soon after sold the same to Sir William Pultney, which, with other lands, 
 added by the latter, became knovm as the " Pultney Estate." 
 
 Phelps and Gorham having paid about one-third of the purchase money of 
 the whole region purchased from Massachusetts, failed to meet the installment 
 due 1789—90. The State thereupon prosecuted their bonds, and after a pro- 
 tracted negotiation, they, on the 10th of March, 1791, reconveyed to the State 
 the whole of the lands, the Indian title to which they had not extinguished, viz., 
 the region west of the Genesee river, excepting, however, the Mill Seat Tract. 
 
 Two days after, Massachusetts contracted to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert 
 
156 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 New York commissioners on the Massachusetts controversy, met 
 the commissioners of the latter State at Hartford, Connecticut, 
 where the controversy was definitively settled. 
 
 Morris, all the lands thus reconveyed to her by Phelps and Grorham, amounting to 
 about three milhons, two hundred thousand acres, reserving, however, one- 
 sixteenth part, which John Butler had contracted for with Phelps and G-orham, 
 prior to their reconveyance. 
 
 On the eleventh of May ensuing, the said State conveyed to Morris the above 
 lands, including the reserved sixteenth part, Butler having assigned his right to 
 Morris. 
 
 In December, 1792, and in Pebruary and July, 1793, Morris sold to Herman 
 Leroy, John Linklaen, Q-errit Boon, WiUiam Bayard and Matthew Clarkson, in 
 fora- separate deeds, the whole of these lands, except one tract of five hun- 
 dred thousand acres, called afterward the Morris Reserve. He agreed, fur- 
 thermore, to extinguish the Indian title to the lands which he subsequently did, 
 viz., in September, 1797, with the exception of certain Indian reservations, among 
 them those of the Allegany, Cattaraugus, Buffalo, Tonawanda and Tusoarora. 
 
 The above mentioned grantees of Morris had purchased the lands with the 
 funds of, and held them in trust for certain Holland capitahsts, the latter being 
 unable, as ahens, by the then laws of New York, to hold real estate. 
 
 Acts were, however, subsequently passed to meet the dif&culty, and the 
 whole land was conveyed by the then trustees (changes having been made 
 among them ), in three deeds, to certain individuals, composing three separate 
 branches of the Holland Land Company. 
 
 After the Hartford settlement, New York found herself in the possession of 
 about seven million of acres of pubhc lands. On the 22d of March, 1791, the 
 Legislature authorized the Commissioners of the Land Office to sell these lands, 
 except those in the southern district, those reserved by law to the use of the 
 State, lands in Canaan, Columbia county, and those set apart for the use of the 
 army in Herkimer county. 
 
 Pursuant to this authority, the commissioners sold upwards of five millions 
 and a half acres to various individuals, Alexander McComb purchasing over two 
 and a half millions. 
 
 There remained to New York a milhon and a half acres. Of these, five 
 himdred thousand were, pursuant to a recommendation of Governor Lewis, 
 made on the 5th February, 1805, set apart by the Legislature on the second 
 of the succeeding April, for the use of common schools, and became the basis of 
 the present Common School Pund of the State. 
 
 Sixteen years later, the Constitution of 1821 ordained that the proceeds of 
 the pubhc lands, not reserved or appropriated to the pubhc use, or ceded to the 
 United States, thereafter to be sold, should, with the existing School Pund, become 
 a perpetual ftmd, the mterest to be apphed to the common schools of the State. 
 
 In accordance with this provision, the lands, amounting to nine hundred and 
 ninety-one thousand six hundred and fifty-nine acres, were transferred to the 
 School Pund, three-quarters of which fund, before and since 1821, have been 
 derived from these lands. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 157 
 
 In 1788 Chancellor Livingston was a member, from the city of 
 New York, of the New York State Convention, which ratified the 
 United States Constitution, he voting for the ratification. 
 
 In April, 1789, he, as Chancellor, administered the oath of office 
 to "Washington, in the city of New York, on his first inauguration 
 to the Presidency. 
 
 In 1790 the Chancellor was appointed, by an act of the Legis- 
 lature, March sixth, one of the commissioners on the subject of the 
 controversy between the State of New York and Vermont.' The 
 New York commissioners met commissioners appointed by Ver- 
 mont, and by declaring the consent of New York that the State 
 of Vermont should be admitted into the Union, and relinquishing 
 on that event all jurisdiction over, and ceding certain lands to her, 
 terminated in a friendly manner the dispute. 
 
 In 1794 the post of Minister to France was tendered to 
 Chancellor Livingston by "Washington, which he, however, de- 
 clined. 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1798, an act repealing "An act for grant- 
 ing to John Fitch the sole right and advantage of making and 
 employing the steamboat by him lately invented," (passed March 
 19, 1787) and vesting in Eobert E. Livingston privileges similar 
 to those granted to Fitch, for the term of twenty years from 
 the passage of the act, passed the New York Legislature. The 
 bill was introduced by Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, then a member of 
 the Assembly, on the ground that Mr. Livingston was represented 
 as possessed of a mode of applying the steam engiae to propel a 
 boat on new and advantageous principles, but deterred from carry- 
 ing the same into effect by the existence of the above law concern- 
 ing Fitch, who, it was farther suggested, was either dead or had 
 withdrawn himself from the State, without an attempt for more 
 than ten years at carrying the law into effect. 
 
 The act relative to Mr. Livingston was granted under the pro- 
 viso, that he should, within twelve months from the passage of 
 the act, prove to the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Survey or- 
 'General, or a majority of them, his having built a boat of at least 
 twenty tons capacity, propelled by steam, whose speed on the 
 Hudson river was not less than four mUes an hour, and that 
 
 1 Laws of New Tork, 1789-96, p. 13. 
 
158 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 lie sHould at no time omit for one year to have such a boat plying 
 between New York and Albany.' 
 
 In 1801 Mr. Livingston (relinquishing his Chancellorship) 
 accepted the post of Minister to France, conferred on him by 
 Jefferson among the first acts of the latter's ad m inistration. 
 
 Napoleon was at that time first Consul. Mr. Livingston was 
 the efficient and prominent agent, while at his court, in the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana, addressing a memoir on that subject to the 
 French Government. 
 
 Seven days before the arrival of Mr. Monroe, as special minister 
 for the furtherance of the object, Napoleon announced to the 
 Bureau of State his determination to sell whatever American terri- 
 tory he had obtained from Spain. The Louisiana purchase was 
 effected for $15,000,000. 
 
 While in Paris, Mr. Livingston formed an intimacy with Robert 
 Fulton, and by his counsels and money assisted the latter very 
 materially in the introduction of steam navigation. 
 
 After his resignation as minister, he returned to America in 
 June, 1805, and on the 26th of February, 1813, he died at Cler- 
 mont, Columbia county, New York, in the sixty-sixth year of his 
 age. 
 
 Mr. Livingston was tall and well proportioned; of imposing 
 presence, easy and pleasant in discourse and in manner graceful 
 and courteous. His private life was imbued with pure morals 
 and true piety, as his public had been with integrity and patriot- 
 ism. He was generous to the poor, disinterested in his friend- 
 ship and honorable in his intercourse with his feUow-men.° 
 
 Mr. Livingston was married to Mary Stevens, daughter of John 
 Stevens, of New Jersey, by whom he had two daughters. 
 
 Dr. Mitchell wrote thus to a friend: "ITpon this occasion the wags and the 
 lawyers in the house were generally opposed to my bill. I had to encounter 
 all their jokes and the whole of then- logic. One main ground of their objection 
 was, that it was an idle and whimsical project, unworthy of legislative atten- 
 tion." 
 
 Ezra L'Hommedieu, then a Senator, also states, that the application of Mr. 
 Livingston was a standing subject of ridicule throughout the session, and that 
 the younger members would, sometimes, when in the mood, call up " the steam- 
 boat bill" for diversion, at the expense of the project and its supporters. 
 
 ''Life of Chancellor Livingston by Dr. Francis; Herring's Portrait Gallery, 
 vol. 4. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 159 
 
 He was for many years President of the Academy of Fine Arts, 
 established in New York in 1801, adding to it a collection of busts 
 and statues, and was instrumental in obtaining for it, through 
 Napoleon, a number of rich prints and paintings. He was also 
 president of an agricultural society, and much devoted to the 
 improvement of agriculture. He introduced the merino sheep into 
 the State of New York, as well as clover, a better breed of domestic 
 cattle, and the use of gypsum or plaster of Paris upon land. 
 
 Mr. Livingston was also a vigorous writer. In 1787 he pub- 
 lished an oration delivered before the Society of the Cincinnati; 
 and in 1808 an Address to the Society for the Promotion of Useful 
 Arts, established in 1793, mainly through his exertions. He also 
 contributed many papers to the transactions of this society; pub- 
 lished a work on the merino sheep and essays on agriculture. His 
 latest production was a paper on agriculture, written only a few 
 days before his last illness. In it he shows the capabilities as to 
 soU, climate, fertility, resources, &c., of this country, the value of 
 horticultural labor, and the reciprocity between agriculture and 
 manufactures. 
 
 Mr. Livingston was likewise an orator, and a profound classical 
 and historical scholar. 
 
 JOHN LANSING, 
 
 SON or GERRIT LANSING, 
 
 "Was bom in the city of Albany on the 30th of January, 1754. 
 
 He studied law with Eobert Yates (Chief Justice) in Albany, 
 and with Mr. Duane in the city of New York. 
 
 In 1776 and 1777, he was the mihtary secretary of Major- 
 General Schuyler, commander of the northern department, and 
 who was engaged in the summer of the latter year in active ope- 
 rations to resist the advance of Burgoyne. In a letter' to James 
 Duane, dated at Saratoga (now Schuylerville) on the 30th of No- 
 vember, 1776, Mr. Lansing declined accepting, by reason of his 
 
 ' Journal of New York Proviadal Congress, vol 2, 248. 
 
160 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 holding the above post under General Schuyler, a commission of 
 lieutenant in the new levies of troops, to which he had been 
 appointed. 
 
 After being admitted to the bar, Mr. Lansing pursued his pro- 
 fession in the city of Albany. 
 
 From 1780-1 to 1784, he was a member of Assembly ( 4th, 5tli, 
 6th and 7th sessions, the latter commencing January 21st and 
 ending May 12th) from the city and county of Albany. 
 
 On the 3d of February, 1784, he was appointed a member of 
 Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, and on the twenty- 
 sixth of October following, was reappointed. 
 
 On the 13th of January, 1786, he was elected Speaker of the 
 New York Assembly. On the twenty -eighth of April following, 
 he, together with John Haring, Melancthon Smith and Eobert 
 Yates, was appointed (in place of John Jay and Walter Living- 
 ston, resigned) on the commission that met at Hartford, in that 
 year, and made final decision of the territorial claims of New 
 York and Massachusetts. 
 
 On the twenty -ninth of September, in the same year, he was 
 appointed, by the Council of Appointment, Mayor of Albany. 
 
 Li 1786 he was again elected a member of Assembly (10th ses- 
 sion, commencing January 12th and ending April 21st) from 
 the city and county of Albany. 
 
 On the 26th of January, 1787, he was once more delegated a 
 member of Congress under the Confederation. 
 
 On the sixth of March, in the same year, the New York Legis- 
 lature appointed him one of the three delegates (Alexander Ham- 
 ilton and Eobert Yates being the other two) to the Philadelphia 
 Convention, which assembled on the twenty-fifth of May, and 
 framed the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Lansing, 
 together with Mr. Yates, was opposed to the principles of the Con- 
 stitution, as presenting a system of consohdated government at 
 variance with the rights of the States ; retired from the Convention, 
 with Mr. Yates, on the fifth of July,' before the Constitution had 
 been definitely settled upon by that body, but not until it was seen 
 how it was to be established, and pubhshed his reasons for so doing, 
 in a letter, jointiy with Mr. Yates to Governor George Clinton.' 
 
 ' Secret Prooeediogs and Debates of the Convention, 1787, pp. 225, 303. 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 161 
 
 In 1788 Mr. Lansing was a member, from Albany city and 
 county, of tbe New York State Convention, wHcli ratified the 
 Federal Constitution, lie voting against tlie ratification. 
 
 On the 12th of December, 1788, the Assembly of New York 
 (12th session) reelected him speaker. 
 
 By the act of March 6th, 1790, he was appointed by the Legis- 
 lature one of the commissioners on the part of the State of New 
 York, to settle the controversy of that State with Vermont ; and 
 on the twenty -eighth of September followiag, he was appointed 
 one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the said State. 
 
 In the succeeding year, by an act of the Legislature, passed on 
 the sixth of July, he was appointed one of three commissioners 
 (Eobert Yates and Abraham Yan Yechten, the other two) to 
 determine the claims of citizens of the State of New York to lands 
 situated in Vermont, ceded by New York at the settlement of 
 the controversy, and what portion of certain moneys ($30,000) 
 each claimant shoiild receive. 
 
 On the 15th of February, 1798, Judge Lansing received the 
 appointment of Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 
 in place of Chief Justice Eobert Yates, who had resigned under 
 the Constitutional limi t of sixty years. 
 
 On the 21st of October, 1801, Chief Justice Lansing was ap- 
 pointed Chancellor of the State of New York, in place of Chan- 
 cellor Eobert E. Livingston, who had also resigned under the 
 above limit. 
 
 In February 1804, Chancellor Lansing was nominated, by a 
 legislative republican caucus, to the office of Governor of the 
 State of New York, but in a letter on the eighteenth of that 
 month, declined the nomination. 
 
 On the 28th of January, 1817, he was appointed a Eegent of 
 the University. 
 
 In 1824, he was chosen a Presidential Elector from the city and 
 county of Albany, and was appointed Secretary of the Electoral 
 Board. 
 
 He died on the 12th of December, 1829, in the seventy-sixth 
 year of his age. 
 
 Mr. Lansing possessed a large handsome person, with remark- 
 ably fine regular features; eyes and complexion light. He had 
 
 21 
 
162 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 good powers of conversation; was dignified and kind in manner, 
 and of varied information. 
 
 He was married in 1781 to Miss Eay, daughter of Eobert Eay 
 of New York, by whom lie had four children, all daughters. 
 
 He is the author of a small volume entitled "Eeports of Select 
 Cases in Chancery, and the Supreme Court of the State of New 
 York, in 1824 and 1826," viz.: In Chancery, Lansing v. The 
 Albany Insurance Company, March 24, 1824; Egberts v. Lansing, 
 September 7, 1824; Lansing v. Goelet. Supreme Court, Globe 
 Insurance Company v. Lansing, February Term, 1826. Published 
 at Albany, 1826. 
 
 JAMES KENT, 
 
 SON OF MOSS KENT, 
 
 Was bom July 31st, 1763, ia the town of Fredericks, then in 
 Dutchess, now in Putnam county. New York. 
 
 He entered Yale College in September 1777, and graduated 
 thence in September, 1781, the college in the interim having been 
 temporarily broken up by the British troops. 
 
 In the last mentioned year he entered as a student at law in the 
 of&ce of Egbert Benson, then Attorney-General of the State. 
 
 He was admitted to the bar in January, 1785, and removed to 
 Poughkeepsie, where he engaged in the practice of his profession. 
 
 In 1791, and in 1792-3, he was a member of Assembly from 
 Dutchess county. 
 
 He was nominated, in April, 1793, to Congress as a Eepresen- 
 tative of Dutchess county, but was defeated ia the election. He 
 then removed to the city of New York. 
 
 In December, 1793, he was chosen Professor of Law in Colum- 
 bia College, and in November, 1794, entered upon his duties. 
 
 In February, 1796, he was appointed by Governor Jay a Master 
 in Chancery (there being, at that time, but two Masters in the 
 State), and in 1796-7, was a Member of Assembly from the city 
 of New York. 
 
BioGRAPHicAii Sketches. 163 
 
 By an act passed tlie 24t]i of March, 1797, lie was appointed a 
 Commissioner, with Eobert Yates and Vincent Matthews, to settle 
 the title to disputed lands in the county of Onondaga.* 
 
 On the twenty-eighth of the same month, he was made Recorder 
 of the city of New York, holdiag the office in conjunction with 
 that of Master in Chancery. 
 
 In 1798, he resigned his Professorship in Columbia College. 
 
 On the 6th of February, 1798, he was appointed a Justice of 
 the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and originated the 
 practice, followed to the present day, of delivering a written, 
 argumentative opinion in every case of sufficient importance to 
 become a precedent. 
 
 He was chosen, on the 3d of February, 1800, a Regent of the 
 University. 
 
 In 1801 (act of April 8th) he and Jacob Radcliff were appointed 
 to revise the laws of the State." The revision, ia two volumjes, 
 was published in January and AprU, 1802. 
 
 On the 2d of July, 1804, he was appointed Chief Justice of the 
 New York Supreme Court, and so continued until the 25th of 
 February, 1814, when he was appointed Chancellor of the State. 
 His decisions, as the latter, are embodied in seven volumes of 
 reports, Wilham Johnson, Reporter. 
 
 He was a member, in 1821, from the city and county of Albany, 
 of the convention (convening at Albany, August 28th, and ad- 
 journing November 10th) by which the second constitution of the 
 State was formed. 
 
 In 1823 (July 31st) he resigned the office of Chancellor, under 
 the constitutional limit, having attained the age of sixty, and in 
 the autumn he again fixed his residence at the city of New York, 
 having previously resided in the city of Albany. 
 
 In the succeeding year he was once more chosen a Professor of 
 Law in Columbia College, and in that year delivered a course of 
 law lectures, comprising nearly all the subjects that are embraced 
 in his Commentaries and including some, such as the rules of pro- 
 cedure and pleading in civil actions and the law of crimes and 
 punishments, that are there omitted. 
 
 ' Laws of New York, vol. 3 ( Greenleaf s ed. ), p. 425. 
 " Laws of New York, 1801, p. 215. 
 
164 The Council of Revision. 
 
 He repeated this course of lectures in 1825, but after that year, 
 although he stUl retaiiaecL the office and title of professor, his labors 
 as such were discontinued. 
 
 In the following year he published the first volume of his Com- 
 mentaries on American Law, embracing that portion of his lectures 
 which he had then revised and enlarged. 
 
 In 1828, he was chosen President of the New York Historical 
 Society. 
 
 In 1830, his Commentaries, in. four volumes, complete, were 
 published. 
 
 On the 12th of December, 1847, he died, at the city of New 
 York, aged eighty-four years. 
 
 Judge Kent was small in person, vivacious in speech and 
 manner, quick and energetic in action, with strong features, dark 
 eyes and complexion. Both in his public and private life he was 
 unimpeachable in his integrity. His industry was remarkable, 
 his demeanor courteous, and he was kind and accessible in his 
 intercourse with the world. 
 
 In 1785, he married Miss BaUey. He had three children, a son 
 and two daughters. 
 
 "WOEKS AND ADDEESSES OF JAMES KENT. 
 
 Dissertations, being the prehminary part of a course of Law 
 Lectures, 1795. 
 
 Revision of the Laws of New York (with Judge Radcliff), 1802. 
 
 Lecture, introductory to a course of Law Lectures in Columbia 
 College, February 2, 1824. 
 
 Commentaries on American Law (vol. 1, published in 1826; 
 vol. 2, 1827; vol. 3, 1828; vol. 4, 1830). The work has passed 
 through nine editions. 
 
 Discourse, as President, before the New York Historical Society, 
 December 6, 1828. 
 
 Notes to the Charter of the City of New York, with a Treatise 
 on the powers and duties of the Mayor, Aldermen and Assistant- 
 Aldermen, and a Journal of the New York City Convention for 
 revising and amending the City Charter, beginning June 23d and 
 ending September 28, 1829. 
 
 Address before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Yale College, 
 September 13, 1831. 
 
CHIEF JUSTICES. 
 
 JOHN JAY, 
 
 Appointed by the Convention of Eepresentatives of the State 
 of New York, on the 8th of May, 1777; commissioned by the 
 Council of Appoiatment, under the Constitution of 1777, on the 
 seventeenth of October of that year. Eesigned September, 1779. 
 (See Biography.) 
 
 EICHAED MOEEIS, 
 
 [New York Colonial Judge or Tice-Adhiraltt, ] 
 SON or LEWIS MORRIS, 
 
 Was bom at Morrisania, "Westchester county. New York, on the 
 15th of August, 1730. 
 
 He graduated at Yale College in 1748, and commenced the study 
 of the law. 
 
 In 1750, he was appointed Clerk of the Courts of Oyer and 
 Terminer and Greneral Gaol Delivery for the Colony of New 
 York.' 
 
 On the 29th of April, 1752, he was commissioned, under the 
 hand and seal at arms of Governor George Clinton, at Fort George, 
 
 ' Journal General Assembly, 2, 788. 
 
166 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 city of New York, attorney at law, authorized to appear in all his 
 Majesty's Courts of Eecord in the Province of New York.' 
 
 He commenced the practice of his profession in the above city, 
 where he acquired a large practice. 
 
 On the 11th November, 1761, he was appointed sole Clerk of 
 the Circuits or courts for the trial of causes brought to issue in. 
 the Supreme Court for the Province of New York. 
 
 On the 2d of August, 1762, he received from Governor Monck- 
 ton a commission as Judge of the Vice- Admiralty of the said 
 Province. 
 
 He continued in the discharge of his duties without salary until 
 and including 1774. 
 
 In 1775 he resigned his office, having embraced the cause of 
 the Colony against the Crown. 
 
 The royal Governor, William Tryon, requested him to continue 
 in the said office of Vice- Admiralty until more quiet and profitable 
 times. His answer was that he would never sacrifice his princi- 
 ples to his interest, and that his office was at the Governor's dis- 
 posal.° He then became a marked man. Special orders were 
 issued by Governor Tryon in 1778, at first to take possession,* and 
 then to burn his country seat, in Westchester county, which were 
 carried into effect and his estate devastated. 
 
 On the 81st of July, 1776, the New York Provincial Conven- 
 tion appointed him, by unanimous resolution. Judge of the High 
 Court of Admiralty of the State of New York. He, however, on 
 
 ' Record Commissions, 5, 22. 
 
 ' Tryon's Report on the Province of New York, 1 Documentary History, 
 521. 
 
 3 Taken from private papers in the possession of his grandson Lewis Gr. 
 Morris, Esq. 
 
 4 [Copy of order, in possession of Lewis Q. Morris]. 
 By His Excellency Major-G-eneral Trion : 
 
 Permission is granted to Lieutenant Hunt, of the corps of guides or pioneers, 
 to take possession of the house and farm of Richard Morris, near Redoubt No. 
 8, for the convenience and shelter of his sister and eight children, sent down 
 from their homes by the Rebels, provided it does not interfere with, or is not 
 wanted for the King's service. 
 
 Given under my hand, at Mount Morris, the eighteenth day of December in 
 the eighteenth year of His Majesty's reign. 
 
 To all whom it may concern, 
 
 Wm. Teion, Governor. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 167 
 
 tlie second of August following, courteously declined tlie of&ce, 
 personally assuring the Convention that he most heartily joined 
 with his countrymen, and was ready to support them with his hfe 
 and fortane ; but that, from the situation of his family and property, 
 the remainder of his life was necessary for attention to his own 
 affairs.' 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1778, Mr. Morris was appointed, by the 
 Assembly of the State of New York, a Senator from the southern 
 district,'' in place of Doctor John Jones, who had been appointed 
 among others (on account of the district being possessed by the 
 enemy, precluding an election"), in the temporary plan of govern- 
 ment adopted by the New York Proviacial Convention, on the 
 8th of May, 1777, but who resigned on the 26th February, 1778, 
 by reason of ill health and professional duties.* 
 
 Mr. Morris continued a Senator until October, 1779. 
 
 On the twenty-third of that month he was appointed, by the 
 Council of Appointment, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 the State of New York, succeeding John Jay, elevated to the 
 Chief Justiceship of the United States. 
 
 On the same day he became, by virtue of his office, a member 
 of the Council appointed by the Legislature to carry on the Gov- 
 ernment in the southern parts of the State, between the time the 
 enemy should abandon or be dispossessed of the district and the 
 Legislature could be convened. 
 
 In 1788 he was a member, from the city and county of New 
 York, of the State Convention that ratified the Federal Constitution. 
 
 In September, 1790, he resigned his office pf Chief Jxistice, 
 having arrived at the constitutional age of sixty, and retired to his 
 estate (Scarsdale) in "Westchester county, taking no active part in 
 public affairs, but a deep interest in whatever concerned the pubhc 
 welfare. 
 
 He died at Scarsdale, on the 11th of April, 1810, in the eightieth 
 year of his age. His remains repose in the family vault in Trinity 
 Church yard. New York city. 
 
 ' Journal of New York Convention, 1, 550, 554. 
 2 Journal of New York Assembly, 1778, 68. 
 ' Journal of New York Convention, 1, 918. 
 * Journal of New York Senate, 1778, 69. 
 
168 The Coun-cil of Kevision. 
 
 Mr. Morris married Sarah, daughter of Henry Ludlow. He had 
 three children, two sons and a daughter. 
 
 He was commanding in appearance, bland and dignified in his 
 manners; a gentleman of the old school, possessing literary tastes ; 
 was firm and decided in character and of inflexible integrity. 
 
 EGBERT YATES, 
 
 SON OF JOSEPH YATES, 
 
 "Was born at Schenectady, on the 27th of January, 1738 
 
 In 1754 he was sent by his parents to the city of New York, 
 where he received a classical education. He then studied law with 
 Governor William Livingston, of New Jersey. 
 
 On the 9th of May, 1760, Mr. Yates was commissioned by Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor James De Lancey, under his hand and seal at 
 arms at Eort George, attorney at law, to practice in the Mayor's 
 Court and Inferior Courts of Common Pleas, at the city of Albany. 
 He then fixed his residence in that city, and being admitted a 
 counselor in due time, soon rose to eminence as a lawyer. 
 
 From the 14th October, 1771, to the 14th October, 1775, he was 
 a member of the Board of Aldermen from the second ward of the 
 city. 
 
 He was also Attorney and Council of the Board. 
 
 About this period, and while a separation between this country 
 and Great Britain was becoming highly probable, he took distinct 
 grounds as a Whig, and wrote several essays, under the signature 
 of "The Eough Hewer," defending the rights of America, both of 
 which raised him in political importance, the latter gaining for him 
 the same soubriquet as tl;e signature he employed. 
 
 In the years 1775, 1776 and 1777, he was a member from Al- 
 bany city and county, of the first, second and third New York 
 Provincial Congress, and of the "Convention of Representatives 
 of the State of New York." 
 
Biographical Sketches. 169 
 
 On the 15th of March, 1776, he was appointed, by the second 
 Provincial Congress, one of three members, for the city and county 
 of Albany, of the Committee of Safety.' 
 
 On the sixth of April following he was made, by the second 
 Continental Congress, secretary to the commissioners for Indian 
 affairs in the northern department ; ' and on the sixteenth of July 
 was placed, by the New York Convention of Kepresentatives, on 
 the secret committee with John Jay, Eobert E. Livingston and 
 others, to interpose barriers to the passage of Lord Howe's vessels 
 up the Hudson, by obstructing the channel of the river. 
 
 On the first of August following, he was by the same Conven- 
 tion made one of the committee that formed the first Constitution 
 of the State.' 
 
 On the succeeding niaeteenth of October, the New York Com- 
 mittee of Safety appointed him member of a committee directed to 
 repair to Albany to cooperate with General Schuyler ia measures 
 to repel the British on the northern and western frontiers of the 
 State, and for that purpose empowered to call out the militia of 
 the frontier counties.* 
 
 On the 7th of March, 1777, he and John Sloss Hobart were 
 appointed, by the New York Convention, commissioners in behalf 
 of the State to meet the commissioners of certain States, on the 
 seventeenth following, at Yorktown, Pennsylvania, pursuant to 
 resolutipns passed by the General Congress on the fifteenth of 
 February preceding.' On the eleventh, however, by reason of his 
 absence from the Convention, Colonel Eobert Van Eensselaer was 
 substituted. 
 
 On the third of May following, Mr. Yates was elected by the 
 New York Convention, and on the succeeding eighth appointed 
 (in the temporary plan of Government adopted by the Convention) 
 one of the two justices of the Supreme Court (John Sloss Hobart 
 the other) and commissioned as such by the Council of Appoint- 
 ment on the seventeenth of October following." 
 
 • Journal of the New York Provincial Congress, 1, 363. 
 « Journal of Continental Congress (1776), 2, 123. 
 
 ' Journal of New York Convention of Representatives, 1, 552. 
 
 * Journal of New York Committee of Safety, 1, 648. 
 ^ See Sketch of John Sloss Hobart. 
 
 ' Journal of New York Convention of Kepresentatives, 1, 910, 917. 
 
170 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In 1779, on the 23d of October, he was appointed by act, 
 as a Justice of the Supreme Court, one of a Council to carry 
 on the government of the State in the southern portion thereof 
 from the time the same should be abandoned by, or dispossessed 
 of the British troops, to the convening of the Legislature.' 
 
 On the 28th of April, 1786, he, with John Haring, Melancthon 
 Smith and John Lansing, Jr., was placed upon the commission 
 relative to the Massachusetts controversy, in place of John Jay 
 and Walter Livingston, resigned." 
 
 In the succeeding year, a legislative act of the first of March 
 (repealing the acts 7th March, 1785, and 29th April, 1786, on the 
 subject stated below) appointed Mr. Yates, Philip Schuyler, Gerard 
 Banker and Simeon De Witt, with the assistance of John Ewing, 
 David Eittenhouse and Thomas Hutchins and two other United 
 States Commissioners, to agree with agents appointed by Massa- 
 chusetts, on what principles the line of jurisdiction between that 
 State and the State of New York should be run. 
 
 In the same year. Judge Yates was a member of the Convention 
 that met on the twenty -fifth of May, at Philadelphia, and framed 
 the Constitution of the United States, Alexander Hamilton and 
 John Lansing, Jr.,° being his associates, the three representing the 
 State of New York. 
 
 Judge Yates, with Mr. Lansing, was opposed to the principles 
 of the Constitution as conflicting with State sovereignty, and with 
 the latter; on the fifth of July, withdrew from the Convention, 
 joining in a letter to Grovemor Clinton, which assigned the rea- 
 sons for so doing. 
 
 In 1788 he was a member, from the city and county of Albany, 
 of the State Convention that ratified the Pederal Constitution, he 
 voting against the ratification; and in April, of the following year, 
 was a candidate for the Governorship against George Clinton, 
 but was defeated. 
 
 In March, 1790, the Legislature appointed him one of the com- 
 missioners on the part of the State of New York, to settle the 
 controversy of the said State with Vermont.* 
 
 ' New York Laws, 1779, 96. 
 ' New York Laws, 1786, 95. 
 5 New York Laws, 1787, 89. 
 < New York Laws, 1789-96, p. 13. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 171 
 
 On the 28th of September, 1790, lie was appointed Chief Justice 
 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. 
 
 In, 1795 (April 6th), he was made one of the commissioners to 
 decide the claims of citizens of New York to lands ceded by said 
 State to Vermont, and determine what portion of the $30,000 
 each of the claimants should receiye.' 
 
 At the April election, in 1795, Chief Justice Yates was once 
 more a candidate for Governor, running against John Jay, and 
 was again defeated. 
 
 In 1797 the Legislature appointed him, by an act of March 
 twenty-fourth, one of three commissioners (James Kent and Via- 
 cent Matthews the other two) to settle disputes concerning the 
 titles to lands in Onondaga county, the commission expiring on 
 the 1st of June, 1800. 
 
 In January, 1798, he resigned his Chief Justiceship under the 
 limit of the Constitution, having attained the age of sixty, and 
 resumed the practice of the law. 
 
 On the 9th of September, 1801, he died at Albany, in the sixty- 
 fourth year of his age. 
 
 In 1765 Mr. Yates was married to Jane Yan ISTess, of Columbia 
 county, by whom he had four children. 
 
 He was in person above the ordinary height, with a fine coun- 
 tenance ; was dignified in manner, engaging in conversation and 
 possessed great historical knowledge. 
 
 He was well and extensively grounded in Enghsh law, whUe 
 his integrity and fearless discharge of duty on the bench were 
 conspicuous," 
 
 ' See Laws of New York, 1789-96, p. 35. 
 
 * He was particularly distinguished for his impartiality in the trial of State 
 criminals, and was not unfrequently obliged to abate the intemperate zeal or 
 ill-judged patriotism of the juries who were to decide upon the fate of unfortu- 
 nate prisoners. On one occasion he sent a jury from the bar four times succes- 
 sively to reconsider a verdict of conviction which they had pronounced against 
 the accused because they suspected he was a Tory, though without any proof 
 that could authorize a verdict. As the accused had become very obnoxious to 
 the great body of the "Whigs, the Legislature were inflamed, and seriously con- 
 templated calling Chief Justice Tates before them to answer for his conduct. 
 But he was alike indifferent to censure or applause in the faithful and indepen- 
 dent exercise of his judicial duties, and the Legislature at length prudently 
 dropped the affair. lAfe of Ch. J. Yates, appended to the Secret Proceedings and 
 Debates of the Convention of 1787. 
 
172 The Council of Eevision-, 
 
 Mr. Yates vraa the author of notes of the "Secret Proceedings 
 and Debates of the Convention of 1787." They remained in man- 
 uscript during his life, he, although often solicited to publish them, 
 refusing to do so, on the grounds they were not written for the 
 public, and that he felt under honorable obligations not to allow 
 their publication. After his death they were published by his 
 widow. 
 
 The published notes were copied literally from the original man- 
 uscript in the handwriting of Mr. Yates, by John Lansing, Jr. 
 
 JOHN LANSING, Jr., 
 
 Appointed on the 15th of February, 1798, in place of Robert 
 Yates, resigned, having attained the age of sixty. 
 
 Eesigned on the 2l8t of October, 1801, when he was appointed 
 Chancellor. (See Biography.) 
 
 MOEGAN LEWIS, 
 
 Appointed on the 28th of October, 1801, in place of John Lansing, 
 Jr., appointed Chancellor. 
 
 Eesigned, on entering upon his duties as Governor, 1st Monday 
 of July, 1804. (See Biography.) 
 
 JAMES KENT, 
 
 Appointed on the 2d of July, 1804, in place of Morgan Lewis, 
 elected Governor of the State. 
 
 Eesigned on the 25th of February, 1814, when he was appointed 
 Chancellor. (See Biography.) 
 
Biographical Sketches. 173 
 
 SMITH THOMPSON, 
 
 SON OF EZBA THOMPSON, 
 
 Was born in the town of Amenia, Dutchess county, New York, 
 in 1767. In 1788, he graduated at Nassau Hall, New Jersey, and 
 studied law with Chancellor Kent. 
 
 On the 19th of August, 1801, he was made District Attorney 
 for the middle district, composed of Eockland, Orange, Dutchess, 
 Ulster and Delaware counties.' 
 
 He was a member, from Dutchess county, of the Convention of 
 1801, convened in accordance with the act passed April sixth of 
 that year. 
 
 On the 8th of January, 1802, he was appointed a Justice of the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York. 
 
 In -1813 (March 3d), he was made a member of the Board of 
 Eegents of the University. 
 
 In the following year, on the twenty-fifth of February, he was 
 appointed to the Chief Justiceship of the State of New York, in 
 place of James Kent (appointed Chancellor), and continued in that 
 ofi&ce until December, 1818, when he resigned. In this year he 
 was appointed Secretary of the Navy, under President Monroe ; 
 and in 1823, was chosen a Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States. 
 
 In 1828, he was the candidate against Martin Van Buren for 
 the of&ce of Governor of New York, but was unsuccessful. 
 
 He continued in the office of Justice of the United States 
 Supreme Court until his death. 
 
 He died on the 18th of December, 1843, at Poughkeepsie, aged 
 seventy-six years. 
 
 Judge Thompson was twice married. His first wife was Sarah 
 Livingston, daughter of Gilbert Livingston, of Poughkeepsie, to 
 
 ' This district was formed the 4th of April, 1801, and had successively five 
 district attorneys beside Mr. Kent, viz., C, B. Ehnendorph, Lucas Elmendorph, 
 Bandftll S. Street, Samuel Hawkins and George Bloom. 
 
174 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 ■whom he was wedded in 1794. By this marriage he had two sons 
 and two daughters. 
 
 His second wife was Eliza Livingston, daughter of Henry- 
 Livingston, brother of Gilbert, and also of Poughkeepsie. He 
 •was married to her in 1836, and had one son and two daughters, 
 one of whom died in infancy. 
 
 Judge Thompson was of small stature, reserved in manner and 
 speech, but kind and aifable on further approach. He was pos- 
 sessed of high integrity, and in his private as well as pubho life 
 he commanded the respect of all. 
 
 AMBEOSE SPENCEE, 
 
 SON OF PHILIP SPENOER, 
 
 Was born in the town of Salisbury, Connecticut, on the 13th of 
 December, 1765. In the autumn of 1779, he entered Yale College, 
 and in 1782, Harvard University, whence he graduated in July, 
 1783. 
 
 He commenced the study of the law successively in the of&ces 
 of John Canfield, Sharon, Connecticut, John Bay, Claverack, and 
 Ezeldel Bacon, Hudson, both in Columbia county. New York. 
 
 In 1786, he was appointed clerk of the city of Hudson, and in 
 1788, was admitted to the bar. 
 
 In 1794, he was a member of the New York Assembly (17th 
 session) from Columbia county; a Member of the Senate from 
 the eastern district, in 1796 (19th session); and in 1796-7 (20th 
 session); and from the middle district in 1798 (21st session); 
 1798-9 (22d session); 1800 (23d session); and 1800-1 (24th 
 session). 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1796, he was appointed Assistant 
 Attorney-General for the third district, composed of Columbia 
 and Eensselaer counties? 
 
 ' This appointment was under the law passed February twelftli of that year, 
 dividing the State into seven districts, and creating the office, which continued 
 
Biographical Sketches. 175 
 
 On the 9t]i of January, 1797, lie was chosen a member of the 
 Council of Appointment from the middle district, and reappointed 
 from the same district, November 7, 1800. 
 
 In 1802, he was again a member of the State Senate (25th ses- 
 sion) from the middle district. 
 
 On the 3d of February, 1802, he was appointed Attorney- 
 General of the State, holding the station until tbe Sd of Febru- 
 ary, 1804, when he was made a Justice of the New York Supreme 
 Court. He then removed from Hudson to Albany. 
 
 In 1805, on the twenty-eighth of January, he was chosen a 
 Eegent of the University. 
 
 In 1808 he was a Presidential elector (heading the electoral list) 
 at the time James Madison was elected. 
 
 The following year, Judge Spencer, and Peter J. Monroe, as 
 commissioners on the Chancery system of the State (having been 
 thus appointed by Governor Tompkins, pursuant to a resolution 
 of the Legislature on that subject), made a report, manifestly 
 prepared by the former, " proposing some important reforms and 
 alterations in " that system. 
 
 The report recommended there should be three Chancellors, 
 with an Equity Distirict to each, and a Court of Eeview formed of 
 the whole number. 
 
 On the 9th of February, 1819, he was appointed Chief Justice 
 of the New York Supreme Court, succeeding Smith Thompson. 
 
 In 1821 he was a member, from the city and county of Albany, 
 of the Convention of that year that formed the second Constitu- 
 tion of the State. 
 
 On the 31st December, 1822, his commission as Chief Justice 
 expired, by reason of the Constitution of 1821 taking effect from 
 that day; but on account of a provision of that Constitution, con- 
 tained in the last clause of article ninth, that persons commissioned 
 
 until the 4tli of April, 1801, when the office of district attorney was instituted, 
 the same number of districts being retaiued. Subsequently, however, viz., in 
 1808, 1809, 1813, 1815 and 1817, six new districts were added. On the 21st of 
 April, 1818, each county was made a separate district, with a district attornev 
 for eacL 
 
 ' Discourse on Ambrose Spencer, by Daniel D. Barnard, January 5, 1849, 
 p. 90. 
 
176 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 in civil offices should continue to hold said offices until new 
 appointments or elections should take place, Mr. Spencer did not 
 cease to be Chief Justice until the 29th of January, 1823, when 
 his successor (Hon. John Savage) was appointed. 
 
 On leaving the bench, he resumed the practice of his profession, 
 but after a few years wholly abandoned it.' 
 
 On the 8th of March, 1824, he was appointed, by the Common 
 Council of the city of Albany, to the mayoralty of the city, for 
 the then present constitutional year. 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1825, he was reappointed by the same, 
 for the succeeding year, but on the twenty-sixth of the following 
 December he declined being a candidate for another appointment. 
 
 In 1829-31, he was a Eepresentative in the twenty -first Congress, 
 from the tenth district. 
 
 In 1839 he removed from Albany to the village of Lyons, 
 Wayne county, New York, where he resided until his death. 
 
 In 1844 he presided at the Whig National Convention, at Balti- 
 more, which nominated Henry Clay for President, and Theodore 
 Frelinghnysen for Vice-President of the United States. 
 
 He died on the 13th of March, 1848, ia the eighty-third year 
 of his age. 
 
 He was thrice married. His first wife was Laura Canfield, 
 daughter of his first legal preceptor. He was married to her on 
 the 18th of February, 1784. His second wife was Mary Norton, 
 widow of Burrage Norton, of England, and his third was Catherine 
 Norton, widow of Samuel Norton, also of England. Both were 
 sisters of De Witt Clinton. 
 
 He had six sons (the first and fifth of whom died in infancy) 
 and two daughters; all by his first wife. 
 
 Mr. Spencer was of large, stately presence, Over six feet in 
 height, with dark eyes and complexion. He was vehement in 
 speech and energetic in manner, but kind and approachable to all. 
 His conversation was fluent, replete with information and indi- 
 cative of the comprehensive grasp of his intellect. 
 
 ' Barnard's Discourse, p. 30. 
 
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 EOBEET YATES, 
 
 Appointed by the Convention of Representatives of the State of 
 New York, on the 8th of May, 1777; commissioned by the Coun- 
 cil of Appointment, under the Constitution of 1777, on the seven- 
 teenth of October of that year. Appointed Chief Justice on the 
 28th of September, 1780. (See Biography.) 
 
 JOHN SLOSS HOBAET, 
 
 SON OF THE REV. KOAH HOBART, 
 
 Was born at Fairfield, Connecticut, in February, 1738. In 1757 
 he graduated at Yale College. 
 
 In November, 1765, he became a member of the association in 
 the city of New York called "The Sons of Liberty,'" organized 
 to oppose and obstruct the execution of the Stamp Act, on tidings 
 being received of the act's passage in Parliament. 
 
 ' So called from a passage in the speech of CoL Barre, on the 7th February, 
 1765 in opposition to the Stamp Act, introduced in the House of Commons on 
 that day; in which passage he says: "Men (alluding to the rulers sent by tha 
 Crown to its subjects in America) whose behavior on many occasions has 
 caused the blood of those Sons of Liberty to .recoil within th^in." Jjoasing's 
 Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, 1, 463. 
 
 23 
 
178 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In 1775, he was chosen from Suffolk county to the Provincial 
 Convention, held in the city of New York, April twentieth, for 
 the appointment of delegates to represent the State in the second 
 Continental Congress. He was a deputy from Suffolk to the first, 
 second and third New York Provincial Congress, in 1775 and 
 1776, and a deputy to the Convention of Eepresentatives of the 
 State of New York, in 1777, which formed the first Constitution 
 of the State. Mr. Hobart was upon the convention committee that 
 reported the resolutions approving the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence ; upon the one that formed the Constitution; ' upon the one 
 that organized the Council of Safety (of which the Convention 
 appointed him a member), and likewise upon the committee of three 
 (John Jay and Mr. Morris his associates) that devised the first 
 great seal of the State.'. 
 
 On the 7th of March, 1777, he and Eobert YateS were appointed, 
 by the said Convention of Eepresentatives, commissioners on 
 behalf of the State of New York, to meet the commissioners of 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, on 
 the seventeenth following, at Yorktown, in Pennsylvania, pursuant 
 to certain resolutions of the General Congress of the fifteenth of 
 the preceding February." 
 
 * Journal of New York Provincial Convention, 1, 518, 552. 
 
 * The following is a copy of the resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That considering the situation of the New England States, Congress 
 approve of the measures adopted and recommended by the committees from the 
 four New England States, for the defense of the State of Rhode Island ; and 
 also of the measures to be taken for preventing the depreciation of their cur- 
 rency, except that part which recommends the striking bills, bearing interest ; 
 ■which, being a measure tending to depreciate the Continental and other curren- 
 cies, ought not to be adopted, and it is so recommended by Congress to the said 
 New England States. 
 
 That the plan for regulating the price of labor, of manufactures and internal 
 produce within those States, and of goods imported from foreign parts, except 
 military stores, be referred to the consideration of the other United States ; and 
 that it be recommended to them to adopt such measures as they shall think 
 most expedient to remedy the evils occasioned by the present fluctuating and 
 exorbitant prices of the articles aforesaid. 
 
 That for this purpose, it be recommended to the Legislatures, or in their recess 
 to the executive powers of the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. 
 Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to appoint commissioners, to meet at York- 
 town, in Pennsylvania, on the third Monday in March next, to consider of and 
 
Biographical Sketches. 179 
 
 On the eleventh, Col. Eobert Van Eensselaer was substituted 
 for Mr. Yates, who was absent from the Convention, and on 
 the twelfth, Mr. Hobart, accompanied by the former, repaired to 
 Yorktown, where they met the commissioners of the above named 
 States. On the fourteenth of April succeeding, Mr. Hobart laid 
 before the Convention a copy of the proceedings of the said com- 
 missioners. 
 
 On the 3d of May, 1777, he was elected, and on the 8th ap- 
 pointed (although not belonging to the legal profession), in the 
 temporary plan of Government adopted by the Convention, one of 
 the two puisne judges of the Supreme Court of the State of New 
 York, and commissioned as such by the Council of Appointment, 
 under the Constitution of the State, October 17th, 1777. 
 
 In 1779 (October 23d), he was placed by the Legislature, as 
 Judge of the Supreme Court, upon the Council to carry on the 
 Government of the State in the southern portion thereof, during 
 the interval between the enemy's abandonment or dispossession 
 of the district and the meeting of the Legislature. 
 
 In 1788, he was a member, from the city and county of New 
 York, of the State Convention that ratified the Constitution of the 
 United States, and voted for the ratification. 
 
 On the 11th of January, 1798, he was appointed, by the Legis- 
 lature of New York, a United States Senator, to succeed General 
 Schuyler; and in the following February, he resigned his office of 
 
 form a system of regulation, adapted to those States, to be laid before the 
 respective Legislatures of each State for their approbation. 
 
 That for the like purpose, it be recommended to the Legislatures, or executive 
 powers in the recess of the Legislatures of the States of North Carolina, South 
 Carolina and Georgia, to appoint commissioners to meet at Charleston, in South 
 Carohna, on the first Monday in May next. 
 
 That it be recommended to the Legislatures of the several Statef^ to take the 
 most effectual measures for manning the Continental frigates fitted for the sea in 
 their respective States. 
 
 That it be earnestly recommended to the United States, to avoid, as far as 
 possible, further emissions of paper money, and to take the most effectual mea- 
 sures for speedily drawing in and sinking their paper currency already emitted. 
 
 That such parts of the proceedings of the committees from the four New 
 England States, as relate to the price of labor and other things, be published 
 and transmitted to the other States, together with these resolutions. Journal 
 of Congress, February, 1777, pp. 64, 65. 
 
180 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Supreme Court Justice under the constitutional limit, having 
 attained the age of sixty. 
 
 In the spring or summer of the above year, he also resigned his 
 Senatorship, on being appointed Judge of the United States Dis- 
 trict Court for New York, which station he held till his death. 
 
 He lived during the Eevolution at Eaton Manor, by Long Island 
 Sound, but subsequently removed to the city of New York, where 
 on the 4th of February, 1805, he died, aged sixty-seven years. 
 
 Mr. Hobart was tail and thin in person, and of dark complexion; 
 was taciturn in speech, grave and reserved in manner. He was 
 apt in the discharge of his duties upon the bench, and his patriot- 
 ism was displayed in many instances. Behind his gravity of 
 manner he possessed considerable playfulness, illustrated in his 
 letter of 18th November, 1795, to Governor Jay, on the occasion 
 of the latter's proclamation for a Thanksgiving.' 
 
 JOHN LANSING, Jr., 
 
 Appointed on the 28th of September, 1790, in place of Eobert 
 Yates, Chief Justice. On the 15th of February, 1798, appointed 
 Chief Justice. (See Biography.) 
 
 MORGAN LEWIS, 
 
 Appointed Fourth Justice on the 24th of December, 1792. On the 
 28th of October, 1801, appointed Chief Justice. (See Biography.) 
 
 » Life of Jay. by Wm. Jay, 1, 386. 
 
BiOGBAPHicAi, Sketches. 181 
 
 EGBEET BENSON, 
 
 THIKD SON OF ROBERT BENSON, 
 
 "Was bom in the city of New York, on the 22d of June, 1746. 
 
 In May, 1768, he graduated at King's College, in the said city; 
 studied law in the office of John Moiin Scott; was admitted to the 
 bar in 1772 ; and, removing from the above city to Bed Hook, 
 Dutciiess county, New York, commenced there the practice of his 
 profession. 
 
 In 1775, he was a member, from Dutchess, of the Provincial 
 (convention which assembled in the dty of New York, on the 
 twentieth of April, for choosing delegates to the second Continen- 
 tal Congress. 
 
 On the 11th of February, 1777, he was appointed, by the "Con- 
 vention of Representatives of the State of New York," one of the 
 commissioneTs for detecting and defeating conspiracies in the 
 above named State,' having previously been chairman of the Com- 
 mittee of Safety in and for Dutchess county.* Mr. Benson, as 
 such commissioner, sent, in July of the following year, William 
 Smith, the historian of the Colony, and an adherent to the Crown, 
 into the British lines.'" 
 
 • Robert Benson married Catherine Van Borssom, and had four sons, viz. : 
 Bobert, Secretary of the First Ciommittee of Safety of the State, and of the 
 
 Pirst Senate; and Aid-de-Camp to George Clinton, during the Revolutionary 
 War; 
 
 Hemy, commander of an aimed vessel of this State on the Hudson during the 
 Bevolation; 
 
 Egbert, as above, and 
 
 Anthony, who was captured at sea, and died on boaxd a prison ship in the 
 barbor of New York 
 
 ' Dnnl^'a New Tork, 2, Appendix, p. cxcvi 
 
 ' Jounial of the Committee of Safety; Journal New York Provincial Con- 
 gress, 1, 803. 
 
 * Journal of the Committee of Safety; Journal New York Provincial Con- 
 gress, 1, 13a 
 
 ' Thranpson's History, Long Island; Memoir of Benson, by Kent^ 408. 
 
182 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 r 
 
 On the ttird of May in that year lie was elected, and on the 
 eighth appointed by the above Convention, the first Attorney- 
 General of the State of New York (being included in the tempo- 
 rary plan of government adopted upon that day), and commis- 
 sioned as such by the Council of Appointment, on the 15th of 
 January, 1778.' 
 
 In the same year, on the seventh of October (the day the Legis- 
 lature was dispersed by the approach of the enemy), Mr. Benson 
 was chosen by the said Legislature a member of a new Council 
 of Safety, vested, in the recess of the House, with the like powers 
 of the Council of Safety organized by the Convention of Repre- 
 sentatives, on the eighth of May preceding, to carry on the tempo- 
 rary government, and dissolved on the tenth of the ensuing Sep- 
 tember upon the meeting of the above Legislature at Kingston. 
 This new Council consisted of thirteen; the members of the Legis- 
 lature and State Delegates to Cotigress being entitled from time to 
 time to sit and vote in the body." It commenced its meetings, 
 October 8th, 1777, and continued till January 7th, 1778.° 
 
 From 1777 to 1780-1, he was a member of the Assembly (1st, 
 2d, 3d and 4:th sessions) from Dutchess county, the fourth session 
 ending July first in the last mentioned year. 
 
 On the 21st of October, 1779, he, together with James Duane 
 and John Morin Scott, was by an act of the Legislature of New 
 York, appointed a commissioner to collect and procure evidence, 
 vouchers and materials for manifesting and maintaining the boun- 
 daries and jurisdiction of the State of New York, and the rights 
 of the grantees under the same, with reference to the controversy 
 of the said State with parts of the counties of Cumberland, Glou- 
 cester, Charlotte and Albany, which in June, 1777, had declared 
 themselves free of New York, under the name of the State of Ver- 
 mont. The commission to procure evidence related to the pro- 
 ceedings of a Federal Court, prescribed by the Articles of Confe- 
 deration, as to the settling disputes between the States.* 
 
 ' Journal of Province, 1, 917. 
 
 ' Journal New York Convention of Senate and Assembly, in Journal Nevr 
 York Provincial Congress, 1, 1062. 
 
 5 Journal Council of Safety ; New York Provincial Congress, 1063, 1109. 
 
 ■" Laws of New York (Holt's ed.), 1777-83, 91. See also the "Vermont Con- 
 troiersy, in the preceding Biography of George Clinton. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 183 
 
 On the twenty-tMrd following, he was, as Attorney-General, 
 made member of a Council, appointed by the Legislature, to carry 
 on the government ia the southern district of New York, between 
 the time of the abandonment or dispossession of the enemy of said 
 district and the meeting of the Legislature. 
 
 On the 26th of October, 1781, he was appoiated from the State 
 of New York a member of Congress under the Confederation, and 
 reappointed on the 3d of February, 1784. 
 
 By the act of May first in the last mentioned year, he became, 
 by virtue of his office as Attorney-General, a member of the 
 first Board of Regents of the University, and on the twenty-sixth 
 of the following October was again appointed a member of Con- 
 gress under the Confederation. 
 
 Li June, 1788, he was chosen by the United States one of three 
 commissioners to cooperate with other commissioners, to be ap- 
 pointed by Sir Guy Carleton, to superintend the embarkation 
 of the Tories for Nova Scotia. His brother commissioners were 
 William Smith and Daniel Parker. 
 
 On the 12th of November, 1784, the Legislature of the State 
 of New York appointed him one of the agents of said State, rela- 
 tive to its controversy with Massachusetts, respecting the western 
 boundaries of the two States. 
 
 Two years after, the Legislature, on the sixth of May, appointed 
 him, also, one of the six conmiissioners, on the part of the State, 
 to the General Convention, held at Annapolis from the eleventh 
 to the fourteenth of September in that year. Mr. Beifson and 
 Alexander Hamilton (another of the commissioners) alone attend- 
 ed. This convention recommended the General Convention which 
 was held at Philadelphia, on the 25th of May, 1787, and formed 
 the present Constitution of the United States." 
 
 ' What tlie agency of Mr. Benson was, in the origin of this Constitution, may 
 be seen from the following manuscript note, in his own handwriting, and writ- 
 ten in his usual quaint style, appended to his memoir, entitled "Names," 
 delivered before the New York Historical Sooiety", December 31, 1816. 
 
 "The Legislature of Virginia, Feb'y 2, 1786, proposed to the States, a Con- 
 vention of Commissioners, to meet at Annapolis, in Maryland, in Sept'r, ' to 
 consider how far an uniform system in their Commercial Intercourse and 
 Eegulations might be necessary to their common Interest and permanent 
 Harmony, and to report an Act relative to this great Object, which, when rati- 
 
184 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 On the 26tli of January, 1787, he was again appointed a mem- 
 ber of Congress, under the Articles of Confederation. In the fol- 
 lowing spring he resigned his office of Attorney-General, and by 
 the act of April thirteenth of the above year was made a Eegent 
 of the University, 
 
 The next year he represented Dutchess county in the Assembly 
 of the State, which commenced its eleventh session on the ninth 
 of January, at Poughkeepsie, and on the twenty -second of that 
 month was appointed, for the fifth time, to the Congress of the 
 Confederation. 
 
 lied, would enable the United States, in Congress assembled, effectually to pro- 
 vide for the same.' 
 
 "The Measure being approved, the Legislature of this State appointed their 
 Commissioners, Messrs. Duane, G-ansevoort, K. C. Livingston, Hamilton and Me. 
 Mr. Gansevoort wholly declined the Appointment, and when the time ap- 
 proached for the Convention to assemble, Mr. Duane gave notice to his Colleagues 
 of Indisposition, and Mr. Livingston of a probable Detention by Business for at 
 least some days. I was Attorney-G-eneral, and at the time in Albany, attend- 
 ing the Supreme Court, and it became doubtful whether the public Business 
 would not detain me. The late Mr. Justice Hobart and I were Chums there, 
 and a Casxial Conversation between Us, the Convention the subject, terminated 
 in a Conclusion that the present Opportunity was not to be lost for obtaining a 
 Convention to revise the whole of the Articles of Confederation as a Mode or 
 System of Government; that I should consign over the Business of the Court to 
 some Friend to conduct it for Me, and proceed to New York and communicate 
 to Mr. Hamilton what had passed between us, which I did, and he instantly 
 concurring, we set out for Annapolis, where we found commissioners from 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia. Here, the same being sub- 
 stantially communicated, and there being the Uke instantaneous concurrence, a 
 Committee was appointed to prepare an Address to the States, which was re- 
 ported and agreed to, the whole in the course of not exceeding three or four 
 days, and We separated. The Draft was by Mr. Hamilton, and at unanimous 
 request, although not formally one of the Committee. It is to be found printed 
 in Gary's American Museum for April, 1787, and concludes with ' a Suggestion 
 by the Commissioners, with the most respectful Deference, of their sincere Con- 
 viction, that it might essentially tend to advance the Interest of the, Union if the 
 States, by whom they had been respectively delegated, would concur themselves, 
 and use Endeavors to procure the Concurrence of the other States, in the ap- 
 pointment of Commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, on the second Monday in 
 May, to take into Consideration the Situation of the United States, and to devise 
 such further Provisions as should appear to them necessary to render the Consti- 
 tution of the Federal Government adequate to the Exigencies of the Union.' 
 This the Origin of the present Constitution." 
 
Biographical Sketches. 185 
 
 From 1789 to 1791, lie was a member, from the State of New- 
 York (represented by six members), of the first Congress under 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Bj an act, passed on the 6th of March, 1790, repealing a former 
 act of the fourteenth July, on the same subject, he was appointed 
 one of the commissioners, on the part of the State of New York, 
 to decide the controversy between it and Vermont. 
 
 From 1791 to 1793, he was again a member, from the State of 
 New York (six members again representing it), of the second 
 Congress; on the 29th of January, 1794, he was appointed, by a 
 majority of the Council of Appointment^ the Fifth Justice of the 
 New York Supreme Court.' 
 
 In 1796, Judge Benson was chosen, by lot, one of the three com- 
 missioners, under the Jay Treaty, to decide as to the true St. 
 Croix, with reference to the northeast boundary line. On the 
 25th of October, 1798, he made his report' to the President of the 
 United States (John Adams), in behalf of himself and his brother 
 commissioners, stating that a river, called the Schoodiac, einpty- 
 ing into Passamaquoddy Bay, was the true St. Croix intended in 
 the treaty of peace of 1783, between the United States and Great 
 Britain, so far as its great fork, where one of the streams came 
 from the westward and the other from the northward, and that the 
 latter stream was the continuation of the St. Croix to its source.' 
 
 ' There was a collision between the Governor (George Clinton) and the 
 Council relative to this appointment. {See History of Council of Appointment in 
 hiography of Clinton. 
 
 ' Senate Journal of the United States, third session, fifth Congress, 1798-9, 
 p. 16. 
 
 ' The northeast boundary line between Great Britain and the United States, 
 or rather between Maine and New Brunswick, had long been a matter of dispute. 
 
 In the second article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 ( which treaty was 
 framed before New Brunswick had been separated from Nova Scotia, and while 
 Maine was within the limits of Massachusetts), the boundary was thus defined 
 ( the framers regulated by a map made by John Mitchell, under the auspices of 
 the British Board of Trade, and published in 1755), from the northwest angle 
 of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which was formed by a line drawn due north 
 from the source of the St. Croix river to the Highlands ; along the said High- 
 lands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence 
 from those which fall into the Atlantic, to the northwesternmost head of the 
 Connecticut river, thence down through said river to latitude forty-five, and 
 thence due westward. 
 
 24 
 
186 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 In March, 1801, he resigned his justiceship on receiving the ap- 
 pointment, on the third of that month (called the midnight act of 
 John Adams), as Chief Judge in the second circuit of the United 
 
 Doubts having arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the 
 St. Croix, it was provided, in the fiith article of the treaty of amity, commerce 
 and navigation between the United States and Great Britain, signed 19th 
 November, 1794 (commonly called the Jay Treaty), that the United States 
 and Great Britain should each appoint a commissioner, and the two agree in the 
 choice of a third, or if not agreeing, each commissioner should propose one per- 
 son and decide by lot ; and that the decision of the commissioners, as to the 
 subject matter, should be final and conclusive. 
 
 David Howell was- appointed commissioner on the part of the United States, 
 and Thomas Barclay on the part of Great Britain. Not agreeing on the choice of 
 a third. Judge Benson was chosen by lot. The three commissioners met, the 
 British agent claiming, as the true river, the river Schoodiac ( an Indian name 
 signifying "burnt land") emptying in the northwest side of Passamaquoddy 
 Bay, an inlet of the Bay of Fundy ; and the American agent, the river Magagua- 
 davic east of the Schoodiac, emptying in the above bay on the east side, and 
 long claimed by Massachusetts as the river meant in the treaty of 1783. 
 
 Judge Benson (acting as umpire) decided that the true river was the Schoo- 
 diac, and the other commissioners coincided with him. A difficulty then arose 
 as to the source whence the hue due north was to commence. Three points 
 were contended for, viz., the source of the river's western branch, the outlet of 
 the same branch from the lowest of the Schoodiac lakes, and the source of the 
 northern branch of the river (which branch was called the Cheputnetecook), the 
 last named source lying east of the first, but west of the outlet. 
 
 The commissioners at length acquiesced with Judge Benson, that the outlet 
 should be considered the source designated in the treaty ; but as there was a 
 tract of valuable land, held under grants of the respective governments, between 
 the two branches, it was finally decided that the source of the northern branch 
 should be constituted the true source, giving to the United States the said tract, 
 but to the British Government a larger territory above than if the outlet had been 
 designated. A monument was erected in 1797 (a yellow birch tree hooped with 
 iron, marked by the initials of the surveyors, Samuel Titcomb and John Harris, 
 with the date of the erection), at the point decided upon, and called the Eastern 
 Monument. 
 
 The question, however, as to the true point of the Highlands mentioned in 
 the treaty of 1783, as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, as well as to the north- 
 westernmost head of the Connecticut river, still remaining open, the Ghent 
 treaty (concluded December 24, 1814) provided for a final settlement of those 
 points, as well as the adjustment of the whole boundary from the source of the 
 St. Croix to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the "Woods. 
 
 The two commissioners, appointed under the fifth article (Thomas Barclay 
 by the British Government, and Cornelius Van Ness by the United States), 
 after sitting near six years, could not agree, and the question (provided for in 
 that contingency by the treaty) was left to the arbitrament of the King of the 
 Netherlands. His decision was, however, protested against (January 19th, 
 
BlOGEAPHIGAL SKETCHES. 187 
 
 States Court,' under a new arrangement of the United States 
 Circuit Courts. He was deprived, however, of the latter office, 
 in 1802, by a repeal, in that year, of the statute creating the new 
 courts. 
 
 On the 3d of April, 1807, the Legislature appointed him, with 
 Joseph C. Yates and others, on a commission in behalf of the 
 State of New York, to meet and confer with commissioners on the 
 part of New Jersey, respecting the eastern boundary of the latter 
 State. 
 
 In December, 1812, he was elected, from the second district, to 
 the thirteenth Congress, which commenced (it having had three 
 sessions) on the 24th of May, 1813; on which day he took his 
 seat; attended through the first session (viz., to August 2d), but 
 subse quently resigned, "William Irving supplying the vacancy, 
 and taking his seat on the 22d of January, 1814.' 
 
 On the 24th of August, 1833, Mr. Benson died at Jamaica, Long 
 Island, aged 87 years. 
 
 Mr. Benson was one of the founders of the New York Histori- 
 cal Society ; was the first named among the corporators in its 
 incorporating act of February 10th, 1809 ; and was appointed its 
 first president, continuing in the station for eleven years. 
 ; He was of medium height, of compact frame, with light eyes 
 and complexion. He possessed a calm, equable temperament, 
 
 1832 ) by the State of Maine, the district being separated from Massachusetts, 
 and erected into a State on the 15th of March, 1820. It was not until the 
 treaty of August 9th, 1842 (negotiated by Daniel Webster as Secretary of State 
 of the United States, and Lord Ashburton on the part of Great Britain ), that the 
 question was settled by the final establishment of the whole boundary line from 
 the monument at the source of the river St. Croix, designated by Judge Benson 
 and the other commissioners, to the Rocky Mountains. By another treaty 
 between the United States and Great Britain, made on the loth of June, 1846, 
 the hne between the two countries was further continued west of the Rocky 
 Mountains, from the point where it terminated, in the Webster and Ashburton 
 treaty, along the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the 
 channel which separates the Continent from Vancouver's Island, thence 
 southerly through the middle of said" channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific 
 Ocean. 
 
 ' Hammond's PoUtical History, vol, 1. 179. 
 
 ' Journal House of Representatives, second session, thirteenth OoD<;res3, 
 p. 246. 
 
188 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 although quick and energetic in his movements; was cheerful in 
 manner and fluent in conversation, abounding in anecdote. He 
 was an antiquarian; colloquial iu his manner as a speaker; brief 
 and sententious, bordering on obscurity in his style of writing, 
 and possessed a mind stored with classical, legal and historic 
 knowledge. 
 
 In his private life he was irreproachable, while his public shone 
 with examples of the purest patriotism and deepest devotion to 
 duty. He was never married. 
 
 As a member of the Assembly from 1777 to 1781, he drafted 
 almost every important bill that passed therein, during the Eevo- 
 lution, and while he was a representative ia Congress, dating from 
 1780, he drew the bills organizing the executive department of 
 the United States Government. 
 
 As a Judge of the Supreme Court of New York, he drew the 
 first rules the court, under the constitution of the State, ever 
 possessed, viz., those of April term, 1796. 
 
 His miscellaneous writings were voluminous. The most con- 
 spicuous were: 
 
 A Criticism on the "British Eule of 1756." 
 
 A Vindication of the Captors of Andre. 
 
 Eemarks on "The "Wife," of the Sketch Book by Irving. 
 
 A Memoir on "Names," read before the New York Historical 
 Society, December 31, 1816. 
 
 This last is his most elaborate miscellaneous production. It is 
 devoted to the origin and signification of Indian, Dutch, English 
 and other names, relating to the territory formerly known as New 
 Netherland, bounded on the east by the Connecticut and on the 
 west by the Delaware rivers. 
 
 It is full of curious antiquarian learning, written in the author's 
 usual condensed, quaint style. 
 
 As a specimen of this style we subjoin the following from an 
 inscription upon a marble slab he caused to be affixed, to the 
 memory of his friend, John Sloss.Hobart, in the wall of the Su- 
 preme Court chamber in the City Hall of the city of New York. 
 
 "As a man, firm; as a citizen, zealous; as a judge, distinguish- 
 ing; as a Christian, sincere. This tablet is erected to his memory 
 by one, to whom, as a friend, close as a brother." 
 
BlOGBAPHICAL SOHCHBS. 189 
 
 JAMES KEST. 
 
 Appointed, on the 6di of Febniarr, 179S, in place of John Lan- 
 sing, Jr^ Chief Jnsiice^ On flie 2d of Februarr, ISOi, appointed 
 Chief Justice. (See Biography.) 
 
 JOHX COZDsE 
 
 Appointed, on the 9th of Angnst, 179S. in place of John Sloss 
 Hobart lesigned, on his attaining the age of sixtr. Died on tiie 
 16di of September, 179S. 
 
 As Judge Corane died before taking his seat on tiie bench, and 
 conseqaend J, never became a member of the Conndl of Bevision, 
 his biographj is omitted. 
 
 JACOB RADCLIFF, 
 
 SOK OP VILI-IAX BADCJ.IFF, 
 
 Was bom at IQunebeck, Dotehess coonty, iN^ew Toik, on flie 20di 
 of April, IToi 
 
 In 1779. he entered Xassan HaO, Princeton, Xew Jersey, and 
 orradnxted thence in 17So. 
 
 In this same year he commenced the study of law in die ofiBoe 
 of ^^faeit Benson, then Attorney-General of the Siate of 2s'ew 
 Yoifc. 
 
 In 17 So. he was admitted to the bar, and commenced the piae- 
 tioe of the law at Pooghkeepsie, in die same State. 
 
190 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 In 1794-5, lie was a member of tlie Assembly (17th session) 
 from Dutchess county. 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1796, he was chosen by the Council 
 of Appointment to the office of Assistant Attorney-General. Mr. 
 Eadcliff's district was composed of the counties of Orange, 
 Dutchess and Ulster.' 
 
 On the 27th of December, 1798, Mr. Eadcliff was appointed a 
 Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in place 
 of John dozine, who died shortly after his appointment. 
 
 In 1799, Judge Eadcliff removed from Poughkeepsie to Albany. 
 
 By an act of April 8th, 1801, he was appointed, in conjunction 
 with James Kent (then an Associate Justice), to revise the laws of 
 the State. 
 
 In 1802, he removed to the city of New York, where he subse- 
 quently resided until his removal, in the latter part of his life, to 
 Brooklyn. 
 
 In January, 1804, he resigned the office of Supreme Court 
 Justice, and resumed the practice of the law, devoting himself to 
 Chancery business. 
 
 On thelSth of February, 1810, he was appointed by the Coimcil . 
 of Appointment to the Mayoralty of. the city of New York, and 
 on the 10th of July, 1815, was reappointed ; both times in place 
 of De Witt CKnton. 
 
 In 1821, he was a member, from the city and county of New 
 York, of the State Convention which formed the Constitution of 
 that year. 
 
 On the 4th of January, 1842, he was appointed, by the United 
 States Circuit and District Courts, a commissioner under the 
 General Bankrupt Act, passed at the first session (1841) of the 
 twenty-seventh Congress, but on the twentieth of May in the 
 above year he died at Troy, New York (while on a visit from his 
 residence at Brooklyn), in the eighty -first year of his age. 
 
 Mr. Eadcliff was an excellent Chancery lawyer. In the latter 
 portion of his life, when engaged in preparing bills or answers in 
 Chancery, or other legal papers,' he was in the habit of dictating 
 
 ' On the 27th of January, 1798, Coenrad E. Elmendorph was also appointed 
 for the same district. 
 
BlOGRAPHIOAL SKETCHES. 191 
 
 to an amanuensis, and such was his accuracy, there was seldom 
 any occasion to alter a word or sentence of what he had dictated.' 
 
 He was of remarkably handsome, dignified presence, over six 
 feet in height, erect ia person, with hght eyes and complexion, 
 and a mild, highly iatellectual countenance. His manners were 
 quiet and affable. 
 
 He was married, in 1786, to Julia, daughter of the Eev. Cotton 
 Mather Smith, and granddaughter to the celebrated Cotton Mather. 
 He left children. 
 
 Mr. Radcliff, while he sat upon the bench of the Supreme Court, 
 viz., during the period from 1799 to 1803, made notes of the deci- 
 sions of the court for publication, but the labors attendant upon 
 his profession (which he had resumed after the resignation of his 
 Judgeship) prevented him from completing his work. He, how- 
 ever, allowed "William Johnson, the subsequent reporter, the use 
 of his manuscripts of which Mr. Johnson availed himself in con- 
 nection with his own notes and those of others, in his "Johnson's 
 Cases." 
 
 HENRY BROCKHOLST LIVINGSTON, 
 
 SON OF WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, GOTEENOR OP NEW JERSEY, 
 
 Was bom in the city of New York on the 26th of November, 
 1757. 
 
 In 1774, he graduated at Princeton. College, New Jersey. Early 
 in the summer of 1776, he entered the military service of his 
 country as a Captain, and was one of the aids, with the rank of 
 Major, of General Schuyler then commander of the northern 
 department of New York. 
 
 He then became aid to General St. Clair, acting in that capacity 
 at the investment of Ticonderoga, by Burgoyne, in the beginning 
 of July, 1777, and witnessed the retreat of Colonel "Warner's troops 
 from Hubbarton. Attached, in the following September, once 
 
 ' Letter of Lemuel Jenkins, Esq., of Albany, to the writer. 
 
192 The Council of Revision. 
 
 more to the military family of General Schuyler, he, while his 
 commander was absent at Albany, joined General Arnold on the 
 ninth of that month, and as a volunteer, participated on the nine- 
 teenth in the first conflict of Gates with Burgoyne, at Bemis 
 Heights. 
 
 In 1779, Mr. Livingston became the private secretary of John 
 Jay, minister plenipotentiary to Spain; left with him in the frigate 
 Confederacy on the twentieth October of that year, and remained 
 about three years abroad. On his homeward voyage, in 1782, he 
 was captured by a British cruiser and carried to the city of New 
 York, but was liberated on the arrival of Sir Guy Carleton in May, 
 1783. Soon after, he went to Albany, studied law with Peter W. 
 Yates, and in November, 1783, after the evacuation of New York 
 by the British, commenced practice in the latter city.' 
 
 In 1784, by the act of May 1st, granting additional powers to 
 King's College, Mr. Livingston was made one of the first Regents 
 in the University, named, to the number of twenty-four, in the 
 act. 
 
 After the above year, he dropped the name of Henry and 
 became known as Brockholst Livingston. 
 
 He was a member of the New York Assembly, in the twelfth 
 session of 1788-9, from the city and county of New York; also 
 in the twenty -fourth session of 1800-1; and was elected to the 
 twenty-fifth session of 1802. 
 
 On the 8th of January, 1802, he was appointed a Justice of the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York. 
 
 In November, 1806, he was made a Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States; and in January, 1807, he resigned his 
 Supreme Court Justiceship of New York. 
 
 He continued in the office of United States Justice till his 
 death, which occurred during the sittings of the Court at Wash- 
 ington, on the 18th of March, 1823, in the sixty-sixth year of his 
 age. 
 
 Mr. Livingston was slender in person, with light eyes and com- 
 plexion, and marked features. His manners were cheerful and 
 pleasing. He was fluent in conversation and accessible to all. 
 
 ' See " Holgate's American Genealogy," p. 191. 
 
Biographical Sketches. 193 
 
 At tlie bar lie was powerful and eloquent, and was possessed of 
 literary tastes and scholastic acquirements. 
 
 Mr. Livingston was thrice married; Hs first wife was Catharine 
 Keteltas, by whom he had four daughters and a son. His second 
 was Ann N. Ludlow, by whom he had two daughters and a son, 
 and his third Mrs. John Kortwright, by whom he had two sons 
 and a daughter. 
 
 He was one of the founders of the New York Historical Society 
 and the second named in the act of incorporation. 
 
 SMITH THOMPSON, 
 
 Appointed on the 8th of January, 1802, in place of Egbert Ben- 
 son, resigned on his appointment as Chief Judge in the second 
 circuit of the United States Court. On the 25th of February, 
 1814, appointed Chief Justice. (See Biography.) 
 
 AMBEOSB SPENCEE, 
 
 Appointed on the 3d of February, 1804, in place of Jacob Ead- 
 cliff, resigned. On the 9th of February, 1819, appointed Chief 
 Justice. (See Biography.) 
 
 DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, 
 
 Appointed on the 2d of July, 1804, in place of James Ke^t, Chief 
 Justice. Eesigned, on his election as Governor, in April, 1807. 
 (See Biography.) 
 25 
 
194 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 WILLIAM W. VAN NESS, 
 
 SON OF -WILLIAM VAN NESS, 
 
 Was born at Claverack, Columbia county. New York, in 1776. 
 He did not receive a collegiate education. 
 
 He pursued his legal studies in the office of John Bay, of Clave- 
 rack, and also in the city of New York; was admitted to the bar 
 as an attorney, in 1797, and followed his profession in Claverack, 
 until his admission in 1800, as a Counselor. He then removed 
 to Hudson, in the above named county, which elected him a mem- 
 ber of the New York Assembly, at the twenty-eighth session, 
 1804-5, and also at the twenty-ninth session, 1806. 
 
 On the 9th of June, 1807, he was appointed a Justice of the Su- 
 preme Court of the State of New York ; and in 1821, was a member 
 from Columbia county of the State Convention. 
 
 He continued as Justice until the 81st day of December, 1822, 
 when his commission expired by the Constitution formed by the 
 above Convention taking effect from that day. 
 
 He then opened a law office in the city of New York, but died 
 at Charleston, South Carolina, on the 27th February, 1823, in the 
 forty -eighth year of his age. 
 
 He was married in 1796 to Jane, daughter of John Bay, and 
 had five children, three sons and two daughters. 
 
 Mr. Van Ness was large and portly in person, with light com- 
 plexion, fine blue eyes and high forehead. He possessed great 
 suavity of manner, displayed much imagination and eloquence at 
 the bar and in conversation, and was very easy of approach. 
 
 JOSEPH C. YATES, 
 
 Appointed on the'8th of February, 1808, in place of Brockholst 
 Livingston, resigned by reason of his appointment as Justice of 
 the United States Supreme Court. Eesigned on his election as 
 Governor, in November, 1822. (See Biography.) 
 
BlOGEAPHICAL SKETCHES. 195 
 
 JOKAS PL ATT,- 
 
 SOK OP ZEPHANIAH PLATT, 
 
 Was born at Pougikeepsie, Dutchess county, New York, on the 
 30th of June, 1769. 
 
 He studied law with Colonel Richard Varick, and was admitted 
 to the bar in 1790. 
 
 In the commencement of 1791y he removed to Whitesboro', in 
 the then county of Herkimer (which at that period included all 
 western New York), and on the seventeenth of February in that 
 year, was appointed Clerk of the county. 
 
 In 1796, he was a member of the Assembly (19th session, 
 
 beginnir" ^ ry 6th, and ending April 11th) from the counties 
 
 of Heri ^ Onondaga, which latter had been erected from 
 
 Herkim 5th of March, 1794 
 
 On the lath of March, 1798, he was appointed Clerk of Oneida 
 county, which, four days before, viz., on the fifteenth, had been 
 erected also from Herkimer county; and from 1799 to 1801, he 
 was a representative in the sixth Congress from the ninth district 
 of the State. 
 
 From 1810 to 1813, he was a member of the New York Senate 
 (38d, 34th, 35th and 36th sessions) from the western district. 
 
 At the April election of 1810, Mr. Piatt was a candidate for the 
 Governorship of the State of New York, against Daniel D. Tomp- 
 kins, but was defeated. 
 
 In 1813, on the 12th of January, he was chosen to the Council 
 of Appointment from the western district, and on the twenty- 
 fifth February of the next year, was appointed a Justice of the 
 Supreme Court of the State. 
 
 In 1821, he was a member (from Oneida and a part of Oswego 
 counties) of the Convention that formed the second State Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 On the 31st day of December, 1822, his commission as Justice 
 expired, by reason of the Constitution of 1821 taking effect from 
 that day, but in accordance with the provision in article ninth of 
 
196 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 tliat Constitution, Mr. Piatt continued to hold over until the 
 29th of January, 1823, when his successor (Hon. Jacob Suther- 
 land ) was appointed. 
 
 On his retirement from the bench, he resided at Utica, New 
 York, and then in the city of New York, at which places he 
 engaged in the practice of his profession. 
 
 He died at Peru, Clinton county. New York, on the 22d of 
 February, 1834, in the sixty-fifth year of his age. 
 
 In 1790, he was married to Helen, youngest daughter of Henry 
 Livingston, of Poughkeepsie, New York, and had eight children, 
 two sons and six daughters. 
 
 Mr. Piatt was tall and slender in person, of fine presence; quiet 
 and thoughtful in demeanor, with dark eyes and complexion. He 
 was dignified, although somewhat reserved in manner and speech. 
 
 JOHN WOODWOETH, 
 
 SON OF KOBEET WOODWORTH, 
 
 "Was born on the 12th day of November, 1768, at Schodack, Eens- 
 selaer county. New York. 
 
 In September, 1784, he entered Yale College, graduated in 
 September, 1788, and in that year commenced the study of law, 
 at the city of Albany, with John Lansing, Jr., subsequently 
 Chief Justice and Chancellor of the State. 
 
 In July, 1791, Mr. "Woodworth was admitted to the bar; re- 
 moved to Troy, New York, and commenced there the practice of 
 his profession. 
 
 In 1792, he was appointed by the judges and supervisors of 
 Eensselaer county, one of the New Loan Commissioners (in pur- 
 suance of an act of the Legislature, passed the 14th of March, 
 1792)' for loaning the said county's share ($30,000) of the State 
 Loan, to the several counties. 
 
 ' Laws of New York ( Greenleaf' s ed. ), vol. 2, p. 400 
 
Biographical Sketches. 197 
 
 On the Tib of June, 1793, lie was appointed Surrogate of Eens- 
 selaer county, by the Council of Appointment, and so continued 
 till his appointment as Attorney-General. 
 
 On the 6th of November, 1800, he was chosen, by the Senate 
 and Assembly of New York, one of the twelve Electors for Presi- 
 dent (Jefferson) from the county of Eensselaer; in 1808, he was a 
 member of Assembly (26th session) from the same county; and 
 from 1804 to 1807 was elected to the Senate of the State, from the 
 eastern district. 
 
 On the 3d of February, 1804, he was appointed Attorney- 
 General of the State, and in 1806 removed to Albany. He con- 
 tinued to hold the office of Attorney-General until the last of 
 March, 1808. In 1811 (by an act passed April 4th) he was ap- 
 pointed, in conjunction with "William P. Van Ness, reviser of the 
 laws of the State; on the ninth of November in the next year he 
 was chosen by the Senate and Assembly, one of the Electors for 
 President (Madison), and in 1813 (March 3d) was made a Regent 
 of the University. In that year the revision of the laws of the 
 State, known as the Eevised Laws of 1813 (according to the said 
 act of 1811, and another passed April 12th, 1813), was published 
 in two volumes. 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1819, he was appointed a Justice of the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York, in place of Ambrose 
 Spencer, made Chief Justice. 
 
 On the 31st day of December, 1822, his commission as justice 
 expired in consequence of the Constitution of 1821 taking effect 
 from that day, but according to article nine of that Constitu- 
 tution, Mr. "Wood worth continued to hold over; on the 7th of 
 February, 1823, he was again appointed, and continued in the 
 of&ce until November, 1828, when he resigned under the Consti- 
 tutional limit (retained from the Constitution of 1777), having 
 arrived at the age of sixty. 
 
 Judge Woodworth died at Albany, on the 1st of June, 1858, in 
 the ninetieth year of his age; in the enjoyment, to the last, of his 
 faculties, both physical and mental. 
 
 He was of large and portly presence, with light eyes and complex- 
 ion, and a countenance expressive of cheerfulness and benignity. 
 He was very easy of approach, his manner affable, and conversa- 
 
198 The Council of Revision. 
 
 tion agreeable and fluent. His fellow-townsmen had been so long 
 accustomed to his erect form, and quick active step among them, 
 added to his urbanity of speech and manner, that at his death an 
 important feature of Albany life seemed removed. 
 
 Illustrating the retention of his mental faculties, the following 
 are mentioned: 
 
 In May, 1856, he delivered a clear and cogent argument before 
 the Judges of the Supreme Court of the third Judicial District, 
 in a case of ejectment, brought by the heirs of French against Lent, 
 to recover lands illegally confiscated by the State, contrary to the 
 Treaty of Peace of 1783 ; in which case the decision of the court 
 was in favor of Judge Woodworth. 
 
 In September, 1857, he delivered another argument on a man- 
 damus against the Comptroller of the State, to recover an alleged 
 arrear of salary due him as Judge of the Supreme Court, under 
 the Constitution of 1777. The argument was before the special 
 term of the court, and was succeeded by another, upon the same 
 subject, at the general term in December. 
 
 In these arguments (which were printed in pamphlet form) 
 Judge Woodworth introduced biographical sketches as well as 
 historical and personal reminiscences, interesting not only from 
 their intrinsic worth, but from the choice and apt language in 
 which they were clothed. 
 
 "When it is considered that these arguments were prepared by a 
 gentleman in his eighty-ninth year, who was Attorney-General of 
 the State before the birth of the judges to whom they were sub- 
 mitted, they must be regarded as worthy of record. 
 
 Judge Woodworth was also the author of a little work, both 
 pleasing and valuable, entitled "Reminiscences of Troy, from its 
 Settlement in 1790 to 1807," full of historical sketches of the 
 p]ac3, and biograpliical notices of many of its oldest inhabitants. 
 
IXTRODUCTORT REMARK: 
 
 The TBatjES of the Cocxcil of Reytsiox of the Stats of 
 IS^Ew York, are here, for the rrs: time, coHecrod in a piinted 
 shape. 
 
 This Council existed fron 1777 to 1521: a peri.>i of foity-fonr 
 Tears, e:staidi3g tarv?.ig":i ie two Trars of ottt uatioa \rith Great 
 Britaiii. An indep^ident branch of ti? legisLatiTe roTi^er. its 
 vetoes ill J.rs3.e iie l^al ani constitimoiial iii^Torj of oar S:i.te 
 ;:irisrr"dezee. Ther onbraee a great Tarietr of o^e?ror.s in 
 crusriradonsl Ia\r and piolic policT, and poi£e^^ general and 
 
 Tae di5ri:g:iiiiird men that compceed the Conncil, acixiojLS not 
 OIL.T TO Tindicaie ihese- xeroes to the pnbhc, b^» knowing ther 
 ■wo'i-vi enconnrer the objections and arg'inezi:? of the Le^islatore, 
 firamed them wiih great care, and they ccmseqnentlT Trill be f.fLiii 
 :a:iried bv vig;?- clearness and :>riccl precision, both in thotizi: 
 and expressica. 
 
 Tae Eiiror has placed in a bodj those vetoes that received 
 the &iiiot;c:i of the CoaneD. separating in an appendix those 
 objjcticns which, altsotigh presented to it by those having in 
 charge the bills npcoi which they w^re fonnded, dii no; receive 
 the above saacticm. 
 
 The Vetoes were compfled by the Editor frcxn five mannscnpt 
 folio voltizies ii the office ai tiie Secretarv of State at Albanv. 
 
VETOES. 
 
 On Wednesday tlie 2Sth JannaiT, 1775, 4e C<HOKal for le^isiag 
 an Bills aboat to be pased into Lavs by tiae L^kiaxare of ihe 
 Siaw of Xew Toiifc, met ai tke Chamb^ of Ids Ejadloicy the 
 GovemoT. in Poogiikeqjsie. 
 
 Januartf 29. The CoTindl appoiute'i Badbaid ^Kil&eld tiidr 
 Qeri. 
 
 PorsHEEEPSn, F<iiriij-y^ 177S, Present — G-eorge OintCHi, 
 GoTemoT: Bobert B. liTmgsioxu C3iaiM!dlocr; J<jin Jay, Ciief 
 Ji!5nee: Solvit Tates and Join SIoss Hoban, Poisne Judges. 
 
 A bin eniixled ''Am «k* r^srfi^ cM psrsoi*s hi^du^ ^css or 
 jbIokss vmder ^ Gbowismsni tf Ah StJti-. *» tal.s Sfe cecSm Aerem 
 pr&cr&ei and ifeiacfetP 'was before tJie Coimcal, Trfaick adopted xhe 
 fojlo^nng G^jecti<His, reported by tlie C3iief Jnstice, xiz. : 
 
 1. In the oatk of office pissciib&d for SiieiiSs and Undej: 
 SieJxSs. tbey are resiraiaed frcmi taking more iban laiirfid fees or 
 TeTrards "for Ibe impazoKJing or r^iiming of sut inv^nesi, jtirv 
 cr tales, in any eotm of lie peit^e cf tiiis State or betweeai parry 
 and party, or for ■die serring any legal .piooss ■5r3ia1sc>eTer;'" 
 -wiiCTeas if an espies pxcdubitkn to the taiing undue foes ot le- 
 waids Tras deesned iMCsssaiy, it should ik«; be ocmSned to ihese 
 partienlaT servicK, btii oo^t to extaid to all acfe -wbidi Sieiife 
 or Under Serifs aie bound by llie dnties of thear offices to peiform, 
 and ^rbieli acts may, iridKHit a paztic^iiar eaitnneiaSioii, be oompre- 
 beaded under gaieral deseriptiTe terma. 
 
 26 
 
202 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 2. The bill, after prescribing particular oatbs for the Secretary 
 of State, Sheriff, Under Sheriffs and Clerks of Counties provides, 
 that all other ministerial oiScers in this State shall take the follow- 
 ing oath, viz.: I, A B (chosen pr appointed as the case may be), 
 to the ofiic^ of for the county of do solemnly in the pre- 
 
 sence of, &c., &c. As this oath has express reference to county 
 of&cers, it cannot with propriety be administered to, or with truth 
 taken by the following ministerial officers, none of whom are 
 appointed for any particular county, viz., the Clerk of the Supreme 
 Court and Nisi Prius, the clerks, registers, and other officers in the 
 Court of Chancery, Admiralty and Probates; nor can it reach the 
 attorneys, proctors, and solicitors practising in those courts, or to 
 brigadiers and other generals of the militia of this State who can- 
 not come 'Under the description of persons appointed or chosen to 
 the office of for the county of 
 
 8. The President of the Senate when he shall administer 
 the Government, is not named among those officers who are 
 directed to take the oaths before persons to be appointed by com- 
 mission in the nature of a dedimus potestcitem, and therefore, as 
 the bill now stands, must take the said oath before a justice of the 
 peace in the county where he resides. 
 
 4. That only the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, members of 
 Senate and Assembly, Chancellors, Judges and Justices, Secre- 
 taries of the State, Sheriffs, Under Sheriffs, Clerks ofOounties, and 
 all mihtary officers are required to take the said oaths before per- 
 sons to be appointed by commission in the nature of a ckdimus 
 potestaiem ; and yet the rolls to be kept by the said persons are 
 mentioned in the said bill as containing the oaths and subscrip- 
 tions of the several officers of the Court of Chancery, Supreme 
 Court, Court of Admiralty and Court of Probates, although none 
 of the officers of the said courts, except the Chancellor, Judges, 
 Sheriff and Under Sheriff, are directed to take the said oaths or 
 make the said subscriptions before such Commissioners. 
 
 5. That the Justices of the Peace before whom the ministerial 
 officers described in the bill are directed to take the said oaths, 
 are not required to keep any rolls or record thereof, or to furnish 
 the officers taking such oaths with a certificate thereof, nor is any 
 provision made whereby, in case of the death of the Justice, the 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 203 
 
 people may be informed, or tlie of6.cer obtain evidence of Ms 
 having taken tbe said oaths, although such information and 
 evidence is rendered highly important by the clause which de- 
 clares of&ces ipso facto vacant, on neglect to take the oaths. 
 
 The Council object to the last clause in the bill which declares 
 officers to be ipso facto removed and the offices ipso facto vacant 
 from and immediately after neglect to take the oaths, for the 
 following reasons, viz. : 
 
 1. That no time is allowed to the said officers to consider and 
 make their election either to refuse or accept the said offices. 
 
 2. That the bill does not define what shall be deemed a neglect, 
 but leaves it to .be tried as a mere matter of opinion not reducible 
 to a certain nde or standard. 
 
 8. That, as the persons appointed to administer the said oaths 
 are bound to administer them to every officer who shall produce 
 a commission or other proper evidence of his appointment or elec- 
 tion and are not authorized previously to inquire into the neglect 
 mentioned in the bill, very honest and good officers may, after 
 having inadvertently been guilty of such neglect, take the said 
 oaths, and enter on the execution of their offices, and that not 
 merely at their own peril, but at the peril of the whole com- 
 munity; for should such officers be afterwards prosecuted for exer- 
 cising offices which such neglect had rendered void and vacant, 
 and be convicted thereof, all proceedings had before them, and all 
 acts done by them, would of course be adjudged null and void. 
 
 Bill amended by Legislature in accordance with objections, and 
 then approved by the Council. 
 
 Poughkeepsie, February 20, 1778. Present— Governor Cliu- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Jay, Chief Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to prevent the exportation of fhur, meal and 
 grain out of this State," was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 The Council object to the said bill as being inconsistent with 
 the spirit of the Constitution of this State. 
 
204 The Council of Revision. 
 
 Because it recognizes the late supposed Council of Safety as a 
 Legislative body, when in fact all Legislative power is to be 
 exercised by the immediate representatives of the people, in Sen- 
 ate and Assembly, in the mode prescribeji by the Constitution ; 
 for though the people of this State have, heretofore, been under a 
 necessity of delegating their authority to Provincial Congresses 
 and Conventions, and of being governed by them and Councils, 
 and Committees of Safety by them from time to time appointed, yet 
 this Council conceive that these were mere temporary expedients 
 to supply the want of a more regular government, and to cease 
 when that prescribed by the Constitution should take place, and 
 can in no wise justify the appointment of a. Council of Safety, 
 other, perhaps, than as a committee to advise and recommend, 
 after the organization of the present Government, and the actual 
 entry of the Senate and Assembly upon the business of legislation; 
 at which period the Council are of opinion that all Conventions 
 and Councils of Safety had ceased and could not thereafter be 
 instituted or appointed consistent with the Constitution of this 
 State; and that the people did not give or delegate to their repre- 
 sentatives in Senate or Assembly, any power or authority, at their 
 discretion, to revive the Government by Conventions or Councils 
 of Safety, or in any other manner to dispense with or suspend the 
 Government established by the Constitution : these objections, in 
 the opinion of the Council, operate with the greater force against 
 the recognition of the Council of Safety, in question, as it was not 
 even appointed by the Legislature, but by a number of the mem- 
 bsrs who had resolved themselves into a convention, after the 
 organization of the Government, instituted by the Constitution ; 
 and, therefore, although the rectitude and well meaning zeal of 
 that Council of Safety may give them a claim to indemnity, 
 neither the mode of their institution nor the edicts they made, 
 ought, in the opinion of this Council, to be held up by the Legis- 
 lature as constitutional or obhgatory, especially as the Constitu- 
 tion does expressly "Ordain, determine and declare, that no 
 authority shall, on any pretense whatever, be exercised over the 
 people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from 
 and granted by them." 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 205 
 
 Oa these principles this Council find themselves constrained to 
 object to the preamble of this bill: 
 
 1. It recognizes and speaks of this Council of Safety as if it had 
 been a body constitutionally instituted and known to the law of 
 the land; it speaks of their resolution as laying an embargo which 
 it was expedient to continue, thereby intimating that the said reso- 
 lution was obligatory on the people, when, in fact, it was not 
 obligatory, nor were they in the least bound to obey or regard it. 
 
 2. On the same principle this Councd also object to the first 
 enacting clause: 
 
 It enacts that the said resolution of the Council of Safety, and 
 the embargo thereby laid (except such parts thereof as are therein- 
 after repealed), shall stand, and be confirmed and continued, thereby 
 plainly giving countenance to the said resolution, and evidently 
 acknowledging it to have force and validity. 
 
 The second, third and fifth clauses, are undei the like predica- 
 ment with the first, and the Council object to them on the same 
 principles. 
 
 The Council object to the sixth enacting clause as inconsistent 
 with the spirit of the Constitution: 
 
 1. Because this clause supposes the continuance of County and 
 District, or Precinct Committees, and thereby implies that they are 
 necessary and proper to the government of this State. But the 
 government established by the Constitution, knows of no County 
 or District, or Precinct Committees, and being appendages to and 
 parts of the same system of expedients with Conventions and 
 Councils of Safety, they ceased together, and cannot, consistent 
 with the Constitution, be revived. 
 
 The Council object to the court instituted by this clause for the 
 trial of intentional exports without license. 
 
 Because, in this court, the person who makes the seizure is to 
 impannel the jury, yet no power is given to compel their attend- 
 ance; he is to sit as Judge to determine the propriety of evidence 
 and challenges, and yet in certain cases must be the prosecutor. 
 
 In this court the party prosecuted may be proceeded against in 
 his absence, and condemned to forfeit his property without a hear- 
 ing, for notice to the person then having the care and possession 
 of the flour, &c., is no notice to the owjier; nor in. case puch person 
 
206 The Council of Ekvisiok. 
 
 be a slave, is any notieo to be pivoii to the owner of the flow, 
 uuless lie happou to bo kuowu to the person who seized it 
 
 In tliis court no means are provided whereby the defendant oiua 
 compel the attendanee of his witnesses. 
 
 In this court the defendant cannot compel a speedy trial, for tlio 
 pei-son who made the seizure is at liberty, by the bill, to cause tiie 
 inq\iiry to be nvade when he may think proper. 
 
 In this court provision is n>aile for the payment of costs and 
 charges only on tlie conviction, but not on the acquittsil of the 
 defendant, so that the court ajid jury, as well as witnesses, will bo 
 interested against hun. 
 
 The Council object to the said bill us being, in their opinion, 
 inconsistent with the public good : 
 
 1. Because, as the bill rocognizes the Council of Safety, and 
 their ivsolution for laying an embargo, in terms which amount to 
 an acknowledgment of their right to malce Itiws, nil the other 
 resolutions they have passed nuist be deemed of equal validit;/ 
 with this; whereby a nundter of new laws, which have never been 
 under the consideration of tlio liCgislaturo, and perhaps repugnant 
 to the Constitution, will bo introduced among tlie laws of this 
 State. 
 
 2. Because, in the opinion of the Council every freeman in 
 this State has a right to do any act which is not forbidden by liie 
 laws of God or of the State, and therefore that such acts cannot, 
 consistent with the public gooil, be deemed to have been illegal 
 by laws afterwards made, and which did not exist at the time 
 when such acts were done: "Wherefore, tlio Council object to that 
 part of the first clause in the bill which retrospects mid attempts 
 to validate and confirm certain jiarts of tJio resolution of the Coun- 
 cil of Safety jft'om the time it ■wan iiKuh: ami ;pi(lili,ili(xi 
 
 8. Because, liowevcr exjiedicnt an end)argo may be, yet liberty 
 is not granted for tlio transportation of flour, &.e., from the south- 
 ern States through this State to New England. 
 
 4. Because, it is not, in the opinion of tliis Council, consistent 
 with the public good that the first magistrate of the people 
 should bo diverted from the inijiortant duties of his ollice by a 
 necessity of personally hearing and trying the merits of the nume- 
 rous applications which will be made to him for licenses from 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 207 
 
 different parts of this and the neighboring States, as well as from 
 the commissaries of the army; which business it will be very diffi- 
 cult for him to transact when called into the field at the head of 
 the militia. 
 
 5. Because, as the Governor is the only person authorized 
 by the bill to grant licenses, it imposes undue hardships and 
 expenses on the inhabitants of those parts of the State who are 
 remote from the place of his residence. 
 
 6thly. Because, as by the bill mere suspicion alone, without any 
 proof or evidence of intention to export without license, is suffi- 
 cient to justify any committeeman, justice, sheriff, or other peace 
 officer to seize and detain flour, &c., passing through any part of 
 the State, the Council apprehend that the domestic trade of the 
 people of this State with one another will be subjected to difficul- 
 ties and interruptions, and innocent men often distressed especially 
 as on such seizures they will be obliged to maintain their cattle, 
 horses, and slaves at the place in which they may be seized, until 
 the person who seized them may think proper to give them a trial, 
 and which, if there be malice in the case, will on various pretenses 
 of witnesses absent, &:c., be unnecessarily protracted and delayed. 
 
 7. Because, although the bill makes it lawful for the Governor, 
 with the advice of two members of the Legislature, to grant 
 licenses for exports, it does not require him or make it his duty to 
 do it, so that should he decline acting as a commissioner for grant- 
 ing those licenses, none will or can be granted, and consequently 
 all exports, even for the use of the army, must cease. The mem- 
 bers of the Legislature are also left at liberty by the bill either to 
 attend the Governor when called, and advise him on the propriety 
 of granting particular licenses or not, so that should they find it 
 inconvenient to be often called from home on this business with- 
 out compensation and therefore decline it, in that case also, no 
 licenses can be granted. 
 
 8. Because, as the bill is to continue in force until repealed, 
 and as the future meeting of the Legislature may be rendered un- 
 certain by the military operations in this State, the embargo may 
 exist longer than the necessity which dictated it, in which case the 
 trade of this State would bo injured, and the neighboring States 
 stimulated to retaliation, especially considering how greatly they 
 
208 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 were censured by this State for laying embargoes when not 
 pressed thereto by necessity. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bUl, 
 with a slight verbal amendment, into a law. 
 
 POUGHKEEPSIE, March 25th, 1778. Present— Governor Clin- 
 ton; Jay, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to regulate elections within this State" was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, re- 
 ported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the bill directs that the clerk of the Senate in every 
 year, between the first day of February and the first day of April, 
 shall give notice in writing to the several sheriffs, of the number 
 of Senators, &c., to be for that year elected, and that the sheriffs 
 transmit copies of such notices to some one of the Justices in such 
 precinct district, &c., so that should the clerk of the Senate happen 
 to die between those two periods in the recess of the Senate (no 
 provision being made for so important a contingency) the design 
 of the bill in this instance may be defeated, unless indeed the 
 Legislature should be seasonably convened for the purpose and 
 the Senate appoint another. 
 
 2. Because the Constitution of this State does, among other 
 qualifications to entitle a person to vote at an election for a mem- 
 ber of Assembly, require that such person should, within six 
 months immediately preceding such election, have been rated, and 
 actually paid taxes to this State; and yet, by the bill in question, 
 persons not so qualified are authorized to give such vote; and 
 although the omission of a timely tax may for the present year 
 render such qualification unattainable, yet, in the opinion of the 
 Council, such omission can neither justify or excuse the dispensing 
 with such qualification, at least for the years then ensuing. 
 
 8. Because the said bill directs that a box with a lock, and a 
 hole in the lid sufficiently large to admit a ballot, shall be provided 
 and kept by the inspectors at elections, and that whenever they 
 adjourn the poll, the poll-lists shall be put in the said box with 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 209 
 
 the ballots, and shall be locked in the presence of all the inspec- 
 tors ; the key to be delivered to such one, and the box to such 
 other of them as the majority shall nominate, &c. But this Coun- 
 cil cannot perceive the use of causing the said box to be so locked 
 and delivered while the hole in the said lid through which ballots 
 may be shaken out, or put in, is permitted to remain open. 
 
 4. Because the bill directs the sheriffs to return transcripts of 
 the poll-lists for Senators, taken at elections in their respective 
 counties, to the secretary's office "from whence due notice in writ- 
 ing shall without delay be issued and transmitted to each of the 
 persons respectively who shall appear to be Senators, elected by 
 plurality of voices in the districts, to the end that they may give 
 punctual attendance and take their respective seats," &c. But the 
 said bill does not direct by whom such poll-lists shall be canvassed 
 and the votes estimated, nor by whom such notice shall be given ; 
 for although, from the said returns being made to the secretary's 
 office, and the notice aforesaid issued from thence, it would seem 
 as though the secretary is intended, yet in the opinion of this 
 Council it does not necessarily follow that he is the person, and if 
 he was, yet in the opinion of the Council, this important business 
 ought expressly to be made a part of his duty, that the public may 
 have the security of his oath of office. 
 
 5. Because the bill doth expressly prohibit all persons other 
 than the sworn clerks to make or take any poll-lists at any of the 
 said elections, on pain of being committed to the gaol of the 
 county, for a space not exceeding thirty days, thereby depriving 
 the people of this State of a right which, in the opinion of the 
 CouncO, they ought to enjoy in common with all other freemen, 
 of writing or committing to paper those or any other fact or facts 
 which may happen. 
 
 6. Because the said bill authorizes and requires the inspectors 
 to commit to gaol, for a space not exceeding thirty days, all 
 persons who shall make or take poll-lists as aforesaid, or be guilty 
 of disorderly conduct at the said elections, or of using corrupt or 
 indirect means to influence the electors; as these offenses may not 
 always be committed under the eye of the inspectors, but made 
 known to them by evidence on accusation, this Council are of 
 opinion that the party accused ought in all such cases to have the 
 
 27 
 
210 The Council of Revision. 
 
 benefit of a trial by his peers, before lie stall be subjected to so 
 grievoiis a punisbment, and the inspectoi-s authorized only to bind 
 them oyer to such court as is or may be authorized to take cogni- 
 zance thereof, and this Council consider the said power to com- 
 mit, so far as it respects persons who shall attempt to influence 
 electors, as the more extraordinary and improper, becjiuse a sub- 
 sequent clause in the bill subjects such persons to a penalty of 
 five hundred pounds, on con\-iction of the said oft'ense. 
 
 7. Because the said bill disqualifies and incapacitates to vote 
 or hold ofi&ces, all such of the inhabitants as hereafter shall, or 
 since the 9th day of July, 177(.), 
 
 (1.) Have, before any Congress or Convention or Committee or 
 Council of Safety, or Committee or Commissioners of Conspiracy, 
 acknowledged the sovereignty of the British King and Pai'liament 
 over this State. 
 
 (2.) Or denied the authority of the present Government and 
 Legislature of this State. 
 
 (3.) Or of the former government thereof by Congresses or 
 Conventions, Committees or Councils of Safety, and other com- 
 mittees. 
 
 (4.) Or the independency of this State. 
 
 (5.) Or taken arms with the enemy against these States. 
 
 (6.) Or have held commissions imder the British King or Par- 
 liament. 
 
 (7.) Or being out of the power of the enemy, have gone to 
 them to supply them with provisions, &o. 
 
 (8.) Or procuring others so to do. 
 
 (9.) Or having gone and continued with the enemy without 
 special Ucense. 
 
 (10.) Or have held a correspondence with the enemy prejudicial 
 to these States. 
 
 (11.) Or have counseled or encouraged any inhabitants of these 
 States to acknowledge allegiance to the British King or Parlia- 
 ment, ,or 
 
 (12.) T.0 disavow the authority of the Congress, or of the Pro- 
 vincial Congresses or Conventions or Legislatures of this State, or 
 
 (13.) To disaffect any person to the independence, government 
 and legislature of this State. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 211 
 
 To the said disqualifications, collectively considered, this Council 
 think it their duty to object, because the Constitution of this State 
 hath expressly ordained "that every elector, before he is admitted 
 to vote, shall, if required by the returning of&cer, or either of the 
 inspectors, talce an oath or (if of the people called Quakers) an 
 affirmation of allegiance to the State," from whence, in the opinion 
 of this Council, it clearly follows that every elector who will take 
 such oath, has a CQUstitutional right to be admitted to such vote, 
 and therefore that the Legislature have no power to deprive him 
 thereof, and more especially for acts by him done prior to the 
 date of the said Constitution, which was the 20th day of April, 
 1777, of which acts the convention, by whom that Constitution 
 was made, had ample cognizance. 
 
 Because, to punish men for acts by laws made subsequent to 
 the conunission of such acts, hath, by all civilised nations, been 
 deemed arbitrary and unjust. 
 
 Because, the said bill takes away all benefit of repentance and 
 possibUity of reconciliations from such as, having in times past 
 been unfriendly to the American cause, may now be good subjects 
 of this State. 
 
 Because the said disqualifications, in the opinion of this Council, 
 savor too much of resentment and revenge to be consistent with 
 the dignity or good of a free people. 
 
 Because the said disqualifications (supposing them to be consti- 
 tutional and proper) are not limited to take place only on the 
 conviction of the oflfenders in due course of law. 
 
 Because, as a great number of the offenses to which such disquali- 
 fications are annexed, are, by the laws of this State, punishable 
 with death, it appears to this Council improper as well as unneces- 
 sary to enact that the persons thus to die shall be so disqualified. 
 
 This Council doth particularly object to the disqualifications 
 contained in the thii-d and twelfth articles above specified. 
 
 Because, thereby, all persons are disqualified, who have, before 
 any committee, &c., disavowed or have counseled others to dis- 
 avow, the authority of a late Convention and Council of Safety, 
 who, being as such, self-constituted and possessed of no power 
 granted by or devised from the people, did undertake to legislate 
 for them, and by certain of their resolves to create capital offenses; 
 
212 The Council of EEVisioir. 
 
 for that, in the opinion of this Council, the people of this State had, 
 and have an undoubted right to disavow and deny the authority of 
 the said Convention and Council of Safety, and to counsel and 
 encourage others so to do. 
 
 8. Because although the bUl directs that the members of 
 the Legislature to be elected, shall meet at a certain time therein 
 specified, yet no place for such meeting is thereby assigned, nor 
 is any provision made for causing the same to be fixed and made 
 known. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, March 25, 1778. Present — Governor CUnton; 
 Jay, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "^n act for raising moneys to he applied towards the 
 pvhlic exigencies of this State" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the said bUl, after imposing a tax of a penny half- 
 penny in the pound on all personal property, proceeds to assess 
 on all traders and manufacturers in this State, a partial tax of 
 fifty pounds on every thousand pounds which they may respec- 
 
 ' tively have gained in their said occupations since the 12th day of 
 September, 1776, over and above the said general tax of one 
 penny half-penny in the pound, to be discovered by their oaths 
 respectively. 
 
 This Coimcil are of opinion that an equal right to life, liberty 
 and property is a fundamental principle in all free societies and 
 States, and is intended to be secured to the people of this State by 
 the Constitution thereof; and, therefore, that no member of this 
 State can with justice be constrained to contribute more to the 
 support thereof, than in like proportion with the other citizens, 
 according to their respective estates and abilities. Wherefore this 
 Council consider the clause in question as being inconsistent with 
 the spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 2. Because in the opinion of this Council the public good 
 requires that commerce and manufactures be encouraged and regu- 
 
Tetoes of the Gootcil. 213 
 
 lated, and that the clause in question manifestly tends to oppress, 
 discourage and expel all persons concerned in either, which to 
 this Council appears the more extraordinary, as divers of the said 
 manufactories were established by public bounties, and encourage- 
 ment given as well by Congress as by this State. 
 
 3. Because this Council can conceive of no possible reason 
 or pretense for this unprecedented and odious discrimination (none 
 being assigned by the bill ) unless perhaps a supposition that the 
 said traders and manufecturers have unduly acquired the said 
 gains. Should this have been the principle of the bill, the Council 
 still tViinlr it difficult to suppose that the Legislature should view 
 every trader and manufectnrer in the State as being under that 
 predicament, and not presume that any of them have, in so long a 
 space of time, feirly acquired one thousand pounds or more; 
 besides this Council deem it repugnant to every idea of justice 
 thus, without any open charge or accusation of offense, and without 
 trial, indiscriminately to subject numerous bodies of free citizens, 
 distinguished only by the appellations of traders or mann&cturers, 
 to large penalties not incurred on conviction of disobedience to 
 any known law, and couched under the specious name of a tax. 
 
 4. Because the bill directs that the tax thereby imposed on 
 appropriated unimproved lands shall, be assessed by such three of 
 the supervisors in each county as a majority of them shall nomi- 
 nate. But the Constitution of the State doth expressly ordaia 
 that "assessors and aU other officers heretofore eligible by the 
 people, shall always continue to be so eligible in the manner 
 directed by the then present or future acts of the Legislature."' 
 "WTierefore this Council are of opinion that although the Legisla- 
 ture may constitutionally direct the manner in which the people 
 at large shall exercise this important right, yet that the Legislature 
 hath no authority to divest them of it, and transfer it to the super- 
 visors, nor can the Council perceive any objection to this business 
 being done by the ordinary assessors, especially as all unimproved 
 lands, which are not now comprehended in any piednct or district, 
 may be annexed thereto. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
214 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 PoUGHEEEPSlE, March 80, 1778. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.?i act for raising seven hurvdred men, to he em- 
 jphyed in the defense of this State" was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to the said bUl becoming a law of this 
 State, because repugnant to the Constitution thereof. 
 
 It recites that the Council of Safety did, by resolutions made 
 and passed the fourth day of January last, revive certain resolu- 
 tions of the Council of Safety of the thirty -first day of July last, 
 previous to which fourth day of January, the Government was 
 organized and a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and Assembly, 
 were regularly chosen and actually existing. And by a subse- 
 quent clause of the said act, declares that all and singular the 
 powers and authorities vested in the assessors appointed by virtue 
 of the resolution of the Council of Safety of the thirty -first day 
 of July, revived and extended as aforesaid (to wit, by the Council 
 of Safety of the fourth day of January last), shall henceforth de- 
 termine and become void, thereby recognizing a power in the 
 said Council to revise and extend laws which should, by such 
 revival continue in force tiU repealed, when, in fact, such power 
 exists only in the constitutional Legislature of this State. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 October 28, 1778, the Council appointed Stephen Lush their 
 Clerk. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, November 5, 1778. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Jay, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "J.n act for raising a further sum by tax, to be ap- 
 plied towards the public exigencies of this State," was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following' objections, reported by the 
 Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 The Council, deeply impressed with the opinion of the expe- 
 diency of levying a general tax, regret the necessity imposed upon 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 215 
 
 them by their duty of objecting to this bUl, and the more so, as 
 only one single clause in it appears to them exceptionable. 
 
 The said bUl, after imposing a general and equal tax of a penny 
 halfpenny in the pound on all personal property within this 
 State, proceeds as follows: 
 
 "Whereas, many persons in this State, taking advantage oi the 
 necessities of their country, liave, in prosecuting their private gain, 
 amassed large sums of money to the great prejudice of the public, 
 and ought, therefore, to pay an extraordinary tax, and it wiU be 
 impossible for the assessors, with any degree of certainty, to 
 ascertedn the profits made by such persons in manner aforesaid ; 
 be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the asses- 
 sors shall, and are hereby required to, assess all such persons, 
 respectively, whether fixed residents of this State or residing 
 therein occasionally, for the purpose of any trade, commerce or 
 traf&c for their faculty, or the means that have been used by them, 
 respectively, for enriching themselves, at such rates, respectively, 
 over and above the assessment hereby required on their real and 
 personal estates, respectively, as they, the assessors, shall in their 
 judgment think proper; which assessment last aforesaid shall be 
 included in the personal tax lists, and shall in all things, in and 
 previous to the levy thereof, be subject to the regulations herein 
 above prescribed respecting the personal tax lists." 
 
 The Council object to this clause as being, in their opinion, in- 
 consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 1. Because an equal right to hfe, liberty and property is a 
 fundamental principle in all free societies and States, and is 
 intended to be secured to the people of this State by the Constitu- 
 tion thereof; and, therefore, no member of this State can consti- 
 tutionally or justly be constrained to contribute more to the 
 support thereof than in like proportion with the other citizens, 
 according to their respective estates and abihtes. 
 
 But if the Council should admit (which they do not) that this 
 principle is false and that unequal taxation is justifiable, yet they 
 are of opinion that, whenever the Legislature imposes a tax on a 
 man for his facidty or means of acquiring property, they are sup- 
 posed to mean only those faculties or means which are lawful, 
 because to tax a faculty is to tolerate it — vice not being in its 
 
216 The Council of Eeyision. 
 
 nature a subject of taxation. And yet it appears on the face of 
 this bill, that the faculty thereby taxed is the faculty of taking 
 advantage of the distresses of the country, and amassing large 
 sums of money to the prejudice of the public. With equal pro- 
 priety might the like extraordinary tax have been imposed on the 
 faculties of making money by gaming, keeping disorderly houses, 
 false swearing, lying and slandering, all which vices, like those 
 mentioned in the bill, are injurious to the common weal, and like 
 them ought to be punished, not taxed. 
 
 2. Because, as the bill assigns the demerits of the several per- 
 sons described in the clause under consideration, as the reason for 
 their being subjected to this extraordinary assessment, it would 
 seem as if the Legislature intended thereby to punish them. The 
 clause, viewed in this light, is still exceptionable, because, how- 
 ever proper it may be to punish these practices, yet the manner 
 of doing it prescribed in this clause, is, in the opinion of the 
 CouncU, unconstitutional. 
 
 By the principles of the Constitution of this and every other 
 free State, except in cases of attainder for high and dangerous 
 crimes and misdemeanors, no citizen is liable to be punished by 
 the State but such as have violated the laws of the State, and 
 every citizen is to be considered innocent by the State until he 
 hath broken its laws — offenses only against the moral law or laws 
 of God, being cognizable by him alone. Supposing, therefore, that 
 the persons aimed at in the bill have acquired riches immorally, 
 yet, if they have acquired them in a manner which the Legisla- 
 ture has not thought proper to prohibit, they are not obnoxious 
 to human punishment, however liable they may be to Divine 
 vengeance. But, if on the other hand, these persons have acquired 
 riches in a manner prohibited by the laws of the land, they ought 
 to be tried and punished in the way directed by these laws, and 
 not subjected to double punishment: first, in the usual course of 
 justice, and secondly, by this extraordinary tax imposed by an 
 act made subsequent to the commission of the offense; and that 
 too without any other trial than what the assessors, who are 
 not authorized by the Constitution to distribute justice, may think 
 proper to give them. 
 
Tetoks of the OorscrL. 217 
 
 S. Becanse tite Legisktoie are not aadiainzed br llie ConstiTii- 
 tioii to delegate tlie li^t of detennming ai discretion, how mnch 
 shall be lesvied on aU. or part of the people to any body of men 
 trhsTe ver. much, le^ to the asesois. It being the proper business 
 of the Legislature to ascertain and dedaie the rate at\rhich1he 
 people shall be taxed, and of Ae assessois to determine only the 
 value or amount of the property of each indiTidual, and by com- 
 paiing thai amooni 'with the xate to ocm^ute, not appoint, how 
 much eadi person is to pay: and yet the bill refers ii entirely to 
 the discretion and judgm^it of lise assessors to detennine how 
 mudi or how Mttle the persons described in it shall be taxed for 
 their Acuities or means of getting money, — nor is the reason 
 assigned for tins in the bill of any wd^^ ^nz^ "Aat it is imjBos- 
 sibk fir Ae a^e^ors, with any degree (f certainty, to ascalain &e 
 prv^ made Inf s'jtA pasmu.'^ The a^essois cannot, with a greater 
 degree of certainty, ascertain the amount of many personal estates 
 in the country, and yet the biU obliges them to assess those estates 
 a pemiy half-penny in every pound they consist o£ 
 
 The Council :^irdier object to the above lecited dause in the 
 said bill as beings in their opimoo, inconastent with die pnbhc 
 good: 
 
 1. Becxuse^ should the Legislature exercise a power and go 
 into the piacdoe of ta-ring people^ not acoiHtiing to the value and 
 amotmt of tiieir respective estates, but the particular manner in 
 which they were acquired, all security for property will be at an 
 end; no man being able to foresee whether the particQlar manner 
 in which he legally acquires his estate^ will at a future day be dis- 
 i^proved by the L^islature and destroyed by extraordinary 
 asse^menls. So. tiiat should this principle and practice obtain, 
 the people would hold tiieir estates, not by the Constitution ard 
 law of the Siate. btrt ihe mere will of the Legislature and mercy 
 of Ae assessors. 
 
 It is an undoubted right of a freeman (whatever iU use he mav 
 make of it) that where no prices are fixed by law he is at Kbertv 
 to ask what price he pleases for his land or goods, and he is amen- 
 able <Hily to God and his conscience if he asks too much. To 
 subject liim therefore to an extraordinary tax, limited only bv the 
 discretion of an assessor merely because he happened to dispose 
 
218 The Council of Revision. 
 
 of Ms property at a price -wliich the Legislature think but did not 
 declare to be unreasonable, -would, in the opinion of this Council, be 
 an evasion of the rights of the people and a dangerous precedent. 
 
 2. Because the description, of the persons subjected to this 
 extraordinary tax is so uncertain as that the assessors wlU have 
 scarce any other rule than mere opinion or caprice to direct them. 
 A circumstance which in penal law (which are always to be con- 
 strued strictly) should be carefully avoided. The bill declares 
 that many persons in this State, talcing advantage of the necessities 
 of their country have, in prosecuting their private gain, amassed 
 large sums of money to the great prejudice of the public ; and then 
 enacts that the assessors shall assess all such persons at such rates 
 over and above the general assessment as they, the assessors, shall 
 in their judgment think proper. This description gives birth to 
 the following doubts: 
 
 (1.) Whether it includes all persons in the State who have ever 
 amassed large sums of money in this way, or only such as have 
 done so within late years ; and if the latter, within what time. 
 
 (2.) What is to be deemed a taking advantage of the necessities 
 of the country, because all the people in this State who had any 
 thing to sell have so far taken advantage of the necessities of those 
 who were obliged to buy, as that no commodity can now be pur- 
 chased for less than five times as much as before the war. 
 
 (3.) How many hundred or thousand pounds are the assessors 
 to deem a large sum of money, those only who have made large 
 sums being subjected to the extraordinary tax. 
 
 (4.) What quantum or species of prejudice to the public comes 
 within the description of the words great prejudice to the public, for 
 the biU limits the assessment to those only who have done great 
 prejudice to the public. 
 
 It is to be observed, that the description in the preamble is 
 adopted by the enacting clause, and is therefore to be considered 
 as part of it. 
 
 3. Because every man whom the assessors shaU judge to come 
 within the above description wiU be most essentially affected by 
 it. He wUl be held up by his fellow-citizens as in a certain degree 
 infamous, and the whole or great part of his estate may be taken 
 from him. Wherefore, in the opinion of this Council, no freeman 
 
Vetoes op ihe Council. 219 
 
 of this State ought to be condemned to such extensive evils with- 
 out having been previously found to deserve them, on a fair and 
 solemn trial; a trial which every assessor (not being obliged to 
 give) may not be disposed to grant or indeed be competent to 
 hold. Besides, the bill does not direct the assessors to give the 
 party any trial at all, but leaves them to make up their judgments 
 on any evidence or priaciples they may think proper. Hence the 
 assessors will have an opportunity of subjecting the most innocent 
 persons, in the State to destruction in every case in which they 
 may be inclined thereto by caprice or malice. 
 
 4. Because, although great injuries may be done to innocent 
 persons by assessors under this bill, yet no appeal lies by the bill 
 fi-om their judgments. The supervisors may perhaps direct them 
 to reconsider it, but they may still if they please abide by it, and 
 in that case the supervisors must see it executed. 
 
 5. Because this unprecedented extraordinary tax will induce 
 all who may fear the operation of it to remove with their property 
 to some other State which will give them greater security for the 
 enjoyment of it, whereby many citizens and large sums of money, 
 which, in the ordinary constitutional way of taxation, would yield 
 a very considerable revenue to the State, will be lost. Nor will 
 strangers be easUy persuaded to settle ia a State whose citizens 
 find it necessary to remove from, it. 
 
 6. Because, although the practices of many persons concerned 
 iu trade and in buying and selling may be injurious to the pubhc 
 weal, yet, iu the opinion of this Council, those practices call rather 
 for general and prudent regulations to prevent the evil in future, 
 than for such indiscriminate and unconstitutional modes of punish- 
 ment by ex post facto laws. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biU ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, March 14, 1779. Present — Governor CHnton ; 
 Livingston, Chancellor ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bUl entitled "An act for forfeitures and confiscations, and for 
 declaring the sovereignty of the people of this State in respect of all pro- 
 
220 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 perty within the same" was before the Council, whicli adopted the 
 following objections, reported by th'e Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because it is in some instances repugnant to the plain and 
 immutable laws of justice which no State can with honor throw off. 
 
 2. Because it is obscure and contradictory, and founded upon 
 principles which vary from and clash with each other. 
 
 3. Because, it in many cases tends to deprive the well affected 
 inhabitants of this State of their just rights, and subjects them to 
 the grossest oppressions, if the commissioners should incline to 
 abuse their trusts. 
 
 4. Because the means for carrying it into execution are inade- 
 quate to the end. 
 
 5. Because it does not pay proper attention to the circumstances 
 of the less wealthy subjects of the State, or to the means of render- 
 ing the forfeitures most beneficial to the community. 
 
 1. Because it convicts and punishes the persons named in the 
 bill without affording them an opportunity of availing themselves 
 of a trial by jury, to which the Constitution impliedly entitles 
 every subject, how deep soever his guilt, unless by his refusal to 
 submit to such trial, after a day given, he may be presumed to 
 have relinquished such privilege ; for the Council conceive, that 
 the best warrant, to proceed by bill of attainder, is the neglect or 
 refusal of the criminal to submit to the ordinary course of trial ; 
 and they are confirmed in this opinion, when they reflect that the 
 Legislature of England never departed from this rule, except when 
 parties ran high, and in the reigns of arbitrary princes. 
 
 2. Because, though the law provides that the attainder and 
 conviction shall not affect the lives of the persons named in the 
 bill, but subjects them to a trial at law, in consequence of which 
 they may be capitally punished, yet it does not provide that resti- 
 tution be made of their estates, or a compensation therefor, even 
 though upon such solemn trial they should appear to have been 
 innocent and their names to have been wrongfully inserted in the 
 bni ; thereby holding up the idea of a State wresting from an unfor- 
 tunate though guiltless individual that property which they are 
 bound to protect him ia the enjoyment of 
 
 3. Because the fourth clause enacts that when any absent per- 
 son shall be indicted for high treason for adhering to the enemies 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 221 
 
 of this State, notice of such, indictment shall be given in manner 
 prescribed by the act, and that if he does not come in within the 
 time limited, he shall be ipso facto convicted and attainted, and 
 incur the penalties of high treason with respect to the forfeiture 
 of his property. The fifth clause directs the mode of taking indict- 
 ments agaiast absentees, and the trial of offenses committed out of 
 their respective counties. The sixth, prescribes the manner ia 
 which the indictments taken at the Quarter or General Sessions of 
 the Peace shall be brought up to the Supreme Court, where the 
 person indicted comes in and surrenders himself. The seventh 
 clause is in the words following: "And be it further enacted, by the 
 authority aforesaid, and it is hereby provided, that no attainder by 
 virtue of this act shall be construed to affect the hfe of any person, 
 except of such persons as shall render themselves vnthin the time and in 
 the manner herein before limited and directed, as to prevent any per- 
 son, except as before excepted, from being apprehended and tried for 
 high treason, in the ordinary course of law, anything herein con- 
 tained to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 This whole clause, as it stands, connected with those that pre- 
 cede it, is involved in such obscurity that this Council are at a 
 loss to affix to it any precise meaning; and the only construction 
 which the words warrant is too remote from common sense and 
 common justice to be that which the Legislature intended it should 
 bear. 
 
 As some of the former clauses of the act absolutely convict and 
 attaint the persons therein named and described of high treason, 
 this proviso seems to have been designed to restrain the operation 
 of such conviction and attainder so far as it might affect the hves 
 of such persons ; and yet it is so worded that those who are the 
 proper objects of such restriction, to wit, those who surrender 
 themselves within the time and in the manner hmited by the law 
 by being within the exception, are out of the proviso, and ex- 
 pressly excluded from being tried in the ordinary course of law. 
 So that, while the act directs the sheriff to issue his proclamation 
 calling in persons indicted, in order to their trial under a severe 
 penalty, it excludes them from the benefit of such trial if they 
 come in ; and if they should be of the number of those who have 
 been, attainted and convicted, it leaves the law to operate against 
 
222 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 them, wMle it restraiiis it "witli respect to those who do not sixr- 
 render themselyes till after the time limited is expired, or who may 
 be taken flying from justice. 
 
 The Council therefore object to the preceding clause, and those 
 immediately connected with it: first, on account of their obscurity; 
 second, because of their manifest injustice. 
 
 They object to the second clause of the bill, because it is directly 
 contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and to the attention 
 which is due to the rights of the subjects of this State. 
 
 After reciting that a number of persons therein mentioned, who 
 were dead at the time of passing the act, had been guilty of treason 
 during their lives, it forfeits the estate, real and personal, of which 
 they or either of them were severally and respectively seized on 
 the 9th July, 1776. As this clause affects the heirs, executors, 
 administrators or legatees of the persons named, who, being charged 
 with no crime, the law will presume to be good subjects of the 
 State, and in whom the property intended to be forfeited has 
 legally vested. To divest them of it by a law of the State with- 
 out hearing, is to erect the Legislature into a new Court of Judi- 
 cature, not proceeding " according to the course of the common 
 law," and to deny to the subjects of this State the benefit of a trial 
 by jury, to which they are entitled "in all cases in which it hath 
 heretofore been used in the Colony of New York." For though 
 the Constitution admits of acts of attainder under certain restric- 
 tions, yet this clause can neither be considered as within the letter 
 or the spirit of such admission. It is not within the letter, because 
 it contains no words of attainder or conviction; nor within the 
 spirit since it does not punish the traitor, but imposes hardships 
 upon the innocent. If, however, the Legislature could legally 
 pass such laws, still, as this has a tendency to deprive widows and 
 fatherless children of their property it ought to have been drawn 
 with peculiar caution. It should have alleged the particular 
 treason of each individual, and the time when committed, in order 
 that the heir or legal representative might have been enabled at 
 some future day to prove (if such was the fact) that the Legisla- 
 tiire had not been fully informed. 
 
 1. The ninth clause of the said bill forfeits the real property, 
 rents, arrearages of rents, &c., belonging to the inhabitants or sub- 
 
Vetoes of the CouNciii. 223 
 
 jects of Great Britain on the 9tli day of July, 1776, or since. To 
 this the Council object. 
 
 (1). Because it is impolitic and repugnant to the strict rules of 
 justice. Civilized nations, before a declaration of war, give notice 
 to the subjects of the States with whom they are at variance to 
 remove their property. The reason operates more strongly at this 
 great Eevolution, from the close connection which heretofore sub- 
 sisted between this State and the now subjects of Great Britain, 
 who, if not unfriendly in their conduct, should be admitted to dis- 
 pose of their estates; or, what better poHcy would dictate, to settle 
 on them. 
 
 (2). Because it injures the national character of the State; may 
 occasion reciprocal forfeitures and lessen the emigrations of people 
 of property from the British dominions, from whose imported 
 wealth greater advantages might be expected than from the pit- 
 tance produced by the sale of their lands. 
 
 (3). Because it makes an ill return for the spirit and liberality 
 with which our cause has been defended by many worthy patriots 
 in the British dominions; the provisionary clause in their favor 
 being merely nugatory, promising nothing certain and requiring 
 proofe which it may be difficult or dangerous for the subjects of 
 another power to make. 
 
 (4). Because it is vague and uncertain, the words inhabitant or 
 subject in the disjunctive admitting of very great latitude; under 
 the last of which names may be comprised every inhabitant of 
 this country, born in the British dominions, who has not, by some 
 decisive act, renounced his former allegiance to the King of Great 
 Britain, and perhaps every person within the enemy's protection, 
 however involuntary he may be so. 
 
 2. The Council further object to the said law: 
 
 Because it has no stated principle, sometimes referring back the 
 forfeitures only to the 16th of July, 1776, thereby founding the 
 right of confiscation on the law passed on that day. In other 
 cases going back to the ninth day of July in the same year, and 
 in cases of conviction for treason in another State, referring to 
 the time of the offense committed, though possibly such treason 
 might have been prior to pur Declaration of Independence. 
 
224 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 3. Because the powers given to the commissioners are vague 
 and undetermined, and though in some cases so exorbitant as to 
 be oppressive and unjust, yet in others insufficient to answer the 
 end proposed. 
 
 (1.) They have no power to send for persons or papers to examine 
 into titles ; to commence suits where frauds are suspected, or to 
 inform themselves of what mortgages, judgments or other irr- 
 cumbrances may lie against the land offered to sale, so that every 
 purchaser must buy at his own risk (unless in those cases in which 
 the commissioners put off the sale for two years), without any 
 knowledge of the title under which he holds, and must, at his 
 private expense, commence suits for the recovery of the lands 
 bought where the same are held against him ; in which suits it 
 will be incumbent on him to prove that the right existed in the 
 person convicted and attainted; nor is any remedy given him if 
 he should fail in such action to recover back his purchase money 
 from the State. These several difficulties must greatly lessen the 
 value of the lands sold, be equally disadvantageous to the posses- 
 sors and the State, and prove the fertile parents of numerous law- 
 suits. 
 
 4. The Coimcil object to the third clause of this biU: 
 
 Because it enacts " That the commissioners shall be indemnified 
 in seizing and possessing themselves of estates reputed to have 
 belonged to any of the persons above named, on the said 9th day 
 of July, 1776, in holding and leasing the same for the use of the 
 people of this State, until the same shall be recovered against the 
 said conpnissioners by due course of law, any conveyance prior in 
 date to that day, notwithstanding; and all titles derived to such 
 estates respectively, by virtue of such conveyance or conveyances, 
 shall, after two years from and after the seizing and possessing 
 aforesaid, of such estates respectively ; and no suit commenced 
 and prosecuted to a trial for the recovery of the possession of the 
 same within that time, be forever and absolutely barred," &c. 
 
 By this clause the Commissioners are impliedly restrained from 
 selling one foot of land, tUl the expiration of two years, which 
 may belong to any of the persons named in the bill, since that 
 time is allotted to the proprietors to bring their suits, and no ex- 
 press directions contrary thereto is given them in any part of the 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 225 
 
 bill. The eleventli clause, ■wMci. directs tliem to sell from time to 
 time, admitting of suet, construction as is very reconcilable to tbe 
 idea held out in tbis; and were it otberwise, a good objection 
 ■would arise from tbeir contrariety. Tbe Council cannot see tbe 
 policy of proceeding to an immediate forfeiture, if tbe sale of tbe 
 estates so forfeited is to be suspended for so long a time. For tbis 
 cause, therefore, they object, as also because, by tbe above clause, 
 powers are given to the Commissioners which no free State ever 
 entrusted to any man or body of men whatsoever, to wit, an abso- 
 lute and uncontrolled right to deprive the good subjects of this 
 State of their possessions, to turn them and their families out of 
 their houses, and to oblige them to contend, by course of law, for 
 the inheritance of their ancestors, and this too, not upon a solemn 
 trial by jury (to which the Constitution entitles them), not upon a 
 cool and dispassionate examination of evidences, not even upon a 
 reasonable presumption, but merely because the estates so seized, 
 was reputed to belong (on the 9th of July, 1776), to the persons 
 named in the bill, which reputation the Commissioners them- 
 selves, or any other person, may raise from mahcious or interested 
 motives. 
 
 Those who are acquainted with the nature of titles in this coun- 
 try, know that the best evidence of many of them is found in 
 possession, and that should they once be ousted, they would with 
 difficulty recover their rights. There are many dormant titles, 
 which a wicked or ignorant Commissioner might awake, the naked 
 right to which may exist in persons attainted by the biU, though 
 the lands are held by honest purchasers under different titles, 
 which may all be defeated if possession is once annexed to the 
 mere right. There are many interfering patents, the bounds of 
 either of which the Commissioners may be interested in extending, 
 and were all these out of question, weighty objections would lie 
 to the clause, from the power that it vests in the Commissioners to 
 seize the possessions of any estate, by color of this law, for the 
 benefit of themselves or their friends, under such rents as they 
 shall deem proper, and to hold the same for two years, or tiU they 
 are convicted by due course of law; and in the case of infants and 
 persons beyond sea, for a much longer time. And all this with- 
 out the least control, since by tbe law they are indemnified fOr 
 29 
 
226 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 every such act of injustice; and the party evicted of his estate is 
 not entitled to recover any damages against such Commissioners 
 for the injury he has sustained. 
 
 The Council object to the said bill because, though it refers 
 back the forfeitures to the ninth and sixteenth of July, yet it makes 
 no provision for the payment of debts due to the subjects of this 
 State from the persons attainted; pays no attention to hona fide 
 purchases made of such persons who have resided among us since 
 that day, even though prior to the treason committed, or to the 
 due execution of contracts entered into for the sale of lands 
 (though even where money has been paid thereon) before the 
 9th day of July, 1776. Because it goes even so far as to oblige 
 the tenant who has paid his rent, and the debtor who has dis- 
 charged his debt to tlje person attainted and convicted, or his 
 agent residing among us, since the 9th of July, 1776 (which he 
 was then compellable by law to do), to repay the same to the State. 
 
 5. Because no more than one month is allowed for the pay- 
 ment of the money for which the forfeited estates shall sell; by 
 which many of the industrious farmers and others who have not 
 had it in their power to accumulate money during the war, will be 
 debarred from buying; the number of purchasers reduced; the 
 price of the lands be diminished, and the whole confiscated pro- 
 perty be vested in a few monopolizers and merchants in this and 
 the neighboring States, — inconveniences which partial and easy 
 payments might remove. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Kingston-, Sepie.mher 24, 1779. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act for continuing tlie powers of the commis- 
 sioners for detectim] and defeating conspiracies^ and for other purposes 
 therein mentioned" was before the Council, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objection, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because it appears from the preamble that the laws, by the 
 said bill intended to be continued, are already expired by their 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 227 
 
 own limitation ; and the enacting clanse containing no words of 
 revival or reenaction, the whole law becomes nugatory ; as that 
 cannot be continued which does not exist 
 
 The Senate refiised to pass the bOl ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Kingston, October 15, 1779. Present — Governor Clinton; Liv- 
 ingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An ad to indemnify the Sheriff of the county of 
 Ulster against involuntary escapes on civil processes, and for other pur- 
 poses therein mentioned," was before the Council which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by the Chancellor,- viz. : 
 
 1. Because it enacts that the county treasurer shall pay out 
 of the money to be raised on the county for that purpose all 
 debts, &c., to which the sheriff shall be liable, if a person returned 
 in custody on civil process shall escape, and an action be brought 
 against the sheriff on account of such escape ; and yet it renders 
 the money payable on a condition which wholly defeats the design 
 of the act, so far as it relates to persons escaping after the passing 
 of the same; since the last proviso, to wit, that the sheriff return 
 the defendants in custody, &c., and on every such return in 
 custody shaU. keep the defendants in close custody, in such place 
 as he shall be able to provide for that purpose, — being a condition 
 precedent, the sheriff can never be entitled to a repayment by the 
 county treasurer, since every escape is such a breach of the con- 
 dition as will dicharge the county. 
 
 2. Because if this proviso did not defeat the act it would open 
 a wide door for collusion between the sheriff and the defendant; 
 for the debt being discharged by the county treasurer, the defend- 
 ant would no longer be liable to any but the sheriff, agaiast whom, 
 as the record will stand, the recovery by the plaintiff in the origi- 
 nal action will appear to have been. 
 
 3. Because no mode is prescribed by the act, in which the 
 county can recover against the defendant the money so paid on 
 account of his escape; so that the sheriff may not only find an 
 advantage in conniving at escapes, but even when they are 
 
228 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 involuntary, may make a very considerable profit of them by 
 recovering from the defendant the money due on the original debt, 
 with costs, which the county treasurer had already discharged, 
 without being liable to account therefor to any person whatsoever. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Kingston, October 21, 1779. Present — Governor Clinton; Liv- 
 ingston, Chancellor; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to prevent horse-racing and theatrical enter- 
 tainments,^' was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the power vested in a single Justice of the Peace 
 to determine cases to an unlimited amount upon his own know- 
 ledge, or upon the oath of a single witness, without a jury, is a 
 direct violation of that clause of the Constitution which ordains 
 "that trial by jury in all cases in which it hath heretofore been 
 used in the Colony of New York, shall be established and remain 
 inviolate forever;" and maybe considered as a new court, not 
 proceeding according to the course of the common law, which the 
 Constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from instituting. 
 
 2. Because, by the first enacting clause, the owner or owners of 
 the horses employed in racing, arc rendered liable to forfeit the 
 same, though they should not have had the least previous know- 
 ledge thereof; by which means a very heavy and unjust punish- 
 ment may be inflicted upon the most innocent persons whose 
 horses may be run by their own servants contrary to their order, 
 or by persons who may have stolen them from their pastures. 
 
 3. Because the law makes no effectual provision in case the 
 proprietor of the horses running lives without the State or in 
 another county, and has no goods or chattels whereon to distrain 
 within the justice's jurisdiction; because it gives no power to seize 
 the horse, but leaves it at the option of the owner, either to pro- 
 duce the same or not, so that the law insteafl of preventing horse- 
 races will, in many cases, only render them more expensive to the 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 229 
 
 commiimty, and productive of more idleness by carrying people 
 from one county to another. 
 
 4. Because, where a horse is to be sold by virtue of this law, 
 the justice is empowered to proceed to the sale without giving any 
 notice thereof, so that he may, by coUusion, defraud the State out 
 of the greater part of the penalty. 
 
 5. Because the act does not ascertain the rate of fees and 
 other charges which may accrue in the execution of the powers 
 vested in the justice thereby, but leaves it in his discretion to 
 retain what shall seem reasonable to him; nor can the propriety of 
 those charges ever come in question, except the treasurer shall 
 think it necessary to have them ascertained by an actual suit 
 against the justice, a remedy which would be attended with too 
 much expense and trouble to be applied except in very extraor- 
 dinary cases. 
 
 6. Because the act establishes a dangerous precedent, by in- 
 vesting a single justice of the peace with such power over the 
 liberty and property of the freemen of this State as should only 
 be entrusted to the higher courts of judicature, where the party 
 charged may have the full benefit of the law to which every 
 subject is entitled. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1780, the Legislature met at Albany , 
 consequently the next meeting of the Council was there held in 
 the chambers of the Governor. 
 
 October 23, 1779, Eichard Morris was appointed Chief Justice 
 in place of John Jay, resigned. 
 
 Albany, March 4, 1780. Present — Governor Chnton; Morris, 
 Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the immediaJb& sak of part of the forfeited 
 estates," was before the Council, which adopted the following ob- 
 jections, reported by the Chief Justice, yvz. : 
 
 The Council objects to the said bill becomiog a law of this 
 State as inconsistent with the public good : 
 
230 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1. Because they conceive the forfeited estates to be sold by 
 virtue thereof, will not be disposed of for near their value. 
 
 This objection is supported by experience in the States of New 
 Jersey, Massachusetts Bay and Pennsylvania, in the two last of 
 which it is said, for the like reason, the sales of forfeited lands 
 are postponed. Few of the farmers of this State, and none of 
 those brave men who are serving their country in the jQeld have 
 had it in their power, during the war, to accumulate money; they 
 cannot therefore be purchasers, and of course all the property to 
 be sold under this bUl, must fall into the hands of a few specula- 
 tors and others, in this and the neighboring States, who, taking 
 advantage of the times, have acquired large sums of money, and 
 they being the only purchasers of an article they know must be 
 sold, will, from the principles of their profession, be cautious not 
 to raise the price on each other. And although it is an undoubted 
 fact that the difference between specie and Continental money is 
 not less than thirty for one, yet there is no instance for many 
 months past, to the knowledge of this Council, when land has 
 been sold for more in Continental money than one-half of its real 
 value, when compared with the depreciation, even when such sales 
 have been made by the proprietors themselves, who, it is to be pre- 
 sumed, would endeavor to make the most of their own property. 
 
 2. Because the immediate sale of those lands will tend to in- 
 increase the depreciation of the Continental money. 
 
 The purchasers must be possessed of large sums of Continental 
 money, or of some merchandise that will command it. If of Con- 
 tinental money they realize it, and thereby not only increase the 
 quantity in circulation, but will be no longer immediately inte- 
 rested to support its credit. If of merchandise, it is evident if 
 the Continental money continues to depreciate, a loss will not only 
 be sustained by the State in the difference of the value of money 
 between the times of purchase and payment, but in this period it 
 will be for the peculiar advantage of the purchasers to promote 
 the depreciation. 
 
 3. Because the bill will not answer the purposes intended by 
 the Legislature. 
 
 By the bill, and the act therein referred to, "not more than five 
 hundred acres are to be sold in one parcel," and the commissioners 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 231 
 
 are, amongst other things, "in the abstract of their sales, to insert 
 descriptions of the respective estates by them sold." In order to 
 which the lands must be surveyed, and it is not unreasonable to 
 suppose one month or more will be required for this business, and 
 the other necessary preparations of the commissioners before the 
 advertisements. A second month is allowed for advertising pre- 
 vious to the sale, and the third is given between the date of the 
 certificate and the time to be fixed for payment. Thus three months 
 at least will inevitably elapse before any money can come into the 
 treasury by virtue of this bill, and the immediate supply of cloth- 
 ing and other necessaries for the troops of this State, to which 
 their services justly entitle them, and their distressed situation 
 and the pubho safety so loudly call for, will be withlreld from 
 them until, it is to be feared, many of them will be impelled by 
 necessity to quit the service. Besides, if the purchasers are pos- 
 sessed of articles for sale from the proceeds of which the purchase 
 money must be raised, they may be induced, by the hope of gain 
 for a further depreciation, to delay the payment, and put the com- 
 missioners to their suits; by which the design of this bill will be 
 entirely defeated. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, March 8, 1780. Present — Grovernor Clinton; Morris, 
 Chief Justice ; Yates and Hobart, Justices. 
 
 A bm entitled "An act to facilitate the levying the taxes for support- 
 ing the poor, and defraying the contingent expenses in the counties of 
 Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Dutchess, Tryon and Charlotte," was before 
 the Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Justice Hobart, viz. : 
 
 Because by the said bill it is enacted, "that after the passing 
 of the act, the Justices of the Counties of Ulster, Orange, West' 
 Chester, Dutchess, Tryon and Charlotte, shall, at their General Ses- 
 sions, determine the sum to be raised for the support of the poor 
 in such of their respective towns, manors, districts and precincts 
 as they shall judge necessary." 
 
282 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 The power of raising money upon tlie people belongs to their 
 immediate representatives, and it is inconsistent with every idea 
 of civil liberty that any body of men should enjoy that power who 
 do not possess this character ; so true ia this principle, that taxa- 
 tion and representation are inseparably connected, that it lies at the 
 foundation of the late happy Eevolution. 
 
 To authorize the justices to charge the people of these counties 
 with such sums as they shall judge necessary, is leaving the property 
 of the people at the disposition of persons who are not their im- 
 mediate representatives, and whose conduct they cannot control ; 
 is departing from one of the principles which justify our revolt 
 from British usurpation, and is inconsistent with the public good. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiB, May 12, 1780. Present — Governor Ghnton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bOl entitled " J.n a^t for tlie more effectual suppression of vice 
 and immorality,''^ was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 1. Because they conceive the wording of the preamble is not 
 agreeable to the design of the bill, and should it pass into a law 
 will be derogatory of the honor of the Legislature, and therefore 
 inconsistent with the public good. The preamble recites that, 
 "Whereas religion and good morals are the only solid foundations 
 of liberty and happiness. And whereas profaneness and many im- 
 moral practices have of late greatly increased within this State, the 
 more effectual measures for the encouragement of the one and the 
 suppression of the other ought speedily to be adopted," so that 
 referring to the next antecedents (unless we pass over a period) 
 it would appear that profaneness was to be encouraged. 
 
 2. Because the first enacting clause prohibiting every person 
 from following any worldly employment or labor on Sunday will 
 impose a hardship on those who, from a religious persuasion, 
 refrain, some other day in seven, from labor; and thus will in effect 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 233 
 
 defeat the design of tlie Constitution, -whicli "dotli ordain, determine 
 and declare tliat the jfree exercise and enjoyment of religious pro- 
 fession and worship, without discrimination ox preference, shall for- 
 ever hereafter be allowed within this State to all mankind ;" and 
 the design of the bill might be equally effected and this objection 
 obviated. 
 
 3. Because, in the second enacting clause, it is doubtful whether 
 under this bill it will be an offense to be guilty of drunkenness, or 
 profanely to curse or swear as iu the bill is mentioned, unless it is 
 done in the presence or hearing of a justice of the peace, especially 
 as all penal statutes of this nature ought to be construed strictly 
 and most favorable to defendants. 
 
 4. In the fourth enacting clause it is enacted that the several 
 Courts of General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace shall have cog- 
 nizance and jurisdiction of the said offenses ; and the offenses being 
 created by this bill the construction will be that the cognizance 
 and jurisdiction of them are restricted to the Courts of Sessions 
 only ; and although the Justices of the Supreme Court and of Oyer 
 and Terminer are directed to charge the grand jury specially to 
 inquire of those offenses, such indictments, if found, can never come 
 into the sessions from the courts above by any known process, 
 and thus the offenders can never be tried, and of course escape 
 punishment. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did 
 not become a law. 
 
 PoUGHKEEPSiE, October 5, 1780. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act for the awjendiruent of the law directing the 
 sales of forfeited lands," was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to its becoming a law of this State, as being 
 inconsistent with the public good. 
 
 1. Because the fourth enacting clause of the said bill will 
 expose the State to unnecessary expense and delay, in seeking a 
 30 
 
234 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 discovery in Chancery of tlie rents due and then prosecuting in a 
 court of common law to recover them, when the discovery and 
 recovery might be made the business of one court. 
 
 2. Because, by the fifth enacting clause, the original contract 
 between the State and persons who have purchased forfeited 
 estates is materially altered, such persons being thereby subjected 
 to a penalty created posterior to the contract; which, in the opinion 
 of this Council, is repugnant to the first and plainest principles of 
 justice. Besides, the forfeitures imposed by this clause may not 
 afford a compensation to the State equal to the damages sustained 
 and which can be recovered (under the former law) from the de- 
 faulting purchaser. 
 
 3. Because, by the seventh enacting clause, mortgagees who 
 may have entered into possession for default of payment of their 
 principal and interest, and in whom the estate by law is vested, 
 may, under this clause, be turned out of possession, subject to costs 
 in the first instance, and put to their suit against the Commis- 
 sioners, which suit, by the last enacting clause, is to be defended at 
 the public expense. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiB, October 9, 1780. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice ; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J^n act for the appointment of a Council to assist 
 in the administration of the government during the recess of the Legis- 
 lature,^^ was before the Council, which adopted the following ob- 
 jections, reported by Justice Hobart, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to the said bill becoming a law of this State, 
 as being inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the 
 public good. 
 
 1. Because, to take the several measures in this bill directed to 
 be taken, the person administering the government, with the Coun- 
 cil therein provided, must exercise the powers of legislation ; which 
 by the Constitution is vested in the Senate and Assembly, and 
 cannot by them be delegated to others. 
 
Vetoes of the Coimcii.. 235 
 
 2. Becaase the person administeriiig the govarmnent is hj 
 ■diis bill subjected in the execution of his o£B.ee to the control of a 
 Council, when by the Gonstitution it is expressly ordained, deter- 
 mined and declared that the supreme executive power and anthor- 
 itr of this State shall be Tested in a Grovemor. 
 
 3. Because the said biU is not only repugnant to the spirit 
 and letter of the Constitution, but should the same become a law 
 would, in the opinion of this Council, tend to embarrass govern- 
 ment and destroy its present energy. 
 
 The Legislatuxe refosed to pass the biU ; a^nsequently it did 
 not become a law. 
 
 At.bavt, JIarch 8, 1781. Present — GoTemor Clinton ; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "An ad tiwre effectually to coUect the deficiencies in 
 a^e^ments of wheat, ami to lay an embargo on eajportation cf flour, 
 •meal and v:heat, out of the /Saie," was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because, without any apparent necessity, it imposes an em- 
 bargo on wheat, meal and flour, the sole object of the embargo 
 being declared to be, the enabling the State agent to collect a defi- 
 ciency which must at this time (if the credits mentionai in the 
 said bm are given) be extremely small, if any, and yet the em- 
 bargo may a)ntinne a long time after the whole quantily is 
 collected for want of timely returns being made, whereby the 
 course of commerce will be stopped ; the price of our staple com- 
 modities lessened, to Ibe injury of individuals and the discourage- 
 ment of agriculture; the State, already groaning under heavy 
 buideos, impoverished, and probably embroiled with their neigh- 
 bors, who, by laying similar embargoes in return, may retain a 
 very considerable balance due to the subjecte of this State for flour 
 already exported; the fiur trader be discouraged, and commerce 
 put into the hands of those who elude the laws : individxials who 
 have made contracts with the neighboring States on the suspension 
 
236 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 of the late embargo law be rained, and all confidence in govern- 
 ment destroyed. And this without necessity ; the penalties in the 
 bill being amply sufficient to .procure the deficiencies, if any there 
 be,, without this general shock to the trade of the State. 
 
 2. Because the law makes no provision for allowing an expor- 
 tation even if the necessity of our army, or the fleets and armies 
 of our ally should render it necessary to export for their use; 
 for though exporting without license is rendered penal, yet no 
 power is given to grant such licenses, the law empowering the 
 Governor with two members of the Legislature to grant hcenses 
 being revived only so far as relates to the penalties therein 
 expressed. 
 
 3. Because the general warrant of impress which the Governor 
 is desired to issue puts the whole of the wheat and flour of the 
 State in the hands of the agents, who are only to be restrained by 
 a mere instruction (which does not appear in the warrant) from 
 executing it agreeable to the tenor of the law, and subject to no 
 penalty for disregarding the instruction. 
 
 4. Because, though the embargo is not to take place till six 
 days after the passing of the said act, yet warrants are to issue, as 
 is said, "in order to render the embargo more effectual," im- 
 mediately, to be executed before the embargo takes place, or a 
 reasonable notice of laying the same be given, by which means the 
 innocent proprietor of wheat and flour, seized by virtue of such 
 warrant, and before he could know of the law, is compelled to 
 receive what is called the usual certificate, that is, a certificate 
 only receivable in taxes, at the rate of forty dollars for one, of the 
 bills of credit issued in consequence of the act of Congress of the 
 eighteenth of March last, although by a late law of the State, every 
 dollar of such emission, in consequence of the said act, is declared 
 to be equal in value to seventy-five doUars ; thus depriving him 
 of near one-half of the value of such wheat and flour, besides 
 obliging him to receive certificates that can be of no immediate 
 use to him. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
Yetoes of the Council. 237 
 
 At.bant, March 26, 17S1. Pr^ent — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Jnstice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "-In act to rdieve certain parsons in the cotmty of 
 Charlotte from the penalty of an act entiikd 'An act for raising leuies 
 to reinforce the armies of the United <Sate,'" ^as before the Conncil, 
 which adopted the following objections, tiz.: 
 
 1. Because the commutation thereby offered to the delinquent 
 classes in the regiment of Tni1itii>, in the county of Charlotte, in 
 discharge of the penalties by them incurred, is partial and not 
 calculated for the public good. 
 
 2. Because no reasons are adduced in the said biU for such par- 
 tial indulgence, and it will therefore afford to other delinquent 
 classes an equal claim to the same exemption. 
 
 3. Because the said bill, by exempting those classes from 
 paying a double bounty, impliedly pardons the of&cers, wbom it 
 would otherwise affect, from the penalties and punishment incurred 
 by them in neglecting to haye those classes doubly assessed; 
 thereby giving encouragement to otheis, to be guilty of amilar 
 offenses, to the gieat injury of the public service. 
 
 Xotwithstanding the objections, the Legislatuie passed the biU 
 into a law. 
 
 At.bavt, MarA 27, 1781. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitied "An act to suspend certain parts of an act entitled 
 An ad for raising hy tax a sum egual to one hundred and fifty thousand 
 doikurs m specie,^" and of an act entitled "An act approving ofAeact 
 of Congress of Ae 180i dkiy of March, 1780, relative to thefinaruxs of 
 the United States, and nudang provision far redeeming the proportion 
 of Ais State of the WZfe <f credit to be emitted in picrsuance of Ae scad 
 act of Congress, and for other putposes Aerein vientioned," was before 
 the Council, which adopted the following objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the resolution of Congress of the twenty-sixth of 
 August last, upon which the said bill is predicated, directs only 
 that the value of the sums due to the creditors of the United States 
 
288 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 shall be ascertained according to the current value of Continental 
 bills of credit compared with specie at the time the money became 
 due at the place where the supplies were furnished; whereas this 
 bill, in the second enacting clause thereof, authorizes the person ad- 
 ministering the government, together with any five members of 
 the Legislature, not only to devise any mode or plan for ascertain- 
 ing the value of the sums due to the creditors of the United States 
 within this State, agreeable to the direction of the said resolution, 
 but further authorizes the person administering the government, 
 with any five members of the Legislature, to ascertain the prices to 
 be allowed to such creditors upon the settlement of their respective 
 accounts, which, not being directed by the said resolution, will not 
 be binding upon Congress, cannot be received as a rule of conduct 
 by their servants in adjusting the pubhc accounts within this State, 
 and will therefore defeat the business which it is intended to effect. 
 Besides, the vesting a power in the person administering the gov- 
 ernment, and any five members of the Legislature, or in any per- 
 sons whatsoever to destroy the original contracts between the 
 subjects of this State and the pubUc of&cers by arbitrarily fixing 
 new prices for the articles furnished, gives this bill the insidious 
 operation of an ex post facto law, opens a door destructive to pro- 
 perty and public confidence, and is in the opinion of this Council, 
 highly injurious to the rights of the people and against the public 
 good. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albant, March 2 9, 1 781 . Present — Governor Clinton ; Morris, 
 Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled ''J.n act to amend an act entitled ''An act for regu- 
 lating the militia of the State of New Yorlc,^" was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, viz.: 
 
 1. For that by the third section, all persons neglecting or refu- 
 sing to march after due notice, are to be tried by a Court Martial, 
 to be convened by the commanding of&cer of a regiment composed 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 239 
 
 of sucli members as lie shall nommate and appoint, who are 
 authorized to impose any fine, or inflict any corporal punishment 
 not extending to life or hmb, at their discretion, -whereby the 
 citizens of this State are subject to fines and ignominious pnnish- 
 ments by the sentence of a court not even composed by detail 
 according to ordinary military usage, but by the arbitrary mil 
 and nomination of a commanding officer of a regiment, and are 
 thus deprived of that security against partiality, private pique and 
 resentment, wisely provided against by the act for regulating the 
 mihtia of this State, passed the 11th day of March, 1780, making 
 those oflfenses cognizable only by a general Court Martial, in 
 which case the sentences of the court are subject to the control of 
 the person administering the government 
 
 2. Because the fines which may be imposed by such regimental 
 court are to be distributed amount such of the non-commissioned 
 officers and privates as shall have done their duty, thereby giving 
 an xmequal and unjust recompense ; as those regiments who, in 
 greatest numbers and prompt alacrity, obey the calls of their 
 country, will be least benefited, whilst those of other regiments 
 wiU, by this distribution, be rewarded beyond proportion or their 
 merits, and thus it will become the interest of some to encoui-age 
 others to persist in their neglect of duty. 
 
 3. Because, although the State in time of danger is entitled to 
 the personal service of the subjects for its defense, yet this service 
 ought to be exacted in such manner as to operate as nearly equal 
 as possible; whereas, by the present bill, the most extensive and 
 most populous districts may contribute the least, as the fines for 
 neglect of duty are not to be applied for the benefit of the com- 
 munity at large, but distributed among the individuals of such 
 districts, which is no more than a mere change of property from 
 one individual to another, and by collusion may even lose the 
 efiect of a punishment. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
240 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 Albany, March 29, 1781. Present— Governor Cliaton; Morris, 
 Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled ^^ An act to prevent evil-minded persons supplying the 
 ervemy with provisions, and for other purposes therein mmtioned" was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, -nz.: 
 
 1. For that although, by the second .enacting clause of the 
 said bni, a power is given to a grand jury of the county of 
 Dutchess to inquire into and present any offenses under the said 
 bni heretofore committed or hereafter to be committed ia the 
 county of Westchester, and also a power to a grand jury of the 
 county of Albany in like manner to inquire into and present any 
 offenses under the said bill, heretofore committed or hereafter to 
 be committed, in either the counties of Tryon or Charlotte, and 
 directs that the petit jurors, for the trials of all such indictments 
 shall be returned from the city and county where the indictment 
 shall be taken, yet by the law there is no express power vested in 
 the courts in which the indictments are to be found to try the 
 offenders, by which means the law is imperfect, and will not 
 answer the designs of the Legislature. 
 
 2. For that the third and last enacting clause of the said 
 bill only giving a right to seize in case of the goods,' wares and 
 merchandises coming immediately from any part of this State 
 within the power of the enemy, will not answer the designs of the 
 Legislature, it being an undoubted fact that the trade intended to 
 be prevented by the said bill is carried on from this StateJ 
 through the States of Connecticut and New Jersey, against which 
 trade the bill makes no provision. 
 
 3. For that by the same clause, any person or persons seizing 
 goods as coming from the enemy, is justified in immediately con- 
 verting such goods to his or their own use, and should a seizure be 
 made of any considerable property, not subject to seizure by any 
 person or persons not of sufficient ability to answer in damages, 
 the innocent proprietor is unjustly deprived of his property and 
 is without remedy. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 241 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, June 30, 1781. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Cliancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "An act for raising a tax in specie and a tax in 
 paper currency, ^^ was before tbe Council, wMch adopted tbe follow- 
 ing objections, reported by tbe Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because it does not correct the inequalities in the distri- 
 bution of the tax for raising $2,500,000, referred to in the said 
 bill, among the several towns, manors, preciacts and districts, but 
 makes the apportionment of that tax the rule for the adjusting the 
 proportions which the several districts shall raise of the future 
 tax, without affording such district as may have been aggrieved 
 any means of redress. 
 
 2. Because, imder the present mode of taxation, no remedy 
 remains to the people against an imjust and unequal distribution 
 of the county quota among the several districts, but removing the 
 supervisors who may have made the same of this; the bill under 
 consideration deprives them, by rendering an apportionment made 
 previous to the last election of supervisors the rule by which a 
 subsequent tax is to be collected. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, 4p"^ 10, 1782. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to empower justices of the peace, mayors, 
 recorders and aldermen to try causes to the value of ten pounds and 
 under, and to repeal certain acts therein mentioned," was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Because it subjects property of too great an amount to be 
 determined by vague and informal courts, which experience 
 evinces often proceed upon mistaken principles of justice, to 
 which the injured must submit, or risk the incurring of greater 
 expenses by seeking redress in the Supreme Court, and where 
 relief can only be given m peculiar cases. 
 
 2. Because it wiU tend to a spirit of litigation, and as these 
 courts may be and generally are held in taverns, they lead the 
 
 31 
 
242 The Council of Ee-v^ion. 
 
 inhabitants to attend them into dangerous excesses introduotive 
 of a contempt of the laws, and a profligacy of manners. 
 
 3. Because a great waste of time must be occasioned by the 
 execution of the law when a court may be held for the trial of 
 each cause. 
 
 The Council further object to the said bill, particularly: 
 
 1. For that by the third section, either of the parties or their 
 attorneys may demand a jury, although no issue is joined, by which 
 means a jury may be summoned at the request of the plaintiff, 
 for the purpose of increasing the costs in cases where the defend- 
 ant may make no defense. 
 
 2. For that by the fourth section, the court is authorized and 
 required (unless a reasonable cause be shown, or be proved to its 
 satisfaction) to set a fine on every person who shall make default 
 in attending as a juror or witness; and to issue a warrant for 
 levying the same; thus a defaulting juror or witness is subjected to 
 the payment of such fine or imprisonment, without the benefit of 
 an essoin, day (by law given in all superior courts) to assign 
 his reasons for his non-attendance by proof 
 
 3. For that, by the last section, an oath of allegiance and 
 abjuration is required to be taken as an indispensable preliminary 
 to entitle any of the subjects of this State to the right of bringing 
 suit, for the recovery at law or in equity of their just demands.- 
 Governments, from reasons of policy, may at times require from 
 their subjects a general test, but where this is required from those 
 only who are compelled to have recourse to the courts for the 
 recovery of their just demands under the alluring temptation of 
 interest, it can never afford to such a government the security 
 originally intended thereby. And although the provisionary 
 clause dispenses therewith in favor of the inhabitants of West- 
 chester county, and the subjects of neighboring States, it leaves 
 iks subjects of our faithful allies, and alien friends who, under the 
 sanction of our laws or national treaties, have a temporary resi- 
 dence is. this State, without the remedy of recovering their legal 
 rights. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a. law, 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 243 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, 4pn7 11, 1782. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "An act for raising the sum of £18,000, aiid the 
 further sum of £18,000, hy tax, within this State, and for settling 
 public accounts," being under consideration, the Council, sensi- 
 ble of the propriety of raising money, for the public exigencies, 
 regret the necessity to which they are reduced of objecting to this 
 bill as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and against 
 the public good, and more especially as the exceptional clauses in 
 the said bm appear unconnected with its general design. 
 
 The Council object to the said bill : 
 
 1. Because, by the fifth and ninth sections, the commissioner to 
 be appointed for the purpose of adjusting and settling the pubhc 
 accounts of the inhabitants is to be guided and directed by the in- 
 structions which shall be commimicated by the Legislature or by 
 the persons named in the bUl, or hereafter to be appointed. This 
 clause gives to instructions joint force and operation with the law 
 whereon they are foimded, and may in effect direct a mode of 
 settlement and establish a precedent against the spirit of the Con- 
 stitution; and because the Auditor of the State, who is to liquidate 
 the accounts of individuals agaiast the public, being also subject 
 to such instructions, his responsibility for his conduct is totally 
 destroyed, and the property of the subject left without the security 
 of law. 
 
 2. Because, by the sixth and seventh sections, the said commis- 
 sioner, after such settiement, is to receive fi:om the claimant all his 
 vouchers and accounts, and to give him certificates for the amoimt 
 of his demand, with interest, made payable by the treasurer of this 
 State; thereby subjecting this State in the first instance to the 
 payment of the public debts due to its inhabitants: and as this 
 mode of settlement is unauthorized by an act of Congress, the 
 State can have no sohd security for repayment or being credited 
 therewith in their general account. 
 
 3. Because should the said bUl become a law, such claimants 
 are not obliged to relinquish their vouchers against the United 
 States and accept 'the security of this State, and should they prefer 
 the former to the latter the law will be nugatory and a heavy ex- 
 pense incurred without any advantage to the pubhc. 
 
244 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Notwithstanding tlie objections, tlie Legislature passed tlie bill 
 
 into a law. 
 
 PouGHKEEPSiE, April 13, 1782. Present — Governor Clinton: 
 Morris, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An act to stay suits against pvhlic officers for a 
 limited iimt" was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, viz. : 
 
 This Council, without seeing the necessity of a declaratory 
 clause in the said bill, that officers and servants of this or the 
 United States are liable to pay the debts by them contracted on 
 behalf of the public, convinced should the question at any time 
 be raised, the courts of justice can decide it upon the laws already 
 extant, object against the enacting clause in the said bill as incon- 
 sistent with the public good. 
 
 Because the suspension of one of the most essential rights of the 
 subjects, that of appeahng to the courts of justice for the recovery 
 of a just demand, is an exercise of legislative power which may 
 be drawn into a dangerous precedent, and tend to destroy the con- 
 fidence of the people and afford the subject, upon the same grounds, 
 a pretext for a denial of paying the public taxes or debts due to 
 each other. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 KiKesTON, March 20, 1783. Present — Governor Olmton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled '^ An act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors 
 with respect to the imprisonment of their persons" was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, viz.: 
 
 1, For that the relief intended to be given to the debtors 
 named in the said bill against their creditors, is by its preamble, 
 grounded upon a general representation of their necessitous cir- 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 248 
 
 cumstances ; a reason wHcli mil equally apply to all confined 
 debtors in this State, and therefore the bill on those principles 
 ought to be general and not particular. 
 
 2. For that, by the constitutional' proceedings of the Legis- 
 lature, founded upon the truest principles of justice and equity, no 
 private bill ought to pass, unless the persons affected thereby have 
 an opportunity of being heard. And this being a private bill, it 
 does not appear that the debtors, previous to their application to 
 the Legislature, bad given notice to their respective creditors ; and 
 thus the creditors, who are materially affected in their property, 
 should the said bOl become a law, are deprived of the only oppor- 
 tunity to assign reasons against the passing thereof. 
 
 The- Legislature refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did 
 not become a law. 
 
 Kingston, March 24, 1783. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n. ad, to remcme certain dovbts relative to the 
 powers of the Commissioners of Seqwestration" was before the Coun- 
 cil, which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State as inconsistent with the public good. 
 
 1. To the third enacting clause; for that tbe suit thereby given 
 to the commissioners appears to be an action of detinue ; and, 
 without express words in the bill, the fine therein directed to be 
 set and inflicted by the court cannot be made part of the judgment 
 in such suit, and cannot be levied on an execution issued in conse- 
 quence thereof. 
 
 That the proceedings upon the said biU have their origin in the 
 same, and can only be pursued agreeable to directions thereof; 
 and no mode being prescribed by the said bill for levying and 
 recovering the fine thereby directed to be set and inflicted, the 
 same can never come to the hands of the plaintiff, in order to its 
 being paid into the treasury of this State : whereby the bill, should 
 it become a law, would in this respect be nugatory. 
 
246 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 2. To the last enacting clause : 1st. For that, the words upon 
 the penalty of being guilty of a misdemeanor against the people of this 
 State, are altogether useless, and the phraseology improper; 2d. 
 For that although, by the said clause, persons who will swear 
 before a judge that they came possessed of such bonds, specialties 
 or notes of hand as are in the bill specified, in the manner and for 
 the consideration therein designated, may bring suits for the 
 recovery of the moneys due thereon; yet persons who have 
 already brought suits on such bonds, &o., though they should take 
 the oath by the said clause prescribed, cannot continue their suits, 
 or proceed to judgments; the nisi in the said clause extending 
 only to sxiits intended to be commenced, and thus, in instances 
 exactly similar, the rights of some individuals would be destroyed 
 by a partial provision in favor of others. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 City of New York, January 15, 1784. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act declaratory of the alienism of the persons 
 therein described" was before the Council, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because it tends to establish a principle which is contradic- 
 tory to the fundamental laws of every civilized nation, to wit, that 
 the subjects of the State can, by their adherence to its enemies, 
 renounce their allegiance and become aliens. 
 
 If this principle should be established, it must follow that the 
 confiscation bill, and every other law which punishes persons who 
 have adhered to the enemy as felons or traitors, must be void or 
 manifestly unjust ; since aliens, enemies owing no allegiance and 
 enjoying no protection, cannot be amenable to the laws. 
 
 2. Because, if this doctrine once has the sanction of the law, 
 any subject of the State, who shall not hold lands within the same, 
 may cast off his allegiance and com&it treason with impunity, 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 247 
 
 provided he lives not within its jurisdiction; since, as an alien, he 
 cannot be corporally punished. 
 
 3. Because the forfeitures refer back to the time of the Decla- 
 ration of Independence by this State, when many of the persons 
 who are the objects of this bill lived within the jurisdiction of 
 the State, unattainted and unsuspected of treason and alienism, 
 and might, for honafde considerations, have sold their property 
 to the good citizens of the State, who would, if this act should 
 pass iato a law, be tmjustly deprived thereof. 
 
 4. Because, in the opinion of this Council, the doctrine estab- 
 lished in the act may induce Great Britain to adopt similar prin- 
 ciples, and many of the subjects of this State and the United 
 States, holding property in the British dominions, would, in all 
 probability, be deprived thereof if this act should pass into a law. 
 
 5. Because it is impossible to understand what is intended by 
 that part of the proviso that excepts such persons from the 
 penalties of the bill as have become subjects since the ninth day 
 of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy -six. No provi- 
 sion having yet been made for naturalizing aliens within this 
 State, it must either be nugatory or it must be intended to include 
 all persons who have submitted to the laws and jurisdiction of this 
 State at any time before the passing of this bill, ia which latter 
 case any person now residiug within any part of the State, and 
 submitting to the government thereof, is within the proviso, and 
 the law is thereby rendered useless, except so far as it may be 
 supposed to operate against such persons as have left the State, ia 
 which limited sense it appears from the terms of the act it was not 
 intended to be understood. 
 
 6. Because it contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the 
 provisional treaty with Great Britain. 
 
 7. That this State, not being at present engaged iu war, can 
 have no alien enemies; and as, by the law of nations, alien friends 
 may possess property, an act forfeiting such property amounts to 
 a declaration of war against their sovereign. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
248 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 City of New York, January 15, 1784. Present— Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bUl entitled "J.re act to amend an act relative to debts due toper- 
 sons within the enemy's lines" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, by rendering State securities payable for debts due 
 to persons who are placed ia such a situation as to be supposed 
 unfriendly to the government, a distinction is held up between 
 current money and State securities, which is highly dishonorable 
 to the State and destructive of its credit. 
 
 2. Because, if the securities and bills of credit mentioned in 
 the act, are equal in value to money, no law is necessary to render 
 them receivable for debts, and tbe coercion used for that purpose 
 tends to discredit them. If they are not equal, the rendering them 
 receivable is a fruitless attempt to siipply by force the want of 
 credit, and must in the end be destructive of all confidence in the 
 faith of government. 
 
 3. Because, if the securities tendered are less valuable than 
 money, the persons compelled to receive them are so far punished 
 by the State, and this without any trial or designation of the 
 offense, other than that of baving remained within or near the 
 enemy's lines, whicb many citizens may and have been constrained 
 to do. 
 
 4. Because it militates against that article of the treaty with 
 Great Britain which stipulates for the just payment of debts on 
 either side, since it is not in its operation confined to such persons 
 as are, both plaintiff and defendant, subjects of this State. 
 
 5. Because, by th.e second section, the essential rigbt of trials 
 by jury, secured by the Constitution to the citizens of this State 
 in all cases where it has been used, may be effectually evaded 
 in the cases there enumerated, by compelling a plaintiff to submit 
 his cause to the determination of referees. 
 
 For that the special matters which defendants are authorized 
 by this bill to plead before such referees, may in point of form or 
 substance be defectively set forth, and the referees, for want of 
 judicial powers in law to determine on its validity, would deprive 
 the plaintiff of the right of demurring. 
 
Vetoes of the Council, 249 
 
 6. For tliat the powers given to such, referees to determine 
 the plaiatifif's demand upon principles of equity and good con- 
 science is a virtual establishment of a new Court of Chancery, in 
 violation of the Constitution, which deqjares that no new court 
 can be instituted but such as shall proceed according to the coufse 
 of the common law. 
 
 7. Because, in the enacting clause, it is expressly provided, 
 "That nothing in the said act contained shaU be construed to ex- 
 tend to any person that heretofore hath been, now is, or hereafter 
 shall be a prisoner with the enemy," whereby all those wl^o have, 
 by their exertions in the common cause, unfortunately come under 
 the above description are absolutely excluded the advantage 
 intended to be secured to their fellow-citizens by the said bDl. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 City of New Yoke, March SO, 1784. Present— Governor 
 Cliaton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for apprehending of persons in any county 
 upon warrants granted by thejmtices of the peace of any other county, ^^ 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the extent given by the act to the warrant of a 
 justice, is hable to great abuses and enables a malicious accuser or 
 an lE-informed magistrate to drag an innocent person from one 
 end of the State to the other, without any remedy in case the 
 charge should appear to be ill-founded. 
 
 2. Because no proof being required that the person against 
 whom such warrant may issue usually resided in the county in 
 which the crime was said to have been committed, or that he left 
 his home with a view to escape from justice, no check is imposed 
 upon the frauds, violences and vexations that law may subject 
 those to who may be arrested under it when at a distance from 
 home, where they are unknown and friendless and incapable of 
 procuring bail. 
 
 32 
 
250 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 8. Because it deprives the subject of bail in many cases in 
 wMch he would be entitled thereto ; for the act directs that persons 
 who may be apprehended Shall be bailed in caae the offense is of 
 such a nature as to be bailable, yet this provision wUl appear in- 
 effectaal when it is considered that the admission to bail does not 
 only depend upon the nature of the crime, but on the degree of 
 evidence by which the charge is supported : of this, the justice 
 who indorses the warrant must be entirely ignorant. However 
 slight, therefore, the evidence may be, if the charge is of such a 
 nature as when well supported to justify a commitment, the per- 
 son accused, even upon the lightest suspicion, may be led like a 
 criminal from one end of the State to the other, and alike injured 
 in his fortune, his freedom, and his reputation. 
 
 4. Because the provisions in the act are extremely expensiV'C. 
 If the justice takes bail, the constable must carry the recognizance, 
 &c., to the clerk of the county in which the offense is charged to 
 have been committed; this, if the counties are remote, must be 
 attended with considerable expense. If no bail is taken, the 
 offender must be transported ; in doing this more than one person 
 must be employed, and in many cases the transportation of a per- 
 son perhaps only suspected of a crime may amount to a very con- 
 siderable srmi. 
 
 5. Because the act makes no provision for the payment of 
 this expense, nor declares whether it is to be defrayed by the 
 State at large, by the county in which the supposed offender is 
 found, or by that in which the crime is charged to have been com- 
 mitted. 
 
 6. Because, as the law now stands, most of the evils now in- 
 tended to be cured by this act are guarded against by the power 
 vested in the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices in 
 their sessions to issue bench warrants. Their knowledge of the 
 law enables them to distinguish the cases in which it may be 
 proper to grant them; while their powers to admit to bail are 
 much greater than those of a single justice of the peace. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Ve3X)es of the ComsciL. 251 
 
 Cirr OF Xew Yobk, April 20, 1784. Present— GrOTcmor 
 dinton; Morris, CJhief Justice; Hobart, Jiistice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An oc< to enahk ihe Mayor, Recorder and Alder- 
 men of Ae c% and cmmty of Xew York to raise mone^ ly taxjor ffie 
 jwnyoses Aerein mentioned" was before the Conncil, -which adopted 
 the following objections, leported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the Coundl conceiTe that life, personal liberty and 
 property are the bl essi ngs which goyemments were framed to 
 preserve and protect; that the two first are in little danger xmder 
 the most despotic rolers, while the las^ which holds out a con- 
 tinued temptation to the rapacity of governors, is only secured, 
 eren ia free stat^ by the most "sdgilant attention; that oxii 
 happy Constitution has not been unmindfdl of proper guards for 
 the secuiily of this essential right If the Legislature frame the 
 laws under which the taxes are levied, if the assessors apportion 
 them aojording to known and stated rules, being in this mere 
 executire officers, they may be punished by the judicial for a 
 violation of their duty; and thus the legislative, executive and 
 jndidal being kept disthic^ each serves to check the other, and 
 protect the property of the citizen. That the bill under consider- 
 ation removes all these checks, when it directs that the sums to be 
 raised "be rated and assessed by the vestrymen according to the 
 states and <^er dmimstanc^ and abi^ies to pay taxes, of each 
 r^pecftiveperson, collectively considered; "that property being the 
 measure of taxation, to depart from this rule and to substitute an 
 imaginary one, which only exists in the opinion of the assessors, 
 is at once to vest him with legislative and executive powers, and 
 to take off the control of the judidal ; since where no law is, there 
 can be no transgression. If the assesors are of the richer dass 
 of citizens, they will overburden the poor; if chosen fiwm among 
 the poor, they will endeavor to oppr^s the rich. Thus the first 
 effect of this mode of taxation will be partis and dissensions among 
 the different classes of citizens, whom mutual interest and the policv 
 of government should bind together. Parly spirit will make this 
 law tiie engine of oppression, and the avarice and resentment of 
 those who prevail at elections becoming the law of the land, may be 
 as fiital to free dtdzens as the rapacity of the most despotic tyrant 
 That these objections have peculiar weight when applied to a com- 
 
252 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 mercial city, where selfisli views may stimulate assessors to oppress 
 their rivals in trade, and destroy that security which makes the 
 basis of commerce. 
 
 That though pressing emergencies and public dangers may, in 
 some circumstances, have palliated this mode of taxation, nothing 
 can justify it in a time of profound peace, when regular systems 
 should be adopted ; more especially when the objects for which 
 the tax is to be collected are not of sufficient magnitude to excuse 
 the introduction of such an uncontrolled power as this vests in 
 the vestrymen. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City OF New York, ifay 4, 1784. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for raising £100,000 within the several 
 counties therein mentioned," was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the Council conceive that life, personal liberty and 
 property are the blessings which governments were framed to 
 preserve and protect; that the two first are in little danger under 
 the most despotic rulers, while the last, which holds out a con- 
 tinued temptation to the rapacity of governors, is only secured, 
 even in free states, by the most vigilant attention, that our happy 
 Constitution has not been unmindful of proper guards for the 
 security of this essential right. If the Legislature frame the laws 
 under which the taxes are levied, if the assessors apportion them 
 according to known and stated rules, being in this mere executive 
 oflicers, they may be punished by the judical for a violation of 
 their duty ; and thus the legislative, executive and judicial being 
 kept distinct, each serves to check the other, and protect the pro- 
 perty of the citizen. 
 
 That the bill under consideration removes all these checks, 
 when it directs that the sums to be raised be rated and assessed 
 according to the estates and other circumstances and abilities to 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 253 
 
 pay taxes of eacli respective person, collectiTely considered; that 
 property being the measure of taxation, to depart irom. this rule 
 and to substitute an imaginary one which only exists in the opin- 
 ion of the assessors, is at once to vest him -with legislative and 
 executive powers, and to take off the control of the judicial; since 
 where no law is, there can be no ofifense. If the assessors are of 
 the richer class of citizens, they wiU overburden the poor; if 
 chosen fixjm among the poor, they wiU endeavor to oppress the 
 rich. Thus the first effect of this mode of taxation will be parties 
 among the different classes of citizens, whom mnttial interest and 
 the policy of government should bind together. Party spirit will 
 make this law the engine of oppression, and the avarice and 
 resentment of those who prevail at elections, becoming the law of 
 the land, may be as iaial to free citizens as the rapacity of the 
 most despotic tyrant. 
 
 That though pressing emergencies and public dangers may, in 
 some circumstances, have palliated this mode of taxation, nothing 
 can justify it in a time of profound peace, when regular systems 
 should be adopted. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the biU 
 into a law. 
 
 Crrr of New York, May 10, 1784. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bUl entitled "An act to encourage the settlement of the vxiste and 
 unappropriated lands within this State," was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by Justice 
 Hobart, viz.: 
 
 The Council object to that part of the iGLfth enacting clause of the 
 bin by which certificates, issued by the Continental loan officer in 
 this State, for moneys lent to the United States, by the inhabitants 
 of this State, reduced to their value in specie by the Continental 
 scale of depreciation, are made receivable by this State, for the 
 said waste and unappropriated lands. 
 
 1. Because the said certificates are the proper debt of the 
 United States, and not of this State only ; and it is inconsistent 
 
254: The Council of Eevision. 
 
 with the public good and public faith that the Legislature should 
 by law barter away the public property of this State, for the 
 payment of the debts of the United States, until the debts of this 
 State are fully and perfectly discharged. 
 
 2. Because receiving such certificates as aforesaid may inter- 
 fere with the arrangement of the United States for discharging 
 the public debts. 
 
 8. Because the receiving the said certificates will open a door 
 to fresh frauds, and give a certain disguise and covering to past 
 ones which will render their detection altogether impossible, until 
 the accounts of the respective States with the United States are 
 settled; and though the Legislature may entertain the highest 
 opinion of the uprightness of the pubhc servants of Congress, 
 they can never be justified by their constituents in passing laws 
 that hold up to such servants the highest temptations, to depart 
 from their integrity, and give them the security that such frauds, 
 if ever discovered, will be when their representatives only can 
 answer for it. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New Yore, May 12, 1784. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.w act to preserve the freedom and independence 
 of this State, and for other purposes therein mentioned" was before 
 the Council, which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the first enacting clause, the voluntarily remaining 
 with the fleets and armies of the King of Great Britain is made 
 an offense highly penal, whereas, by the known laws of all nations, 
 persons who remain with their possessions when the country is 
 overrun by a conquering army, are at least excused, if not justified; 
 and should our laws be made to retrospect in a manner so directly 
 contrary to the received opinions of all civilized nations and even 
 the known principles of common justice, it will be highly deroga- 
 tory to the honor of the State, and fill the minds of our fellow- 
 citizens with the apprehension of suffering, in future, some heavy 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 255 
 
 punishment for that conduct which at present is perfectly innocent. 
 Besides, was this bill free from the objections which lie against all 
 retrospective and ex post facto laws, the iaconveniences which 
 must imaToidably foUow, should it become a law of this State, are 
 ftdly sufficient to show that it is totally inconsistent with the public 
 good; for so large a proportion of the citizens remained iu the 
 parts of the southern district which were possessed by the British 
 armies, that in most places it would be difficult, and in many 
 absolutely impossible, to find men to fill the necessary offices, even 
 for conducting elections, until a new set of inhabitants could be 
 procured. 
 
 2. Because the persons within the several descriptions of 
 offenses enumerated in the fiist enacting clause cannot be adjudged 
 guilty of misprison of treason but on conviction, and such convic- 
 tion cannot be had but on a prosecution to be commenced, in the 
 course of which it will be necessary to show that the defendant 
 comes within one or other of the descriptions in the said clause; 
 this must be a prosecution by reason of the part the defendant 
 may have taken during the war, directly in the £ice of the sixth 
 article of the definitive treaty, by which it is stipulated " that no 
 future prosecution shall be commenced against any person or per- 
 sons for or by reason of the part which he or they may have taken 
 in the war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any 
 future loss or damage either in his person, liberty or property." 
 
 Because, by the said enacting clause of the said bUl, the inspec- 
 tors and superintendents of the election are constituted a court, 
 they being by the said bill expressly authorized to inquire into 
 and determine the several matters in the first enacting clause, and 
 their judgment is conclusive to disfranchise; this is constituting a 
 ne^ court, which does not proceed according to the course of the 
 common law, and is expressly against the forty -first section of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bUl 
 into a law. 
 
256 The Coukcil of Revision. 
 
 City of THew Yoek, May 12, 1784. Present— Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice ; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and 
 forfeited estates within this State, and for other purposes therein men- 
 tioned" was before the Council, -whicli reported the following 
 objections to the said bill, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the reasons set forth in their objections against the 
 bill entitled "An act to encourage the settlement of the waste and 
 unappropriated lands within this State," delivered to the Honorable 
 the Assembly the tenth instant, and io which the Council refer, 
 apply with equal force against the present bill. 
 
 2. Because, by the said bill, the commissioners for the sale of 
 the said lands give no security for the great property that must 
 come iato their hands, and in case of their or any of their miscon- 
 duct the State will be without a remedy. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the biU 
 iato a law. 
 
 CiTT OF New Yoek, November 25, 1784. Present — Governor 
 Cliaton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitied "J.n act to empower Elizaheth DAeavois, widow, 
 and Johannes E. Lott and John Vanderbilt, esquire, administrators to 
 the estate of Joost Debeavois, deceased., to sell and dispose of the real 
 estate of the said Joost Debeavois, for the payment of his debts and other 
 purposes," was before the CouncU, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Justice Hobart, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the said bill, "all and singular the lands, tenemAts 
 and hereditaments whereof the said Joost Debeavois died seized, 
 are vested in the said administrators, their heirs and assigns," 
 without reservation, whereby the widow of the said Joost Debea- 
 vois would be deprived of her right of dower ; and 
 
 Because the surplus money arising from the sale "of the said 
 lands, tenements, hereditaments and real estate," after the pay- 
 ment of "the debts which were due from the said Joost Debea- 
 vois, the intestate, at the time of his decease," is to be put at 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 257 
 
 interest, by the administrators, "for the usie and benefit of the 
 ■wife and children of the said Joost," without requiring any secu- 
 rity from the said administrators, for the faithful discharge of the 
 additional trust intended by this bUl to be reposed in them. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 CiTT OF New Yoee, November 27, 1784. Present — Governor 
 Chnton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "J.w act for the jrwre easy assessment of taxes in the 
 city and county of New York, altering the mode of punishm£nt in cer- 
 tain cases of petit larceny, and for the confinement of vagrants artd lewd 
 persons to hard labor" was before the Council, which reported the 
 following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the said bOl, a power is given to the Mayor, Ee- 
 corder and Aldermen to confine and set to hard labor "all and 
 every lewd person or persons leading debauched lives who now 
 are, or from time to time shall come into or sojourn, within the 
 jurisdiction of the city and county of New York," without defin- 
 ing what is intended by leading debauched lives, thereby putting 
 it in the power of the said Mayor, Eecorder and Aldermen to 
 punish and imprison any person or persons residing within the 
 said jurisdiction without trial or conviction, or without his or their 
 having committed any offense against the known laws of the land; 
 thus depriving, as weU citizens as sojourners entitled to protection, 
 of the benefit of a trial by jury, secured to them by the Constitu- 
 tion, and of the habeas corpus law, the best and most effectual check 
 on the despotism of magistrates ; and 
 
 Because the other parts of the bUl had before invested the 
 Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen with full and ample powers for 
 the punisliment (on conviction) of any offender against the laws of 
 the State, and even of extending that punishment to idle and dis- 
 orderly vagrants not having visible means of a livelihood; beyond 
 which a regard to the liberty of the subject should not, in any 
 case, extend the discretionary power of the magistrate. 
 
 S3 
 
258 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 City of New York, March 1, 1785. Presont — Governor Clin- 
 ton ; Livingston, Chancellor ; Hobai't, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "^1» act to mjidatf inoculation for Hie small pox in 
 the city and county of Albany, and in tiie counties of Suffolk and 
 Dutchess," was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Justice Ilobart, viz.: 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as inconsistent with the public good, because the general 
 tendency of the bill is to put an end to the practice of inoculation 
 for the small pox in the counties therein mentioned. 
 
 For, by the first enacting clause, all peraous are rostrained from 
 making use of any building within the city of Albany for the pur- 
 pose, unless a license from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, 
 in Common Council convened, be previously obtained, which 
 leaves it in the power of the corporation nearly if not totally to 
 stop the practice; for though, by the proviso at the conclusion of 
 this clause, people are not to be prevented from inoculating their 
 own families in their own houses, yet it will admit of a doubt 
 whether a physician may be employed for the purpose except in 
 his own house. 
 
 And, by the second enacting clause, no person in the remaining 
 parts of the county of Albany, or in the counties of Suffolk and 
 Dutchess, is to inoculate or cause imy person to be inoculated for 
 the small pox, but at such place or places and imder such rules 
 and regulations to prevent the spreading of the disease, as a 
 majority of the justices of the peace and supervisors of the several 
 towns, precincts and districts within the said counties shall, respec- 
 tively, under their hands and seals, make and direct ; whereby it 
 may so happen that should a majority of the justices and the 
 eupervisors .of any town, precinct or district be opposed to the 
 practice of iaoeulating, from scruples of conscience or apprehen- 
 sions of danger, no place would be fixed, nor no regulations made, 
 and thus one of the most useful discoveries with which Providence 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 259 
 
 hath favored mankind for moderating the violence and danger of 
 a contagious and fatal disease, would be rendered in a great mea- 
 sure nugatory and useless : for though recourse may be had to 
 inoculation when the small pox breaks out ia the natural way, yet 
 it is observed to prove more fatal on such occasions, owing to the 
 air being rendered unwholesome from the great number of persons 
 infected with the disorder, to an unsuitable habit of body in many 
 patients who are at all events obliged to be inoculated, and some- 
 times to its happening at an unfavorable season of the year; 
 whereas, if the present practice of iaoculating as it suits with the 
 circumstances and conveniences of the people be suffered to con- 
 tinue, few evil consequences are to be apprehended, and that other- 
 wise terrible disease is rendered so mild in most cases as to be 
 scarcely infectious. 
 
 A recent instance in one of the adjouiing towns of a neighbor- 
 ing State abundantly eviqices the justice of these objections. 
 
 The Assembly passed the biU, but the Senate refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, March 3, 1785. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitied "An act to enable the courts therein mentioned to 
 issue commissions far Hie eoiaminaMon of vntnesses in certain cases," 
 was before the ' Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the' Chancellor in behalf of Chief Justice Morris, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, by rendering a remedy which should never be used 
 but in extraordinary cases, too common, it may in the end 
 habituate the courts and people to a mode of trial by af&davits, 
 which is much less perfect than that now, in use in which the wit- 
 ness being brought before the judge and jury, they form their 
 judgment not only from what is said by him, but from his con- 
 duct and manner of saying it. 
 
 2. Because the judge and jurors, as well as the parties, have, by 
 the common law, a right to interrogate the witness, of which ad- 
 vantage this bill would deprive them. 
 
260 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 3. Because, as the whole of the depositions must be read, they 
 will bring many matters before the jurors which are altogether 
 impertinent to the issue, and which in common cases the court 
 would deem improper testimony to go to the jury, and thus create 
 a bias on the minds of the jurors and lead them to an illegal deci- 
 sion. 
 
 4. Because, though in causes depending in Chancery where the 
 whole merits appear in the bill and answers, the parties may so 
 frame their interrogatories as to bring out the truth, this would bo 
 utterly impossible, in many cases, at common law, where the 
 general issue is pleaded and the special matters given in evidence; 
 so that the parties, not seeing each other's interrogatories, nor not 
 knowing what each intended to prove, might' be questioning to 
 different points, and this bill rendered the parent of great injustice, 
 and that proviso which leaves a discretionary power in the judge 
 or court to grant or refuse a commission, be rendered nugatory, 
 from his not being able to determine what the suit in issue may 
 be. 
 
 5. Because, unless more care is used in the naming of the com- 
 missioners and in the carriage of the commission than is to be 
 expected from every judge of every inferior court, great latitude 
 will be given for fraud and forgery. 
 
 6. Because the expense of a commission in which at least two 
 commissioners must be employed together with that of interroga- 
 tories, cross-interrogatories, depositions, copies, &c., must, in many 
 cases tried in the inferior courts, exceed the value of the thing in 
 demand; and this too may be rendered a dead charge to the per- 
 son applying for the commission, if his opponent refuses to join 
 therein. 
 
 7. Because it is totally unnecessary. The experience of ages in 
 England and of a hundred years here, having set this seal to the 
 present practice, it is impossible to foresee all the inconveniences 
 and mischiefs that so essential an alteration in the common law as 
 the one proposed might produce. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 261 
 
 CiTT OF New York, March 8, 1785. Present— Governor 
 Cninton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled " J.n. act incorporating the several tradesmen and 
 mec/ianics of the city and county of New York,^' was before the Coun- 
 cil, which adopted the following objections, reported by Justice 
 Hobart, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, so far as charity is the object of the bill, it is totally 
 unnecessary, many charitable societies subsisting as well in this 
 city as elsewhere without incorporation; nor can anything justify 
 such incorporation but some peculiarity in the situation of the per- 
 sons applying, which render the ordinary provision for other dis- 
 tressed citizens inadequate to their relief 
 
 2. Because the contributions necessary to support the charity, the 
 loss of time in the various meetings of the corporation making by- 
 laws, in directing the funds, and managing the alms-house, &c., 
 must all operate as so many taxes on the members, and either 
 induce them to use means to keep up the price of labor, or find 
 themselves underwrought by other mechanics who are willing to 
 rely on the State for the support to which, in case of distress, they 
 are by law entitled, without involving themselves in present diffi- 
 culties to avoid distant evils. 
 
 3. Because all incorporations imply a privilege given to one 
 order of citizens which others do not enjoy, and are so fex destruc- 
 tive of that principle of equal liberty which should subsist in 
 every community; and though respect for ancient rights may 
 have induced the framers of the Constitution to tolerate those that 
 then existed, nothing but the most evident public utility can jus- 
 tify a further extension of them. 
 
 4. Because, by the sixth enacting clause, the by-laws of the 
 corporation are made to depend in some measure upon the will 
 of the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city and 
 county of New York. A connection and union of views being 
 thereby rendered necessary, either the mechanics will influence 
 the magistrates, and the extensive powers of the corporation of the 
 city and county of New York be made at some future day instru- 
 ments of monopoly and oppression; or, which is more probable, 
 the corporation of the city and county of New York will obtain a 
 
262 The OouiirciL of EEVisioisr. 
 
 controlling power over tlie corporation of mechanics, and thus add 
 to the extensive influence -which that rich and powerful corporation 
 already enjoy, thereby rendering it extremely dangerous to the 
 citizens and to the pohtical freedom of the people: an evil much 
 more to be apprehended under the present than under the former 
 Constitution, for the Govern6r and Senators being now elected 
 either by the State at large, or extensive districts in which there 
 will on many occasions be a variety of sentiments, it must be ob- 
 vious that a comparatively small body of citizens uniting in one 
 general object may, by their weight, make the lightest scale pre- 
 ponderate. 
 
 5. Because the reason. assigned in the preamble of this bill may 
 equally operate for the incorporation not only of the mechanics, 
 but of every other order of men in every county, whereby the 
 State, instead of being a community of free citizens pursuing the 
 public interest, may become a community of corporations in- 
 fluenced by partial views, and perhaps in a little time (under the 
 direction of artful men) composing an aristocracy destructive to 
 the Constitution and independence of the State. 
 
 6. Because, though the title of the bill professes to incorporate the 
 tradesmen and mechanics of the city and county of New York, it 
 does not, in fact, incorporate any but the forty -three persons named 
 in the bUl, and invests them with a discretionary power either to 
 incorporate or not incorporate the mechanics of the city and county 
 of New York; a power by no means to be entrusted to any but the 
 representative body of the people. And by a singular solecism in 
 politics, instead of directing that the mechanics at large choose 
 their trustees, they direct that the trustees or members of the cor- 
 poration shall renew themselves out of the community at large, 
 thus providing only for the extent and perpetuity of their own 
 power ; the twelfth clause directing " that they elect and choose, 
 in such manner and form, and upon such terms and conditions, as 
 shall be ordained for that purpose by any of the said by-laws or 
 ordinances of the said corporation, such and so many persons to 
 be members of the said corporation as they shall think beneficial 
 to the laudable designs of the said corporation." By this clause, 
 the forty-three persons named in the bill may at pleasure confine 
 the corporation to its present number or increase or diminish it 
 
Vetoes of thb Council. 263 
 
 from twenty-five members to twenty-five thonsand ; nor are they 
 by any part of the bill confined to choose ont of the mechanics of 
 the city and county of New York, but may extend their incorpo- 
 ration to all the mechanics in this or any other State. 
 
 By this danse too, they are unrestrained in the imposition of 
 the terms upon which other mechanics are to be admitted. If the 
 law will be attended with inconveniences to the mechanics that 
 compose the corporation, it should be rejected on that ground, nor 
 should so useful a body of men be permitted to injure themselves, 
 li^ on the contrary, it holds out advantages to them, their admis- 
 sion into the corporation should not depend on the wiU of forty- 
 three mechanics, but should extend without restriction to all other 
 mechanics that now do or hereafter may exercise their trades 
 within the city and county; and the Legislature should prescribe 
 the terms of their admission without leaving a door open for the 
 richer and more powerful to oppress or govern tht^e who are less 
 opulent 
 
 7. Because tie forty-three persons named in the biU, and their 
 successors, are not only empowered to elect members for the said 
 corporation, but to make by-laws, and judging upon those laws to 
 expel their members for the infraction thereof; so that, by an im- 
 proper use of two powers, that should never be united — the legis- 
 lative and judicial — they may acquire and establish an unbounded 
 control over the other mechanics of the city and county. 
 
 8. Because, by the seventh clause, they are not only empowered 
 to make by-laws for certain definite purposes, but "for regulating 
 all other their aJG&irs and business as they or the major part of 
 them, so met, shall judge best for the general good of the said cor- 
 poration and for the more effectual promoting the beneficial de- 
 signs of the institution, and the same to alter, amend and repeal 
 fix)m time to time as they shall conceive most conducive to the 
 interests of the said corporation and the promoting the pnbhc 
 good, &c, so as the same by-laws be reasonable in themselves and 
 not repugnant to the Constitution or laws of this State, or of the 
 laws and ordinances of the mayor, aldermen, &c. The fiist of 
 these restrictions is too vague to amount to anything. Many mea- 
 sures may be reasonable that under particular circumstances are 
 highly inexpedient; so that the objects of the by-laws of this cor- 
 
264 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 poration are entirely indefinite, and as it would seem, extend to 
 tlie promotion of the public good, an extent which includes all the 
 powers of legislation, provided they do not contravene the laws 
 and Constitution of the State, and of the mayor, aldermen, &c. 
 And this construction is more fully justified by the last clause of 
 the law, which restrains them from limiting the price of labor; 
 thereby evincing that the Legislature conceived that without such 
 restraint, the by-laws of the corporation would have extended to 
 that object, and of course does in its present form extend to an in- 
 finity of others which may be equally injurious to the community. 
 
 9. Because the interests of the State require that every encour- 
 agement should be given to industrious emigrants; no stranger 
 who may choose to reside among us should, therefore, besides the 
 unnecessary and useless expense of taking up his freedom, be 
 compelled to struggle against a combination vested with corporate 
 powers and interested in keeping him unemployed. 
 
 10. Because the bill authorizes the corporation to hold estate to 
 an unlimited amount, confining them (if that can be called con- 
 fining) to one thousand five hundred pounds a year beyond out- 
 goings and reprisals. 
 
 11. Because no provision is made to direct the purposes to which 
 this unbounded income is to be applied; to prevent the fraudulent 
 or improper uses of it, and to render the corporation accountable 
 for the expenditure, or subject to any inspection which has hitherto 
 been customary in every eleemosynary corporation; either the 
 founder or ordinary having the right of visitation, whereas no 
 ordinary exists under the present Constitution. 
 
 12. Because experience having hitherto pointed out no incon- 
 venience in having the mechanics on the same footing with the 
 other members of the conununity, the bill holds forth no object 
 sufficiently important to induce the change of a system under 
 which they have happily prospered for a series of years, in favor 
 of one that presents many apparent inconveniences, and which in 
 its operation may be more extremely mischievous than human 
 prudence can at present foresee. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 265 
 
 City of New York, March 9, 1785. Present — Governor Clin 
 ton ; Livingston, Chancellor ; Morris, Chief Justice ; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.W act for the indmwdjkatiou of the commissioners 
 of sequestration, and the commissioners of forfeitures, and the lessees 
 under them, and for other purposes therein mjentianed," was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Chancellor Livingston, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the first clause of the bill enacts "that the late com- 
 missioners of sequestration in the several counties of this State, 
 shall be and are hereby declared to be indemnified for all and 
 every lease and leases made or given by them for lands or tene- 
 ments, the property of persons who, during the late war, have 
 gone over to, remained with or joined the enemy, and that no 
 suit or suits already brought shall be maintained or hereafter 
 commenced against the said commissioners of sequestration or 
 against any person or persons holding under them, or by any 
 person or persons claiming property in or to any such lands or 
 tenements." If the commissioners have pursued their powers, 
 such indemnification is unnecessary; if they have exceeded or 
 violated them, the subject is as much entitled to his damages as to 
 any other part of his property, nor can it be consistent with the 
 spirit of a free Constitution, by law and without trial] to deprive 
 him of it ; though perhaps the Legislature may conceive it just to 
 compensate the commissioners out of the treasury of the State, 
 when it shall appear on trial that by any extraordinary and well 
 meant exertion, he has rendered services to the community, and 
 that in consequence thereof damages have been recovered against 
 him. 
 
 2. Because, if lands should be claimed by persons not holding 
 under those who have gone to the enemy, but by a different title, 
 or if the commissioners have exceeded their power in giving long 
 leases, the persons entitled to the possession are by this law pre- 
 cluded from the legal means of recovering their rights. 
 
 3. Because, as the State can do no wrong, unless suits against 
 their of&cers are rather encouraged than checked, the subject 
 will in many instances suffer injustice, neglecting the legal 
 means to do himself justice, least by an ex post facto law, he 
 
 34 
 
266 Vetoes of the Council. 
 
 should find his attempts frustrated, and his damages increased by 
 the costs and expense he has been at; by which means persons 
 clothed with public authority, whose conduct should most narrowly 
 be watched, will be tempted to commit acts of violence and op- 
 pression. 
 
 ISTotwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New York, jdarch 9, 1785. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act to prevent delay in the collection of taxes 
 and for giving relief in certain cases" was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Chancellor Living- 
 ston, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the first clause of the bill prohibits the issuing of 
 injunctions in case of actions brought by collectors; the tax law 
 referred to having vested more extensive power in the hands of 
 assessors than is usual in free governments, and subjected to their 
 disposition the property of citizens of this State almost without 
 control; and subsequent laws having, in like manner, subjected 
 the personal liberty, as well as the property, of the people of this 
 State to them and the collectors, it does not appear for the public 
 good, or consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, that they 
 should be freed from every species of restraint in the execution of 
 such dangerous powers. The law which prohibits the issuing of 
 certiorari in cases of this nature, having left the party that may be 
 injured without remedy at common law, though he should not have 
 been an object of the tax law; though he should have paid his tax 
 though the justice of the peace who tried the cause should have 
 refused him a jury, to which, by the law and Constitution, he is 
 entitled; though he should have admitted illegal testimony, or 
 rejected that he was bound to admit, or in any other way dis- 
 covered the most flagrant partiality and ignorance, the party, if 
 unable to pay the tax, must stand committed, without limitation 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 267 
 
 of time, unless relieved in a. Court of Equity : because to take this, 
 also, from persons who may conceive themselves aggrieved by the 
 operation of these laws, is to deprive them of the benefit of the 
 law, the inherent birthright of every free subject, and to establish 
 a maxim, which the most arbitrary governments will not avow, 
 that a right may exist without a remedy. 
 
 2. Because the second clause of this bill gives a power to the 
 supervisors in the counties, and to the mayor, aldermen and com- 
 monalty in the city and county of New York, to hear and deter- 
 mine the claims of the persons who require restitution after having 
 been unjustly rated, and thereby erects a number of new courts, 
 not proceeding according to the course of the common law, in 
 direct violation of the Constitution of this State. 
 
 3. Because, though it is grounded upon a presumption that 
 injustice may be done to the party applying for relief, yet it gives 
 no adequate relief to one whose property may have been unjustly 
 taken from him and sold at half its value, or to those who may 
 with equal injustice have suffered imprisonments under the tax 
 law; nor' does it even provide any means by which they may be 
 discharged from such imprisonment. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, March 12, 1785. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "^iw act to explmn and amend an act entitled ''An 
 act imposing duties on certain goods, wares and merchandise imported 
 into this State,' passed 18th November, 1784," was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by Justice 
 Hobart, viz.: 
 
 1. Because every attempt to regulate trade by one State, with- 
 out the concurrence of others, will produce injury to such State, 
 without effecting any general good. 
 
 2. Because partial burdens imposed on the trade of a foreign 
 power, by any particular State, may produce partial restraints on 
 
268 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 their part upon the trade of such State. Should this be the effect 
 of the bill under consideration, the commerce of this State may be 
 irretrievably ruined before any remedy can be applied. 
 
 3. Because the United States having appointed ministers to form 
 a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, this bill may probably 
 obstruct the treaty or contravene such articles as they shall have 
 agreed upon, and the law in its operation be construed into an 
 infraction of the treaty, before an opportunity can be offered to the 
 Legislature to repeal the same. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New York, March 21, 1785. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the gradual abolition of slavery vnthin 
 this State" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chancellor Livingston, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the last clause of the bill enacts that no negro, 
 mulatto or mustee shall have a legal vote in any case whatsoever; 
 which implicatively excludes persons of this description from all 
 share in the Legislature, and those offices in which a vote may be 
 necessary, as well as fro!n the important privilege of electing those 
 by whom they are to be governed: the bill having in other 
 instances placed the children that shall be born of slaves in the 
 rank of citizens, agreeable both to the spirit and letter of the Con- 
 stitution, they are as such entitled to all the privileges of citizens, 
 nor can they be deprived of these essential rights without shock- 
 ing those principles of equal liberty which (every page in that 
 Constitution labors to enforce. 
 
 2. Because it holds up a doctrine which is repugnant to the 
 principles on which the United States justify their separation from 
 Great Britain, and either enacts what is wrong or supposes that 
 those may rightfully be charged with the burdens of government 
 who have no representative share in imposing them. 
 
 3. Because this class of disfranchised and discontented citizens, 
 who at some future period may be both numerous and wealthy, 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 269 
 
 may, under the direction of ambitious and factious leaders, become 
 dangerous to the State and effect the ruin of a Constitution whose 
 benefits they are not permitted to enjoy. 
 
 4. Because the creation of an order of citizens who are to have 
 no legislative or representative share in the government, necessa- 
 rily lays the foundation of an aristocracy of the most dangerous 
 and malignant kind, rendering power permanent and hereditary ia 
 the hands of those persons who deduce their origin through white 
 ancestors only; though these, at some future period, should not 
 amount to a fiftieth part of the people. That this is not a chimer- 
 ical supposition will be apparent to those who reflect that the term 
 mustee is indefinite; that the desire of power will induce those who 
 possess it to exclude competitors by extending it as far as pos- 
 sible ; that, supposing it to extend to the seventeenth generation, 
 every man wiU have the blood of many more than two hundred 
 thousand ancestors running ia his veias, and that if any of these 
 should have been colored, his posterity will, by the operation of 
 this law, be disfranchised ; so that, if only one-thousandth part of 
 the black inhabitants now in the State should intermarry with the 
 white, their posterity will amount to so many millions that it will 
 be difficult to suppose a fiftieth part of the people born within 
 this State two hundred years hence, who may be entitled to share 
 in the benefits which our excellent Constitution intended to secure 
 to every free inhabitant of the State. 
 
 5. Because the last clause of the bill, being general, deprives 
 those black, mulatto, and mustee citizens who have heretofore 
 been entitled to a vote, of this essential privilege ; and under the 
 idea of political expediency, without their having been charged 
 with any oSense, disfranchises them ia direct violation of the esta- 
 blished rules of justice, against the letter and spirit of the Constitu- 
 tion, and tends to support a doctrine which is inconsistent with 
 the most obvious principles of government, that the Legislature 
 may arbitrarily dispose of the dearest rights of their constituents. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused ; conse- 
 quentiy it did not become a law. 
 
270 The Cottncil of Eevision. 
 
 Cmr OF New yoRK, March 28, 1785. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to remove doubts respecting an act entitled 
 'An act to abolish entails; to confirm conveyances by tenants in tail; 
 to distribute estates real of intestates; to remedy defective conveyances to 
 joint tenants, and directing tli§ mode of such conveyances in future;' 
 passed tJie 12th Jtdy, 1782," was before the Council, whicli adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Chancellor Livingston, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, among other things, it enacts " that where any lands, 
 tenements or hereditaments have at any time heretofore been or 
 hereafter shall be devised, granted or otherwise conveyed to any 
 person or persons for life, to take effect after the determination of 
 another estate for life, by means of a devise or conveyance to trus- 
 tees, to preserve contingent remainders or otherwise, the person or 
 persons to whom the estate for life has been or shall be first as 
 aforesaid given, devised or granted shall, if living, be seized of 
 such lands, tenements and hereditaments in fee simple, or otherwise, 
 the person or persons in full life who, by virtue of such devise, 
 grant or conveyance is or are intended next to succeed to an 
 estate for hfe in such lands, tenements and hereditaments, shall 
 be seized of the same in fee simple." 
 
 Which restriction must, on many occasions, be extremely incon- 
 venient, where the peculiar situation of a family may require a par- 
 ticular provision that in most cases can only be made by means 
 of trustees to preserve contingent remainders, and because no evil 
 is to be apprehended from this source, as the law has provided 
 against the creation of perpetuities by this means, if estates tail 
 are destroyed. 
 
 2. Because the above clause of the law retrospects, and may, of 
 course, defeat the reversions and remainders to which, by law, 
 many persons are now entitled, and contrary to the intention of 
 the devisor, and perhaps to the ruin of his family, may give a 
 fee simple estate to a widow by a second marriage, or a profligate 
 child, for whom he only designed to provide for life. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 271 
 
 City of New York, April 4, 1785. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to enable persons to discharge debts due to 
 tfiis State for moneys loaned while this State was a Oohny,'" was before 
 tbe Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by- 
 Chief Justice Morris, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State as inconsistent with the public good: 
 
 Because the said bill authorizes the loan officers, or the persons 
 who have acted as loan officers, to pay to the treasurer of this 
 State, the moneys they have received, in the same species of 
 money received by them, without particularly directing such 
 receipts to be of moneys due the loan office; and though it is just 
 and right the public should receive from its servants such moneys 
 as they have received for the public, and if such moneys have 
 depreciated in their hands the public should sustain the loss, 
 yet if such officer has at any time appropriated such moneys to 
 his own use, he ought to account for the value of it at the time so 
 appropriated; for, from the great depreciation of the paper money 
 during the war, this bill puts it in the power of the loan officer to 
 discharge himself from the public with a much less sum than he 
 received, whereby the public sustains a certain loss ; for if a loan 
 officer, in 1776, received £1,000 in Continental money, he laid 
 out this money in the year 1777, before any depreciation had 
 talien place; pursuant to this bill he procures at this day 
 £1,000 Continental money, at one hundred and forty for one — 
 by this means he pays a debt of one thousand to the public with 
 about seven pounds, three shillings; and if any advantage has 
 arisen from the use of the money, the loan officer will receive it, 
 and the public must be set down with the greatest possible loss on 
 the depreciation, which is nine hundred and ninety-two pounds, 
 seventeen shillings, out of the thousand: which difference goes to 
 the advantage and reward of the loan officer for not doing his 
 duty. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
272 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Orrr of New York, April 5, 1785. Present — (Jovemor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, CMef Jiistice ; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to appoint the place of holding the iSupiTme 
 Court of Jiulicahin' of this Statt- in future; and to prolong the terms 
 thereof, and for other purposes therein ^nentioned," w.is before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Chief Justice Morris, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, the biU supposes a person may commence a suit 
 in the Supreme Court for a debt of ^£100 or under, with no 
 other inconvenience or loss than that of being obliged to accept 
 of such costs only as he would have been entitled to had he 
 commenced his suit ia an inferior court; whereas the bill is so 
 worded that any plaintiff who shall commence a suit in the 
 Supreme Court, when the sum in demand does not exceed 
 £100, will forfeit the sum of £20 by virtue of the act in the 
 said bDl mentioned. 
 
 2. Because a great number of the actions which must be brought 
 in the inferior courts, should this bill pass into a law will be 
 removed into Chancery, for no other cause than that the witnesses 
 who are to give testimony in them reside without the jurisdiction 
 of the court, in which cases the party wanting the testimony must 
 bring his certiorari bill in Chancery, whereby great costs will be 
 created, and suits delayed to the great injury of the parties, and 
 against the pubUo good. 
 
 3. Because, by the Constitution of this State, the Judges of the 
 Supreme Coxirt are vested with the sole power of appointing the 
 clerks of the said court ; and should this bill pass into a law, the 
 clerk for the time being of the said Supremo Court will be autho- 
 rized and required to appoint a deputy clerk of the said court, who 
 shall keep his office in the city of Albany, which deputy derk 
 may be so appointed, not only without the consent but against the 
 approbation of the said judges, in direct violation of the Constitu- 
 tion of this State. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
'Vetoes of the Council. 273 
 
 City of New York, Apil 6, 1785. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, CMef Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act to incorporate the German Society for encou- 
 raging emigration fivm Germany; relieving the distresses of emigrants, 
 and promoting useful hioiuhdge among their countrymen," was before 
 tke Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Justice Hobart, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, however useful and laudable it may be in the State, 
 by their acts, to encourage foreigners to settle upon our waste lands, 
 to relievo the distresses of the unfortunate, and diffuse knowledge 
 among the ignorant, yet it will be productive of the most fatal 
 evils to the State to introduce into it a great number of foreigners, 
 differing from the old citizens in language and manners, ignorant 
 of our Constitution, and totally unacquainted with the principles 
 of civil liberty, imder such circumstances as will naturally tend 
 to keep them a distinct people, and prevent their blending with 
 the general mass of citizens with one common name and interest. 
 
 2. Because it will establish a precedent under which the emi- 
 grants from every nation in Europe, Asia and Africa, who incline 
 to seek an asylum m this State from the oppression and tyranny 
 which too generally prevail in the Old World, to claim similar 
 establishments, each of which will be under the influence and 
 direction of those who govern the measures of their respective 
 corporations, as to those they must look for protection and chari- 
 table relief upon their arrival, and instructions after their settle- 
 ment. 
 
 8. Because the establishment of a corporation, sixth-seventh 
 parts of the governors whereof are to be resident in the city of 
 New York, and who must eventually, from the very nature of 
 the institution, have great influence over a large number of free- 
 holders and electors in the State, may be attended with very per- 
 nicious consequences, should the supposed interest of this city at 
 some future |)eriod interfere with that of other parts of the State. 
 
 •t. Because, though great care is taken in the provisions of the 
 bill that the revenues of the corporation should never exceed 
 £1,500 per annum, over and above all incumbrances and reprizes, 
 yet it will not be very difficult so to contrive the incumlianoea 
 
 35 
 
274 The CouirciL of Revision. 
 
 that the corporation may have the actual disposal of £15.000, 
 or any greater sum a year, without endangering their charter. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Cirr OP New Yoke, April 11, 1785. Present — Govemor CUn- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to cure certain defects in deeds and convey- 
 ances of real estate" was before the Council, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objections, reported by Chancellor Livingston, viz. : 
 
 Because, being retrospective, and not confined to such deeds 
 only as have been accompanied by possession, it will tend to 
 revive dormant claims, defeat bona fide sales and encourage litiga- 
 tion, as will be apparent to those whose profession must have 
 given them frequent opportunities of seeing the number of deeds 
 of this nature that now exists without conveying any right 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 CiTT OF New York, April 20, 1785. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act -incorporating the vtJiabitants residing tvithin 
 Uie limits t/wrein iiientioned," was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Chief Justice Morris, viz.: 
 
 1. Generally, because the increase of corporations with exten- 
 sive powers is destructive of equal liberty, tending to the subver- 
 sion of the Constitution and government of the State. 
 
 2. Particularly, because, by the said bill, the mayor, recorder, 
 aldermen and assistants of the said city of Hudson are authorized 
 to make by-laws for the regulation of the internal police of the 
 said city, and thereby to ordain, limit and provide such pains, 
 punishments and penalties, fines and amerciaments upon, towards 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 275 
 
 and against all and every person tloat shall offend against such 
 by-laws, wHcli pains and punishments are to be inflicted by the 
 judgment and order of the said mayor, recorder and aldermen; 
 and the said penalties, fines and amerciaments are to be sued for 
 and recovered before them, and for the use and advantage of the 
 said mayor, recorder and aldermen, thus blending the legislative, 
 the executive, and the judicial departments in one, which must, 
 in its consequences, be destructive of the rights and hberties of 
 the citizens of the State, residing within the limits of the said 
 city. 
 
 3. Because, by the said bUl, the aldermen of the said city, who 
 are elective by the people thereof, are made Judges of the Mayor's 
 Court within the said city, thereby counteracting the Constitution 
 of this State, which ordains that all officers who were not thereto- 
 fore elective, should be appointed by the Governor, by the advice 
 and consent of the Council of Appointment, and thus subjecting 
 the decision of the property of some of the citizens to judges 
 elected by others, in which they can have no agency. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but subsequently, on reconsidera- 
 tion, refused to pass it; consequently it did not become a law. 
 
 New York, April 20, 1785. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Jxistice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A 1)01 entitled "An act to vest the estate of William R. Van Cart- 
 landi in trustees for the payment of his debts, and otJier purposes," was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because the fact as to the insanity of the said William K. Yan 
 Cortlandt ought not to depend on the mere suggestion of his wife 
 and creditors, as stated ia the preamble of the bill, but shoidd be 
 solenmly ascertained under the usual commission out of Chancery, 
 to justify the passing a law divesting him of his property; and 
 
 Because, by the said bUl, the trustees therein named are direct- 
 ed, first, "to pay and discharge all mortgages due on the said 
 estate of the said "William E. Yan Cortlandt; secondly, to pay 
 and satisfy all judgments that may be docketed against the said 
 
276 The Cofxcil of Eevtsios. 
 
 William R Tan Ckirtlandt," giving an \indue prefiarence to mort- 
 gages whei-e there may be prior judgments; whereas, by law, they 
 are entitled to such preference accoi-ding to priority. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislatui-e passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 New York, April 20, 17S5. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to enable the mayor, aldermen and com- 
 monalti/, in common council convened, to order the ixitsing moneys by 
 tax Jbr Ae maintenance of the poor, and other contingent expenses 
 arising in the said city" {of Xew York), was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by Justice 
 Hobart, viz.: 
 
 1. Because it would be inconsistent with the public good to autho- 
 rize the corporation to tax the oitizeais in order to raise moneys for 
 the very purposes for which, it is to be presumed, the Itu-ge estate 
 they are allowed to hold was intended to provide, unless they 
 show to the satisfaction of the Legislature that the increasing 
 revenue arising from the public slips, docks and markete, and the 
 rent of corporation lands, prove insufficient for the purpose. 
 
 2. Because, though it may not be improper to afford occasional 
 assistance to such incorporation, to repair the damages brought 
 about by war and other unforeseen anlamities, yet it may be 
 attended with consequences of a most alarming nature, to the State, 
 if the different corporations (which are to most purposes indepen- 
 dent republics) should be enabled to levy large sums annually 
 from the inhabit.ants, within their respective jurisdictions, espe- 
 cially while they possess the uncontrollable power of appropriat- 
 ing and expending such moneys as they may think proper; for 
 though the purposes to which the moneys are to be applied may 
 be mentioned in the law, yet, as the present nicrabers of the cor- 
 poration are accountable, if at all, only to their successoi's, and 
 they again to theirs, it is scarcely possible, in the nature of things, 
 that it should ever be known whether the whole or what part of 
 the moneys shall have been expended according to the intention 
 of the Legislature. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 277 
 
 8. Because, as the commission of Oyer and Terminer and 
 General Gaol Delivery for the city and county of New York ex- 
 pired on the third day of January last, by reason of the non-attend- 
 ance of such commissioners as were members of the corporation, 
 whereby a number of criminals have been detained in the prison 
 who would otherwise have been punished or discharged, it would 
 be unjust to levy a tax upon the citizens at large for the sup- 
 port of those, prisoners, which is one of the purposes mentioned 
 in the bill, and which would operate as a fine upon the citizens 
 for the negligence of the magistrates. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New Yokk, April 22, 1785. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled '^An act for the relief of William Gilchrist" was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, re- 
 ported by Chief Justice Morris, viz. : 
 
 For, although the case of the said William Gilchrist may be 
 extremely hard, and it might be proper to direct the suit in the 
 bill mentioned to be carried on at the expense of the public ( under 
 whom he claims by deed with warrantee), or in forma pauperis, yet 
 it cannot justify so extraordinary a remedy as the bill provides. 
 
 Because, by the bill, a decision is given in a case depending in 
 the ordinary courts of justice, whereby judicial powers are exer- 
 cised by the Legislature, and the subject, contrary to the letter 
 and spirit of the Constitution, deprived of one of the dearest rights 
 secured to him, a trial by jury. And thus, by subverting the 
 known established course of law to meet a particular case for the 
 ease of an individual, the barriers built up by the wisdom of ages 
 for the security of property would, with the confidence of the 
 public in the justice of government, be destroyed. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 q^uently it did not become a law. 
 
278 The Couxcil of Rktbion. 
 
 City of Xew York, April 2C\ ITSo. Present — Go^•erno^ 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice, 
 
 A bill entitled -'An act fw- the paijmeiit of the salaries of theseveral 
 officers of ffoiernmetit, and for other purjxtses therein mentioned," was 
 before the Coundl, vrhich adopted the follovring objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Because it is ob\-iously iiwionsisteut vritli the public good, 
 that the allowance to the representatives of the people for their 
 services should continue to be the subject of partial provision at 
 every new meeting of the Legislature; this practice being a mani- 
 fest deviation, as well from ancient and established custom, as an 
 existiug law of this State, could only be justified by the particu- 
 lar circunistiinces which attended the late war, and ought to have 
 ceased with it and given place to a permanent regulation. 
 
 2. Because, in the preamble to the eighteenth enacting clause, it 
 is suggested that Eosena Eush has i-ocovei-cd a judgment or judg- 
 ments in the Supreme Court of this State, against Garret Acker- 
 sou, Isaac Coe and John De Eonde, for takiug and delivering a 
 number of cattle to the Coromissionei-s of Sequestration for the 
 county of Orange, which cattle were forfijited to the people of this 
 State by the conviction of John Eush, husband of the said Eosena 
 Eush, and that sufficient reasons have been assigned to the Legis- 
 latm-e to relieve the said Garret Ackei-son, Isaac Coo and John De 
 Eonde fi.x)m the said judgment or judgments ; whereupon the said 
 judgment or judgments ai-e declared to be vacated and of no effect, 
 which is such an assumption of judicial power by the Legislature 
 as renders the property of the citizens of this State totally insecure, 
 and is subversive of the fundamental principles on which all fi-eo 
 constitutions are built The Constitution and laws of this State 
 have wisely provided that, in all questions of property, the mattera 
 of fact shall be found by a jvuy, who are sworn to determine, 
 according to evidence, which must be delivered on oath, and that 
 the law arising from such facts shall be declaxed by the judges, 
 who are under equally solemn obligtitions to decide according to 
 the known laws of the land, thereby affoi'ding the highest possi- 
 ble security to the subject; whereas, the members of the Legisla- 
 ture are under no such obligations in determining either upon the 
 law or tlie fact. Besides, unless the defendants have suffered 
 judgment to go against them from inattention to their interest, or 
 
Vetoes of the Coukcil. 279 
 
 a consciousness of their inability to justify their conduct, the 
 ordinary course of practice will give them ample relief, either 
 upon a motion for a new trial or on a writ of error. 
 
 3. Because it is inconsistent with the. public good thus to put 
 into a biU providing for the payment of the public creditors, and 
 which it might be presumed their necessities would induce the 
 Legislature to pass, notwithstanding any objections, a matter 
 totally imconnected with the general subject of it, and tending, if 
 drawn into a precedent, to establish a mode of government abso- 
 lutely inconsistent with the faintest idea of civil liberty. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, February 27, 1786. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act for settling intestates^ estates, proving wills 
 and granting administrations" was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because the eleventh and twelfth clauses erect a new court, 
 not proceeding according to the course of the common law, and 
 invest the Judge of Probates with all the powers and authority 
 which have heretofore been exercised in matters testamentary by 
 the ecclesiastical courts in the kingdom of England, extending his 
 power even to the imprisonment of the subject. The Judge of 
 Probates has hitherto exercised no other authority than that of 
 determining upon the propriety of granting probates and letters 
 of administration. 
 
 2. Because such new court is unnecessary, the courts now 
 organized and known by the Constitution having ^ample powers to 
 make decrees in similar cases, and to carry the same into effect. 
 
 3. "While it extends the duties of the Judge of Probates, it de- 
 prives him of the greater part of the emoluments of his office, so 
 that it is highly improbable that any person of sufficient integ- 
 rity, ability and knowledge of the law, Will in future be found to 
 
280 The Council of Eevision 
 
 exercise the same, unless the Legislature shall annex a salary to 
 the oflSce, and thereby unnecessarily increase the expenses of 
 government. 
 
 4. Because it divides the probate office into eleven parts, ten of 
 which are incompetent to decide in disputed cases, but must refer 
 such cases to the Judge of Probates, by whom the probate is to 
 issue; so that, independent of the additional expense of attending 
 on both, it renders it uncertain in what place the wiU or probate is 
 to be found, and make an inquiry at a future day more uncertain. 
 
 5. Because the eighth section enacts, that the surrogate keep the 
 original wills that are proved before him, when it is highly im- 
 probable that proper persons will be found in every county, who 
 will take upon them so troublesome an of&ce for the small perqui- 
 sites annexed thereto, or be at the expense of erecting offices to 
 secure the papers, with which they are intrusted, from fire and 
 other accidents; and as most will relate, as weU to real as personal 
 estates, there is reason to apprehend greater danger to property 
 from their loss or falsification, more especially as in disputes that 
 relate to land, Aothing short of the original will is evidence. 
 
 6. Because the public and individuals have hitherto derived 
 advantages, not only from the security which one deposit for wills, 
 under the eye of a distinguished officer, affords, but from the 
 facility which it gives creditors and others to acquire a knowledge 
 of the disposition of estates on which they may have claims. 
 
 7. Because, by directing that no surrogate be appointed for the 
 city and county of New York, and imposing the duty of surro- 
 gate for that city and county on the Judge of Probates, it necessa- 
 rily obliges him to hve in that place, and confines the appointment 
 of Judge of Probates to some person residing there, to the preju- 
 dice of the other counties of this State, since it is hardly to be 
 expected that, till a salary is annexed, any one properly qualified 
 for this trust, wiU change the usual place of his residence, and 
 take upon him a charge of this importance, without a more ade- 
 quate support than that which arises from his perquisites of sur- 
 rogate for the city and county of New York. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 281 
 
 City of New Yoek, February 13, 1787. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Morris, CMef Justice; Yates and Hobart,; Justices, 
 
 A bin entitled '■^An act for settling intestates^ estatds, proving wills 
 awe? g'rawfekg'acZmmMfo'afe'ojM," was before the CouiicU, whicb. adopted 
 the following objections,, reported by Chief Justice Morris, viz.: 
 
 The Council object to the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as inconsistent with thfe spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 For that by the fourteenth, fifteenth and twenty-second sections 
 of the said bill, the Judge of Probates is vested with the power 
 and authority to hear and determine all causes touching any 
 legacy or bequest in any last will and testament, payable or 
 coming out of any personal estate, and to decree and compel pay- 
 ment thereof, by the imprisonment of the subject, and to proceed 
 in all matters submitted to his cognizance, according to the course 
 of the courts, having, by the common law, jurisdiction of the like 
 matters. 
 
 The Court of Probates, in this State, derived its jurisdiction of 
 proving wills and granting administrations from the government 
 of England, where, although the clergy originally obtained it by 
 usurpation, it became at last established and recognized by the 
 courts of law. But as this State, while a Colony, never recog- 
 nized an ecclesiastical establishment, the Court of Probates could 
 not possess the power of decreeing the payment of any legacy or 
 bequest, .not having the compulsory process of excommunication 
 to enforce obedience to its decrees. 
 
 The proceedings of the ecclesiasticar courts in England are 
 regulated according to the practice of the civil and canon law, 
 and thus, in no instance, are the pleadings and proofe referred to 
 the consideration of a jihy. 
 
 ISTor does this bill afford a remedy in cases where the constitu- 
 tional courts of this State are incompetent. The Court of Chan- 
 cery hath powers to decree on all testamentary bequests, and all 
 the courts of record in this State are expressly vested with the cog- 
 nizance of all controversies respecting this point, by an act passed 
 the 17th day of December, 1743, entitled "An act for the more 
 speedy recovery of legacies within this Colony," as the Court of 
 Equity then may, and the courts of law must refer, all facts in liti- 
 gation to the consideration of a jury; the granting those additional 
 36 
 
282 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 powers to the Judge of Probates, in exclusion of a trial by jury, 
 is depriving the citizens of this State of a right secured to them 
 and rendered inviolate by the Constitution, which declares the 
 trial by jury as a firm and unalterable establishment, in all cases 
 where it had been used while this State was a Colony, and is also 
 an indirect infringement of that clause of the Constitution which 
 prohibits the institution of any new courts, but such as shall pro- 
 ceed according to the course of the common law. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New York, March 19, 1787. Present— Governor 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.W act directing a mode of trial and allowing of 
 divorces in cases of adultery" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Justice Hobart, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the second clause thereof, it is enacted, that it shall 
 not be lawful for the party convicted to marry any person what- 
 soever, and that every such marriage shall be null and void, there- 
 by preventing every person who may be tempted to falsify the 
 marriage promises by the strength of a passion which had been 
 struggled with, or perhaps suppressed for a time, either from a 
 sense of its impropriety or the constraint of friends and relatives, 
 or by the force of cool or illiberal treatment from the other party, 
 from becoming thereafter a reputable member of society, unless 
 by renouncing the comforts and gratifications which result from a 
 connection between the sexes, and maintaining a degree of reserve 
 and continency scarcely to be expected after such an instance of 
 frailty. It might not, perhaps, be an improper punishment to 
 confine offenders of this class to a state of perpetual celibacy and 
 mortification within the walls of a cloister, but to suffer them to 
 remain in society without a possibility of remarrying, is, in a 
 degree, to compel them by law to live in the open violation of the 
 rules of chastity and decency, and will, it is to be apprehended, 
 have a pernicious influence on the public morals, by multiplying 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 283 
 
 examples of libertinism and prostitution, weakening the disgust 
 that is generally felt for those practices, and rendering the illicit 
 oommerce of the sexes less disreputable than it is at present 
 
 Kotwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Cn^Y OF New Yoek, April 11, 1787. Present— Governor 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, 
 Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for </)e more speedy recovery of tfeftfc to the 
 value ^ ilO," was before the Council, which adopted the MLo-w- 
 ing objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, though it is not optional with the defendant in tres- 
 pass, justifying under a plea of title, to have such plea determined 
 by the justice, yot by the twelfth section he is punishable by 
 double costs in cj\se his plea should be foimd against him in the 
 Court of Coniinou Pleas. 
 
 2. Because the same clause obliges the party de^dant before 
 a justice to jibide bv a plea hastily put in when unassisted by 
 counsel, and to justify under his own tiSe^ when, perhaps, such 
 plea may deprive him of advantages of which he might other- 
 wise avail himself, and th.it at the risk of double costs. 
 
 S. Bcavuse, besides the inconveaiiences to the defendant attend- 
 ant on this clause, othei-s will result to tlie public from the multi- 
 phcation of suits. Should this Mil pass into a law, every plaintifi' 
 in tivspjiss will liret commence his action before a justice of 
 the peace, in order to avail himself of erroi-s into which the 
 defendant may be led by his plea of justification, and at the 
 same time insure double costs if he should succeed, which, in 
 many cjiscs, may greatly exceed the damages sustjiiucd. 
 
 4. Boi."ause, though from the whole tenor of the bill it may be 
 colltvtod that it wjis not intended to intxust the Justice's Court 
 with :uiy gtvater power than tliat of tr\-ing causes to the viilue of 
 XIO, yet by the eighteenth clause in the bill, if the defendant 
 shall u^lect or refuse to plead and gi\'e in evidence his, her or 
 
286 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 entitled "An act for regulating tte fees of the several officers 
 and ministers of the Courts of Justice within this State," passed 
 the 18th of April, 1785, is repealed immediately on the passing of 
 this bill into a law, whereby no rule is left for the taxation of 
 costs, for services that have been or shall be performed before the 
 said first day of June next. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused ; conse- 
 quently the biU did not become a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, February 7, 1788. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for apprehending and punishing disorderly 
 persons,^'' was before the Coimcil, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 The Council object against said bOl becoming a law of the State 
 as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the public 
 good. 
 
 Because the offenses mentioned in the act are so indefinitely 
 described, and the powers given to a single magistrate in some 
 instances, and to the justices in session in others, so extensive, 
 without the intervention of a jury, as to endanger the freedom of 
 the citizens of this State, which consists in being governed by the 
 laws alone, and not by the discretion of the magistrates. 
 
 The first offense is that of persons who shall threaten to run away 
 and leave their wives and children to the city or town. This offense 
 consists only in words which may be uttered in jest and exagge- 
 rated by malice, or which family dissensions may draw from an 
 irritable man laboring under domestic misfortunes, and woiild be 
 too severely punished by imprisonment, scourges, and hard labor 
 in a house of correction. 
 
 Another set of offenders subject to similar punishments are those 
 who, not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle and 
 without employment. The being idle and without employment is 
 often involuntary and owing rather to misfortune than vice ; and 
 were it otherwise, it would be more consistent with the spirit of 
 
Vetoes op the Counciii. 287 
 
 our govemment to leave it to the ptmislmieiit -which, natuially 
 attends it — penury and want — than to establish an arbitrary 
 inquiry into the lives and conduct of free citizens, or to take from 
 them, by the ignominy of their punishment, all hope of employ- 
 ment in future. Similar objections lay to the including of all jug- 
 glers. This being indefinite may, by the ignorance of a single 
 justice of the peace, be extended to the punishment of persons 
 who endeavor to turn to their own profit and the pleasure and 
 advantage of society the discoveries in natural philosophy and the 
 improvements in mechanism which the present enlightened age 
 have given birth to. Nor is the clause less exceptionable which 
 includes all persons pretending to liave sldll in physiognyom, pal- 
 mistry, or the like crafty science. The pretending to knowledge of 
 any kind which the pretender does not possess may be weakness 
 and folly, but can never be a crime, tmless the pretense is apphed 
 to evil purposes; but if the bUl should pass into a law, the pretense 
 alone, without any act, may draw after it the heavy punishment 
 of imprisonment, hard labor in a house of correction, stripes or 
 servitude, at the discretion of the justices. This is the more 
 pecuharly severe from the various constructions which ignorance 
 or prejudice may put upon these indefinite terms, "or the like 
 crafty science." There are few persons who have not suffered their 
 judgment of men to be biased by their countenances. As it is 
 stUl doubtftd how far a skill in physiognomy may be acquired by 
 time and study, and as we have yet experienced no inconvenience 
 from its profession, it cannot be right to obstruct the improve- 
 ment of which it may possibly be capable. 
 
 The following description of offenses tend to great oppression: 
 "All persons who run away and leave their wives and children, 
 whereby they respectively become chargeable to any city or town." 
 This is exceptionable, from the difficulty of determining the motive 
 with which a man may leave his family and the causes which may 
 have retarded his return. It may include persons who leave them 
 with a view to provide better for them than they can do by stay- 
 ing at home ; it will include those unhappy men whose misfor- 
 tunes compel them to avoid an unrelenting creditor. Nor is there 
 any man, whatever his present circumstances may be, who may 
 not (through misfortune) incur the heavy penalties annexed 
 
288 The Council OF Eevision. 
 
 to this bill,vsliould it pass into a law. The man who breaks the 
 endearing ties which bind him to his family, more frequently 
 deserves commiseration than punishment, and it certainly would 
 as little consist with humanity and the principles of equal liberty 
 to leave such persons, when poor and friendless, to imprisonment, 
 whips and servitude at the discretion of the magistrate. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the biO. 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, March 20, 1788. Present — Governor 
 CHnton; Morris, Chief Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act to extend the powers of the commissvmers of 
 the land office to the cases therein mentioned, and for other purposes" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, viz.: 
 
 For that the clause which directs the sale of Nutten or Gover- 
 nor's Island is inconsistent with the public good, inasmuch as the 
 consideration resulting from such sale cannot benefit the State so 
 much as the loss thereof may be detrimental in depriving the 
 public of an island whose advantageous situation the bill itself 
 declares necessary for fortifications and works of defense; for 
 which, although it may not be immediately necessary, yet the 
 fature safety and convenience of the State suggest the propriety 
 of retaining it. Nor can the providing clause, by giving a discre- 
 tionary power to the commissioners of directing the reservation 
 of such parts thereof for fortifications as they shall deem proper, 
 remove the objection, as the probable views of government may 
 be more extensive than works of defense only. But should that 
 not be the case, the buildings and improvements which will pro- 
 bably be made thereon, when sold in small lots, will defeat the 
 object intended to be provided for. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 289 
 
 City of New York, March 22, 1788. Present— Governor 
 Clinton ; Morris, CMef Justice ; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act far the relief of the creditors of William 
 Van Derhcht, and for other purposes therein mentioned" was before 
 the Council, wliich. adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State as against the spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 Eor that by the last clause, the persons therein named, confined 
 upon execution in the several gaols therein mentioned, although 
 their several debts should exceed the sum of £10, are to be dis- 
 charged from custody and the plaintiffs have no other remedy for 
 the recovery of their demands but against their property, if any 
 they have or can be found. However proper it may be to extend 
 the benefit of this act generally to objects confined for small sums, 
 and where the future industry of such persons afford a reasonable 
 prospect to the creditors of being paid thereafter, yet this will, by 
 no means, apply to larger debts: besides, by the known existing 
 aws of this State, such plaintiffs have, by a judicial process, esta- 
 blished' their demands and they remain of record; and such an 
 interference of the Legislature, by a partial law in favor of parti- 
 cular individuals, renders property insecure and subverts the 
 fundamental principles of the law of the land, the great and 
 only palladium, and security for the rights and property of the 
 people. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City op New Yoek, March 22, 1788. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A biU entitled " J.n a^t for directing the settlement of the public 
 accounts, and for other purposes therein mentioned" was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 For that, although the citizens of this State, standing upon equal 
 footing, are entitled to equal remedy and equal relief in similar 
 cases, yet, by the clause of the said bill respecting the lauds of 
 37 
 
290 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Theodoms Snedeker, chargeable with several legacies, the pur- 
 chaser is inderanified by a direction to the Treasurer to pay the 
 several legacies upon the report of the Attorney-General, and by 
 one other clause in the said bill, relative to a certain tract of land 
 conveyed to Cornelius Decker forfeited by the attainder of Latting 
 Carpenter, it is directed that the several sums due to the respective 
 purchasers should also be paid by the Treasurer of the State. But 
 by the said bill, the estate of Waldron Blauw, which was devised 
 to him by the will of Eichard Waldron, deceased, and subject to 
 the payment of sundry legacies, is granted to his widow and chil- 
 dren without any provision for the payment of the said legacies; 
 and by one other clause of the said biU, respecting the lands of 
 Joshua T. D. St. Croix, conveyed to Thomas Pearsall, and the 
 sale of which land^, by the said bill, is admitted to be prior to 
 the conviction of the said Joshua T. D. St. Croix, yet the said 
 Thomas PearsaU is to receive no other recompense (though the 
 purchasers of Carpenter's lands are to be paid in money) than a 
 certificate from the treasury: thus, in one instance, providing an 
 adequate remedy, in another a partial one, and in a third none ; 
 and thereby making an odious and unjust discrimination between 
 citizens whose cases, from the very face of the bill, appear exactly 
 similar. The Council further object to the said bill, generally ; 
 because it regulates and provides for many cases totally distinct 
 and independent of each other, and should objections by this 
 Council be ever so well taken to any part of the said bill they 
 must either be overruled and the bill become a law, or the whole- 
 some provisions therein contained, owing to this improper mode 
 of legislation, be lost. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albaitt, July 15, 1789. Present — Governor Clinton; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act prescribing the manner of holduig elections 
 for Senators 'to represent this State in the Senate of t^te United States," 
 
Vetoes of the Cottncil. 291 
 
 was before the Cotmcil, whicli adopted the foUo'vying objections, 
 reported by Justice Yates, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the Constitution of the United States directs that 
 the Senators be chosen from each State by the Legisl9,ture thereof. 
 K by the Legislature, is intended the members of the two houses 
 not acting in their legislative capacity, no law is necessary to pre- 
 scribe the mode of election ; concurrent resolutions extending in 
 this case as well to the mode of election as to the choice of per- 
 sons, and the bill, as far as it goes, operates as a restriction upon 
 the constitutional rights of the two houses. If the Legislature 
 are only known in their legislative capacity, the Senators can con- 
 stitutionally be appointed by law only, and no considerations 
 arising from inconvenience will justify a deviajion from the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. 
 
 2. Because this bill, when two Senators are to be chosen, enacts 
 that in case of the disagreement of the two houses in the nomina- 
 tion, each house shall, out of the nomination of the other, choose 
 one, and that such person shall be the Senator to represent this 
 State ; and thus, by compelling each house to choose one of two 
 persons, neither of whom may meet with their approbation, estab- 
 lishes a choice of Senators by the separate act of each branch of 
 the Legislature, in direct opposition to the Constitution of the 
 United States, which, in the third section of the first article, de- 
 clares that they shall be chosen by the Legislature. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biU; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 3, 1790. Present — Governor Clinton; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bUl entitled "J.w act for the relief of John Henry and oihers,^^ 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the case of John Henry not differing in any sort 
 from that of every other debtor, three-fourths of whose creditors 
 reftise to sign his discharges, it affords a special remedy, inconsist- 
 
292 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 ent witli the general law of the land, and subversive of those con- 
 tracts which are made under the faith of existing laws. 
 
 2. Because the account to be given in of his debts and credits 
 of his property is not to refer to the time of his discharge, but to 
 the time that he became bankrupt, which is liable to two objec- 
 tions: First. That the time of his becoming bankrupt is uncertain 
 in itself, and is a question of law which the debtor should not 
 determuie in such way as he may find most advantageous to him- 
 self; and Secondly. That it deprives his creditors of such property 
 as he may have acquired since such act of bankruptcy. 
 
 3. Because, in stating his debts, he is only directed to give an 
 account of the moneys by him owing to his creditors respectively, 
 on. the day he became a bankrupt, which may not include debts 
 payable at a day subsequent to such bankruptcy ; and yet his dis- 
 charge is to go to such debts. 
 
 4. Because the oath directed to be taken by the said John 
 Henry is essentially different from that prescribed by the "Act for 
 giving rehef in cases of insolvency," and does not make adequate 
 provision for the discovery of frauds. 
 
 5. Because it does not require an assignment of his whole pro- 
 perty, but enables a majority of the creditors (whatever may be 
 the value of their demands) to determine what part of his property 
 he shall retain, to the injury of his other creditors. 
 
 6. Because no mode is pointed out to ascertain the justice of the 
 demands against the said John Henry, other than his oath. 
 
 7. Because the second clause of the bill, which permits one 
 joint partner to be wholly discharged and another partner who is 
 liable to pay the company debts, as the law now stands, and may 
 be capable of so doing, to be discharged by paying only one-half 
 the debts due from the partnership, is such a direct violation of 
 the known and established rules of law as must strike at the root 
 of all commercial credit. 
 
 8. Because the third clause of the act discharges a number of 
 debtors upon their own petition only, without calling in their 
 creditors, or hearing what their claims may be, or what reasons 
 they may have to suppose that such debtors are able to discharge 
 their debts, or what frauds they may have been guilty of in con- 
 tracting the same or in covering their property. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 293 
 
 9. Because it permits the judge to appoint an assignee to the said 
 debtors without the assent or knowledge of the creditors, though 
 they are materially interested in the character and conduct of such 
 assignee. 
 
 10. The Council object to the whole law, as inconsistent with 
 the public good, inasmuch as it erects the Legislature into a court' 
 to inquire specially into the case of every bankrupt upon ex parte 
 evidence; an inquiry which necessarily leads to great expense, and 
 renders the laws fluctuating and unstable. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 3, 1790. Present — Governor Clinton; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled An act to appro- 
 priate the lands set apart to the use of the troops of the line of this State, 
 lately serving in the army of the United States, and for other purposes 
 therein mentioned, and for extending relief to the persons ^lerein 
 named,'" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Justice Hobart, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the fifth clause of the bill directs the patents for 
 bounty lands to issue to the persons who were originally entitled 
 thereto, without referring back to the date of the concurrent reso- 
 lutions or laws under which such land is claimed ; which will tend 
 to defeat the numerous sales and other dispositions that have been 
 made of the said lands, by wills or otherwise, in consequence 
 of and under the faith of the said concurrent resolutions and 
 laws. 
 
 2. Because, where the parties entitled to such lands are dead, it 
 directs that the patents issue to their heirs, notwithstanding any 
 devise they may have made of the same. Thus, in many instan- 
 ces, a right in the said lands de-vised to the wife for hef support 
 and maintenance, and which, perhaps, she has sold or mortgaged 
 for the maintenance of her family, may be transferred to a distant 
 relation. 
 
294 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 September 28, 1790, Eobert Yates was appointed Chief Justice 
 in place of Eichard Morris resigned ; and John Lansing, Jr., Jus- 
 tice in place of Yates. 
 
 New York, February 21, 1791. Present. — Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An act to invest the mayor, aldermen and common- 
 alty of the city of New York with power to license and regulate the fees 
 of hachney coaches, and to lay a tax on all wheel carriages within the 
 oily and county of New York," was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to the said bill becoming a law of this State, 
 as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the public 
 good. 
 
 1. Because, by the second clause of the said bill, it is, among 
 other things, enacted "that it shall be lawful for the mayor, alder- 
 men and cormnonalty of the city of New York, in common coun- 
 cil convened, annually to license and regulate the fees of hackney 
 coaches, and lay a tax on all wheel carriages within the city and 
 county of New York, to be collected in such manner as the said 
 mayor, aldermen and commonalty shall direct and appoint, pro- 
 vided that the tax to be laid shall not in any year exceed the 
 following sums, to wit, on each coach or chariot six pounds, on 
 each phseton three pounds, on each curricle or chaise two pounds, 
 on each riding chair or sulkey thirty shillings, on each brewer's 
 dray three pounds, and on each cart or wagon fifteen shillings ; 
 and provided that no tax shall be laid or levied on any cart or 
 carriage, the wheels of which are not bound with iron ;" thereby 
 vesting them not only with the power of laying taxes, a power 
 inherent in the Legislature, and not transferable to any other body 
 of men, but a further power of collecting the same in such manner 
 as they shall appoint: an unlimited power, which may not only 
 justify improper searches, but extend even to the imprisonment 
 of free citizens. Whatever confidence may be justly reposed. in 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 295 
 
 the character of the members of the corporation, it should ever be 
 remembered that the freedom of a government consists not in the 
 prudence of the magistrate, but in the limitation of his powers, 
 and that he who holds his liberty at the discretion of another, is 
 the slave of his will. 
 
 2. The unconstitutionality of this bill is the more strongly im- 
 pressed upon the CouncU from comparing it with the twelfth 
 clause of the law entitled "An act concerning the rights of the 
 citizens of this State," which, among other things, enacts "that 
 no citizen of this State shall, by any means, be compelled to con- 
 tribute to any gift, loan or tax or other like charge, not set, laid 
 or imposed by the Legislature of this State." If this law is ex- 
 planatory of our rights, and essential to liberty, it must mean that 
 the precise sum to be paid should be set by the Legislature, and 
 it would certainly be a violation of this law to permit any other 
 persons either to lay a tax or not 'to lay a tax at their discretion, 
 to omit some and to charge others, even though this power should 
 be exercised within certain limits; yet this is proposed by the bill 
 under consideration. 
 
 (1.) The corporation may lay the tax, or they may permit the 
 inhabitants to mend the pavements as they now do at their private 
 expense. 
 
 (2.) Though the limits that they shall not exceed are prescribed, 
 yet no rule of proportion is estabUshed, and within those limits 
 they are arbitrary. They may lay the whole tax upon carts, pro- 
 vided it dpes not, on any cart, exceed fifteen shillings, and omit 
 coaches ; or they may charge coaches and omit carts according as 
 the interest of the rich or poor may prevail in the corporation: 
 they may tax all carriages alike, or they may vary the tax on 
 some from one penny to six pounds. 
 
 (3.) If the imposition of this tax be arbitrary, its disposition 
 is equally so. It is, indeed, to be applied to repairiag the pave- 
 ment, but the manner how and the time when are not declared. 
 The pavement is at present repaired at the expense of the proprie- 
 tors of the lots; the law does not declare that they shall be re- 
 lieved from this burden in consequence of this new tax, or how far 
 they shall be reheved if it should! prove inadequate to the object. 
 The corporation may then cause the whole of the tax to b© 
 
296 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 applied to tlie pavement of one street, wMle that of others must 
 be made by the inhabitants at their own expense. Nor does this 
 tax resemble the county rates. There the assessments and coUection 
 must be made by the legal officers. The quantum of the tax is 
 limited by the actual expenses of the county, the mode of collec- 
 tion is ascertained, no discretion is left with the supervisors as to 
 the imposition of the tax, in the application of the money after it 
 is levied; nor above all can they exeinpt one citizen and charge 
 another. A striking distinction arises, too, from the circumstances 
 of the persons with whom this power is invested. The supervi- 
 sors have, from the infancy of this government, exercised these 
 powers, and are elected by the people, with a view to this object; 
 the money collected never goes into their hands, nor have they 
 any control over it. The corporation is chosen for very different 
 purposes; some of its members are not eligible by the people, and 
 hold their offices at the pleasure of the executive, nor are they 
 accountable for the money that passes through their hands. 
 
 4. Because the bUl is unnecessary. The law by its hmitation 
 expires in three years. The pavement of the city has been lately 
 repaired by the inhabitants at a very considerable expense. If 
 the carts have broad wheels, not bound with iron, the new pave- 
 ments will not want repairs within that time. If bound with iron, 
 it is probable the whole amount of the tax will be inadequate to 
 the expense of repairs. The bill then first creates a necessity, and 
 after imposes a burden to relieve it. If (as there is reason to 
 suppose) the tax will not be wanted for some time, the empower- 
 ing the corporation to call for it immediately is a real injury to the 
 community, since it locks up a quantity of money which would 
 otherwise be usefully employed. 
 
 5. Because the law militates against the very principles on 
 which it is professedly founded. The preamble alleges that the 
 repairing roads and pavements is too burdensome for individuals, 
 when it is well known that roads are repaired by a general tax, 
 and not by individuals; and that those that now repair the pave- 
 ment (the owners of lots) are twice as numerous and much richer 
 collectively than the persons upon whom the burden is to be 
 imposed by the bUl; and yet it is said that the latter are to furnish 
 sufficient means for this purpose. Will it not follow, that the 
 
Vetoes or the Council. 297 
 
 burdens ■will be more oppressive to tbe less than it was to tbe 
 greater number? The reason assigned for this change in the police 
 of the city is, that coaches and other wheel carriages injure the 
 pavement. If this is the principle of the law, the quantum of tax 
 should be measured by the degree of injury. Now, it is a notorious 
 fact, that one cart, which often carries fourteen hundred pounds 
 weight on two wheels, if shod with iron, and which traverses the 
 streets twelve hours out of twenty-four, must do more injury to 
 the pavement than forty chairs which do not carry one-third of 
 the weight, and only pass occasionally ; yet the forty chairs doing 
 the less injury, are to pay ^60, »while the cart which does the 
 greater, cannot be rated at more than fifteen shillings. If it is said 
 that the wealth of the proprietors is to be considered, then the bill 
 possesses one principle and proceeds upon another, Which is more 
 strongly marked out byite declaring that carriages not bound with 
 iron shaU pay no tax. This holds up the idea that the iron-bound 
 carriages only do, the injury, and that where no injury is done there 
 should be no charge. If then twenty carts shod with iron do 
 more injury to the pavement than all the chairs in town, and only 
 pay £15 for the right to do this injury, 'would it not be more con- 
 sistent with justice and policy that they should contiaue to use no 
 tire to their wheels as they have done these fifty years past, than 
 that the owners of chairs should pay £300 a year to repair the 
 injury they do. Or, in other words, can it- be just that twenty 
 cartmen, for £15 compensation, shoxild be entitled to put another 
 class of citizens to £300 expense? If the measure of the injury is 
 not in this case the rule of taxation, the Council conceive the bUl 
 still more oppressive. The keeping a chair in this city and county 
 is by no means an evidence of wealth, since many, from ill-health, 
 the nature of their business, or situation at some distance from 
 town, are frequently compelled to ride, while their richer and 
 healthier neighbor walks, or rides on horseback, and finds equal 
 advantage from regular pavements; yet one is to be exempted 
 entirely, while the other, because he occasionally rides over the 
 pavement with a light carriage, which can. do no injury, is liable 
 to a heavy tax. 
 
 6. Because it entirely changes a system which has hitherto 
 worked no injury, and adds to the general mass of taxes, which 
 38 
 
298 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 are necessarily extremely burdensome in tHis city. The ground 
 adjoining to the lots was always considered as in some sort under 
 the direction of the proprietor of the lot ; if he paved, planted, 
 cleaned or ornamented it, he had the immediate advantage and the 
 credit of his improvement with his fellow-citizens. For this rea- 
 son, every owner of the lots submitted to tax himself, and asked 
 no compensation from the public; no money being raised for the 
 purpose. K was a land tax which every man expected to pay 
 when he purchased a town lot. The bill under consideration 
 entirely reverses this rule, and aims at exempting the owners of 
 town lots from a duty which they have never complained of, and 
 which, now that the pavement is already made, must be compara- 
 tively light, in order to throw the burden upon others, who in 
 numberless instances, hold not one foot of land within the city. 
 
 7. Because this bill disposes of a source of revenue which the 
 wants of the State may one day render a proper subject of taxa- 
 tion. Although, standing alone, it is unequal and oppressive, yet, 
 by a combination with others which the wisdom of the Legislature 
 may hereafter suggest, it may be rendered equal and just. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 New Yoek, March 1, 1791. Present — Governor Clinton; Liv- 
 ingston, Chancellor; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to enable the mayor, aldermen and common- 
 alty of the city of New York to order the raising moneys hy tax for the 
 purposes therein Tnentioned," was before the Council which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Justice Hobart, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the bill authorizes and empowers the mayor, alder- 
 men and commonalty to raise a tax for certain purposes therein 
 designated, and for other purposes not particularly pointed out, 
 which the mayor, aldermen and commonalty, in common council 
 convened, "shall think necessary and direct;" thereby leaving it 
 to their discretion, either to provide for the poor, &o., or not to do 
 it. If this provision is necessary, the power should be compulsory; 
 if unnecessary, it should not be granted. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 299 
 
 It allows an appropriation of money to certain uses wliicli are 
 not designated, and in wHcli tlie corporation are to be guided by 
 no rule but their own judgment; which power, in conjunction with 
 a discretionary right to tax or not to tax, amounts to a fuU transfer 
 of legislative authority as to this important object; and which, for 
 reasons that the Council have lately assigned, appear to them 
 inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and the law decla- 
 ratory of the rights of the citizens of this State. 
 
 Because this power, being vested in the corporation by their 
 corporate styh, and to be exercised in their corporate capacity, and 
 for an unlimited time, without any superintending power to direct 
 or even examine into the application of the money, amounts to a 
 free gift of an annual revenue of £12,000 to the corporation of the 
 city of New York to be raised by a perpetual tax on the citizens, 
 and thereby not only deprives them of the superintending protec- 
 tion of the Legislature, but renders it doubtful whether, if this 
 bni should prove oppressive, the Legislature could, with due 
 regard to the rights of property, divest the corporation of it with 
 more propriety than they could any other individual (for in this 
 light corporations must be viewed) who holds an estate by gift of 
 the Legislature. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 New Yoek, December 1, 1792. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart and Lansing, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n. act for electing representatives for this State, in 
 the House of Bepresentatives of the Congress of the United States of 
 America," was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the 
 pubhc good. 
 
 1. Because it requires the canvassers to canvass and estimate all 
 the votes contained in the boxes delivered by the sheriffs into the 
 
800 The CouNcrL of EEVisioir. 
 
 office of the Secretary of the State, however great the excess of the 
 number of ballots may be beyond the number of the electors 
 named in the poll-lists ; hence affording an opportunity for the 
 commission of innumerable frauds-by the introduction of double 
 ballots so artfully concealed as to elude discovery by the inspec- 
 tors of the election, but which mil nevertheless have the like effect 
 with those fairly and bona fide delivered. 
 
 2. Because that part of the bill which requires the Chancellor 
 and Justices of the Supreme Court in certain cases to canvass and 
 estimate votes, is repugnant to the Constitution, which expressly 
 declares "that the Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court 
 shall not at the same time hold any other ofiS.ce excepting that of 
 delegate to the general Congress on special occasions," the pro- 
 priety of which disqualification is forcibly evinced in the present 
 instance; the bill contemplating their appointments to an impor- 
 tant and responsible station, in the exercise of the duties whereof, 
 if mal or corrupt conduct should be attributed to them, and ia 
 consequence a prosecution or impeachment be instituted or pre- 
 ferred against them, they inay either become subject to trial in the 
 Supreme Court, where such members, with whom they had difiered 
 in opioion on the subject matter of the prosecution, preside, or in 
 the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 
 of which such members are also judges, or be compelled to sub- 
 mit to a trial m the latter court when unavoidably destitute of 
 those of its members who by the Constitution are considered as 
 the only permanent law members thereof: nor can it be inferred 
 that the duties intended to be imposed by the bill on the Chan- 
 cellor and Judges of the Supreme Court are to be executed ex 
 officio, a new oath being prescribed by the bill to be taken pre- 
 vious to the execution thereof. Besides, if the constitutionality of 
 their appointment as canvassers was not in question, the duties 
 enjoined by the bill on the Judges of the Supreme Court may in 
 many cases prove incompatible with the exercise of the ordinary 
 business of their offices, by requiring their attendance at the secre- 
 tary's office at a time when an attention to their judiciary duties 
 is indispensable at another place. 
 
 3. Because the oath directs the canvassers to count the votes 
 contained in the boxes, and yet, in the latter part of it, declares 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 801 
 
 that they shall return the person having the greatest mimher of 
 votes. in the district, as the member duly elected, when it may 
 happen that the ballots for the person who really has the greatest 
 number of votes may, either through design or mistake, not be 
 included in the boxes, thus rendering the different parts ; of the 
 oath contradictory. 
 
 4. Because the ballots are to be returned by the sheriff or his 
 saffudent deputy', without declaring whether by his sufficient deputy 
 any other shall be intended than the known sworn deputy, or 
 whether it shall be left to the discretion of the sheriff to appoint 
 any man his deputy, or even rendering a written deputation neces- 
 sary, so that the utmost latitude will be left for the comrrussion of 
 frauds, no person being authorized to determine the legality of 
 such deputation, 
 
 5. Because no power is given to the canvassers or any other 
 person under oath to determine whether the boxes have or. have 
 not been returned by the sheriff or his deputy (that part of the 
 oath in the former election law which directs the canvassers to 
 estimate the votes contained in the boxes delivered hy the sheriffs, 
 being in this bill omitted); so that in whatever manner the boxes 
 may be delivered into the secretary's office, it becomes the duty 
 of the canvassers to count them, in direct violation of all the pro- 
 visions in the law against frauds in the transportation and delivery 
 of the boxes. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused; conse- 
 Cjj^ently it did not become a law. 
 
 New York, December 19, 1792. Present— Governor Chnton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart and Lansing, Justices. 
 
 A bin entitled " J.n act to amend an act entitled ^An act for esta- 
 blishing and opening lock navigations within this State,'" was before 
 the Covmcil, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the 
 public good. 
 
302 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1. Because the power intended to be vested in tlie presidents 
 and directors may in its execution prove subversive of the rights 
 of private property, by divesting the proprietor of his land in cases 
 not indispensably necessary for the attainment of an object of 
 public utility ; the third enacting clause of the biU not only pro- 
 viding for the appropriation by the presidents and directors of the 
 land on which any canal lock, dyke, embankment, pond, dam, or 
 other work shall be constructed, but extending such appropriation 
 one hundred feet on both sides of any such erections or works, and 
 expressly declaring that the land so acquired may be apphed to 
 such uses as the presidents and directors shall think proper ; thus 
 wresting from an individual his property, in a manner only justifi- 
 able in cases of urgent public necessity, without imposing on the 
 company to which his right is devolved as a duty, that it shall be 
 sacredly applied only to the advancement of those interests of the 
 company in which its private emolument is inseparably connected 
 with the effectual promotion of the public good. 
 
 2. Because, previous to executing or even obtaining a writ of ad 
 quod damnum, the bill authorizes the presidents and directors or 
 their agents to enter upon, dig, trench and use the land of any 
 citizen, without his permission ; thus sanctioning a destruction of 
 timber and improvements, before proper precautions have been 
 taken to ascertain the amount of the injury sustained, and in many 
 instances depriving the party affected by such proceedings of the 
 most conclusive proof of the extent of that injury, arising from a 
 relative comparison of the several parts of the land on which works 
 are constructed, and those adjoining them, and a collective vieV^ 
 of the state of the improvements rendered useless by the appro- 
 priations made by the presidents and directors. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 December 24, 1792, Morgan Lewis was appointed one of the 
 Justices of the Supreme Court. 
 
Yetoes of the Council. 803" 
 
 Albany, Fdrnmry 27, 1793. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Hobart and Lewis, Justices. 
 
 A bOl entitled "^w ctjct for vesting the lands appropriated for high- 
 ways and streets in the city of Nevj YorTc, in the corporation of the said 
 city" -was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, reported by Justice Lewis, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law, as 
 inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the public 
 good. 
 
 1. Because the said biU, if passed into a law, will, in every case 
 where an individual has laid out a street through his own ground, 
 for his own private use, or for the use of the community, giviag 
 a general right of way therein, but reserving the right of soil in 
 himself, arbitrarily vest such right of soil in said corporation, 
 without the consent of the proprietor, and prevent his making 
 any alterations therein, for increasing the value of his property, 
 without any compensation to hiin for such loss and injury; 
 although it is presumable, from the powers already vested in the 
 said corporation by the act entitled "An act for the better regu- 
 lating the public roads in the city and county of New York," 
 passed 21st March, 1787, the proviso contained in this bUl, and 
 the regard paid to the rights of individuals in all former road acts, 
 that the Legislature intended to vest in the said corporation only 
 the interest of the people of the State in the said highways and 
 streets. 
 
 2. Because, wherever a public highway passes through the 
 grounds of an individual, the right of soil in said highway is by 
 the common law vested in such individual, ^e having a right to 
 the trees, &c., growing thereon; which right is recognized by the 
 act of the 4th of May, 1784, respecting public higi|(|svays in certain 
 counties of this State. 
 
 3. Because the a&id bill will, in some instances, vest in the said 
 corporation lands which have been heretofore laid for highways 
 or streets, and which have been afterwards inclosed and actually 
 built on by the proprietors. 
 
 4. Because, should any highway or street laid out heretofore by 
 an individual, through his own grounds, be wholly altered by said 
 corporation by virtue of the powers contained in the said act of 
 
804 The Council of Revision. 
 
 tlie 21st of March, 1787, the lands over which such highway or 
 street passed would not revert to the former proprietor, but 
 remain in the said corporation, nor would he be benefited by a 
 forfeiture for an application of such lands to uses different from 
 those for which they were vested in said corporation. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 January 29, 1794, Egbert Benson was appointed one of the 
 Justices of the Supreme Court. 
 
 Albany, Fehruanj 21, 1794. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Livingston, Chancellor; Yates, Chief Justice; Lansing and Lewis, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n a,ct for the relief of Maihew Trotter,^'' was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, re- 
 ported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 The Council object against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as inconsistent with the public good. 
 
 Because the act, by virtue of which the regiment of levies, 
 commanded by Colonel Marinus Willett, was raised, does not war- 
 rant the recitals in the said bill contained. The appointment of 
 the said Mathew Trotter, and his subsequent service as a Lieuten- 
 ant and Quarter-Master in that regiment, for the term of eight 
 months from the 1st day of April, 1783, not entitling him, in 
 consequence of any existing law, to a bounty of lands, even had 
 he received commissions in those several capacities; although a 
 corps organizedw.nd commanded by Major Elias Van Buntschoten, 
 consisting of troops raised and formed pursuant to an act entitled 
 "An act for raising two regiments for the defease of the State, on 
 bounties of unappropriated lands," and of another act entitled 
 "An act for raising troops to complete the line of this State, in 
 the service of the United States," and the two regiments, to be 
 raised on bounties of unappropriated lands, was annexed to and 
 formed part of the said regiment of levies ; hence the bill, purport- 
 ing to have for its object the reward of military service, in com- 
 
Vetoes or the Council. 305 
 
 pliance witli a previous stipulation, appears to be founded in 
 misappTeliension, it containing a free gift of the property of the 
 people of this State. 
 
 'So "warrant authorizing the said Mathew Trotter to enlist 
 soldiers for either of the regiments directed to be raised on boun- 
 ties of unappropriated lands appears to have been issued; and 
 whatever may have been his merits or services, his situation in 
 that respect is distinguishable as less entitled, on the ground of 
 antecedent stipulation, to remuneration from that of many officers 
 in the levies, appointed to recruit for those regiments, who may 
 have exerted themselves to make the enlistments required, and 
 who, in pursuit of that object, may have been subjected to con- 
 siderable expense, but who, failing to procure the requisite num- 
 ber of men, were precluded from the benefits extended to the corps 
 commanded by Major Van Buntschoten. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 27j 1794. Present — Governor CHnton; Yates, 
 Chief Justice; Lansing, Justice. 
 
 A bni entitled " An ojct fiirOier to amend an act entitled ' An act 
 for the better laying out, regulating and keeping in repair all com/man 
 andpvhlic highways and private roads in the counties of Ulster, Orange, 
 Dutchess, Washington, Westchester, Albany and Mohtgmnery,^" was 
 before the Council which adopted the following objections, viz. : 
 
 The Council pbject against the said bill becoming a law of this 
 State, as iuconsistent with the public good. 
 
 Because it is manifest from experience that alterations of roads 
 and highways, after they have been rendered commodious at the 
 public expense, are more frequently made to accommodate indi- 
 viduals through whose lands they run, than for the promotion of 
 public convenience. By the second section of the existing law^ 
 which this bill is intended to amend, a salutary check is provided 
 against an improper exercise of this power by the commissioners, 
 in previously requiring a certificate, under the oatii of twelve free* 
 39 
 
306 The Council of Eetision. 
 
 holders, to -warrant an alteration; but by this biU tbat power is 
 vested solely in tbe commissioners, with the concurrence of the 
 owners of the lands. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 New York, March 31, 1795. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ^^An act for the relief of certain jiersons claiming 
 lands in the patents therein mentioned,^'' was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Benson, viz.: 
 
 Because, whenever a trust or power created by law hath been 
 executed, the law then, in respect to rights consequent of such 
 execution, becomes as unalterable and irrepealable as a grant of 
 right, whether the grant be made immediately by the Legislature 
 or by an agent entrusted or empowered by them; and the autho- 
 rity of the Legislature to annul or abridge a right is not less 
 restrained, where the right is in virtue of a special law, than where 
 it is in virtue of the general laws of the land, or the acts of parties ; 
 neither is it sufficient reason for the exercise of such authority that 
 the law was passed in any manner unadvisedly. By the act " to 
 ascertain the limits and boundaries between the patents of Kaya- 
 derosseres, Half Moon and Clifton Park," passed the 11th March, 
 1793, the determination of the commissioners is to bind all claim- 
 ants deriving title under those patents respectively, and the com- 
 missioners having executed this trust or power by making a 
 determination, there is now a right in every claimant to conclude 
 every other claimant from questioning the boundaries as deter- 
 mined by the commissioners; but by the bill, "the title of no 
 person, whomsoever, claiming lands in the patents of Half Moon 
 or Clifton Park, by lease or purchase, in fee simple, and who did 
 not subscribe the agreements to petition, or the petitions to the 
 Legislature for the act, shall be bound or in anyways affected by 
 the determination of the commissioners," because, as it is recited 
 in the bill, "no public notice was given by the petitioners that 
 they would apply, or had applied to the Legislature for the act. 
 
Vetoes op the CotrNOiL, 807 
 
 and for want of sucli notice tlie lessees and purchasers under the 
 proprietors of Half Moon and Clifton Park, had not an opportu- 
 nity afforded them to show cause why the prayer of the said 
 petitioners should not be granted," so that the principles here 
 advanced by the Coiyicil are properly and obviously applicable 
 to the bill; they are relied on as just: and the Council do not 
 discern it either as unwarrantable by the Constitution, or unsalu- 
 tary in itself, to extend them even to a case where it might be 
 charged against the persons, on whose prayer the law may have 
 passed, that they have deceived the Legislature by false sugges- 
 tions of the injury or damage of others. 
 
 Because the relief intended by the bill is partial^ being confined 
 only to persons claiming by hose or purchase in fee simple, whereas 
 the reason for the interference of the Legislature, as assigned in 
 the bni and already stated is general, and might with equal fitness 
 and justice apply to all persons without discrimination, as to the 
 mode of title by which they may claim. 
 
 Because the description of the persons intended to be reheved 
 is defective, it not being to be collected from the bUl, with due 
 certainty, whether immediate lessees, or purchasers only, are in- 
 tended, in exclusion of persons claiming as heirs or devisees, or 
 as personal representatives to lesseps for years; or whether the 
 lessees or purchasers from original grantees, and the heirs, devisees, 
 assigns and personal representatives of such lessees and purcha- 
 sers, in exclusion of persons claiming under original grantees by 
 title consisting throughout ia descent or devise. 
 
 Because the bill, by leaving the determination of the commis- 
 sioners still binding on some claimants, and being silent whether 
 the determination shall bind these claimants as between themselves 
 only, may operate so as not to accord with equality of, justice 
 between all claimants. This may be exemplified by supposing 
 the. determination to be in favor of a person who had, against a 
 person who had not, "subscribed the agreements to petition, or the 
 petitions to the Legislature for the act; " the former cannot avail 
 himself of the determination against the latter, but if, in the con- 
 verse of the case, the latter could avail himself of the determina- 
 tion against the former, it is evident that then the rule between 
 these parties would not be equal. 
 
808 The Council of Eevision-. 
 
 Notwitlistanding the objections, tlie Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 City of New York, April 9, 1795. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Yates, Chief Justice; Benson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled ^'' An act for the better support of the Oneida, Onon- 
 daga and Cayuga Indians, and for other purposes therein mentioned,^'' 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 viz.: 
 
 Because, by concurrent resolutions of both houses of the Legis- 
 lature of the 13th February, 1794, "his Excellency the Governor, 
 was requested to confer with the Indians then in the city of 
 Albany, and to give them the fullest assurances of the continued 
 friendship of the State towards their brethren, the Six Nations, 
 and that the Legislature will protect and secure them in the pos- 
 session and enjoyinent of their reservations according to the 
 agreements made with their several nations, and were ready to 
 make any further disposition thereof, for their sole benefit, when- 
 ever the wishes of their respective nations shall be made known 
 for that purpose;" but by the bill the annuity to be stipulated by 
 the agents to be paid by the people of this State, to the Oneida and 
 Cayuga Indians, for the residue of the reservations not appropri- 
 ated in the manner specified in the bill, "shall not exceed an annual 
 interest of six per cent on the principal sum, which would arise 
 from the sale of such residue, if the same were sold at four shil- 
 lings per acre;" and the bill, after directing the Surveyor-General 
 to lay out the tracts into lots for which such annuities shall be 
 stipulated, and to sell the same, " provides that none of the said 
 lots shall be sold for less than sixteen shillings per acre," and which 
 the Council also presume to be not less than the value thereof, so 
 that the disposition to which the agents are by the bill authorized 
 will be a disposition, three-fourths of which, at least, will be for 
 the benefit of the State, and consequently not a disposition for 
 the sole benefit of the Indians. The restrictions, therefore, on the 
 agents in respect to the amount of the annuities to be stipulated 
 by them, is inconsistent with the assurances contained in the above 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 309 
 
 recited resolutions, and which, agreeably to the requests of both 
 Houses were made to the Indians by his Excellency the Governor. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the biU 
 into a law. 
 
 July 1st, 1795, John Jay succeeded George Clinton as Governor. 
 
 Feb. 5, 1796, the Secretary of State made Clerk of the Council. 
 
 City of New Yoek, March 11, 1796. Present — Governor 
 Jay; Livingston, Chancellor; Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to authorize the raising moneys iy tax in 
 the city and county of New York for defraying the public exjpenses" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chancellor, and amended by said Council, viz. : 
 
 Because the second enacting clause of the biU directs that the 
 said several sums of money shall be rated and assessed according 
 to the estate of each respective person so to be taxed, without 
 afifordiug any rule whereby the valuation thereof shall be made, or 
 imposing any check on the discretionary exercise of this unbounded 
 power. 
 
 Because the party taxed is left without remedy or tedress 
 against unjust or erroneous assessments, but is compelled to pay 
 whatever sum the assessors shall direct, however exorbitant or 
 oppressive. 
 
 The Council cannot forbear to consider a, law which confers 
 power for the misapplication or abuse of which the citizen suffer- 
 ing thereby can have no redress, as being inconsistent with the 
 spirit of a free government and with the public good. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, February 10, 1797. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice; Hobart, Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for raising a further sum of mcmeyfor 
 repairing the court-house and gaol in the county of Herhimer" was 
 
810 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 before the Council, whicli adopted tlie following objections, 
 reported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the mode of levying and raising the tax contem- 
 plated by the bill contains no rule or principle by "which the asses- 
 sors are directed to ascertain the value of the real and personal 
 estates to be rated by them — affords no possible redress by a revi- 
 sion of the assessment, to the person injured, as the valuation is 
 the mere expression of the opinion of the assessors, the accuracy 
 or rectitude of which cannot be tested by resorting to any deter- 
 minate object in restraint of a corrupt or erroneous exertion of the 
 powers entrusted to them; thus subjecting the estates of free citi- 
 zens to the arbitrary disposition of assessors, and thereby impairing 
 and endangering the rights of private property, the preservation 
 whereof is among the first objects of every social contract. 
 
 2. Because the mode so prescribed in the said bill has been dis- 
 covered experimentally in many instances to operate partially, 
 imecjually and oppressively. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, March 31, 1797. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice; Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act enabling the mayor, recorder, aldermen and 
 commonalty of the city of Hudson to order the raising money for 
 the 'payment of a night watch,^^ was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Lansing, 
 viz.: 
 
 Because the bill purports to authorize and empower the mayor, 
 recorder, aldermen and commonalty of the city of Hudson, in com- 
 mon council convened, to order the raising a sum of money 
 annually by tax on the real and personal estates of the freeholders 
 and inhabitants within the limits therein described, without pre- 
 scribing the mode of assessing, levying or collecting it; which is. 
 the more necessary as the act establishing the present imperfect 
 
7ET0ES OP THE COUNCIL. 311 
 
 system of taxation does not comprehend a case of this descrip- 
 tion. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 ALBAiiTT, April 1, 1797. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice ; Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to enable St John Soneywood to continue 
 an attorrmj in certain causes" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 Because the said St. John Honey wood, at the time of his appoint- 
 ment and acceptance of the of&ce of clerk of the county of "Wash- 
 ington, was apprised that by a law of this State he was inhibited 
 from practising as an attorney in any courts of which he was 
 appointed clerk; and that he, by such his acceptance, made his 
 choice, and thereby relinquished his right of practising at the bar 
 of those courts. 
 
 Counselors and attorneys may, as vacancies arise, be frequently 
 appointed clerks of courts. Should, therefore, this bill become a 
 law, a precedent will be established in similar cases to encourage a 
 suspension of the good and beneficial effects of a law made for the 
 wise purposes of guarding against the temptation and danger of 
 unfair practice. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 3, 1797. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice ; Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.w act authorizing the mayor, aldermen and com- 
 monalty of the city of Albany to raise a sum of money by tax, far defray- 
 ing the expense of lighting the lamps and for the support of a night 
 watch," was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, reported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
312 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Because, independent of the reasons wMcli have been on former 
 occasions offered by the Council against the system of taxation 
 referred to in the said bill, and which it would now be unseason- 
 able to repeat, the proviso in the said bill contained that in form- 
 ing the assessment, " regard shall be had to the greater or less 
 advantage which may result to individuals from such lamps and 
 night watch," gives a great additional latitude and new objects to 
 the discretion of assessors. 
 
 Because, although the publication of accounts of the disposition 
 of moneys granted by Jaw may produce salutary effects as afford- 
 ing a means for the detection of any misapplication, and tending to 
 increase a proper caution in the persons entrusted with the manage- 
 ment thereof, yet the compelling this corporation to publish an 
 account, not only of the receipts and expenditures of the funds 
 derived from the grant intended to be made by the bill, but also 
 of their own proper income, subjects the mayor, aldermen and 
 commonalty of the city of Albany to a duty not imposed on other 
 corporations in the ' State, the more exceptionable as it is not 
 founded on any imputation of misconduct in the officers of that 
 corporation. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, Janvxiry 2, 1798. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice ; Hobart, Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to vest certain powers in the freeholders and 
 inhabitants of ike villages of Troy and Lansingburgh, and for other pur- 
 poses ilm-ein mentioned" was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 Because the proportion according to which the taxes provided 
 by the biU to be raised within the several villages of Lansingburgh 
 and Troy are to be assessed on the freeholders' and inhabitants, is 
 to be their respective relative property or ability ; and those terms, 
 property and ability^ being of too various and indefinite import to 
 designate or describe with due certainty the things, considerationSj 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 813 
 
 or other matters, for wMcli a person is to. be' assessed or taxed, the 
 proportion supposed by tbe bill must remain equally uncertain, 
 and the assessors, in apportioning the tax among the several 
 persons by whom it is to be. borne, ■will in effect be left to their 
 absolute discretion, for want of a rule to guide or control them, 
 and may even suppose themselves authorized to assess a greater 
 portion or quota on a person, in consideration of a property in 
 lands not within the limits of the village, and no means to detect or 
 correct the abuse. It therefore appears improper to the Council 
 that a bUl so defective in a part so material should become a law. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 AlBANY, January 2, 1798. Present — Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice; Hobart, Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bili entitled ^'■An actfurthsr to amend the act entitled 'An act to 
 organize the militia of this jState,^ " was before the Council, which 
 adopted the foUowiag objections, reported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 Because the clause in the biU which authorizes any forty of the 
 enrolled and ununiformed militia of a regiment to form themselves, 
 by Voluntary association, with the approbation of the commanding 
 officer of the brigade, into; a company, wiU'probably tend to intro- 
 duce and perpetuate dissensioiis in regiments, promote disorgani- 
 zation and subvert subordination. 
 
 Because the bUl contemplates the forming additional companies 
 in regiments already divided into beats^ and authorizes the com- 
 mandiag officer of the regiment to assign the officers to such addi- 
 tional companies from. those of the regiment; thus not authorizing 
 the commanding officers. of regiments to exact from the officers so 
 assigned additional- duties, ex officio, but by devolving upon them 
 a right of maKng permanent appointments which virtually avoid 
 those made in the mode pointed out by the Constitution, causing 
 vacancies in the several bdats from which the officers so assigned 
 are taken, which vacancies must of necessity, for the purpose of 
 preserving the organization prescribed by the existing militia law, 
 be filled in the usual constitutional mode. 
 40 
 
314 The Council of EEyisioH". 
 
 Because tHe general policy of military arrangements, combined 
 ■with, the consideration that it is a power vested by the existing 
 militia law, requires that all the subordinate commands should be 
 ascertained and controlled by the conunander-in-chief, who, from 
 Ms situation and means of acquiring information respecting the 
 expediency of such arrangements, is more competent to direct 
 them. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, Janttary 26, 1798. Present — Governor Jay; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor ; Yates, Chief Justice ; Lansing, Lewis and Ben- 
 son, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of Anna Breadbahe," was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, re- 
 ported by Justice Lansing, viz. : 
 
 Because the grant intended by the biU. is not founded on that 
 official inquiry which has been devised for the wise purposes of 
 preventing oppression on the citizen and imposition in directing 
 public benevolence, and contains neither a description of the value, 
 extent or duration of the estate alleged to have escheated to the 
 people of this State; thus establishing a precedent which, in pro- 
 cess of time, may become dangerous in practice to the interests of 
 the community. 
 
 Because the grant is not limited to the estate whereof John 
 Breadbake died seized or possessed; thus affording color for a 
 construction repugnant to that salutary principle of the common 
 law, tJiat a mere right is incapable of being transferred' by grant. 
 
 Because the bill purports to grant all the right and title of the 
 said people of, in and to all the estate of the said John Breadhalee to 
 Ann, his widow, her heirs, and assigns forever, though it does not 
 appear from the said bUl that the said John Breadbake held any 
 estate of inheritance; thus rendering the said grant uncertain as to 
 its object, and perhaps discordant in its application to the estate 
 which, is the subject matter of the said bill. 
 
yETOES OF THE COUNCIL. 815 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but tlie Senate refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Ajcbant, Fdrmary 2, 1798. Present — Governor Jay ; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Yates, Chief Justice ; Benson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n. act authorizing the tise of paper instead of parch- 
 ment in certain legal proceedings" was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because a practice sanctioned by the usage of ages furnishes 
 such a presumption in its favor as to render any change improper 
 except on the most obvious utility, and it does not appear that 
 any advantage to the public will result or is expected from the 
 change in question. 
 
 2. Because, unless parchment should, contrary to long and 
 general opinion and experience, be deemed a more proper material 
 for records than paper, the change on that principle cannot be 
 necessary, and the expediency of it is rendered at least very doubt- 
 ful by the consideration that parchment, to a considerable and 
 increasing amount, is manufactured in the country, and value 
 thereof given to a raw material otherwise of little worth. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 February 15, 1798, John Lansing, Jr., succeeded Yates as Chief 
 Justice. In that month James Kent was appointed a justice in 
 place of Lansing. On the ninth of August following, John Cozine 
 was also appointed a Justice in place of Hobart, resigned ; and on 
 the twenty-seventh of the succeeding December, Jacob Eadcliff 
 was appointed in place of Cozine, deceased. 
 
 Albany, March 23, 1798. Present — Governor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice; Lewis and Benson, JuStices. 
 
 A bill entitled, "An act repealing an act mtiiled 'An act for grant- 
 ing and securing to John Fitch the sole right and advantage of making 
 
316 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 and employing the steamboat hy Mm lately invented, and for other par- 
 poses,^" was before the Council, wHcli adopted tlie following objec- 
 tions, reported by Justice Benson, viz. : 
 
 Because tlie grant of the privileges to Eobert E. Livingston, 
 intended by the bill, supposes that the similar privileges which 
 were granted to John Fitch, by the act thereby to be repealed, had 
 ^Decome forfeited, whereas it doth not appear that the facts from 
 which such forfeiture is to arise have been found in some due 
 course of law. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, March 30, 1798. Present — Grovernor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice; Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled, "An act to amend the act entitled 'An act for sup- 
 pressing immorality,^ " was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by Justice Benson, viz.: 
 
 Because it enacts "that no conviction or adjudication which 
 shall hereafter be had under it, shall be liable to be removed by 
 certiorari into the Supreme Court, but shall be deemed and taken to 
 be final, to all intents and purposes whatever;" thereby, in respect 
 to such convictions or adjudications, causing that transcendent 
 power of the Supreme Court which hath always been considered 
 as inherent in it and as indispensable for preserving order and 
 restraining and preventing tisurpation and oppression, "the power 
 to keep all inferior jurisdictions within the bounds of their autho- 
 rity" to cease; and although in merely regulating the right of 
 appeal, mischiefs, even inconsiderable or remote, may be admitted 
 as meriting notice and estimation, yet that it ought not, without 
 the most clear and urgent reasons of necessity, to be wholly taken 
 away in any case or be restricted from being pursued to that court 
 in the last resort. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
Yetoes of the Couwcil. 317 
 
 Albaijt, April 2, 1798. Present — Governor Jay ; LaBsing, 
 Chief Justice ; Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 The following bills, viz. : " J,m act for raising rhcmey to finish and 
 repair the court-house and gaol in Queens county;" "An act to autho- 
 rize the raising a sum of m/meyfor Tnahing certain necessary accommo- 
 da&iansfor the gaol and certain repairs for the court-house in the county 
 of Bensselner ;" "An act to raise a sum of money for building a court- 
 hovse and gaol in Delaware county, and for o&ier purposes therein men- 
 tioned" and "An act for building a court-house and gaol in the county 
 . of Schoharie" were before the Council, which adopted certain ob- 
 jections, reported by the Chief Justice, as applicable to each, viz. : 
 
 The CouncU find themselves constrained by the same reasons 
 and principles, which on various preceding occasions compelled 
 them to object to former tax biUs, to consider it as improper that 
 the following bills,should become laws' of this State, to wit : The 
 bill entitled "An act to raise a sum of money to finish and repair 
 the court-house and gaol in Queen's county;" the bill entitled "An 
 act to authorize the raising a sum of money for making certain 
 necessary accommodations for the gaol, and certain repairs for the 
 court-house in the county of Eensselaer;" the bill entitled "An 
 act to raise a sum of money for building a court-house and gaol 
 in Delaware county, and for other purposes therein mentioned," 
 and the bill entitled "An act for building a court-house and gaol 
 in the county of Schoharie;" being convinced that the spirit of 
 our Constitution, and of every free government, demands that the 
 citizen should be taxed by fixed rules and not at the discretion of 
 any individual; they think it their duty to reiterate their ■■ former 
 objections. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the several 
 bills into laws. 
 
 Albany, April 2, 1799. Present — Governor Jay; Livingston, 
 Chancellor; Lansing, Chief Justice ; Benson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to amend the statute of limitations" was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, reported 
 by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
818 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1. Because the statute of limitatioiis, as it now stands, affords 
 the State sufficient security for its rights, since even after the year 
 1800, its claims may be prosecuted if they have arisen within forty 
 years prior to such prosecution, and because a prosecution after a 
 longer period, when the estate has probably passed into the hands 
 of bona fide purchasers, and been improved at their expense and 
 by their labor, will always be odious and generally unjust and 
 oppressive. 
 
 2. Because the law operates as an assurance on the part of the 
 State that it will, at a certain period, rehnquish its claims to the 
 possessors of lands, and therefore should be held sacredand invio- 
 late. 
 
 3. Because the bill goes to render every limitation of time, so far 
 as it respects the State, illusory; for if it is expedient now to 
 extend the term for four years, no man can confide that before 
 that period elapses it may not be again deemed expedient to 
 extend it. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 ALBAiTY, March 19, 1800. Present — Governor Jay, Lansing, 
 Chief Justice ; Lewis, Benson, Kent and Radcliff, Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled "An act giving certain powers to tJte 'magistrates of 
 this State in relation to seamen, in foreign sei-vice" was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by Jus- 
 tice Eadcliff, viz. : 
 
 Because the right to legislate in this case belongs to the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, and it appertains to them to remove 
 any doubts or supply any defects which may be supposed in their 
 statute on this subject. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 819 
 
 Albany, ^^i7 8, 1800. Present — Governor Jay ; Livingston, 
 Chancellor; Benson and Kent, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act for the payment of certain officers of govern- 
 ment, and for other purposes" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Justice Kent, viz. : 
 
 Because the allowance thereby granted to the Chancellor and 
 Judges of the Supreme Court, in addition to their permanent sala- 
 ries, is temporary only. Notwithstanding the fluctuations in the . 
 legislative provision for the salaries of those of&cers, and however 
 embarrassing and impressive may have been the circumstances 
 which have caused the temporary changes alluded to, yet the 
 Council find it to be their duty to remind the Legislature of those 
 principles of the Constitution, and those great maxims relative to 
 the independence of the judiciary department, which general expe- 
 rience has proved to be essential to the pubhc good. 
 
 The Council are sensible that it is a matter entirely of legislative 
 discretion to determine and fix the adequate compensation to the 
 Chancellor and Judges, but when the Legislature has exercised its 
 discretion and ascertained the compensation, the reason of the Con- 
 stitution then applies, and requires such compensation to be 
 permanently established, by ordaining that the Chancellor and 
 Judges should hold their offices during good behavior. The Con- 
 stitution evidently intended to make them independent, but that 
 intention will be greatly frustrated and the tenure of their offices 
 essentially affected, if they are to depend, either in the whole or in 
 part, for their necessary support upon the annual pleasure of a 
 single branch of the Legislature. 
 
 Whatever compensation, therefore, in addition to that allowed 
 by the act of the 11th April, 1792, is deemed requisite (and the 
 bill is itself evidence of the sense of the Legislature, that the 
 allowance in that act is incompetent), ought to be equally perma- 
 nent, as being equally withia the reason of that law. 
 
 It is proper that those persons who may from time to time be 
 called to renounce the lucrative pursuits of private business, and 
 to devote the best part of their lives exclusively to the public 
 service, may know, with reasonable certainty, upon what to de- 
 pend; their requisite independence, as intended by the Constitu- 
 
820 The CousrciL of. Eevisioh-. 
 
 tion, can only result from a permanent provision for their support, 
 and from a permanent tenure in their offices. 
 
 The bill, therefore, by determining what the' compensation to 
 the Chancellor and Judges ought to be, and by making the same 
 temporary only, is inconsistent wtth the spirit of the Constitution 
 as well as with the obvious dictates of the public good. 
 
 ISTotwithstandirig the objections, the Legislature passed the biU 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, February 27, 1801. Present;^ — Governor Jay; Lan- 
 sing, Chief Justice ; Benson, Justice. 
 
 A bni entitled ''J.?i ad for esiahlishing and regulating a ferry across 
 the Hudson river, between the town of Mount Pleasant, in the county 
 of Westchester, and Glarhstown, in the county of JRockland," was be- 
 fore the CouncU, which adopted the following objections, reported 
 by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 Because the bill purports to grant the ferriage exclusively with- 
 in certain limits on the Hudson river, in restraint of the rights 
 of persons who may hold lands within such limits, of usiag the 
 waters of a navigable river; and it does not appear that the usual . 
 notifications preceding the bringing in bills, by which private 
 rights may be affected, have been published in this instance ; and 
 for aught appears to the contrary, this bill, if passed into a law, 
 in its operation may prejudice claims to a like exclusive right to 
 some portion of the shores of the Hudson river, comprised in the 
 limits described in the bill. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Albaut, March 30, 1801. Present— ^Governor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice; Lewis and Eadcliff, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act authorizing John Marshall and Gilbert 
 Brown to erect a mill-dam and grist-mills across and upon Mill creeh, 
 in the town of Bye, and county of Westchester, and to ervahh certain 
 
Vetoes of the Council. S21 
 
 persons interested in lands contigxwus thereto, to assent to the same" was 
 before tlie Council, wliich. adopted the follcwing objections, re- 
 ported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 Because the bill purports to vest a power in trustees to dispose 
 of the real estate of the minors named in it, in fee, either as a 
 mere accommodation to others, or with intent to promote the inte- 
 rests of those minors, which, in either alternative, is repugnant to 
 the salutary policy of the law restraining infants from alienating 
 their real estates, and which ought to render their coiisent to an 
 alienation by trustees equally unavailing. 
 
 Because it is of much greater importance to the public that the 
 estates of infants should be preserved unimpaired, than that specu- 
 lative or even solid advantages should be obtained for some of 
 them, at the expense of endangering the uniform operation of a 
 rule, the strict observance of which is so well calculated to inspire 
 the confidence of parents that the estate they transmit by inherit- 
 ance or devise to their infant children are protected from being 
 divested by the fraud or indiscretion of those to whose care their 
 interests are intrusted during their minority; but the interference 
 of the Legislature for purposes of that kind are the more danger- 
 ous, as the real intent may be so masked as to render it imprac- 
 ticable to discriminate between the ostensible and latent motives 
 which prompted an application for their interposition. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 Albakt, March 31, 1801. Present — Governor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice; Lewis, Benson and Eadcliff, Justices. 
 
 A bin entitled '^An act concerning the proof of deeds and convey- 
 ances" was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 Because its provisions are calculated to weaken the security of 
 titles to real estates, by vesting a power to take proofs and acknow- 
 ledgm«ats of the execution of conveyances in a number of offices, 
 41 
 
322 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 dispersed not only through every county of this State, but 
 through the whole extent of the United States, whose signatures 
 and official characters must, of necessity, in many instances, be 
 totally unknown to the recording officers ; and hence put it entirely 
 out of their power to distinguish forged from genuine certificates 
 of such proofe or acknowledgments. 
 
 Because, as forgeries committed out of the State are not offenses 
 punishable by its laws, the perpetrators of acts of that kind may 
 perfect them by proof or acknowledgment, without being obliged 
 to expose themselves to be apprehended aird punished within it, 
 in case of detection; and thus the principal agents in the commis- 
 sion of forgeries may escape with impunity. 
 
 Because the judicial officers of the other States are not punish- 
 able for mal or corrupt conduct in the execution of this trust, nor 
 can they be compelled, by legal process, to appear in the courts 
 of this State for the purpose of disproving any act falsely imputed 
 to them; which will, in a great measure, render the recording of 
 conveyances, although they should be forged, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, decisive as the destruction or concealment of those 
 conveyances leave the records thereof to be used as evidence of 
 their having existed, and may preclude the possibility of an in- 
 spection of the original, and the circumstances derived from that 
 source which frequently expose forgeries to effectual detection. 
 This objection also extends, in a degree, to the judges of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, although all recording and 
 other officers of the State, are bound to take notice of their ap- 
 pointments, but from the smallness of their number and the noto- 
 riety of their public characters, such extensive evils are not to be 
 apprehended, although it would be more consistent with the pre- 
 cautions devised in suppression of fraud, in other parts of the bill, 
 to oblige all grantors residing in the United States to have their 
 conveyances proved or acknowledged within this State, before the 
 same should be permitted to be entered of record. 
 
 Because the prohibition to record deeds, other than such as have 
 been proved or acknowledged in the mode prescribed by the bill, 
 is liable to doubts whether it does not render all the proofs or 
 acknowledgments of deeds taken prior to the 1st day of May, 
 1797, and not actually recorded nugatory and of consequence, 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 823 
 
 incapable of being used in evidence merely on the credit of sucli 
 proofs or acknowledgments, as well as divesting the persons enti- 
 tled to the estates conveyed by such deeds, of a right they had 
 acquired under the then existing laws, of having them entered on 
 the records; an operation the more injurious to persons holding 
 under such conveyances, as it leaves them destitute of the evidence 
 on which they have long depended in that security, which a con- 
 sciousness of having perfected their conveyances, in the mode 
 required by law, could not fail to inspire, and which evidence 
 they may now be unable to replace, in consequence of lapse of 
 time and the death or absence of the parties and witnesses. 
 
 Because it necessarily makes it the duty of the recording officers 
 to decide on the authenticity of a certificate, purporting that a 
 deed had been duly proved before the mayor of the city of Lon- 
 don, and that without any means derived, either from the annexa- 
 tion of the city seal or otherwise, of knowing or ascertaining his 
 handwriting; and 
 
 Because the more the number of the officers to prove deeds is 
 increased, the more facility to forgery will be given, and the more 
 wiU the means of detecting and checking that dangerous and pre- 
 vailing offense be diminished. 
 
 As the foregoing objections apply to the bill entitled "An act 
 concerning mortgages," the Council object to the same for the hke 
 reasons. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bUl entitled "An act concern- 
 ing the proof of deeds and conveyances," and also the bill entitled 
 "An act concerning mortgages;" consequently neither of the said 
 bills became laws. 
 
 Albany, April 7, 1801. Present — Governor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice; Lewis and Eadcliff, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act authorizing Masters in Chancery to appoint 
 guardians for infants" was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz: 
 
 Because, although the attainment of the principal object of the 
 bill is calculated to promote the public conyenience, it is hot suffi- 
 
324 The Council of Ee-vtsion. 
 
 ciently provisional ; the bonds directed to be given by the guardians 
 for the faithful discharge of their duty, are not ordered to be filed 
 in any permanent public ofi&ce for safe keeping, but remaining in 
 the hands of the masters as a mere official personal trust, will be 
 carried with them to whatever place they may remove within this 
 State, and in case of their migration from, and death out of, this 
 State, these bonds and other papers would pass iuto the hands of 
 their executors and administrators, for whose care and fidelity 
 there cannot be adequate security, and who may be in situations 
 not conveniently accessible to the parties, nor within the jurisdic- 
 tion of our courts. 
 
 Because the reference to analogous cases for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the masters' fees, is too vague to afford a definite rule 
 to prevent embarrassments to the masters, and protect the citizens 
 applying for their iaterposition from oppressive exactions. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 July 1st, 1801, George Clinton succeeded Jay as Governor, 
 October 28, 1801, Morgan Lewis succeeded, as Chief Justice, Lan- 
 sing, who, on the 21st, had been appointed Chancellor in place of 
 Livingston, resigned.- On the 8th of January, 1802, Brockholst 
 Livingston was appointed a Justice in place of Lewis, and Smith 
 Thompson in place of Benson. 
 
 Albany, April 3, 1802. Present — Governor Clinton; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Lewis, Chief Justice; Kent and Eadcliff, Jus- 
 tices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act declaring certain waters in the counties of 
 Steuben and Chenango to he public highioays, and repealing part of the 
 act entitled 'An act to regulate highways,' " was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Ead- 
 cliff, viz.: 
 
 Because the said bill declares that certain waters and streams 
 within the county of Steuben shall become public highways, when 
 the lands under the said waters and streams have already been 
 
Vetoes of the Council. S25 
 
 ceded by this State to the Commonwealtli of Massachusetts, with- 
 out any reservation, and become the private, property of indi- 
 viduals; and the said bill does not provide any compensation or 
 equivalent to the persons whose rights would be thereby affected: 
 and because it is inconsistait with the spirit of the Constitution, 
 and against the public good that any citizen should be deprived 
 of his property for public purposes, without a just equivalent or 
 compensation therefor. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 26, 180S. Present — Governor Clinton; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent and Eadchff, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act concerning 
 the recovery of debts and demands, to the value of ten pounds, in the 
 city of New Torh,^ passed the l&th of February, 1797," was before 
 the Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 Because, although the first section of the said bUl purports to 
 authorize the appointment of five additional justices, and to 
 empower them individually to hold a court in their respective 
 wards; to issue process; to hear, try and determine all actions 
 which the justices mentioned in the thereby intended to be amended act, 
 might or could do; to issue executions, and to hold and exercise all 
 the power and authorrity which said justices, or any two of them, are by 
 the said act authorized to exercise, the bill is entirely unprovisional 
 as to the mode in which some of the essential powers of a court 
 are to be exercised; for the present justices are directed to grant 
 process under a seal to be devised by them, and through the 
 agency of a clerk to be appointed by them, whose duty it is "to 
 docket or register all summonses, warrants and executions," and to 
 make "proper entries of all acts, orders, dismissions, decrees, 
 judgments, adjournments and proceedings of the said court, and 
 the substance of the plaintiff's charge or demand, and the defend- 
 ant's plea; to make indorsements on executions, receive all fees," 
 and pay them to the justices ; and which registers are, by the 
 
326 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 eighteenth section of the said act, made legal evidence of the acts 
 and proceedings of the said court. Hence, if the clerk of the 
 present court is intended also to be the clerk of the additional 
 justices, it -would impose upon him the impracticable duty of 
 attending six different courts sitting .at the same time and at 
 different places ; but if a right could be deduced by implication, 
 as existing in each of the said justices, to devise a seal and appoint 
 a clerk for his peculiar court, it would be totally inconsistent 
 with other parts of the bill, as the fees for all the services to be 
 performed by the clerk under the existing law, so far forth as 
 respects the courts of the additional justices, are abolished, and 
 of consequence, no reasonable inducement exists to their perfor- 
 mance. 
 
 Because, although justices generally exercise concurrent juris- 
 diction coextensive with the counties for which they are appointed, 
 such power vested in the additional justices, might lead to vex 
 and oppress the inhabitants of the' city of New York, hving in 
 the compact parts thereof, as the plaintiff must of necessity exer- 
 ■cise the right of electing the court, and the defendants may thus 
 be-compelled to pass several of the other tribunals at their doors, 
 and to attend at places inconvenient and remote with their wit- 
 nesses; an inconvenience which will be occasionally felt by all, 
 but in a greater degree by the inhabitants in the southern parts of 
 the said city. 
 
 Because, by the said bill, it is intended to repeal the seventeenth 
 section of the act first above mentioned, whereby the justices of 
 the present court in the said city would be deprived of a great 
 part of the compensation now allowed them for their services ; and 
 also that by the said bill, new justices are directed to be appointed 
 in the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth wards of the said 
 city, invested with equal and concurrent jurisdiction throughout 
 the said city, with the present justices' court, in all the cases men- 
 tioned in the said act ; and it is provided by the said bill that each 
 of the said justices in the said wards shall be entitled to receive fees 
 equal in amount to those which the two justices required to hold 
 the present court, would be entitled to receive for the same services, 
 whereby the compensation of the several justices, of the present, 
 court would be still further diminished and reduced below the 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 327 
 
 jompensation allowed to tHe several justices to be appointed in 
 he said wards, wlien at the same time the justices of the present 
 lourt are invested with superior powers, and an unlimited juris- 
 liction in certain cases in which the justices in the said wards 
 TOUid have no jurisdiction. 
 
 The Leg^islature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 Decome a law. 
 
 Albany, April 5, 1803. Present — Governor Clinton; Lan- 
 iing. Chancellor; Kent, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.w act for granting and securing to Philo Norton 
 ike sole right and advantage of erecting and employing, for a limited 
 ime, machines for carding wool and spinning flax and hemp within 
 •£rtain' counties within this State," was before the Council, which 
 idopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 Because it purports to. vest in Philo Norton "the sole and 
 jxclusive right and privilege of erecting, using and employing 
 nachines for carding and spinning wool and spinning flax and 
 lemp" in the. counties therein mentioned, without a particular 
 reference to the specification of the machinery described in its 
 Dreamble ; thus restraining the exertions of ingenuity and circum- 
 scribing the efforts of iadustry, objects which peculiarly merit 
 public patronage. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bOl; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 February 3, 1804, Ambrose Spencer was appointed a Justice in 
 place of Jacob Eadcliff, resigned. 
 
 Albany, April 4, 1804. Present — Governor Clinton; Lewis, 
 Dhief Justice; Kent, Livingston, Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act relative to the election of charter officers in 
 'he city of New York," was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by Justice Kent, viz.: 
 
328 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 Because the bill contains important alterations in tlie charter of 
 the said city; and it not appearing in the bill, by recital or other- 
 wise, that the same were made upon the application or with the 
 consent of the parties interested, it is to be intended that they are 
 made without such apphcation or consent; and although it be 
 granted that such an interference would be justified by some 
 strong pubUc necessity, it is not to be presumed by the Council 
 that any such necessity exists in the present case, as none 
 are recited in the bill or appear from the provisions in It; and 
 it has been considered as a settled and salutary principle in 
 our government, that in all cases where the ordinary process of 
 law affords a competent remedy, charters of incorporation con- 
 taining grants of personal and municipal privileges were not to be 
 essentially affected without the consent of the parties concerned. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 July 1st, 1804, Morgan Lewis succeeded George Clinton as 
 Governor; on the second, James Kent succeeded Lewis as Chief 
 Justice ; and on the same day Daniel D. Tompkins succeeded Kent 
 as Justice. 
 
 Albany, November 6, 1804. Present — Governor Lewig.; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; and Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act concerning libels," was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancel- 
 lor, viz.: 
 
 Because the bill, making no discrimination with respect to the 
 nature, tendency or intent of the hbel, is calculated to subject 
 men in, or candidates for, office to wanton and useless obloquy to 
 have their mental foibles or corporal infirmities exposed, dis- 
 torted and exaggerated, although such foibles or infirmities may 
 neither detract from the integrity of their moral or political 
 characters, from the rectitude of their official conduct, or ftom 
 their ability to discharge the duties of the places they fill or are 
 candidates for, beyond which the public cannot have any essential 
 
Vetoes of the Council, 829 
 
 interest that can possibly be promoted by the, publication described 
 in the bill; thus leaving the feelings of private citizens sheltered 
 by the salutary restraints of the existing laws, and abandoning 
 those of the pubho functionaries to the merciless laceration of 
 malice and revenge, and permitting factious, turbulent or^ discon- 
 tented individuals to awe and humble the spirit of of&cers disposed 
 to discharge their duty faithfully, and whose independence and 
 respectability.it is of the utmost importance to the community 
 effectually to, preserve, holding them only responsible for the 
 legitimate exercise of the powers entrusted to them for the public 
 good. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albaitt, Fdrruary 25, 1805. Present — Governor Lewis ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to enable the rector, church wardens and 
 vestrymen of St. Anrils church of the town of Brooklyn to sell their 
 parsonage house and lots of ground thereto appertaining, for the purposes 
 therein mentioned," was before the Coimcil, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the bill contains no intimation whence the disability 
 of the rector, church wardens and vestrymen therein described, 
 to sell and convey the property they are supposed to hold origi- 
 nates; thus leaving it to operate in affirmance of any estate they 
 may assume to grant or in avoidance of any legal restraints which 
 may have been imposed on an absolute alienation. 
 
 2. Because, although from the provisions of the bill it is to be 
 inferred that the said rector, church wardens and vestrymen 
 therein described are incorporated, it does not appear that appli- 
 cation has been made by them under their common seal for the 
 alteration of corporate rights which may be vested in them. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 42 
 
830 The Council of EevisioiT. 
 
 Albaitt, March 21, 1805. Present — Grovemor Lewis ; Lansing, 
 Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Spencer and Thompson, Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled "^n act for the relief of Nathaniel Shaler and others," 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, the bill not only enables Nathaniel Shaler, therein 
 named, to complete the contracts of sale which he had made prior 
 to the death of Wilham Constable, by virtue of a power of attorney 
 from him, but to proceed under the said power and sell the residue 
 of the lands therein specified and which are stated ia the bill to 
 belong to "WilUam Constable, son of the said "William Constable, 
 deceased, and who is now an infant under the age of twenty-one 
 years ; thereby absolutely disposing of the real estate of the said 
 minor, contrary to the just rights of property and the general prin- 
 ciples of law. 
 
 2. Because, if it be deemed necessary that the real estate of the 
 said minor should be sold, it ought, at least, to be done under the 
 direction and at the discretion of the Court of Chancery, so that 
 the respective interests of all parties concerned might be duly 
 
 . examined, adjusted and secured. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 30, 1805. Present — Governor Lewis ; Kent, 
 Chief Justice ; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to incorporate the trustees of the marine hos- 
 pital in the city of New York," was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Justice Spencer, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the said bill having for its object the incorporation 
 of certain persons therein named holding offices in this State, and 
 their successors in office, for the purpose of carrying into effect the 
 intentions of Robert Eichard Eandall, deceased, and who, as it 
 appears by the recitals of the said bill, by his last will and testa- 
 ment, devised and bequeathed the residium of his estate to the said 
 persons intended to be incorporated in trust to receive the rents, 
 issues and profits thereof, and to apply the same to buUdiag on 
 
^TOES OF THE COUNCIL. 331 
 
 some eligible part of the land whereon the testator resided at the 
 time of his decease, an asylum or marine hospital to be called 
 "The SaUor's Snug Harbor," and there being no provisions in the 
 said biU for continuing the description of the said hospital, pur- 
 suant to the wishes of the testator, his said will in that respect is 
 needlessly defeated. 
 
 2. Because, it appears by the recitals to the said bill that the 
 rents, issues and profits of the testator's estate were, by the said 
 will, to be appropriated for the purpose of maintaining and sup- 
 porting aged, decrepid and worn-out sailors, as soon as the said 
 trustees, or a majority of them, should judge the said proceeds 
 would support fifty of such sailors and upwards ; yet, without any 
 suggestion that the said proceeds of the testator's estate will not 
 be sufficient in a short period to effectuate the objects of his charity, 
 the third section of the said bill authorizes the said trustees to 
 apply the said proceeds for the purposes expressed in the said will 
 as soon as they shall deem it expedient so to do, although the 
 funds arising from the said estate may not be adequate to the sup- 
 port of fifty sailors; and thus the said will of the testator is 
 defeated in an essential part thereof, contrary to the received 
 axiom that he whose right it is to give, has a right to modify his 
 gift as he sees fit. If the will of the deceased is thus controlled 
 and altered by the Legislature, it must be obvious that persons 
 disposed to bestow their estates for laudable and charitable pur- 
 poses, under limitations and plans of their own devising, will be 
 prevented by the example of the present bill, should the same 
 become a law : and thereby will be destroyed incentives the most 
 powerful and operative to the extension of charity and the allevia- 
 tion of the sufferings of humanity. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, January 28, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An ad supplementary to the act entitled 'An act 
 declaring the crimes punishable with death or with imprisonment in the 
 
832 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 State Prism, and far other purposes,^ ^^ was before tlie Council, •wMch 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Spencer, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because the second section directs the punishment of certain 
 classes of convicts with death and dissection, for a mere escape 
 unattended with personal injury or violence to any individual ; 
 thus subjected an effort, prompted by the love of liberty, and 
 which furnishes no evidence of moral turpitude or incorrigible 
 depravity, to the most terrific sanction found in the criminal code 
 of this State ; applying the maximum of punishment to an offense 
 much inferior in atrocity to that for which the imprisonment was 
 originally incurred, and destroying the relative proportion between 
 crime and punishment, by blending in an indiscriminate class the 
 convict who merely attempts to elude the justice of the law, and 
 the murderer whose malignity the safety of the community may 
 require should be pronounced unworthy to live. 
 
 2. Because the fourth section does not distinguish between the 
 setting fire to a dwelling-house, by which life as well as property 
 may be endangered, and the burning an out-house only; and yet a 
 variety of circumstances unavoidably occurring may create a great 
 disparity in the crimes. 
 
 3. Because the punishment of death, authorized by the said 
 fourth section, could not fail of being unfavorable to the convic- 
 tion of real offenders, experience having evinced that when the 
 punishment is disproportioned to the offense, or extends to the 
 deprivation of life, sympathy has a powerful effect, not only on 
 
 - the minds of the triors, but also on the public at large : in this 
 point of view this provision defeats itself. 
 
 4. Because, by the fifth section of the bill, the punishment of 
 whipping is authorized for petit larcenies, a mode of punishment 
 extirpating a future sense of shame, and eminently calculated to 
 render the offenders obdurate and incorrigible, to the great hazard 
 of public peace and good order. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the CouNciii. 333 
 
 ALBAiifY, Jamiary 28, 1806. Present — ^Governor Lewis; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson and Spencer, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■^An act relative to dower in certain cases therein 
 meiiiioned," was before the Council, 'which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 1. Because it enacts that no widow, whose husband being nOw 
 alive and who was convicted and attainted by or under the act 
 therein mentioned, and which act was passed on the 22d day of 
 October, 1779, shall be endowed of any lands whereof her husband 
 was seized at the time of such conviction or at any time before. 
 This provision takes aWay a right or title which, by the law of thci 
 land, the wife acquired at the time of her marriage, and which 
 continues indefeasible unless she be divested of it by her own act 
 or consent. To take away that right by an act of the Legislature, 
 even before it be consummated by the death of the husband, is to 
 take away a legal right already attached and vested. The biU is 
 therefore a violation of the rights of property, and contrary to the 
 spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 2. Because the bill applies only to the widows of certain per- 
 sons who were objects of prosecution and punishment during our 
 Revolutionary war, and creates a new rule of property, without 
 making it impartial in its object and general in its application.- If 
 those widows are selected as peculiar objects of the biU by reason 
 of any crimes of which their husbands were convicted under the 
 act aforesaid, the bill is unjust because ' it is retrospective in its 
 nature, and creates disabihties arising from crimes after they have 
 been once tried and punished ; and it is unlawful because it is con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the tJnited States, which prohibits the 
 passing of any ex post facto law, and because it inflicts new punish- 
 ment for acts committed during the late war, contrary to the spirit 
 and letter of the treaty of peace. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
S84 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 Albany, January 28, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bOI entitled "J.w act authorizing Zilpha Smith to convey by deed 
 the title to certain lots of land," was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Spencer, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because it is reasonably to be intended, although the bill is 
 sUent as to the facts which induced legislative interposition, that 
 by reason of the descent to infants, there have arisen embarrass- 
 ments in conveying a legal title to the lands contracted to be sold 
 by Cornelius Chatfield, deceased ; notwithstanding which, there is 
 no manner of provision in relation to the consideration money for 
 which the said lands were contracted to be sold; nor does it appear 
 that the rights of the infants have in any manner been adverted 
 to, particularly as regards the omission in the bill to require secu- 
 rity to be given by the said Zilpha Smith, faithfully to execute 
 the authority vested in her. 
 
 2. Because it appears by the said bill that the contract intended 
 to be carried into effect was made between the said Cornelius Chat- 
 field, deceased, and Nahum Daniels, Nathan Smith, Eoswell BueU, 
 Benjamin Stephens and Zena Stephens ; and the said bill autho- 
 rizes the widow of the said Chatfield to execute a conveyance to 
 William and Samuel Smith, without its appearing in the bill that 
 they have acquired a right to exact a performance of the contract. 
 
 3. Because, in all cases where there is a remedy in a Court of 
 Equity to compel the specific performance of a contract, legisla- 
 tive aid ought not to be interposed, but under very special and 
 peculiar circumstances, clearly stated in the bill, and then only it 
 ought to be afforded under the direction and with the approbation 
 of that court, possessing the jurisdiction to afford relief, to the end 
 that the rights of individuals may not be affected by special acts, 
 of the passage of which they may have had no notice, nor be 
 competent to oppose. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 335 
 
 Albany, January 28, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of Mary Eeynolds, adminis- 
 tratrix of Andrew Beyrwlds, deceased" was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice Spencer, viz.: 
 
 1. Because it is manifest from the provision, in the bni, that 
 Mary Eeynolds, who is thereby authorized to convey the land 
 therein mentioned, is not seized thereof, but that the same hath 
 been devised or descended to other persons, who, for anything 
 appearing in the said bill, may be of legal capacity to execute the 
 conveyance therefor. If the heirs or devisees are not in law com- 
 petent thereto, then there is a want of provision in protecting and 
 guarding the rights of persons laboring under disabilities, particu- 
 larly as regards the omission in the bill to require security to be 
 given by the said Mary Eeynolds, to execute the authority vested 
 ia her faithfully, and to account for the moneys to be received by 
 her. 
 
 2. Because, in all cases where there is a remedy in a Court of 
 Equity to compel the specific performance of a contract, legisla- 
 tive interposition ought to be had only under very special and 
 peculiar circumstances, clearly stated, and then only under the 
 direction of that court, originally possessed of jurisdiction, to the 
 end that the rights of third persons may not be impaired, 'as it 
 appears by the present bill they might. 
 
 ' 3. Because, by the third section of the said bill, provision is 
 made for the payment of a debt due to "WiUiam Cockburn, there- 
 by giving him a preference to other creditors, which it does not 
 appear he legally possesses. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, January 28, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis ; Lansing, 
 Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for incorporating the Newburgh Aqueduct 
 Association, and for other purposes," was before the Council, which 
 
336 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chief Justice, 
 viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the foui:th section of the bill, the corporation 
 are authorized to enter upon any lands they may deem necessary, 
 and to appropriate the same, together with any fountain or stream 
 of water, and the mills thereon, and to raise such dykes and reser- 
 voirs as they shall deem fit for the purpose of procuring and con- 
 ducting water to the said village of ISTewburgh ; and to agree with 
 the owners of such lands and mills respecting a compensation for 
 the same; and in case of disagreement, another mode of ascertain- 
 ing the said damages is pointed out; and upon tender of payment, 
 the said corporation are to be deemed seized of all such lands, 
 streams and mills, which they shall have taken possession of for 
 the purposes aforesaid. The power hereby conveyed is unlimited, 
 and the object of the bill does not appear to be of such great 
 pubhc utihty as to render the grant of it expedient. To deprive 
 individuals, without their consent, not only of their lands, but of 
 the buildings and other valuable improvements thereon, can be 
 justified only on the principle of some important public object. 
 
 2. Because, admitting the object to be attained would justify 
 the grant of the power, the provision in the fourth section for 
 ascertaining the damages is nugatory and incapable of execution, 
 and consequently would defeat the object of the bill. It states 
 that if the parties cannot agree upon the amount of the damages, 
 or in case the owner be a, feme covert, under age, non compos, or out 
 of the State, then each party is to choose a disinterested person 
 for the purpose, and a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, to be 
 selected by the parties, is to choose the third arbitrator. This 
 provision need only be stated to show it incapable of execution, 
 and there is no other provision in the bill by which it can be 
 supplied. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Cottn-cil. 337 
 
 Albany, April 2, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by Justice Spencer, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the second section of the said bill, the punish- 
 ment of death is authorized for an assault with an intent to mur- 
 der, with an intent to escape, upon either of the inspectors, the 
 agent, the principal or deputy keeper, or any person permitted to 
 visit the State prison, committed by any person who now is or 
 shall be convicted of any crime, for which he has been or shall be 
 sentenced to imprisonment, at hard labor, for life, in the State 
 prison; and thus for the mere intention to commit a crime, a pun- 
 ishment of the most terrific kind is to be inflicted, when by the 
 seventh section of the act entitled "An act relative to the State 
 prison," full power is given to the principal keeper and any two 
 of the inspectors, to punish all convicts for assaults, by confine- 
 ment in the solitary cells of the said prison on bread and water, 
 only for such term as they shall judge proper and necessary; a 
 species of punishment suf&ciently severe and well adapted to 
 break down the spirit of the most refractory. 
 
 2. Because the great object in instituting the State prison at an 
 enormous expense, was to ameliorate our criminal code by justly 
 apportioning punishment to offenses, that by rendering them less 
 sanguinary, convictions might inevitably ensue on crimhiality; 
 this object wUl be wholly defeated, if the second section of the 
 bill pass into a law, and our code wiU lose the mildness of its 
 character and become more sanguinary than the old system itself. 
 
 3. Because, since the establishment of a guard, maintained at 
 the public expense, the iaducement to commit assaults on the 
 keepers for the purpose of escaping, have been ia a great measure 
 taken away, and there exists no public necessity to give this 
 sanguinary feature to our criminal laws. 
 
 4. Because the third section of the bill punishes the same 
 offense, when committed by persons imprisoned for a term of 
 years, in a far different manner, and creates a distinction in 
 punishment, with reference only to the person of the offender; 
 
 43 
 
838 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 a discrimination in many cases wholly unfounded, for in point 
 of moral turpitude, tlie forging an order for the payment of 
 money is not greater than a larceny to the same amount, and 
 although the punishment for these offenses is different, it is 
 not on account of greater depravity but as respects the effects on 
 society. 
 
 5. Because, by the fourth section of the bill, death is to be 
 inflicted for the willful and malicious burning of a barn or a 
 grist-mill; and thus for the mere destruction of property, with- 
 out any hazard to the lives of individuals, the principle hereto- 
 fore exploded is revived, and a precedent is established which 
 would warrant the infliction of death for any deprivation of pro- 
 perty. 
 
 6. Because, by the sixth section of the bill, the punishment of 
 whipping is authorized ; a punishment eminently calculated to 
 eradicate all future sense of shame, and to render its object wholly 
 incorrigible. 
 
 The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 A-LBAJSTY, April 4, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An ad. to amend an act entitled ''An act appoint- 
 ing commissioners for the inspection of turnpike roadsj " was before 
 the Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 Because the second section of the bill authorizes the said com- 
 missioners, or a majority of them, to order any toll gate on any 
 turnpike road within their county, which they shall judge out of 
 repair, to be opened ; and it prescribes an effectual penalty for a 
 neglect or refusal to obey such order. The bill affords no guide 
 or limitation to the judgment of the commissioners, nor any oppor- 
 tunity to the proprietors of the turnpike road to be heard ; nor is 
 any mode of appeal presented. The order of the commissioners 
 is to be peremptory in the first instance, and requires instantaneous 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 839 
 
 obedience. The bill, therefore, vests in these commissioners an 
 arbitrary power over the interest and property of individtials, 
 which is unknown to the Constitution, and if carried iato effect, 
 Would become in a high degree injurious and alarming; for the 
 rights vested in the stockholders of a turnpike company, incorpo- 
 rated by law, are as sacred and as much entitled to protection as 
 any other private rights, and the stockholders cannot constitution- 
 ally be deprived of them by the mere allegation of a forfeiture, 
 without a trial and conviction of such forfeiture in the ordinary 
 course of justice. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bUl 
 into a law. 
 
 Albany, April 4, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bni entitled "An act to amend an act entitled ''An act to regulate 
 highways, in relation to certain towns in the county of Westchester,^" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the bill is unequal and partial, for it requires non- 
 resident proprietors of lands in certain towns in the county of 
 "Westchester, to work on the highways in those towns, when the 
 same duty is not required of non-resident proprietors ia any 
 other part of the State adjoining a neighboring State. 
 
 2. Because the bUl makes it lawful to assess aU persons who 
 possess lands in the said towns, and who reside in the State of 
 Connecticut, to work on the highways in the said towns; and it 
 makes it the duty of the overseers of highways ia the said towns to 
 warn all such persons to appear and work, and in case of neglect 
 or refusal on the part of such persons, they are made liable to the 
 usual fines and penalties for such default. The bUl is, therefore, 
 either nugatory and calculated to defeat itself, or it makes it the 
 duty of the overseers to enter into the State of Connecticut to give 
 such warning, for the warning required by law is a personal no- 
 tice, or one left at the dwelling-house of the party, and to authorize 
 
840 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 such entry is unlawful, and an evasion of tlie jurisdiction of Con- 
 necticut. 
 
 3. Because the bill provides that the fines and penalties incurred 
 by such persons for default of appearing and working, shall be 
 recovered in the same manner as is directed by the act entitled 
 "An act to regulate highways," and that act provides that the pen- 
 alties shall be levied by distress and sale of all the goods and chat- 
 tels of the party, under a warrant directed to the constable of the 
 town where the delinquent resides. The bill is therefore incapable 
 of execution. 
 
 4. Because the duty of working on the highways is a personal 
 service, and is not made a lien or charge upon land, and to exact 
 any service or levy any assessment upon persons not resident 
 within this State, otherwise than by making the same a hen upon 
 the land, is an assumption of jiirisdiction which cannot and ought 
 not to be exercised. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 4, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to amend an act entitled, 'An act for the 
 more speedy recovery of debts to the value of twenty-five dollars, and for 
 other purposes,^ " was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by Justice Thompson, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the first section of the bill, without any other 
 evidence than the oath of the party plaintiff, that the defendant 
 has departed or is about to depart from any city or county (New 
 York excepted) or is secreted within the same with intent to de- 
 fraud any of his creditors, or to avoid being served with the ordi- 
 nary process of law, justices of the peace are authorized to issue 
 an attachment against the goods and chattels of such defendant, 
 thereby authorizing and requiring the constable, to whom it shall 
 be directed, to take into his custody the goods and chattels, to 
 answer the judgment and costs, if any shall be obtained, unless 
 security be given for the delivery of the same, at the time of issu- 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 341 
 
 ing execution on such judgment. The powers hereby vested in a 
 creditor are too dangerous and unguarded, and may be converted 
 to the purposes of vexation and oppression, he being authorized 
 to attach the goods and chattels of his debtor to an indefinite 
 amount, to answer the most trifling and inconsiderable demand. 
 
 2. Because the surety required of the defendant, in order to 
 retain the possession of his goods and chattels after service of the 
 attachment, is in the nature of bail, and by the operation of the 
 said first section of the bill, security to an unlimited amount may 
 be required for the least possible demand, which would virtually 
 be an infringement of the eighth article contained ia the statute 
 concerning the rights of the citizens of this State, which declares 
 that excessive baU ought not to be required. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albajstt, AprU 4, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ^^An act granting to John It. HaUenbake, and such 
 other persons as with him shall associate, the privileges of laying out 
 and constructing a free road" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Justice Thompson, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the general statute of the State, entitled "An act 
 to regulate highways," full and ample provision is made for laying 
 out all necessary public or private roads in' ordinary cases, and 
 public policy requires that all laws relating to the same subject, 
 and the mode of obtaining redress, should be as general and uni- 
 form as the nature of cases will admit. It is therefore inconsistent 
 with the public good, and forming a precedent that may be dan- 
 gerous in its consequences, to legislate on individual cases, where 
 the existing law is fully adequate for rehef, if any ought to be 
 afforded. 
 
 2. Because, by the first section of the bill, power is given to the 
 persons to be appointed to lay out the road, to lay out the same 
 in such place as they shall judge best and most convenient, with- 
 out acting under the solemnity of an oath, or being under the 
 
342 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 salutary restriction contained in the general law regulating tigli- 
 ways, -yvliicli proMbits any road from being laid out througli gar- 
 dens and orcbards witbout tbe consent of tbe owner ; tbereby 
 giving to tbe persons so to be appointed unusual and extraor- 
 dinary powers, witbout any reason wbatever appearing for tbe 
 same. 
 
 3. Because, by tbe second section of tbe bill, tbe persons to be 
 appointed to lay out tbe road are to assess tbe value of tbe lands 
 and damages of tbe respective owners and occupants tbrougb 
 wbicb tbe same sball be laid, witbout acting under tbe obligation 
 of an oath. 
 
 4. Because, by tbe tbird section of tbe bUl, tbe road to be laid 
 out is to be considered and used as a pubbc bigbway, witbout any 
 necessity of tbe same appearing ; wbereas, by tbe general law, no 
 road can be laid out tbrougb improved lands witbout tbe applica- 
 tion of twelve reputable freebolders of tbe town in wbicb sucb 
 road sball be laid out, certifying upon oatb tbat sucb road is neces- 
 sary and proper; wbicb is a wise and prudent precaution against 
 tbe laying out unnecessary roads. 
 
 Tbe Senate refused to pass tbe bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, January 27, 1807. Present — Governor Lewis ; Lan- 
 sing, Cbancellor; Kent, Chief Justice ; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An aet relative to 
 unappropriated and forfeited lands, and for other purposes,'' " was before 
 tbe Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the iifth section of the bill, the Attorney-General is 
 authorized in all cases of mortgage given to the people of this 
 State, or to any other person, and the interest therein hath become 
 vested iu the State by assignment, attainder or otherwise, to fore- 
 close the equity of redemption in the same, by tbe simple process 
 of advertising the lands for sale for six months in one of the pubbc 
 newspapers printed in this State, and on tbe outward door of the 
 court-house of the county where the premises lie,, and that every 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 343 
 
 sale ia pursuance of such notice is to be a bar to all claims on tbe 
 part of the mortgagor or his representatives. A knowledge of this 
 proceeding may or may not reach the party residing on or claiming 
 the lands mortgaged, and there is no mode pointed out in the bill ia 
 which the proceedings may be arrested and the truth of any vahd 
 matter in bar tried ; and unless the defendant resorts to the aid of 
 the Court of Chancery, he is placed entirely imder the discretion 
 of the Attorney-General. There are but few instances in which 
 the law has authorized this mode of foreclosure by the act of the 
 party, and these are special cases and founded on peculiar reasons-; 
 whereas the provision in the present biU is general and appUcable 
 to all cases in which the State is interested. It is therefore a dan- 
 gerous mode of proceediag, and although it may suit the conve- 
 nience of the public officer it deprives the parly in interest of that 
 wise and excellent security of the common law, by which no per- 
 son is to have his property taken from him until, by a personal 
 notice or arrest, he has been called to meet his adversary in a court 
 of justice. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bUl ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albajts", January 27, 1807. Present — Governor Lewis; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled ^'An act relative to the punishment of certain crimes," 
 was before the CouncU, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by Justice Spencer, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, by the second section of the biQ, the infliction of the 
 punishment of whipping is authorized, which, instead of operating 
 as a corrective, is calculated to degrade offenders and by destroy- 
 iag their sense of shame, rendering them iacorrigible. 
 
 2. Because the power of adjudging an offender to be whipped, 
 is by the bUl vested in a special sessions which proceed without 
 the intervention of a jury, and from that circumstance, as weU as 
 from the organization of those courts, is particularly exposed to be 
 abused, and wrested to oppressive purposes. 
 
844 The Coottcil of Eevision. 
 
 3. Because the fourtL. section of the said bill does not distinguish 
 between the setting fire to a dwelling-house, by which life as well 
 as property may be endangered, and the burning an out-house; 
 and yet a variety of circumstances unavoidably occurring may 
 create a great disparity in the crimes ; and thus death, the most 
 terrific sanction in the criminal code, may be legally inflicted for 
 offenses not jeopardizing or affecting the life of individuals, where- 
 by the relative proportion between crimes and punishments will 
 be destroyed. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 AlbjUst, April 8, 1807. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act relative to Columbia College in the city of 
 New York," was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 The Council object to the said bill, as inconsistent with the spirit 
 of the Constitution and the public good. 
 
 Because, by the sixth section of the bill, it is provided that in 
 case of the vacancy of the seat of any of the trustees of the said 
 college, it shall be the duty of the trustees to state such vacancy 
 to the regents of the university, and that it shall be the duty of 
 the regents to appoint a proper person to supply the same. This 
 provision is contrary to a privilege and immunity granted to the 
 said college by its charter of the 31st of October, 1754, which 
 authorizes the trustees to fill up such vacancies whenever the same 
 should occur; and it appears by the representations of the trustees, 
 referred to in the preamble to the said bill, that the said alteration 
 is made without the consent of the corporation. 
 
 The right in question has received the repeated and explicit 
 sanction of government, and it has thereby acquired all the secu- 
 rity which any grant or chartered right can receive under the Con- 
 stitution and law of the land. The charter declares that all and 
 singular the privileges and immunities thereby granted shall be 
 held and enjoyed by the governors or trustees of the said college 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 845 
 
 and tlieir successors forever. This charter, as well as all other 
 charters and grants made prior to the 14th of October, 1775, was 
 by the thirty-sixth article of the Constitution of this State, saved 
 from forfeiture by reason of the Eevolution; and by the eighth and 
 ninth sections of the act of the 13th of April, 1787, entitled "An 
 act to institute an university within this State, and for other pur- 
 poses therein mentioned," the charter of the said college is fully 
 and absolutely ratified and confirmed, and it is in a particular man- 
 ner declared that all vacancies in the said board of trustees shall 
 be supplied in the manner directed by the charter. 
 
 It is a sound principle in free govemmentB, and one which has 
 received frequent confirmation by the acts of the Legislature, that 
 charters of incorporation, whether granted for private or local, or 
 charitable, or literary or religious purposes, were not to be affected 
 without due process of law, or withciut the consent of the parties 
 concerned. And although it were to be admitted that legislative 
 interference would be justified by some strong public necessity, to 
 which all chartered privileges may be deemed subservient, no such 
 necessity is presumed to exist in the present case. The vacancies 
 among the trustees of Columbia College have hitherto been sup- 
 plied in the mode pointed out by the charter, by a succession of 
 virtuous and learned men under whose care, as it would appear 
 from the annual reports of the regents, the interests of the college 
 have been discreetly managed, and the cause of learning success- 
 fully promoted. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 6, 1807. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to restrain insurance of lottery tickets, and 
 far other purposes,^'' was before the Council, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to the said bill, as inconsistent with the 
 spirit of the Constitution, and the public good. 
 44 
 
346 The Council of Ebvision. 
 
 Because the last section of the bill declares it to be imlawM for 
 any company not incorporated by the laws of this State, or of the 
 United States, or any private individual not residing within this 
 State, to set up and keep within this State, by their agent, or 
 otherwise, any office to insure houses or goods against fire, or 
 vessels or merchandise against maritime losses, and that every 
 such insurance shall be void, and every person receiving any pre- 
 mium therefor shaU forfeit double the amount thereof 
 
 1. This provision is inconsistent with the second section of the 
 fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, which 
 declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." This 
 intercommunity of privilege secured to the citizens of the several 
 States applies to their personal rights and immunities, and among 
 others, to the free right to exercise trade and commerce. 
 
 It goes to interdict aU commercial exclusions and discrimina- 
 tions as between the inhabitants of different States. But the bill 
 in question creates a new and injurious distinction. It denies to 
 the citizens of other States a right allowed to the citizens of this 
 State, of maMng a contract of insurance by an agent. An inhabi- 
 tant of Albany may, by his agent, keep an insurance office in 
 ISTew York; but, if the biU passes, an inhabitant of New Jersey 
 may not. This is an unconstitutional discrimination in a matter 
 of personal privilege, and it is an unprecedented prohibition. If 
 the bUl had prohibited all insurance by private individuals ot 
 companies, by means of agents, whether the individuals or com- 
 panies did or did not reside withia this State, then there would 
 have been an equality between the civil immunities of the citizens 
 of this and the other States, and the present objection would not 
 have applied. 
 
 But as the bill is now to operate, the prohibition might, upon 
 the same principle and with equal right, be extended to interdict 
 a non-resident merchant or manufacturer from keeping an agent 
 or warehouse in New York for the sale of his goods or produc- 
 tions. 
 
 2. The bUl is repugnant to the general good. A contract of 
 insurance, when founded on a substantial interest, and not per- 
 verted to gambling purposes, is one of the most useful species of 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 347 
 
 contracts which arise in the whole course of commercial transac- 
 tions. It ought to be left freely to be made, and not placed under 
 the restrictions of a monopoly. If a company or an individual in 
 another State will insure upon more reasonable terms, or possesses 
 a sounder credit, or a more prompt disposition to adjust losses 
 than any with us, why should a citizen of this State be denied the 
 privilege of obtaining such insurance? And if his privilege to 
 do so is admitted to be entire and perfect, why should a legal 
 embarrassment be thrown in his way by prohibiting such insur- 
 ances through the means of an agent here? It is a plain and most 
 convenient rule of law, that all contracts are equally valid when 
 made by an authorized agent as when made by his principal; and 
 this rule ought not to be set aside, without some important object 
 which is cogent in its reason and general in its application. 
 The only apparent tendency of the provision in the bill is to 
 render it very inconvenient to effect insurances except with in- 
 surers who reside in New York; and why should this inconve- 
 nience be created? It is indirectly compelling the public to deal 
 with the New York insurance companies, and with none other. 
 This may advance the interests of the stockholders ia those com- 
 panies, but by diminishing the compptition, and thereby raising 
 the premiums for insurance, it wUl operate as a tax upon the com- 
 munity at large. It is a maxim which applies to every kind of 
 business, that the public is generally best served when the door is 
 left open to every one equally to advance his claims for employ- 
 ment. Sound policy would seem, therefore, to dictate that a free 
 and unfettered competition be left between our underwriters and 
 those abroad, as our citizens would then be enabled to cover their 
 property from loss by resorting to those persons who, in their 
 judgment, would do it with the lowest premium and upon the 
 best security. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biU ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 On the 9th of June, 1807, "William W. Van Ness was appointed 
 a Justice m place of Brockholst Livingston, resigned ; and on the 
 1st of July following, Daniel D. Tompkins succeeded Morgan 
 Lewis as Governor. 
 
348 The Council of Eetision-. 
 
 Albany, January 26, 1808. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned," 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by th.6 Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the sixth section of the bill, certain offenses 
 committed without the limits of this State, by a citizen thereof, 
 are made cognizable in the courts of this State, equally as if they 
 had been committed within one of its counties. This may, per- 
 haps, subject the party offending to a double punishment for the 
 same offense, for if he should commit one of the offenses enumer- 
 ated in the preceding section, in any other State in the Union, 
 against the bank paper of such State, he would, of course, be 
 liable to punishment in such State, and no sufficient reason 
 appears, founded either in justice or sound policy, why the courts 
 of this State should take cognizance of such offenses. Every 
 community is to be deemed competent to preserve itself and to 
 exact obedience to its laws. The provision in question is in this 
 view a novel one, and contrary to the fundamental maxims of 
 civil government. It is very questionable, also, whether, an act 
 done without this State, and within the jurisdiction of another 
 government, although such act relate to the bank paper of this 
 State, ought to be made cognizable here, because it is an obvious 
 and acknowledged principle in legislation that laws have no 
 operation beyond the jurisdiction of the government which 
 enacts them, and it would seem to be a solecism in jurisprudence 
 to hold a law broken by an act done beyond the limits of its ope- 
 ration. 
 
 2. Because, by the ninth section of the bill, the courts of gen- 
 eral sessions of the peace are authorized to punish, by whipping, 
 persons convicted of petit larceny. This punishment is calculated 
 not to reform but to harden offenders, becaxise it covers them with 
 indelible disgrace. Its example is injurious to the spectators, 
 because the punishment naturally excites disgust in some, and 
 hardens sensibility in others. It is pernicious as a precedent, 
 because it is an important innovation upon the principles of the 
 new criminal code, estabhshed within the last twelve years, and 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 349 
 
 recalls tlie vestiges of the former system, whicliit was then deemed 
 an effort of humanity to obliterate. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 February 5, 1808, the two Houses and Council directed that the 
 respective messages be transmitted by the Clerks of the Houses 
 and the Secretary of the Council, instead of the members, of the 
 above bodies as heretofore. 
 
 On the eighth of February, Joseph C. Yates was appointed a 
 Justice in place of Daniel D. Tompldns, elected Governor. 
 
 Albany, Nmember 1, 1808. Present — Governor TompMns; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Spencer, Thompson and "Van Ness, Justices. 
 
 A biQ entitled '■'■An act supplementary to the act entitled 'An act 
 to grant to Terence Donnelly and others the exclusive right of running 
 stage wagons cm the west side of Hudson river, between the city of 
 Albany and the ncyrthem boundary line of the State of New Jersey,^ 
 passed the 26th day of February, 1803," was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancel- 
 lor, viz.: 
 
 Because the provision to make by-laws by a majority of the 
 proprietors named ia the act to which this bill is intended to be 
 supplementary, does not appear to have been prayed for by all the 
 proprietors, and the right of the majority to control will operate 
 as an invasion of the interests of the minority by depriving them 
 of the legal power of giving or withholding their consent to any 
 measures affectiag such interests. 
 
 Because the biU is unprovisionary as to the manner ia which 
 representatives of the original proprietors are to be admitted to 
 vote in cases of the subdivision of their shares. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bUl; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
850 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, November 1, 1808. Present — Grovemor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Spencer, Tliompson and Van Ness, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.w act to enable the directors and company of the 
 Canajoharie and Palatine Bridge to rebuild the same^'' "was before tlie 
 Council, wbicb. adopted the following objections, reported by Jus- 
 tice Yates, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the first section, it is enacted that such stockholder 
 as shall" not pay on each share, the first requisition of the addi- 
 tional sum of $15, on or before the time limited for the payment 
 thereof, is not only deemed to have waived his or her right of in- 
 creasing the sum payable on each share, as to the shares on which 
 such payments shall not be made, but the president and directors 
 are authorized to cause such shares so waived to be sold at pubhc 
 vendue, in manner therein described, and to pay the proceeds 
 arising from such sale to the person or persons who were the 
 owners of such shares, in proportion to the number of shares such 
 person may have had, after deducting the costs of advertising and 
 sale thereof; whereby the existing right of such stockholder under 
 the act entitled "An act to authorize the building of a toll bridge 
 over the Mohawk river," passed 31st of March, 1801, would be 
 materially impaired if not vixtuaUy extinguished, without the 
 assent of the stockholders. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albaisty, i^eSroary 24, 1809. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Van ISTess and Yates, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.w act for laying out Ganal street in the city of Nem 
 Yorh, and fen- amending the acts relating to streets and roads therein 
 mentioned,^^ was before the Council, which- adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the seventh section of the said bill, it is provided 
 that the commissioners therein described shall be authorized to 
 enter upon and appropriate such lands as may be necessary.for 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 851 
 
 the purposes of llie said act, be&re tender or refiisal of the damages 
 awarded or assessed therefor, and that if such damages are not 
 paid within three years from the passing the said act, an action 
 may be sustained by the owner of such land for the recovery 
 thereof from the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of 
 New York ; and by the twentieth section of the said bill, it is pro- 
 vided that it shall not be necessary to make payment or tender of 
 any sum awarded for ground taken for streets, but that the owner 
 of such ground may, in case the sum so awarded shall not be paid 
 within one year after finding verdict, ascertaining the same, recover 
 in like manner in an action of debt ; thus appropriating private 
 property to public uses, deferring a recompense therefor to a 
 remote day and putting the owner to his action for its recovery, 
 and thus sanctioning the dangerous doctrine that the lands of the 
 citizens of this State may be taken from them for ordinary public 
 exigencies without an immediate compensation, leaving the time 
 of making it to be varied at discretion and to be pursued in a 
 course of litigation which may involve great injury or even the 
 ruin of the persons affected by it. 
 
 Because, by the thirteenth section of the said bill, it is enacted 
 " that whenever any of ithe proprietors of any such lands, tene- 
 ments, hereditaments and premises shall be infants, non compos 
 mentis, or absent from the city of New York, the said mayor, alder- 
 men and commonalty may pay the sums mentioned in such report 
 that would be coming to such proprietors, respectively, into the 
 Supreme Court, to be received, disposed of and improved as the 
 said court shall direct, and such payment shall be equally valid 
 and effectual as if made to the proprietors themselves, if they had 
 been present, of fiill age and compos Tnentis;^' which provision is 
 incompatible with the organization of the said court and its modes 
 of conducting business according to the course of the common law, 
 and because the duty thereby attempted to be imposed on the 
 judges of that court, of securing, disposing, and improving such 
 money, is not in the remotest degree connected with the exercise 
 of their judicial functions. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
852 The Council of Eeyision". 
 
 .AiBANT, Fdmmry 24, 1809. Present — Governor Tompkins ; 
 Lansing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Van Ness and Yates, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An ad to enable the trustees of the Beforrrted DutKh 
 Church of the township of New Utrecht in Kings amnty to sell the par- 
 cel of land therein mentiorwd^'' was before the Council, which adopted 
 tlie following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because the third section of the act entitled "An act to amend 
 the act entitled 'An act to provide for the incorporation of religious 
 societies,'" passed March 14th, 1806, authorizes the Chancellor, 
 upon the application of any religious corporation, to make an order 
 for the sale of any real estate belonging to such corporation, and 
 to direct the application of the moneys arising therefrom by such 
 corporation ; and because the Chancellor can, in a summary mode, 
 with little expense or trouble to the applicants, institute an inquiry 
 into the title by which the same is derived to such corporation, 
 and whether the same is affected by any condition or limitation 
 detracting from a general right of disposition, and which, if exist- 
 ing in this case, from the terms of the bill, appears not to have been 
 an object of attention. 
 
 The Legislature refased to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 14, 1809. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ''An act to equalize the four great districts of this 
 State" was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 The bill is to be considered either as a new apportionment of 
 the Senators, or as a new division of the districts, and in either 
 view it appears to the Council to be inconsistent with the spirit of 
 the Constitution and the public good. 
 
 1. By the fourth article of the amendments to the Constitution 
 it is provided that upon the return of every census the Legislature 
 
Vetoes of the ComsrciL. 353 
 
 shall apportion the Senators and members of Assembly; and the 
 Legislature did accordingly, on the first day of April last, by the 
 act entitled "An act apportioniag the representation in the Legis- 
 lature according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution," make 
 such apportionment ia pursuance of the census taken in 1807. 
 The apportionment having thus been made, the provision in the 
 Constitution is complied with, and it ceases to operate untU the 
 taking of another census. The same article says also, in the like 
 words, that upon the return of every census the number of the 
 Assembly shall be increased, and yet it must be obvious that the 
 increase cannot be admitted at any other time than upon the return 
 of the census. The fourth article says nothing about the division 
 of districts. It does not say that the districts shall be apportioned 
 to the Senators, but that the Senators shall be apportioned 
 among the great districts, and the true construction of "it is, that 
 upon the return of the census, the Senators may be apportioned 
 among the districts as they stand, and not that the districts are 
 necessarily to be disturbed and altered upon every such census. 
 And it is extremely important, both as it respects the security of 
 the Constitution and the just rights of the electors which are con- 
 cerned in these apportionments, that when an apportionment is 
 once made it should be steadily adhered to until the return of 
 another census. There is no rule for making another apportion- 
 ment by the census of 1807, and that becomes an uncertain guide 
 for a second apportionment, because the population of the districts 
 has varied in the meantime and that variation increases every year. 
 If a second apportionment may be made now, it may equally be 
 made in any future session and even in the year preceding the 
 taking of another census, and thus all accuracy in the rule of 
 apportionment would be lost and the constitutional objects of the 
 census defeated. That the present biU does in reality make an 
 entire new apportionment' of the Senate appears from the second 
 and third sections of the bill which contain the provisions for that 
 purpose. Every general division of the districts necessarily 
 involves in it a new apportionment of the Senators. The one 
 object cannot well be obtained without producing the other, and 
 consequently public convenience would seem to require that every 
 general alteration of the districts, whenever the same shall become 
 45 
 
354 The Council of Revision. 
 
 necessary, should be made at the same time with the general appor- 
 tionment of the representation. 
 
 2. But if the bill could be considered (as its title purports) only 
 as a new division of the districts according to the power vested in 
 the Legislature by the twelfth article of the Constitution, it appears 
 to be equally objectionable. That power was given expressly 
 "for the convenience and advantage of the good people of this 
 State;" and whenever such alterations are made, public conve- 
 nience requires that they should not take effect until some future 
 and distant day, so as to give the people sufficient opportunity to 
 acquire that general information, within their new districts which 
 may be requisite to a judicious choice pf their rulers. The present 
 bill is to take effect at the ensuing election. This is evidently too 
 short a period, and the bill may operate as a surprise upon the 
 electors, especially in the eastern district, which by the bill is made 
 to comprehend very distant counties which from their local situa- 
 tion have hitherto had very little commerce or intercourse with 
 each other. To break up and new model all the great districts 
 within six or seven weeks of the senatorial election cannot, in the 
 opinion of the Council, conduce to the public good or the conve- 
 nience or advantage of the people. The act of the 4th of March, 
 1796, presents a valuable precedent upon this subject. It made 
 alterations in the districts far less material than those contained 
 in the present bill, but it provided that the alterations should not 
 go into operation until the ensuing year. 
 
 There are other and very inconvenient consequences to which 
 the principle of this bill might lead, and there are abuses to which 
 such a precedent might hereafter be perverted, but the Council 
 deem it unnecessary to trace them. The public good seems to 
 dictate that the great districts should not be new modeled very 
 frequently; that when alterations become necessary, they should, 
 to every practicable extent, preserve thd original district character 
 of the Senators elect ; and that they should not go into operation 
 very promptly, least they might affect the suffrages of the free- 
 holders, by distracting their choice or confounding their efforts to 
 unite in upright and intelligent candidates. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 355 
 
 Albajsty, January 30, 1810. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spen- 
 cer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "^w act to establish surveys in the city of Netv York, 
 and to grant additional powers to the mayor, aldermen and commonalty 
 of the said city, in relaiion thereto,^'' was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the third section, the surveyors, when called upon, 
 are to lay out and apportion any lot within any square in such 
 manner as may, in their opinion, most hkely procure equal justice 
 between the parties concerned, and the maps, evidences and vouch- 
 ers which influenced their decision are to be recorded, and future 
 surveys to be governed by such returns. This- new mode of pro- 
 ceeding does, in an indirect way, compel the proprietors of lots to 
 exhibit their titles to persons not acting judicially, or to submit to 
 have inferences made to their prejudice from evidence consisting of 
 an undistinguished mass of affidavits, maps, vouchers, field-books 
 and memoranda, collected without legal discernment or judicial 
 authority. This may be productive of discord and litigation, even as 
 to freehold estates long since defined; for the whole of the compact 
 part of the city lying southward of the liae described ia the bill 
 is subject to the provisions thereof, and the fourth section of the 
 bill declares that every survey, plan, map and field-book, made in 
 conformity with the provisions in the bill, shall be considered as 
 matters of record, and shall be final and conclusive as well ia 
 respect to the corporation of the said city as in respect to all other 
 persons. This whole provision is either rendered nugatory by the 
 fifth section of the bill, or it will have an influence injurious to 
 the rights of private property, as established and secured accord- 
 ing to the course of the common law; and in either alternative the 
 bill appears to be inconsistent with the public good. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
356 The Council of Seyisiok. 
 
 Albant, January 30, 1810. Present— Governor Tompkms; 
 Lansing, Cliancellor; Kent, CMef Justice; Thompson and Spen- 
 cer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "JLw act far the. relief of William K Devoe," was 
 before tbe Council, wMch adopted tlie following objections, re- 
 ported by Justice Thompson, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the first section of the biU, the said William H. 
 Devoe is authorized to continue the mill-dam erected and now 
 occupied, in the town of Duanesburgh, in the county of Schenec- 
 tady, notwithstanding, by reason thereof, the lands of other persons 
 may be overflowed, and the owners of such lands are compelled 
 to part with the same against their will, at the valuation of apprai- 
 sers appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of the county of 
 Schenectady, by means whereof the property of one individual 
 is taken without his consent, and appropriated to private use, 
 without any public object appearing to require or warrant such 
 legislative interposition. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, Janvmy 30, 1810. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spen- 
 cer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ' ' J.n act to establish and confirm the original surveys of 
 the lots in the Military TractJ'' was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by Chief Justice Kent, viz.: 
 
 Because it prescribes a particular rule of evidence of title to 
 lots in the Mihtary Tract, whereas, by the established laws of the 
 land, the title to lots in that tract is founded on the patents respec- 
 tively issued, and on the evidence of location and construction 
 which those patents furnish. Original surveys are now, by the 
 settled rules of law, evidence of the bounds of lots, but like other 
 matters of evidence, they may be controverted by better proof of 
 the intention of the parties and of the truth of the case. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 857 
 
 Albany, January 30, 1810. Present — Grovemor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spen- 
 cer, Justices. 
 
 A hill entitled "An act granting relief in certain cases to the inhabi- 
 tants of the city of New York, and to the inhaUtants of the town of 
 Brooklyn, in Kings county" was before the Council, which adopted 
 the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 Because, if the conveyance across the East river of the goods, 
 wares and merchandise described in the bill, is not interfered with 
 by private rights, its provisions are useless; and if any such rights 
 are claimed, or exist, they are appropriately and exclusively of 
 judicial cognizance. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, January 30, 1810. Present — Governor TompMns; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spen- 
 cer, Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled " An act for the relief of Nicholas Sardmburgh, 
 Thomas 0. Jansen and others, and for other purposes," was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Justice Spencer, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, by the first section of the bill, commissioners are 
 appointed to make partition of the real estate of Cornelius L Jan- 
 sen, whereof he died seized, among his four children, and the only 
 inducements to the bill appear to be, that two of the said children 
 are infants, and the lands to be divided are situated in several 
 counties of this State. The act entitled "An act for the partition 
 of lands," and the acts supplementary thereto, afford the petition- 
 ers for the present bill full and complete provision for all the 
 objects contemplated by the first section of the bill, so far as relates 
 to the partition of the said lands. To legislate in individual cases, 
 without circumstances in anywise pecuhar, and in cases already 
 provided for by general laws, appears to the Council to be against 
 sound policy as well as the pubho good. 
 
358 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 2. Because, by the said first section of the bill, it is enacted that 
 any deed or deeds of partition, hereafter to be executed by the 
 petitioners, or any of them, for the purpose of perfecting a parti- 
 tion of the said real estate, or any part thereof, according to the 
 partition to be made by the commissioners therein appointed, or 
 any two of them, shall have the same effect as if the person or 
 persons who shall execute such deed or deeds was or were of fall 
 age at the time of the execution thereof. 
 
 In obviating a disability by law for wise purposes, founded on 
 a presumed want of discretion to manage property advantage- 
 ously, there is no provision guarding the interests of the infants, 
 by referring the partition thus to be made to the investigation of 
 some known and established tribunal, to examine its fairness, 
 justice and regularity, before the infants execute the deeds of par- 
 tition. In analogous cases, there has been a reference to the Court 
 of Chancery, that court having, by the common law, the superin- 
 tendence of infants and their estates. By the present bill, the acts 
 of the commissioners, if sanctioned by the infants, are binding 
 and conclusive; and, in this respect, the act "for the partition of 
 lands" has a manifest superiority in point of justice, for by that 
 act a power is given to the Supreme Court to set aside the return 
 of the commissioners for injustice or irregularity, acting under 
 the same sanction as the commissioners are required to act by the 
 said bill. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 80, 1810. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An act for the relief of the heirs of Thomas H. 
 Taylor, deceased,^'' was before the Council, which adopted the fol- 
 lowing objections, reported by the Chief Justice, viz.: 
 
 Because there are no reasons appearing in the bill why trustees 
 should be appointed to sell the real estate of the infant heirs of 
 Thomas H. Taylor, deceased, any more than the real esiate of any. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 859 
 
 other infants. The general law of the land vests the estate of the 
 ancestor in his heirs, and it ought not to be taken from them with- 
 out their consent, unless under peculiar and strong circumstances 
 really existing and duly disclosed. The trustees named in this 
 bin are left to dispose of the real estate of the children as to them 
 shall seem meet, without any direction as to the time and mode of 
 the sale, and they are left to deduct their reasonable costs and 
 charges without any tribunal to guide their discretion or to deter- 
 miTi p. what costs and charges are reasonable. Such loose and 
 undefined power to be exercised over the estates of infants, are 
 dangerous to the rights of property, and pernicious as a precedent. 
 Every new created trust of this kind should be placed under the 
 control and guidance of that court which is intrusted with the 
 general guardianship of infants. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 80, 1810. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled "An act for the relief of Persis Pain and others" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections, 
 reported by the Chief Justice, viz. : 
 
 Because it appoints Minor Thomas a trustee to sell the real 
 estate of Nathaniel Pain, deceased, and to apply the proceeds in 
 such manner as he shall deem necessary for the maintenance of 
 the widow and infant chQdren of the said Nathaniel Pain, on his 
 giving a bond, with surety, to be approved of by the surrogate 
 of the county of Seneca, for the faithful execution of his trust. 
 
 There are no circumstances stated in the bill to call for such an 
 extraordinary exertion of legislative power. It is taking from the 
 widow and from the infants the freehold estates vested in them 
 by law; the time, notice and manner of the sale of the real estate 
 are not prescribed, but left at large to the discretion of the person 
 appointed trustees by the bill. The amount of the security to be 
 given is also left at large.to the surrogate, nor is there any provi- 
 
360 The Coukcil of Eevisiox. 
 
 sion in the bill for the disposition of the bond. The bill is in all 
 these respects extremely loose in its provisions, and dangerous to 
 the rights of property. The appointment of trustees, the guid- 
 ance of their discretion, and the review and control of their pro- 
 ceedings ought to be placed under judicial cognizance, and especi- 
 ally when they are to divest infants of the real estate secured to 
 them by inheritance. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass thebUl; consequently it did 
 not become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 30, 1810, Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices, 
 
 A bill entitled " J.w act for the relief of the heirs of Phih Day, 
 deceased" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by the Chief Justice, -v\z. : 
 
 Because there are not suf&cient circumstances disclosed by the 
 bill to warrant legislative interference with the rights of minors, 
 and because the exercise of the power of selling the real estate of 
 the infants and the amount of the costs and charges to be deducted, 
 and the security to be given fbr the faithful execution of his trust 
 by the trustee, are not placed under- the cognizance and control of 
 any judicial tribunal. A single magistrate is to take the security, 
 and that is all the control specified in the bill. The safe and pro- 
 per course is to place the exercise of such powers under the super- 
 vision of the Court of Chancery as the tribunal immemorially and 
 specially intrusted with the care and guardianship of infants. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albaitt, April 2, 1810. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson and Yan Ness, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bni entitled "J.m act for the relief of the minister, elders and dea- 
 cons of the JReformed Protestant Dutch Church in the totvn of German 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 361 
 
 Flats in the county of Herldmer^'' was before the Council, wMch 
 adopted the followiitg objectioias, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 The Council object to the said bill as improper to become a law 
 of this State, for the reasons assigned during the last session, in 
 their objections to a bill of similar import, appearing in the printed 
 journals of the honorable the Assembly of that session, page 212, 
 which objection is in the words following: 
 
 Because the third section of the act entitled '-'An act to amend 
 the act entitled 'An act to provide for the incorporation of religious 
 societies,' passed March 14, 1806," authorizes the Chancellor, upon 
 the apph cation of any religious corporation, to make an order for 
 the sale of any real estate belonging to such corporation, and to 
 direct the application of the moneys arising therefrom by such 
 corporation; and because the Chancellor can, in a summary mode, 
 with little expense or trouble to the applicant, institute an inquiry 
 into the title by which the same is derived to such corporation 
 whether the same is affected by any condition or limitation detract- 
 ing from a general right of disposition, and which, if existing in 
 this case, from the terms of the bill, appears not to have been an 
 object of attention. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albajsty, March 23, 1811. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer 
 and Van Ness, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "^n cuit for the, relief of the representatives of An- 
 drew Jones, deceased," was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because the bill authorizes the guardians of infants to dispose 
 of the estates of their wards without any other restraint than the 
 certificate which it provides shall be given by the surrogate of 
 Orange county, that in his opinion such disposition is necessary 
 and that he approves thereof, and of the conveyances to be by 
 them made, without prescribing the mode in which, or the evi- 
 dence from which, such necessity or benefit is to be deduced; 
 
362 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 tlius departing from tlie usual provision in such, cases, of commit- 
 ting tlie superintendence of the trust to the Court of Chancery, 
 and thus warranting a total alienation of the estate of infants in a 
 case in which, by the ninth section of the act entitled "An act to 
 raise moneys to drain the drowned lands in the county of Orange," 
 infants are authorized to redeem, when they attain their full age; 
 a case somewhat similar to a lien by mortgage. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently, it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albaj^, March 30, 1811. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, ChanceUor; Kent, Chief Justice; Spencer, Van Ness 
 and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.w act to prevent fravds at elections, and for other 
 purposes" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections,,/ reported by Justice Van Ness, vi^.: 
 
 Because, by the provision in the first section of the said bill, 
 any person who shall among other things swear that he is twenty 
 years of age, may vote for members of Assembly, thereby allow- 
 ing minors to vote for members of Assembly ; whereas, by the 
 Constitution of this State, all male inhabitants of full age and who 
 possess the other qualifications therein mentioned, shall alone be 
 entitled to vote for members of Assembly. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 5, 1811. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Jxistice ; Thompson, Spencer, Van 
 Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other 
 purposes,''^ was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chancellor Lansing, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the description of person of color who is required to 
 produce a certificate of his freedom -at all elections is too vague 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 863 
 
 and imcertaln to afford a determinate test, either as presented to 
 the eye, or as applied to the quality of the blood, which compre- 
 hends aU. the gradations of the mixed races between the African 
 black and the clear complexion of the white man, and even beyond 
 it, as in that sense the stain is indelible ; thus imposing on many 
 citizens whose ancestprs haye uninterruptedly enjoyed the elective 
 franchise under the colonial as well as the State. government, and 
 to whom that right has been transmitted with their freeholds, the 
 humiliating degradation of being challenged in consequence of a 
 supposed taint, and being excluded from voting in common with 
 their fellow-citizens on their own oaths, and thus exposing electors 
 to wanton insult and contumely, merely on account of their com- 
 plexion, whether produced by the accidental circumstances of 
 birth, climate or disease, in the act of exercising the noblest right 
 of a freeman. 
 
 2. Because the bill selects a particular description of persons 
 who are, under the Constitution and laws of the State, entitled to 
 the elective franchise, many of whom were born free, and imposes 
 on them restrictions and limitations to the exercise of rights to 
 which they are now entitled in common with other citizens of this 
 State; and because no adequate means are afforded them, to 
 restore themselves to the rights and privileges of which, by this 
 bill, they are deprived, inasmuch as there is no provision for 
 compelling the attendance of witnesses before the of&cers autho- 
 rized to take the proof of their freedom; thus subjecting the 
 important fight of voting at an election to the will and pleasure 
 of others, and who may iu many cases be interested in withhold- 
 ing the requisite evidence of freedom. 
 
 3. Because, heretofore, it has been generally assumed as a prin- 
 ciple that every male citizen of full age possessing the other quali- 
 fications to vote, required by law, was presumed to be a freeman, 
 until the contrary appeared. In the present bill a different prin- 
 ciple is established, to wit, that all black men and men of color are 
 presumed to be slaves untU they prove that they are free. A 
 mode of proof is prescribed of a nature different from that hereto- 
 fore adopted in relation to the qualification of electors in other 
 cases. Their own oaths are not to be received, nor are they per- 
 mitted to produce proof to. the inspectors. They must produce 
 
364 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 their proof to other tribunals, and two several certificates must be 
 obtained before they can be permitted to vote. Many black men 
 and mea of color in this State were born free, and many have 
 been manumitted in the manner sanctioned by our laws. These 
 men are scattered through the State, and many of them undoubt- 
 edly reside in parts remote from the places where they were born 
 or manumitted ; no doubt can be entertained that this act would 
 not be known to many of those interested in its provisions in time 
 to enable them to procure the certificates therein required. This 
 bill, before it goes into operation, ought not only to be brought to 
 the knowledge of the inspectors of every town so as to guard 
 against fatal errors, but it should also be brought to the knowledge 
 of all those whom it essentially affects, in such a reasonable time 
 before the elections as to enable them to procure and exhibit the 
 evidence of freedom, and procure the certificates therein stated. 
 No case short of absolute necessity would justify the passage of a 
 bill which may disfranchise, even for one year, any portion of the 
 constitutional electors of the State. Not an instance is recollected, 
 neither is any beheved to exist, when such a radical change in the 
 election law has been made so short a time before the election. In 
 the year 1809, a biU passed the honorable the Senate and Assem^ 
 bly, entitled "An act to equalize the four great districts of this 
 State," which came to the Council of Eevision more than seven 
 weeks before the election. The Council objected to the bill, and 
 one ground of objection was, that the period for its promulgation 
 was so short that it might produce great public inconvenience. 
 The Council, for these reasons, consider this bill as a violation of 
 principle, dangerous in precedent and against the public good. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 5, 1811. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer, Yan 
 Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ^'■An act for the relief of the representatives of 
 William H. Philips, deceased" was before the Council, which 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 865 
 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Chief Justice Kent, 
 
 viz.: 
 
 Because it authorizes the guardians of the iafant children of 
 "William H. Philips, deceased, to sell the real estate of the said 
 children, without any direction as to the time and mode of sale, 
 and without giviag security to apply the moneys arising on such 
 sale for the benefit of the children, and without subjecting the 
 guardians to any judicial control in the execution of their trust. 
 Such an unchecked and unlimited discretion in guardians is with- 
 out precedent and contrary to the uniform practice of the Legisla- 
 ture ia like cases, and is dangerous to the rights of infants. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 5, 1811. Present — Goremor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer, Van 
 Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bin entitled '^An act for the relief of James Ford," was before 
 the Council which adopted the following objections, reported by 
 Justice Van Ness, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the recital to the said bill and by the petition and 
 documents accompanying the same, it appears that ten lots of land 
 in the Military Tract have been sold by Bbenezer-E. Hawley, late 
 sheriff of the coimty of Onondaga, on an execution issued out of 
 the Supreme Court of Judicature of this State for collecting 
 $807.34, for the trifling sum of $16, and that since the sale there 
 has been a lapse of nearly eight years. To permit a mere by- 
 stander, though a deputy of the said sl^eriflf, but who did not 
 make the sale, under circumstances which afford such strong evi- 
 dence of fraud or unfairness, now to execute a deed to carry the 
 sale iuto effect, appears to the Council to be highly improper. No 
 satisfactory reason has been given why the deed was not executed 
 by the sheriff, and at this late day it is to be presumed that some 
 good cause existed for his omission or refusal. This objection 
 derives additional force from the consideration that the present 
 
366 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 bill appears to have been passed solely upon the representation 
 of James Ford, the plaintiff in execution and the purchaser of 
 the said lots, without the knowledge of the defendants against 
 whom the said execution was issued. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, January 28, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bin entitled "An act for the security of the estates of femes covert 
 in certain cases," was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by Chancellor Lansiag, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the bill in the cases therein mentioned exempts the 
 estate of a feme covert from hability of satisfaction of her hus- 
 band's debts, contracted during her coverture; thus impairing the 
 obligation of contracts and depriving the creditors of the husband 
 of a right which, in many instances, may have been the sole 
 inducement to giving him credit. 
 
 2. Because the provisions in the bill may facilitate collusions 
 and frauds, the more dif&cult of detection from the legal unity of 
 persons and interests of husband and wife, and their incompetency 
 of testifying against each other. 
 
 3. Because, by the provisions in the bill, the husband is divested 
 of many of his important rights, in consequence of his mere re- 
 fusal to cohabit with his wife, notwithstanding her conduct may 
 have been so scandalously flagitious, corrupt or improper as to 
 render such refusal perfectly justifiable. 
 
 4. Because the provisions of the said bill are, in the opinion of 
 the Council, dangerous and impolitic, having a tendency to pre- 
 vent a reconcihation between the husband and wife, when differ- 
 ences, arising ia many instances from the most trivial causes, may 
 have produced a separation between them. 
 
 5. Because the provisions in the bill are not reciprocal, and on 
 that account in this case, unjust; for if it be necessary and proper, 
 when the husband shall refuse to cohabit with his wife, to subject 
 him to the burdens and disabilities contained in the bUl, it is 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 367 
 
 equally necessary and proper, in case the wife imjustiflably refuses 
 to cohabit with her husband, that she should forfeit all right to 
 dower of his estate after his decease. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albajsty, March 14, 1812; Present — Governor Tompkias; 
 Lansiag, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.M act relative to the real estate of George Teeple, 
 deceased," was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chancellor Lansing, viz. : 
 
 Because the bUl is totally useless, an adequate remedy being 
 provided by the seventh section of the act entitled "An act con- 
 cerniag idiots, lunatics and infant trustees," whidh authorizes 
 infant trustees to convey trust estates under the discretion of the 
 Court of Chancery; the vendor's heirs beuig by operation of law, 
 trustees for the vendees. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bUl; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, May 26, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Spencer, Thompson, Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to authorize the gimrdians of Phebe B. 
 Hart, Sally Ann Bloom, Miza Bloom and Jane Bloom to eocecute a 
 deed to Jaraes Octzhy," was before the Council, which adopted the 
 following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because the bill is totally useless, an adequate remedy being 
 provided by the seventh section of the act entitled "An act con- 
 cerning idiots, lunatics and infant trustees," which authorizes infant 
 trustees to convey trust estates under the discretion of the Court 
 of -Chancery; the vendor's heirs being, by operation of law, trus- 
 tees for the vendees. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
368 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, June 10, 1812. Present — Goyemor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of the heirs of John Schultzs, 
 deceased" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chancellor Lansing, viz.: 
 
 Because no reason appears in the bill why trustees are required 
 to be appointed to sell the real estate whereof John Schultzs died 
 seised, more than in any other case of infant heirs; and as the 
 general law of the land vests the real estate of an ancestor in his 
 heirs, it ought not to be divested without their consent, unless 
 clearly for their benefit under peculiar circumstances duly sug- 
 gested and assumed as the ground of legislative interposition. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biQ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albastt, Jum 15, 1812. Present — Governor TompMns; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Van Ness, Justiqe. 
 
 A bm entitled "An coct relative to the real estate of Anthony Mar- 
 vin, deceased," was before the CouncU, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the bill is totally useless and corresponds in provision 
 and principles with those in the bills entitled "An act relative to 
 the estate of George Teeple, deceased," and "An act to authorize 
 the guardian of Phebe B. Hart, Sally Ann Bloom, Eliza Bloom 
 and Jane Bloom to execute a deed to James Gazley," in both 
 which cases the objections of the Council were held available, 
 during the present session of the Honorable the Legislature, and 
 to which cases the Council beg leave to refer. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bUl ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 369 
 
 Albany, Jwne 16, 1812. Present — G-ovemor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Van Ness, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of Nancy FairchiU and her 
 infant son," -was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, viz.: 
 
 Because no reason appears in the bill why trustees are required 
 to be appointed to sell the real estate whereof Erastus Fairchild 
 died seised, more than in any other case of infant heirs; and as 
 the general law of the land vests the real estate of an ancestor in 
 his heirs, it ought not to be divested without their consent, unless 
 clearly for their benefit, under peculiar circumstances, duly sug- 
 gested and assumed as the ground of legislative interposition. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, June 19, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Yan Ness, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act incorporating trustees to manage such funds 
 as Alexander Proudfit may dispose of for pious and charitable gospel 
 purposes" was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chancellor Lansing, viz. : 
 
 Because the bill is against the existing general restraint imposed 
 by the wisdom of the Legislature on the devise of land to be held 
 in. mortmain iu a case undistinguished from others of the same 
 class. 
 
 Because the bOl contains no limit as to amount, except the 
 value of the estate of Alexander Proudfit, which may be increased 
 by the benefactions of others to a dangerous excess, and applied 
 to promote objects which it has been the uniform and salutary 
 policy of the State to confine within reasonable and prescribed 
 bounds. 
 
 Because the bill authorizes Alexander Proudfit, by a disposition 
 of any part of his estate, by his will or otherwise, to trustees, to 
 create a corporation of perpetual donation and to prescribe the 
 objects, terms, limitation and application of the trust fund at his 
 discretion, which is so wholly unprovisionary as to leave the 
 41 
 
370 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 donor an nnrestrained latitude of modification of the corporation, 
 and the direction KDf its funds to any object comprehended within 
 the comprehensive terms of pious and charitable gospel purposes. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, November 3, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Yates, 
 Justices. 
 
 A biU entitled ".An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme 
 Court" was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, reported by the Chancellor after being amended by it, viz. 
 (the Governor dissenting from the first objection): 
 
 Because the Constitution having recognized the Supreme Court, 
 in its organization and powers, as existing under the Colonial 
 government, derived from those of the English common law courts 
 of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, in none of which 
 courts. Colonial or English, have the number of the judges at one 
 time exceeded five; that number seems to be the common law 
 maximum, according to immemorial usage, not to be exceeded but 
 by an express act of the Legislature, in conformity to the declara- 
 tion of the Constitution, that such parts of the common law of 
 England as comprised part of the law of the Colony should be 
 and continue the law of the land, subject to such alterations and 
 provisions as the Legislature of this State should from time to 
 time make concerning the same. 
 
 Because the bill authorizes the honorable Senate and Assembly, 
 by concurrent resolution, to direct the extension of the limitation 
 of five judges to an indefinite number, thus evading the constitu- 
 tional revision of this Council, and precluding it from expressing 
 its opinion whether existing circumstances render it consistent 
 with the public good to enlarge the number in a case in which 
 this Council must constitutionally be presumed eminently qualified 
 to form a correct judgment on the subject, as its constituent mem- 
 bers are the executive and the judicial officers presiding in the 
 superior courts of original jurisdiction in the State. 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 871 
 
 Because tlie bill, from its nature and object, is indefinitely pro- 
 spective, and tbe powers granted by it incapable of being exbausted 
 by successive concurrent resolutions; tbus not only destrojing tbe 
 independence of tbe Council, by exposing it to be borne down by 
 the introduction of new judges whenever its measures do not com- 
 port with the opinions of a majority of the members composing 
 the honorable Senate and Assembly, but placing the Council in 
 absolute subserviency to them, instead of forming the check the 
 Constitution intended upon their proceedings. 
 
 Because, if the bill should become a law, and concurrent reso- 
 lutions should be passed during the present session for the 
 appointment of one or more judges, their numbers might be 
 doubled in the next session, and subsequent members of the 
 Legislature might increase them by the same means a hundred- 
 fold, and thus the salutary efficacy of the judiciary might be 
 virtually impaired, and the people of this State be burdened with a 
 useless and intolerable expense, unsanctioned by the forms pre- 
 scribed by the Constitution or by the constituted authorities, to 
 whom collectively, each acting in the sphere assigned to it in the 
 Constitution, has committed these important and incommunicable 
 powers. 
 
 Because the bill provides not only for the increase of the judges 
 indefinitely, in consequence of a resolution of the two houses of 
 the Legislature, but provides, also, that judges so to be appointed 
 shall receive the like compensation as the other judges, thereby 
 enabling the two houses of the Legislature, at any future time, by 
 concurrent resolutions, to make a permanent appropriation of 
 money without the sanction of law. 
 
 The Senate refiised to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 12, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Spencer, Thompson, 
 Van Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "^dLw act to amend an act entitled ^An act concerning 
 the clerks of the Supreme Court of this State, and for other purposes"' 
 
372 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 was before tlie Council, wHcli adopted tlie following objections, 
 reported by Chief Justice Kent, viz. : 
 
 Because, by the second section of the said bUl, it is made the 
 duty of the Supreme Court, by rule^ or orders, to compel the officers, 
 of the said court to pay to the Treasurer of this State, the moneys 
 which may from time to time be due to the people of this State 
 from the said officers for clerks' fees; thereby compelling the said 
 court to collect the said debts due from the attorneys of the said 
 court, by process of attachment and commitment as for a con- 
 tempt, or by suspending the said attorneys from, or striking them 
 off the roll, as for a misdemeanor in practice or other contempt of 
 the court. The Council are not advised that the Supreme Court 
 have any other mode by which they can cause the said debts to 
 be collected, and they consider this mode not proper for the col- 
 lection of debts due to the State, inasmuch as the party .would be 
 deprived of trial by jury, and be put to answer' upon interrogato- 
 ries; and inasmuch as this proceeding has never been applied to 
 any other than cases of abuse and misdemeanor in practice, or 
 other contempt committed against the privileges and authority of 
 the courts. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bUl; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, Aprils, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer and 
 Yan Ness, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act relative to the eastern branch of the Scho- 
 harie turnpike" was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by Justice Thompson, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the fourth section of the bill, the president and 
 directors are authorized to assess, upon each share of the capital 
 stock of said company, a tax not exceeding one dollar and fifty 
 cents, without the consent of the stockholders, and annexes the 
 penalty of forfeiture of the stock for non-payment of such assess- 
 ment; thereby imposing upon the stockholders, against their will, 
 the payment of money not authorized by the original act of 
 
Vetoes op the Council. 373 
 
 incorporation, and in violation of the rights created \mder sucli 
 act, -without any adequate public necessity appearing to justify the 
 
 same. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 6, 181 8. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Lansing, 
 Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bni entitled "J.re act concerning joint tenants and tenants in tail, 
 regulating descents and abolishing entails" was before the Council, 
 which adopted the following objections, reported by Chief Justice 
 Kent, viz.: 
 
 Because the bill is a transcript of a law passed the 23d of Feb- 
 ruary, 1786, and is to be found in the first volume of the laws, 
 page 4A. That law has long been revered for the utihty and 
 the wisdom of its provisions. It is the Magna Charta of most 
 of our estates by inheritance. It was left untouched in the revi- 
 sion of 1801, and to reenact it now, appears not only useless, but 
 inconsistent with the ends of legislation, for by the first section of 
 the bill there is a very formal abolition of estates in tail; which 
 would imply that such estates still existed, when it is well known 
 that they are already abolished, and have ceased to exist ever 
 since the year 1786. The last section of the bill shows, in a strong 
 point of hght, the impropriety of reenacting that law, for the last 
 section ia the law of 1786 was confined to certaia special cases of 
 descents and conveyances, happening between the years 1782 and 
 1786, and the present bill makes the same provision for those 
 absolete cases as if they were transactions of yesterday. 
 
 The only reason that appears for reenacting the law of 1786, 
 was to incorporate into it the provisions in the sixth and seventh 
 sections in this bUl. But those provisions being of a local and 
 temporary nature, were not necessary to have been reenacted, and 
 especially to be attached to a law intended to establish, perma- 
 nently, and as we trust, for ages to come, the title to real property 
 by descent. Those provisions relate only to rights in the Military 
 Tract, of certain soldiers who died before the 27th March, 1783. 
 
374 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 The cases there alluded to are becoming obsolete by time and the 
 statute of limitations. 
 
 The necessity of that provision was temporary and -will soon be 
 forgotten, whereas the law of descent is so vast and so constant 
 in its operations that it ought not to be disturbed for any light or 
 transient cause. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 8, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer and 
 Van Ness, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■^ An act restraining bigamy," was before the Coun- 
 cil, which adopted the following objections, reported by the Chan- 
 cellor, viz.: 
 
 1. Because the provision which subjects the person who shall 
 marry the husband or wife of any other person, knowing at the 
 same time that such husband or wife is living, to the penalties 
 of felony, may, upon a literal construction, expose an innocent 
 person to punishment, and the general rule is that penal laws are 
 not to be extended by equity. 
 
 2. Because, though the offense probably intended to be provided 
 against by the last clause in the said bill is of a milder type as to 
 its influence on society than simple adultery, inasmuch as though 
 equally immoral it is accompanied with an acknowledged respect 
 for the common decencies of life, and destitute of every pretense 
 of deception relating to the former marriage, it is made punish- 
 able as a felony, whilst common adultery can only be redressed 
 by civil suit. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 375 
 
 Albany, April 9, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer, Yates 
 and Yan Ness, Justices. 
 
 A biU. entitled "An act to revive and amend the act entitled 'An act 
 to incorporate the Earlaem Bridge Company, and far building another 
 bridge across the Harlaem river,"' was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Governor Tompkins, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because it is not recited, nor does it otherwise appear, that 
 the corporation established by the act entitled "An act to incorpo- 
 rate the Harlaem Bridge Company," passed March 25, 1808, have 
 applied under their common seal for the alterations of their charter 
 contained in this bill, although the rights and privileges of that 
 company are materially changed and affected thereby. 
 
 2. Because the bill expressly prohibits the keeping of any ferry, 
 or the building of any bridge across Harlaem river, from the 
 county of New York to the county of Westchester, within three 
 miles on either side of the present Harlaem bridge, and because 
 the granting of an exclusive privilege to control the whole- or 
 principal part of the intercourse between York Island and the. 
 mainland across the navigable waters of Harlaem creek, without 
 limitation as to time and by a bill so improvisory in essential 
 points as the present, is dangerous in its tendency, and may, and 
 probably will, be extremely detrimental to the public good at some 
 future period. 
 
 3. Because, by the charter of the city of New York and the 
 laws confirming and altering the same, the jurisdiction of the cor- 
 poration of the said city extends to low water mark, on the West- 
 chester side of Harlaem river; and by the same charter and laws, 
 the right of granting and regulating ferries and bridges over the 
 navigable waters within the precincts of the said corporation is 
 granted to the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of 
 New York. The privilege granted by this bill infringes the 
 charter rights of the said corporation of the ciiy of New York, 
 granted and secured to them as aforesaid. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biU ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
376 The Council op Eevisioet. 
 
 Albany, April 12, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer 
 and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '^An act limiting the period of hringing claims and 
 prosecutions against forfeited estates" was before the Council, -which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Chief Justice Kent, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because the bill appears to have been intended to be a revised 
 bni, and as reenacting the statute of the 28th of March, 1797, to 
 be found in the first volume of the laws, page 162 ; whereas that 
 law had never been altered or amended, and was not within the 
 purview of the general revision of the laws, and being a permanent 
 statute affecting a very extensive portion of real estate, it is at least 
 useless, and may be injurious to the stability of these rights to 
 repeal and reenact it. 
 
 2. Because the case of dower of the widow of the person 
 attainted or convicted, was not within the provision of the former 
 act, since, according to the judicial construction of that act as 
 settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court, it did not apply to 
 the right or claim of dower in such case ; and so long as that deci- 
 sion remains in force and uijreversed it must be taken to be the 
 true and just construction. And although it rests in the wisdom 
 of the Legislature to limit the right of action in cases of dower, as 
 well as in other cases, to five years, yet every new limitation 
 should be prospective and not commence before the passing of the 
 act; for otherwise, parties might be affected by such limitation 
 without notice of it, and might lose their rights even while they 
 were sleeping in security under existing laws. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused ; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 February 25, 1814, Chief Justice Kent, succeeded John Lan- 
 sing, Jr., as Chancellor; Justice Smith Thompson succeeded Kent 
 as Chief Justice; and Jonas Piatt was appointed a Justice in place 
 of Thompson, 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 377 
 
 ALBiNT, October 22, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An act concerning vessels in ike port of New York" 
 was before the Council, which adopted the following objections 
 (amended from the original objections, reported by the Chan- 
 cellor), viz.: 
 
 Because it gives to the corporation of New York a power to 
 remove, at their discretion, at any time during the present war, and 
 without any cause to be assigned, all or any private vessels in the 
 harbor of New York, to any part of this State or of the State of 
 New Jersey; and this removal to be at the risk and espense of the 
 owner, for which espense the owner is made personally hable to 
 suit. This is vesting iu that corporation a most arbitrary and 
 unprecedented control over the disposition of private property, 
 without making the power to depend upon the existence of some 
 absolute necessity. No doubt, when such public necessity exists, 
 private property must be used and disposed of consistently with 
 the public good. But upon the neglect or refusal of the owner to 
 remove his vessel, his liability to pay the expense of the removal 
 in this case ought not to extend beyond a lien upon the ship or 
 vessel removed. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albant, October 24, 1414. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to aid in tlie apprehension of deserters from 
 the army and navy of the United States,^'' was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the bill makes it lawful for any person whomsoever, 
 if he shall have cause to suspect that any other person is a deserter 
 from the army or navy of the United States, or from the army or 
 militia of this State, to apprehend him without warrant, and take 
 him before a justice of the peace. This is an arbitrary power and 
 may be used and abused by the most worthless of men, upon a 
 suspicion of which he is to be the judge, to the vexation and 
 48 
 
378 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 oppression of tte good people of tliis State. It is in direct viola- 
 tion of aU the riglits of personal liberty whicH we inherited from 
 our ancestors, and whicli have been secured to us by the Constitu- 
 tion and law of the land. By the act of the 26th January, 1787, 
 which was only a transcript of the provisions of Magna Charta, 
 and is therefore to be regarded as a declaration of fundamental 
 rights, "no citizen of this State shall be taken or imprisoned but 
 by due process of law." And by the Constitution of the United 
 States, it is declared that no person shall be deprived of hberty 
 without due process of law, and that no warrants shall issue but 
 upon probable cause, supported by oath or af&rmation. AU these 
 sacred barriers are laid prostrate before that provision in this bill. 
 
 2. Because, when the person so to be arrested is brought before 
 the justice, if it shall appear to the justice from any evidence what- 
 ever, that he has probable cause to suspect that such person is a 
 deserter, he is required to cause him to be delivered to some mih- 
 tary post, or to commit him to jail. This is a continuation of the 
 same arbitrary and unconstitutional power. The justice is not 
 bound to require any oath or af&rmation to strengthen the sus- 
 picion. If, without any oath or any confession of the party, it 
 shall appear to him "from any other evidence" that he has pro- 
 bable cause to suspect, he is bound absolutely to commit. What 
 may be thought by any justice of the peace to be any other evi- 
 dence, it would be impossible to say. Be it what it may, he has 
 no discretion. He can take no bail. If he only suspects, then the 
 person must be imprisoned, and handed over to military authority. 
 Every citizen of this State will be liable at all times to the conse- 
 quences of this traia of suspicion, and to be placed, without due 
 process of law, under the violence of some military commander. 
 And if the person thus summarily disposed of shall be able so far 
 to exert himself as to make it appear, as may well happen in 
 numerous instances, that the suspicions are utterly groundless, 
 there is no penalty imposed, and there is no action given to the 
 injured party. The bill will render traveliug insecure beyond 
 the extent of a man's immediate neighbors. 
 
 3. Because it is made the duty of all sheriffs, deputies, -consta- 
 bles, and all militia officers ia this State, to apprehend every 
 person "who shall from his appearance, dress, conversation or 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 379 
 
 otherwise, give probable cause to suspect that he is a deserter," 
 and to take him before a justice, to be dealt mth as in the former 
 case. 
 
 4. Because the bill makes every civil and military officer who 
 shall willfully neglect this duty of thus acting upon suspicion, 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable by fine and imprison- 
 ment. To punish an officer thus criminally for refusing to invade 
 the sanctity of personal liberty upon a suspicion of which he must 
 be the judge, and which must strike different minds with different 
 degrees of doubt, distrust and embarrassment, is giving to our 
 criminal code a severity beyond example. 
 
 5. Because all non-commissioned officers and privates of the 
 militia of this State are declared to be bound at all times to obey 
 the orders of their superior officers in the discharge of their duty 
 to arrest as aforesaid, under the like penalties of fine and impri- 
 sonment, and to be entitled to pay and rations while on such ser- 
 vice. By this means, all the militia in their military character are 
 made instruments in hunting down any citizen whomsoever who 
 may have the misfortune, "from his appearance, conversation or 
 otherwise," to fall under the suspicion of any mOitia officer. 
 
 The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly refused; conse- 
 quently it did not become a law. 
 
 Albajstt, April 18, 1815. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer, Yates and 
 Piatt, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "^n act for the payment of certain officers of gov- 
 ernment, and for other purposes," was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the last section of the bill, a new apportionment 
 and alterations are made in the senatorial districts, by increasing 
 the number of Senators in the southern district, without any 
 enlargement of the district, and by diminishing the number of 
 Senators in the eastern district, and detaching from it the counties 
 of Jefferson and St. Lawrence, and annexing them to the western 
 
380 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 district. By a law of tlie present session of the Legislature, the 
 districts have been altered, and according to the return of the last 
 census, an apportionment of the Senators has been made ia pur- 
 suance of the directions of the fourth article of the amendment to 
 the Constitution. If the apportioimient upon the southern district, 
 which has already been made by law^ was a true and just one 
 (and no mistake appears or is alleged), then this new apportion- 
 ment in granting an additional Senator to that district caimot be 
 true and just, for there is not and cannot be any evidence of any 
 increase of that district siace the apportionment was made. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, April 5, 1816. Present — Governor Tompkins; Kent, 
 Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer and Piatt, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " An to incorporate the Bank of Magara," was 
 before the Council, which adopted the following objections, re- 
 ported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 Because the biU is destitute of due and adequate provision to 
 secure the punctual payment, upon demand, of the notes of the 
 bank in lawful moneys of the United State. It is a fact of public 
 notoriety, that the several incorporated banks within this State 
 have, for some time past, refused to redeem their bills by paying 
 the same in specie, and as this refusal has existed for upwards of 
 a year past, though the country has, in that time, been in a state of 
 peace, the evil grows more inveterate and alarming by the con- 
 tinuance of such refusal. This is the first instance of a bill for 
 the erection of a new bank, siace the existing banks have discon- 
 tinued specie payments, and the occasion seems to require some 
 new and effectual provision, beyond the mere increase of interest, 
 to guard against the repetition of an. evil not anticipated when the 
 existing banks were iucorporated. And it appears to the Council 
 to be repugnant to the dictates of sound policy, to institute, under 
 the present state of things, any new bank, unless the charter 
 thereof contain some express and decided sense of the Legislature, 
 that the duty must be indispensable to pay their notes, on demand, 
 
Yetoes of the Council. 881 
 
 in moneys tliat are or shall be a tender by law. And if the duty 
 be indispensable, the privilege of issuing notes ought to be made 
 to vest as a condition upon the performance of that duty, and to 
 cease when the condition is not fulfilled. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 July 1, 1817, De Witt Clinton succeeded Daniel D. Tompkins 
 as Governor. [For Lieut-Grov. John Tayler, see page 402]. 
 
 Albaitt, January 27, 1818. Present — Governor Clinton; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer, Yan Ness 
 and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled ''-4w act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for 
 other purposes, ^^ was before the CouncU, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by the Chancellor, viz. : 
 
 1. Because, by the first section of the bill, the marriage contract 
 between the said Eunice Chapman and her husband, James Chap- 
 man, is not only declared to be dissolved, but it is declared that 
 nothing in the act contained shall be construed to give the said 
 James Chapman a right to marry during the lifetime of the said 
 Eunice. The ground of this declaration, according to the recital 
 of the bni, is that the said James Chapman hath deserted his wife, 
 and joined the society called Shakers. The Council do not, 
 by this objection, mean to maintain that, if a husband or wife " 
 deserts the other, and becomes a member of any rehgious sect, 
 which considers and practically declares matrimonial connections 
 to be sinful, unlawful apd void, it would not be competent to ren- 
 der such an act a sufficient cause for divorce. Their objection to 
 this section is, that the said James Chapman is by force of the act 
 itself, and without the benefit of a judicial examination and trial, 
 either as to his conduct or as to the practices of the Shakers, dis- 
 qualified hereafter from exercising the natural right of contracting 
 marriage when under no-existing marriage contract. 
 
 2. Because, by the second section of the bill, the Chancellor is 
 not only authorized to dissolve the marriage contract whenever any 
 
382 The Council of Eevision". 
 
 married person, being an inhabitant of tbis State, shall have joined 
 the Society of Shakers, and remained with them for the term of 
 three years; but it is also declared that it shall not be lawful for 
 the person so joining the Shakers, after such dissolution of the 
 marriage contract, to marry during the lifetime of the former 
 husband or wife. The mere fact of joining the Society of Sha- 
 kers, is thus made not only cause of divorce, but it is punished 
 by disability to marry without any previous judicial inquiry or 
 decision in respect to the acts or practices of that religious sect, 
 or any adjudication upon them, as being inconsistent with the free 
 exercise and enjoyment of that religious profession and worship 
 secured by the Constitution. 
 
 The Senate refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, February 27, 1818. Present — Governor CUnton; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Yan Ness, Yates 
 and Piatt, Justices. 
 
 A bin entitled "J.w act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for 
 other purposes" was before the Council, which adopted the follow- 
 ing objections, reported by Justice Piatt, viz. : 
 
 When a former bill for the rehef of the same party was before 
 .the Council, it was not deemed necessary to go further iato the 
 consideration of the bUl than to notice the two most obvious 
 objections which then appeared to arise. The Ccnincil accordingly 
 forbore to express any decided opinion, but reserved for more re- 
 flection whenever it should become necessary to declare their sense 
 of the merits of the great questions now presented by this bill. 
 These questions are now before them, and they have given to 
 them all the careful and anxious consideration which belongs to 
 the nature of the subject, the deference they owe to the opinion 
 of the two houses of the Legislature, and the preeminent duty of 
 discharging their trust according to the dictates of their judgment, 
 on points which affect the fundamental principles of civil liberty. 
 The Council therefore object to this bill. 
 
Vetoes of the Coukcil. 383 
 
 1. Because, by tlie first section of the said bill, tbe marriage 
 contract between the said Eunice Chapman and her husband, 
 James Chapman, is declared to be "dissolved." 
 
 The institution of marriage, by legalizing and regulating sexual 
 intercourse, has greatly multiplied the sources of rational enjoy- 
 ment and exalted the himian character. It is the only basis of 
 domestic happiness, and the firm foundation of social order. 
 
 Eegarding that institution, therefore, as the greatest of earthly 
 blessings, the Council feel the solemnity of their obligation to 
 guard it with scrupulous fidehty. 
 
 The recital of the bill states that " Eunice Chapman, in the year 
 1804, was lawfully married to James Chapman, by whom she had 
 three children and with whom she lived until the year 1811, when 
 the said James Chapman abandoned his said wife without leaving 
 her any means of support, and soon after joined the Society of 
 Shakers, ia Niskayuna, in the county of Albany; that the said 
 James Chapman, since joining the Society of Shakers, has taken 
 from his wife her children, and now keeps them concealed from 
 her, and insists that the marriage contract between him and his 
 said wife is annulled, and that he is not bound to support her, 
 and has publicly forbid all persons from harboring her, and de- 
 clared that he would not be responsible for her debts." 
 
 In the opinion of the Council it would be unwise and unsafe to 
 dissolve the contract of marriage for the causes stated in that 
 recital. 
 
 The principal facts contained in the recital, and which are aS'* 
 signed as the reasons for the divorce, are: 
 
 (1.) That the husband has abandoned his wife without provision 
 for her support, and refuses to pay any debts contracted by her ; 
 
 (2.) That he has taken the children of that marriage into his 
 own charge and custody ; and 
 
 (8.) That he has joined the Society of Shakers. 
 
 As to the first ground, it does not appear, by the recital, whether 
 the omission on the part of the husband to furnish necessaries for 
 his wife was a wUlfnl neglect of duty, or the effect of poverty and 
 inability. 
 
 If such abandonment and neglect were willful, and without justi- 
 fiable cause, then there is ample redress already provided for her 
 
384 The Coukcil of Eevisiok. 
 
 support, by the existing law entitled "An act concerning divorces, 
 and for other purposes," passed the 13th of April, 1813, and if the 
 neglect to maintain the wife was occasioned by her own miscon- 
 duct, or by the inability of the husband, then Such omission is no 
 crime, and much less is it a just ground of divorce. 
 
 Upon the second ground, to wit, that the husband has taken his 
 infant ohildrfe' under his own exclusive guardianship and control, 
 the Council perceive nothing more than the exercise of a right 
 which the law confers on every father, and whether the mode of 
 exercising that parental authority, in this case, has been discreet 
 and proper, or otherwise, does not appear. If this right has been 
 abused, the remedy is already provided in the powers of the 
 Chancellor, as superintending guardian of the rights of all infants. 
 
 The third and only other reason assigned for the divorce is, 
 that the husband has become a member of the religious sect called 
 Shakers. 
 
 It is notorious, and the Council therefore recognize the fact, that 
 a distinguishing tenet of that society is that sexual intercourse, 
 even between man and wife, is sinful and unlawful. 
 
 The profession of this article df faith may be a mere pretext in 
 order to obtain an unqualified divorce as is granted by this bill, 
 or if such profession be sincere to-day, the free conscience of the 
 professor may renounce it to-morrow. 
 
 It is then no more than a present determination of the will in 
 James Chapman not to cohabit with his wife, revocable at his own 
 pleasure, and the Council can perceive no solid distinction between 
 this case and the ordinary cases of wiUful abandonment, for which 
 the existing laws have provided a suitable and adequate remedy 
 by affording alimony to the wife from the estate of the delinquent 
 husband. 
 
 If cruel treatment be complained of, the same existing law 
 affords a shield by allowing a separation or divorce from bed and 
 board so long as the cause exists. 
 
 If, then, maintenance or protection be the object desired in this 
 case, the remedy is already provided, and if the mere privation of 
 sexual intercourse is the real subject of complaint on the part of 
 this woman, the Council feel constrained to remark that such an 
 application is offensive to public decency. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 385 
 
 Anxiously aware of th^ evils which threaten the dearest, inte- 
 rests of society by increasing the causes or facihty of divorces, 
 the Council feel it to be their solemn and indispensable duty to 
 oppose the dissolution of the marriage contract for any other than 
 the single cause already provided for by the general law of this 
 State. 
 
 Like all other great benefits, matrimony, ia its universal appli- 
 cation, produces many partial evils and much individual suffer- 
 ing; but the CouncU are firmly convinced that the sum of indi- 
 vidual happiness, as well as the peace and order of society, requires 
 that the nuptial tie should be indissoluble, except for the cause of 
 adultery. 
 
 While the partial evils of indissoluble matrimony are sometimes 
 witnessed and deplored, we ought to be consoled by the reflection 
 that the peace and character of many thousands of families are 
 preserved by the mutual forbearance and concessions between 
 husband and wife, which are induced by the ever impressive con- 
 sideration that the voluntary tie which bound them can never be 
 dissolved. 
 
 History and experience unite to confirm the behef that the 
 measure of purity or of profligacy in public morals, in all countries 
 and under every form of government, is essentially graduated 
 according to the degree of security and stability of the marriage 
 contract. 
 
 2. The Council object to this bill because it absolutely and 
 unconditionally dissolves the contract of marriage by statute 
 authority, without any previous judicial inquiry and trial by jury 
 as to the truth of the facts on which the divorce is founded. 
 
 This is the first instance of such an exercise of legislative 
 power, not only since the adoption of our State Constitution, but 
 since the foundation of the Colony of New York; and the Coun- 
 cil deem this innovation to be unsound in principle and highly 
 dangerous in its tendency. 
 
 In the recital of a statute entitled "An act directiag a mode of 
 trial, and allowing of divorces in cases of adultery," passed the 
 80th day of March, 1787, the Legislature of this State declared 
 that it was more advisable for the Legislature to make some 
 general provision in such cases, than to afford relief to individuals 
 49 
 
386 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 upon their partial representations, without a just and constitu- 
 tional trial of the facts. 
 
 With great respect the Council now advert to the principle thus 
 early established in that recital; and firmly believe that the secu- 
 rity of private rights, and the genius and spirit of the Constitu- 
 tion, rec[uire that this principle should be steadily maintained. 
 
 3. The Council object to this bill because they deem it incon- 
 sistent with the thirty-eighth article of the Constitution of this 
 State, which ordains "that the free exercise and enjoyment of 
 rehgious profession and worship, without discrimination or prefer- 
 ence, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this State to all 
 mankind; provided that the liberty of conscience shall not be so 
 construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices 
 inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State." 
 
 By the second section of the bill now under consideration, it is 
 enacted "that in. all cases where any husband or wife, having any 
 child or children of the marriage, shall hereafter separate the one 
 from the other, and shall or have attached him or herself to the 
 said Shakers, and shall also take or have taken with him or her 
 such child or children, being under age, the Chancellor or any 
 Judge of the Supreme Court may award the charge and custody 
 of such child or children to that parent who shall not have joined 
 the said Society of Shakers." 
 
 By the existing general law of this State, applicable alike to all 
 classes of men excepting slaves, the guardianship, custody and 
 control of infant children belong exclusively to the father, who, 
 by the same general law, is also entitled to the service of his infant 
 children without accountability. 
 
 Under the provisions of this bill, the father may be divested of 
 these precious and important rights, for the sole and avowed cause 
 that he has become a member of the Society of Shakers. 
 
 The special regulation is in the nature of a penalty, and in the 
 opinion of the Council, it is practically making a discrimination, 
 and giving a preference, whereby the equality of civil rights (as 
 between persons of different religious professions) is essentially 
 impaired. 
 
 If the Legislature can constitutionally deprive a man of his 
 parental rights, merely because he is a Shaker, they have an 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 387 
 
 equal right for the same cause to disfrancMse liini of every other 
 privilege, or to banish him or even to put him to death. K the 
 principle be admitted, it must rest in discretion alone how far it 
 shall be carried in the measure of punishment. 
 
 There is no evidence that the Society of Shakers are guilty of 
 any acts of licentiousness, or any practices inconsistent with the 
 peace and safety of this State; and although we may lament what 
 to us appear absurd errors in their religious creed, yet, so long as 
 they preserve the character which they now possess for sobriety, 
 industry and peaceful habits, the Council cannot regard them as 
 having forfeited the protection secured by that article of the Con- 
 stitution. To justify such an act of denunciation, the danger to 
 "the peace and safety of this State" must be not merely specula- 
 tive, remote and possible, but imminent and certain. 
 
 To condemn a religious tenet by legislative authority is to 
 assume a power hitherto unknown iu our statute book; and upon 
 the most mature reflection, the Council are of opinion that it 
 would be not only unprecedented in the annals of our State, but 
 highly dangerous and alarming in its consequences. 
 
 In regard to the people called Shakers, the only possible appre- 
 hension of danger to the State on account of their religious faith 
 and practice arises from the tenet that sexual intercourse is sinful; 
 and it is worthy of remark that if they practice accordiag to that 
 beUef, the very cause from which danger is apprehended, to wit, 
 celibacy, is the very reason why that sect cannot be propagated to 
 any dangerous extent. The supposed evU, therefore, carries along 
 with it an effectual remedy. 
 
 The absurdity of that tenet is so plain and obvious as to prove 
 an antidote and security against any serious danger of its preva- 
 lence; provided the excitement of persecution be not added to 
 that of fanaticism. It may be pitied as a delusion, but , it ought 
 not to be regarded as a crime. 
 
 Notwithstanding the objections, the Legislature passed the bill 
 into a law. 
 
 February 9, 1819, Ambrose Spencer was appointed Chief Justice 
 in place of Smith Thompson; and on the 27th of March following, 
 John "Woodworth was appointed a Justice in place of Spencer. 
 
888 The Council of Revision. 
 
 Albany, April 9, 1819. Present — Governor Clinton; Kent, 
 Chancellor; Spencer, Chief Justice; "Woodworth, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n act concerning the Gowrts of General Sessions 
 of the Peace," was before the Council, whicB. adopted the following 
 objections, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the first section of the bill, any Court of General 
 Sessions of the Peace may order a nolle prosequi to be entered upon 
 any indictment found in such courts. By the existing law of the 
 land, indictments for all crimes and misdemeanors whatsoever, 
 may be found in the Courts of General Sessions of the Peace, 
 though they have no jurisdiction to hear and determine indict- 
 ments for offenses punishable with death or with imprisonment in 
 the state prison for life; and the court, which cannot try and 
 which therefore cannot be supposed to take any judicial considera- 
 tion of such cases, ought not to be enabled in its discretion to 
 defeat prosecutions for the same. 
 
 The Legislature refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, March 7, 1820. Present — Governor Clinton; Kent, 
 Chancellor; Spencer, Chief Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act relative to the Bomcm. Catholic Benevolent 
 Society in the city of New Yorh" was before the Coujioil, which, 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Chancellor Kent, 
 viz.": 
 
 Because, by the third section, a devise contained in the last will 
 and testament of Robert Finn, late of the city of New York, 
 deceased, of a house and lot of ground in the said city to the 
 trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and St. Peter's Church, in trust 
 for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum, is made 
 valid and effectual in the law to vest all the estate of the said 
 Robert Finn in the said trustees, according to the provisions of 
 the will. The devise here alluded to is either valid or not valid 
 in law. If valid, then the provision in the bill is entirely useless. 
 If not valid, as the bill evidently supposes, then the house and lot, 
 upon the death of the said Robert Finn, either descended to his 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 389 
 
 heirs at law, or escheated to the State for the want of competent 
 heirs. In the latter case, the Legislature might have released, for 
 the charitable uses declared in the will, aU the right and title of the 
 people of this State. But in the other case, of there being compe- 
 tent heirs (and that is tiie ground assumed by the bill), the L^is- 
 latnre cannot divest those heirs of the estate for any purpose 
 whatever, without their consent, or without making them just 
 compensation. 
 
 The Legislature reftised to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Ai£AJSY,Xorxmbar 7, 1820. Present — Governor Clinton; Spen- 
 cer, Chief Justice; Van N^s and Woodworth, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An ad to aMhorvae cerium proceedings m Chxmoery 
 to he done hy cerinin cowniy officers," was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Chancellor Kent 
 (through the Governor, the Chancellor being absent), viz.: 
 
 1. Because it declares that the first judge of any county, being 
 of the degree of sohcitor or counselor of the Court of Chancery, 
 shall, ex officio, be a master of and examiner in said court; whereas, 
 by the twenty-fifth article of the Constitution, the first judges of 
 the county courts in the several counties shall not at the same time 
 hold any other office excepting that of Senator or del^ate to Con- 
 gress. The office of a master in Chancery is a public office well 
 known to the law of the land when the Constitution was formed, 
 and it has been a distinct and established office from time imme- 
 moriaL Masters are said, by the common law, to be assistants to 
 the Chancellor, and references are constantly made to them touch- 
 ing accounts and matters of practice, and they are officers of tiie 
 court and subject to its orders. It is therefore an office within 
 the meaning and spirit of the said prohibition; and the same 
 objection applies to the office of examiner in Chancery. 
 
 2. Because masters in Chancery and examiners in Chancery are, 
 by the bill, appointed by the Legislature; those offices, though they 
 are by law distinct and definite, are to be conferred by statute upon 
 certain individuals who now fill other offices of a totally distinct 
 
390 The CotmciL of Eevisiok. 
 
 and independent cliaracter, and for whicli only they are appointed. 
 This new mode of appointing those officers is contrary to the 
 twenty -third article of the Constitution, which declares that all 
 officers, other thaa thosie who, by the Constitution, were directed 
 to be otherwise appointed, shall be appointed by the Council of 
 Appointment. Masters in Chancery and examiners in Chancery 
 have, bitherto, been appointed by the Council, and purposely 
 selected and duly commissioned for those trusts and regularly 
 sworn into office. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albany, November 20, 1820. Present— Governor Clinton; 
 Kent, Chancellor ; Spencer, Chief Justice ; Yates and Woodworth, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act recommending a Convention of ifie people of 
 this State" was before the Council, which adopted (by the casting 
 vote of the Governor), the following objections, reported by Chan- 
 cellor Kent, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the bill recommends to the citizens of this State to 
 choose, by ballot, on the second Tuesday in February next, dele- 
 gates to meet in Convention for the purpose of making such alte- 
 rations in the Constitution of this State as they may deem proper, 
 without having first taken the sense of the people whether such a 
 Convention for such a general and unlimited revisal and alteration 
 of the Constitution be in their judgment necessary or expedient 
 
 There can be no doubt of the great and fundamental truth, that 
 aU free governments axe founded on the authority of the people, 
 and that they have at all times an indefeasible right to alter and 
 reform the same as to their wisdom shall seem meet. The Consti- 
 tution is the will of the people expressed in their original charter, 
 and intended for the permanent protection and happiness of them 
 and their posterity, and it is perfectly consonant to the republi- 
 can theory, and to the declared sense and practice of this country, 
 that it cannot be altered or changed in any degree without the 
 expression of the same original will. It is wortiiy, therefore, of 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 391 
 
 great consideration, and may -well be doubted wlietlier it belongs 
 to tbe ordinary Legislature, chosen only to make laws in pur- 
 suance of the provisions of the existing Constitution, to call a Con- 
 vention, in the first instance, to revise, alter ajid perhaps remodel 
 the whole fabric of the government, and before they have received 
 a legitimate and full expression of the wiU of the people that such 
 changes should be made. The difficulty of acceding to such a 
 measure of reform, without the previous approbation of the consti- 
 tuents of the government, presses with peculiar force and with 
 painful anxiety upon the Council of Eevision, which was insti- 
 tuted for the express purpose of guarding the Constitution against 
 the passage of laws " iuconsistent with its spirit." 
 
 The Constitution of this State has been in operation upwards 
 of forty years, and we have but one precedent on this subject, and 
 that is the case of the Convention of 1801. But it is to be ob- 
 served that the Convention of that year was called for two specific 
 objects only, and with no other power or authority whatsoever. 
 One of those objects was merely to determine the true construction 
 of one of its articles and was not intended to alter or amend it, 
 and the other was to reduce and limit the number of the Senators 
 and members of Assembly. 
 
 The last was the single alteration proposed, and perhaps even 
 with respect to that point it would have been more advisable that 
 the previous sense of the people should have been taken. But 
 there is no analogy between this single and cautious case, and the 
 measure recommended by the present bill, which is not confined 
 to any specific object of alteration or revisal, but submits the 
 whole constitutional charter, with aU its powers and provisions, 
 however venerable they may have become by time, and valuable 
 by experience, to unlimited revisal. The Council have no evidence 
 before them, nor does any legitimate and authentic evidence exist, 
 that the people of this State think it either wise or expedient that 
 the entire Constitution should be revised and probed, and perhaps 
 disturbed to its foundation. 
 
 The Council, therefore, thiuk it the most wise and safe course, 
 and most accordant with the performance of the great trust com- 
 mitted to the representative powers under the Constitution, that the 
 question of a general revision of it should be submitted to the 
 
892 The Couxcil of Ee'stsiox. 
 
 people, in the first iastanco, to determine whether a Convention 
 ought to be convened. 
 
 The declared sense of the American people th^roughout the 
 United States, on this very point, o^mnot but be received with 
 great respect and reverence, and it appears to be the almost uni- 
 versal will, expressed in their constitutional charters, that conven- 
 tions to alter the Constitution shall not be called, at the instance 
 of the Legislature, without the previous sanction of the people by 
 whom those Constitutions were ordained. 
 
 The Constitution of Massachusetts was established in 1780, and 
 contains the e^-liest provision on this subject. It provided that 
 in the year 1795, the sense of the people should be taken on the 
 necessity or expediency of i-evising tlie Constitution, and that if 
 two-thirds of the votes of the people were in fixvor of such revision 
 and amendment, the Legislature should provide for calling a Con- 
 vention. The Convention now sitting in that State was called in 
 consequence of a previous submission of such a question to the 
 people. 
 
 The Constitution of South Cai'olina was ordained in 17SH), and 
 in that it is declared that no Convention should be chilled, unless 
 by the concurrence of two-thirds of both branches of the Legisla- 
 tui'e; and the Constitution of Georgia, established in 1708, con- 
 tains the same provision: thus showing that Hiough the people be 
 not previously consulted on the question, yet a more than ordinary 
 caution and check upon such a measure was indispensable. The 
 Constitution of Delaware, of 1792, declares very emphatically that 
 no Convention shall be called but by the authority of tlie people, 
 and that their sense shall be talcen by a vote for or against a Con- 
 vention, and that if a majority of all the citizens shixll have voted 
 for a Convention, the Legislature shall make provision for odling 
 one. The same constitutional provision, that no Convention shiill 
 be called to alter or amend the Constitution until the sense of the 
 people, by vote, shall have been previously fcilcen, whether in their 
 opinion there was a necessity or expediency for a revision of the 
 Constitution, has been successfully adopted by the Constitution of 
 New Hampshire in 1792 ; by the Constitution of Tennessee in 
 1796 ; by the Constitution of Kentuclvy in 1799 ; by the Consti- 
 tution of Louisiana in 1812 ; by the Constitution of Indiana in 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 39S 
 
 1816 ; by the Constitutioa of Mississippi in 1817 ; and by the 
 Constitution of Illinois in 1818. 
 
 It would, as the Council apprehend, be impossible to produce 
 higher and more respectable authority in favor of such a provi- 
 sion, and of its value and safety. 
 
 2. Because the bill contemplates an amended Constitution to be 
 submitted to the people, to be adopted or rejected in toto, without 
 prescribing any mode by which a dLscrimination may be made 
 between such provisions as shall be deemed salutary, and such as 
 shall be disapproved by the judgment of the people. If the 
 people are competent to pass upon the entire amendments, of 
 which there can be no doubt, they are equally competent to adopt 
 such of them as they approve and to reject such as they disap- 
 prove; and this undoubted right of the people is the more impor- 
 tant if the Convention is to be called in the first instance, without a 
 previous consultation of the pure and original source of all legiti- 
 mate authority. And it is worthy of consideration, and gives 
 additional force to the expediency and fitness of a previous refer- 
 ence to the people, that time will be thereby given for more 
 mature deliberation upon questions arising upon the Constitution, 
 which are always momentous in their nature, and calculated to 
 affect, not the present generation alone, but their distant posterity, 
 and when the Legislature may probably have it in their power to 
 avail themselves of a more just and accurate apportionment of the 
 representation in the Convention, among the several counties of 
 this State. 
 
 The above objections haviag been communicated the same day 
 to the House, were referred to a select committee of the Assembly, 
 to "consider and report thereon at tlie next meeting of the Legis- 
 lature." The chairman of the said committee, Mr. Ulshoeffer, 
 accordingly, at the next meeting, viz., on the 9th of Januaiy, 
 1821, made a report controverting tlie objections of the Council, 
 but the Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law.' 
 
 ' For Mr, Ulshoeflfer's report and subsequent proceedings, see Appendix A, 
 at the close of tlie work. 
 50 
 
894 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, March 28, 1821. Present — Governor Clinton; Kent, 
 Chancellor; Spencer, Chief Justice; Yates and "Woodworth, Jus- 
 tices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act authorizing the building of a toll bridge 
 across the JEsopus creek, in the tovm of Saugerties, in the county oj 
 Ulster, and for other purposes" -was before the Council, which 
 adopted the following objections, reported by Justice "Woodworth, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because the bill suspends, for a limited time, the rights, 
 privileges and franchises heretofore granted by the Legislature, in 
 and by the act entitled "An act to incorporate the Ulster and 
 Delaware First Branch Turnpike Company," passed March 9, 
 1810, and authorizes the commissioners of highways to direct the 
 turnpike road, established by the said act, to be worked as a com- 
 mon highway, and erects a corporation to build a bridge across 
 the Esopus creek, at the place where the bridge was built by the 
 president and directors of the said turnpike company, allowing 
 them at any time within five years to resume the turnpike, on 
 making payment for all improvements that shall have been made, 
 
 If the Legislature rightfully possess the power of making the 
 grant in question, it ought not to be exercised until the parties to 
 be affected by the bill have an opportunity to contest the facts 
 alleged, if they deem it expedient. The preamble states that it is 
 represented to the Legislature that the said president, directors 
 and company have become insolvent, that the road and bridge 
 are in a ruinous state, and that the company refuse to make re- 
 pairs; but for aught that appears, this representation is altogether 
 ex parte and made without the knowledge of the corporation whose 
 rights are suspended. This, of itself, presents a well-founded 
 objection against the passage of the bill. 
 
 2. Because the right to dissolve the corporation does not apper- 
 tain to the Legislature, unless a power for that purpose be reserved 
 in the act of incorporation. The charter grants rights, privileges 
 and franchises to individuals. It is admitted that there is a tacit 
 or implied condition annexed to the grant, which, if broken, may 
 create a forfeiture by reason of neghgenco or abuse of the powers 
 granted. For this there is an adequate remedy by an information 
 in nature of a writ of quo warranto, in which the question of for- 
 
Vetoes of the Cocstcil. 395 
 
 feitare may be tried, and if fi)Tmd against the corporation, its 
 franchises maj be resumed br the State, 
 
 This proceediag is according to the course of the common law, 
 and is sanctioned as well by the principles as the nnifonn practice 
 of oirr government It is believed that the power assumed in the 
 bill has been exercised by flie jndicial authority exclusiTely, sdnce 
 the establishment of the Constitution. The common law, which 
 we adopted, points out the remedy, and it cannot be doubted that 
 a departure from this salutary rule would be in derogation of 
 private rights, and not within the Intimate powers of the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
 The L^islature refused to pas the bill ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 At.b ax t. J/artA 31, 1S21. Present — Governor Clinton; Kent, 
 Chancellor; Spencer. Chief Justice: Yates and TToodworth, Jus- 
 tices. 
 
 A bill entitled ''Jin arf to amend 'An act toperp^uate the testimony 
 of icitnesses in certain cases,' passed April 5, 1S13," was before the 
 Council, which adopted the following objections, reported by the 
 Chancellor, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the first section of the bill, the provisions of the 
 '•act to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses in certain cases," are 
 extended to all personal actions now pending, or which may here- 
 after be pending^ in any court having cognizance thereof within 
 this State ; subject, nevertheless, to all the limitations and provi- 
 soes in that act contained. 
 
 In order to understand the operation of this bill, it is necessary 
 to examine the provisions in the act referred to. By one of them 
 it is declared that any person may make an affidavit before a 
 judge of the Supreme Court, or before a judge of a CJourt of 
 Common Pleas, being of the degree of counsel, or before a master 
 in Chanceiy, that he is a party in a suit then pending or expected 
 to be commenced, affecting the title to land, and that the tesriaiony 
 of a witnes, to be named, is material and necessary to Tiim in such 
 suit; and the officer shall thereupon direct reasonable notice, not 
 
896 The Oounoil of Riivisioiir. 
 
 less than fourteen days, to be given to tho opposito party, of the 
 time and place of examination of such witness, and tho jiulgo or 
 master shall proceed at tho timo appointed, on due proof of tho 
 service of the notice, to take tho deposition of tho witness; and ho 
 shall include in such deposition any answer or declaration of tho 
 wituesa which shall bo required to bo included by either of tho 
 parties. The deposition is then to bo filed and to bo used upon 
 trial in the cases therein specified, subject to objections to the com- 
 petency of the witness or to the testimony. 
 
 This provision, in the act of 1818, was confined to tho single 
 case of title to land, and there appears to be greater reason for the 
 provision in that case, and much less danger of abuse, than in the 
 application of it to all personal actions. The provision is at best 
 very loose and unchecked, and the Council apprehend that if it bo 
 extended to all cases whatsoever, it may produce great injustioo 
 to suitors, and lead to the corruption and abuse of testimony. 
 
 In the first place, it may take the opposito party entirely by 
 surprise, and without any sufficient information to enable him to 
 cross-examine the witness. A cause is pending in court after tho 
 return of the writ and before any declaration is lilcxl. Tho pro- 
 cess does not ordinarily state the cause of action, and the applica- 
 tion to examine witnesses .may be made before the cause of action 
 is disclosed to the opposite party. The affidavit, to be made before 
 the judge or master, is not required to disclose it, and tho oppo- 
 site party may be hastily summoned from one end of this exten- 
 sive State to the other, on a notice of fourteen days, to cross- 
 examine a witness before he has been informed of the particular 
 cause of action against him. If he obeys tho summon h, ho gooH in 
 ignorance of the nature of the case, and if ho omits to attend, 
 he suffers a witness to say what he pleases without any call for 
 cxjilanation. 
 
 Nor is there any check provided by the bill against taking tho 
 most improper testimony. The officer before whom the deposition 
 is to be taken, has no discretion to judge of the fitness of tho 
 questions put to the witness. lie is even specially required to 
 include in the deposition any answer or declaration of the witness 
 which cither party may require to bo inserted. By this moans 
 gross and scandalous matter, altogether impertinent, and having 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 897 
 
 no proper relation to the merits of the case, may be inserted and 
 perpetuated upon record. This latitude of examination is the 
 raore liable to abuse when it is applied to that class of personal 
 actions which are founded in tort, and in which the angry passions 
 are apt to be engaged. 
 
 Another objection to the bill is, that the party applying to 
 examine a witness is not required to show the reason or necessity 
 for such a premature examination. He may require any witness 
 in any case to be examined immediately on the first pendency of 
 the suit, without stating that he is old and infirm or sick, or not 
 likely to live, or about to leave the State. He is only to declare 
 that the testimony of such a witness is material and necessary in 
 the defense or prosecution of his suit, and he then will be entitled 
 to examine any witness he pleases, and call out all the testimony 
 in any case long before the trial, without showing any existing 
 necessity for such a disclosure. It is a very dangerous anticipa- 
 tion of the regular trial of a cause in the presence of the court and 
 the jury, and may be productive of fraud and perjury by afford- 
 ing an opportunity to tamper with witnesses, and by creating 
 inducements fraudulently to counteract and tmduly to supply the 
 deficiencies of proof 
 
 This mode of taking testimony, by depositions prior to any 
 pleading-s in the cause, tends greatly to impair the integrity of 
 testimony and to undernune the safety and value of trial by jury. 
 It can never be justified except upon the principle of extreme 
 necessity, and no such necessity is required to be shown in this 
 case ; and this the Council apprehend to be a most serious objec- 
 tion to the bill. It is in direct hostility to the common law policy 
 of ore tenus examinations in the presence of the court and jury, 
 and if a witness thus prematurely and privately examined should 
 afterwards attend the trial, his previous deposition would operate 
 as a restraint \ipon sifting inquiries at the bar, and greatiy check 
 the investigation of truth. If a free and open inquiry should 
 not be desirable to the witness or either party, nothing could be 
 more easily managed than for the witness to be out of the State at 
 the trial, and thereby give admission to his affidavit. 
 
 The necessity of such a material innovation upon the old and 
 settled principles of our law, does not appear by the bill, and has 
 
898 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 not occurred within the knowledge or experience of the Council. 
 And innovations upon the old and established principles of law 
 ought never to be made for the sake of theoretical improvements, 
 bvit ought always to be preceded by inconveniences or evils 
 actually experienced. As the law now stands, testimony can be 
 very conveniently perpetuated, provided the necessity for it be 
 first made to appear, and it must then be taken under those checks 
 and safeguards which justice dictates. Testimony may be perpe- 
 tuated by a bill in Chancery, but in such case the bill must state 
 that the party is in danger of losing the testimony by delay, or 
 that his right rests entirely upon the evidence of the witness sought 
 to be examined. The bill must, likewise, particularly describe 
 the nature of the right or demand to which the testimony is to be 
 applied, so that the opposite party may know to what subject to 
 point his inquiries. The courts of law will also allow testimony 
 to be taken de bene esse in any cause pending before them, but no 
 order would be obtained for such a premature examination, unless 
 it was first shown to the satisfaction of the judge or commissioner, 
 that there was a necessity for it by reason that the witness was old 
 and infirm, or in danger of life or about to depart the State, and 
 the judge would no doubt exercise a sound discretion in respect 
 to the previous disclosure of the nature of the action or defense, 
 and the fitness and pertinency of the proof Under the present 
 bill, a party may apply to a master in Chancery who has no judi- 
 cial authority, and without showing any necessity, and without 
 disclosing his case, may have any witness examined on any sub- 
 ject and may require anything he says to be taken down. The 
 bill seems, therefore, to be destitute of all reasonable and cus- 
 tomary check against surprise and imposition, and may prove 
 extremely injurious to the pure and correct administration of 
 justice. 
 
 The above objections were referred to a select committee of the 
 Senate, who made a report through the chairman, Mr. Livingston, 
 controverting the objections of the Council. The Senate, however, 
 refused to pass the bill ; consequently it did not become a law. 
 
Vetoes of the Council. 399 
 
 Albakt, January 2, 1822. Present— Governor Clinton; Kent, 
 Chancellor ; Spencer, Chief Justice ; "Woodworth, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act in addition to '■An act relative to the com- 
 mon lands of the freeholders and inhabitants of Harlaem,^ passed March 
 2%tli, 1820," was before the Council, which adopted the following 
 objections, reported by Chief Justice Spencer, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the act to which the bill is an amendment, the 
 trustees therein named were authorized to sell the said common 
 lands, and to execute conveyances therefor, and after deducting 
 their expenses, with five per cent commissions, and after paying 
 the assessments on said lands, and reimbursing the freeholders 
 and inhabitants, they were required to pay, out of the residue of 
 the moneys, certain specific sums, to the trustees of Harlaem library ; 
 to the trustees of the Hamilton school; to the trustees of such 
 schools as may be established in the village of Harlaem and the 
 village of ManhattanviUe, and to the trustees of such school as 
 may be established on the said common lands. The surplus 
 moneys in the hands of the trustees, after payment of these appro- 
 priations, were directed, by the said act, to be distributed by them 
 among the several religious congregations of the said freeholders 
 and inhabitants, in proportion to the number of church members 
 in each ; the respective proportions to be paid to their respective 
 trustees, to be placed out at interest, and the yearly interest to be 
 applied to the benefit of their respective religious establishments. 
 
 The bUl provides, that in addition to the specific appropriations 
 of the moneys arising from the sales of the said lands, mentioned 
 in the act, the trustees shall be authorized to distribute and pay as 
 foUows : The sum of $5,000 into, the hands of the consistory of the 
 Eeformed Low Dutch Church, at Harlaem, to be invested by them 
 in stock or bond and mortgage, and the yearly interest thereof to 
 be applied to the support of the gospel in said place ; the sum of 
 $1,000 to the first Episcopal church to be erected within the bounds 
 of the township of Harlaem; and the sum of $1,000 to be paid 
 to, and equally divided between the respective trustees of the 
 other religious congregations within the bounds of the said town- 
 ship at Harlaem. 
 
 The said last mentioned appropriations being, by the bill, de- 
 clared to be in lieu and stead of the surplus mentioned in the third 
 
400 The Covscil of Eevisiok. 
 
 section of said act ; and that, if the proceeds of the land shall be 
 insuificient to pay off all the appropriations made by the bill, a 
 ratable deduction is directed to be made ; and if there shall be a 
 surplus beyond the appropriations, then a ratable addition is to 
 be made to each appropriation. 
 
 The bin thus entirely alters 'and changes the distribution of the 
 surplus moneys provided by the act^ to the manifest prejudice of 
 some portion of the inhabitants and freeholders of Harlaem. The 
 bill contains no CTidence, by recital or otherwise, either that the 
 freeholders and inhabitants of Harlaem have assented to its enacts 
 ment, or that they have had any notice of the intended application 
 to the L^islature, to modify or change the provisions of the exist- 
 ing act. 
 
 A petition has been presented to the Legislature, purporting to 
 be signed by the said trustees, and to which certain of the free- 
 holders and inhabitants of Harlaem have signified their assent, for 
 the enactment of a law, similar in its provisions to the present 
 bill; but it does not appear by that petition that the freeholders 
 and inhabitants of Harlaem have assented to the prayer of the 
 petition, nor does the petition represent the feet to be so. 
 
 The act, to which the bill is an amendment, shows evidently, 
 from its recitals, that it was passed conformably to the general 
 sense and wishes of the freeholders and inhabitants of EEarlaem. 
 To subvert and destroy the provisions of an act thus passed, upon 
 the application of a portion of the freeholders and inhabitants of 
 Harlaem in conjunction with the trustees, appears to the Council to 
 be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it impairs and destroys the obli- 
 gation of a contract created by the act, and inasmuch, as it violates 
 a solemn compact, under which vested rights have been acquired, 
 and is of dangerous tendency. 
 
 The Senate lefdsed to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Alba^t, March 29, 1822. Present — Governor Clinton; Spen- 
 cer, Chief Justice; Yates, Piatt and TVoodworth, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An ad to caitharize ^ trustees of Farmer^ HaR 
 Ajcademy to he trtistees of a comman school district, and for ether jpntr- 
 
Vetoes op the Coiingil. 401 
 
 jjoees," -was before tlie Gomual, wMch adopted the fijflo-wing objec- 
 tioQS, yiz.z 
 
 Because, by the ninth sec*ioii of the sevenlli artide of the 
 amended CJonsJitation of this State, and wMch section took effect 
 from flie last day of Febmaiy last, it is provided that "tlie assent 
 of two-liards of the members elected to eafh. branch of the L^s- 
 latare, shall be leqpiisite to every biH appropriating the pnblic 
 moneys or property for local or private pnipos^ or creating 
 oontimnng, altering or rene'wing any body politic or corporate." 
 The bin. alters and enlarges, in several particiilars, the oorpoiate 
 lighls and powers of ihe Fanners' Hall Academy, and yet it does 
 not appear by lie said bill that two-thirds of the members elected 
 to each brandi of the L^islatore have assented to the passage 
 thereof 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the biH; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 Albast, J/oTt^ 29, 1S22. Present — Governor Clinton; Spen- 
 cer, Chief Justice; Yat^ Piatt and Woodworth, Jnstioes. 
 
 A bin. entitled "An act rdative to ^ diy <f ScJienectady,'" was 
 before tbe Coundl, wbicJi adopted the following objections, viz.: 
 
 Becanse, by the ninth section of the seventh article of the 
 amended Constitution of this State, and which section took effect 
 from the last day of Febmaiy last, it is provided that "the assent 
 of two4hiids of lie members elected to each branch of the Legis- 
 laixcre shall be leqpiisite to every biU. appropriating the public 
 moneys or property for local or private purposes, or creating, 
 continuing, altering or renewing any body politic or corporate." 
 The bin alters in several particulars the corporate power and rights 
 of the city of Schenectady, and yet it does not appear by the said 
 bill that two-lliirds of €be members elected to each branch of the 
 Legislature have assented to the passage thereof. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bDl ; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 51 
 
402 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, March 29, 1822. Present — Grovernor Clinton; Spen- 
 cer, Chief Justice; Yates, Piatt and Woodworth, Justices. 
 
 A biU entitled "J.n act for rdiuilding a bridge in the town of Mini- 
 sink," was before the Council, which adopted the following objec- 
 tions, viz.: 
 
 Because, by the ninth section of the seventh article of the 
 amended Constitution of this State, and which section took effect 
 from the last day of February last, it is provided that "the assent 
 of two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the Legis- 
 lature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public 
 moneys or property for local or private purposes, or creating, 
 continuing, altering or renewing any body politic or corporate." 
 The bni creates a body politic and corporate, and yet it does not 
 appear by the said bill that two-thirds of the members elected to 
 each branch of the Legislature have assented to the passage 
 thereof. 
 
 The Assembly refused to pass the bill; consequently it did not 
 become a law. 
 
 The Constitution of the State of New York, formed by the 
 Convention of 1821, went into operation on the 1st day of January, 
 1823. It abolished the Council of Revision, and devolved the 
 powers and duties vested in the Council by the Constitution of 
 1777, upon the Governor of the above State. 
 
 January 26, 1817, Alexander Clinton was appointed Clerk of 
 the Council. 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor John Tayler acted as Gtjvernor from the 
 24th February 1817 (at which time Daniel D. Tompkins resigned 
 his office of Governor, having been elected to the Vice-Presidency 
 of the United States), to the first of July following, when De Witt 
 Clinton was sworn into office as Governor. 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor Tayler became, consequently, a member of 
 the Council, but as no vetoes were issued or objections offered, and 
 not sanctioned by the Council, during the above period, his name 
 does not appear in this work as being present at the meetings. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
OBJECTIONS 
 
 EEPORTED TO BUT NOT SANCTIONED BY THE COUNCIL, TO 
 BILLS WHICH CONSEQUENTLY BECAME LAWS. 
 
 CiTT OF Ne"w York, April 26, 1785. Present — Grovemor 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice ; Hobart, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.n actjbr (he payment o/the salaries of Hie several 
 officers of government, and Jbr other purposes therein mentioned," "was 
 before the Council. Chief Justice Morris reported the following 
 objections, viz.: 
 
 For that, by the thirty -fifth section of the Constitution of this 
 State, it is ordained, determined and declared "That such parts of 
 the common law of England, and of the statute law of England 
 and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Colony of New York, as 
 together did form the law of the said Colony, on the nineteenth 
 day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred 
 and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, sub- 
 ject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this 
 State shall from time to time make concerning the same." That, 
 by an act of the Legislature of this State, while it was the Colony 
 of New York, passed the 18th of October, 1701, entitled "An act 
 for allowance to the representatives," it is enacted "that the wages 
 or allowance to each representative of the people from the first day 
 of that session, and forever, thereafter, should be six shillings cur- 
 rent money of the then Province per diem, to commence from 
 their coming out, till their return home; always provided it should 
 not exceed eight days after their adjourning, proroguing or dis- 
 solving the same, and that each respective city and county through- 
 out the then Province should bear and defray the charge of their 
 
406 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 own representatives, wHch charge or allowance, as aforesaid, 
 should be paid to the respective representatives by the treasurer 
 of each respective city and county by warrant under the hand and 
 seal of the mayor of the respective cities for the time being, and 
 by warrant of any two justices of the peace to the treasurer of the 
 respective counties, after the return of the said representatives 
 from the Assembly, within ten days after the collecting of the 
 public and necessary charges of each respective city and county :" 
 which law was altered so far as it respected the quantum of the 
 daily wages of the representatives of the city and county of 
 Albany, the county of Suffolk and the county (then called) Try on 
 county; the one passed the first day of November, 1722 ; the other 
 the 12th of July, 1729, and the other the 8th day of March, 1773— 
 the first entitled "An act for paying the representatives of the city 
 and county of Albany;" the second entitled "An act to ascertaia 
 the allowance to the representatives for the county of Suffolk, and 
 for other purposes therein mentioned;" and the other entitled "An 
 act for fixing the allowance to the representatives of the counties 
 of Try on and Cumberland;" which several laws remained in full 
 force on the 19th day of April in the year 1775, and are still un- 
 repealed, and therefore the provision in the said biU for the pay- 
 ment of the representatives of the people in Assembly, and not 
 declaring it to be in satisfaction for their services, each, sixteen 
 shillings per day out of the treasury of the State, and not from the 
 respective treasuries of the respective cities and counties of the 
 State, from which they ought in justice and by law to be paid, if 
 intended not as abundant gratuity but as pay, is expressly so far 
 against the said laws and contrary to the Constitution of this State, 
 and provides the payment of sixteen shillings, with the six shil- 
 lings, which is near fourfold the former provision. That if it is 
 intended as an abundant gratuity over and above the allowance 
 established by the before recited laws, and called for by the en- 
 hanced prices of every necessary of life, it is against the good of 
 the people and impeaches the generosity of the Legislature that 
 the same liberality of sentiment which they extend to themselves 
 should not be extended to the other servants of the people (whose 
 duties are more than doubly increased since the Revolution, some 
 of whom have been greatly injured by the war) to enable them to 
 
OBJECnOJffi XOT SAivCnOSKD BY THE COTOfdL. 407 
 
 five with decency and repntalion in their respective offices, and 
 support those appearances that create respect to gOTcmment and 
 esteem in the people. 
 
 And farther, to that danse of the bill, vacating the jndgment 
 obtained by Bosena Bosh against Garret Ackerson, Isaac Coe and 
 John Deronde: First For that die sabject matter of the said 
 danse has no reference whatsoever to tihe title of the said Mil or 
 the general contents thereof; and. 
 
 Secondly. For that, tiie Legislatore mxist have determined the 
 matter upon partial evidence, "onless the said Bosena Bnsh has 
 been called in with her witnesses to be heard before the L^tsla- 
 tuxe; and in such case the Legislature would be assuming to them- 
 selves judidal powers with the Legislature, which by the Consti- 
 tntion, for the safety of the good people of this State, are wisely 
 separated: sioiiLd the said Bosena Bush, and her witnesses not 
 have been called in before the Legislature, the dause now objected 
 to, must have been formed upon partial testimony, a precedent in 
 iis effect extremdy dangerous to the rights and libeiti^ of the 
 good people of this State, and subversive of that equal justice 
 whidi every dtizen expects from the known law of the land. It 
 is to be presumed tiiat the court in which the said judgment was 
 obtained have done their duty, and if a judgment by de&ult that 
 the defendants had not suffident matter for their defense; or if 
 they had neglected or omitted siieli defense idying on the inter- 
 position now made by the Legislature, thereby making the Legis- 
 lature the handmaid of their de&ult : and thus in either case, if 
 the judgment is ri^t^ unreputable to the State that the L^islature 
 should interfere, if wrong, improper tliat they should be employed 
 to remedy evils arising £tom individual neglect for individual 
 advantage against the known law of the land, thereby tacitly im- 
 peaching the reputation of the court wherein the said judgment 
 was obtained, raising the presumption that the court had done 
 wrong, and that the interference of the highest authority of the 
 Slate was necessary to correct iis errors, and in its effect destroy- 
 ing the confidence of the people in the law of the land, and the 
 tnbunal ^tabhshed for the distribution of justice. 
 
 The Council adopted the objections to the biD, found in the 
 body of the work, at page 278. 
 
408 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 City of Kew Yobk, April 3, 1786. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Jus- 
 tice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of creditors against heirs, 
 devisees, executors and administrators, and for proving wills respecting 
 real estate," was before the Council. CMef Justice Morris reported 
 the following objections, viz.: 
 
 For that by the first, second, third, fourth and fifth sections of 
 it, subjecting the heirs and devisees to suits for the payment of the 
 debts of their testator or intestate in all cases whatsoever, it is in- 
 consistent with the pubhc good. 
 
 1. Because by a collusion between the creditor and the execu- 
 tors or administrators, the personal estate in their hands, though 
 sufficient for payment of the debts, may be wasted, and the heirs 
 and devisees liable to the payment of the debts ; for if a man dies 
 intestate, leaving three children, infants, one by the first venter, 
 two by a second, his second wife hving, who will of course admin- 
 ister, she, with a view to serve her own children, to the prejudice 
 of the child by the first venter, may pretend that there is Httle or 
 no personal estate. The creditors, perhaps, to save themselves 
 trouble, or with design to serve the widow and her children, 
 knowing that the real estate that descends to the child by the first 
 venter, is sufficient to secure them eventually, rest easy; and on 
 the coming of this child to age, when the administratrix may be 
 deceased, and the personal estate of the ancestor so wasted and 
 disposed of that it cannot be come at, suits are brought against 
 the first child, and all the real property is taken to pay the debts 
 of the ancestor, which should have been paid by the administra- 
 trix, such child never having been in a capacity to guard against 
 the evil. 
 
 2. Because, from the words, "who hath already died," in the 
 first section, the bill retrospects, and may, in favor of some credi- 
 tor who has not been as watchful as he should have been, ruin 
 persons whose estate have been long since aliened. 
 
 3. Because, by the sixth, seventh and eighth sections of the 
 said bill, a remedy is in future provided for the evils intended to 
 be remedied, by the first, second, third, fourth and fifth sections, 
 and therefore those sections are so far useless. 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council, 409 
 
 4. Because tlie sixth, seventli and eigTitli sections of the said 
 bill are not only inconsistent with the public good, but against the 
 spirit of the Constitution; for by the said sections a power is 
 vested in the Judge of the Court of Probates, upon the suggestion 
 of executors or administrators (who may be interested on a devas- 
 tavit), to order a hearing before himself; and upon such hearing 
 (without appeal) to order the sale of real estate; thereby depriving 
 persona to whom such real estate is devised, or to whom it may 
 descend, and who, in most instances, will be infants (the guard of 
 whose interest has ever been a favorite object of our law), of 
 their property, without trial by jury, and in the case of infants 
 frequently without defense; thus instituting a new court, and vest- 
 ing the Judge of the Court of Probates with new powers un- 
 known to the Constitution, and which are to be exercised not 
 according to the course of the common law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, April 13, 1786. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Yates, Justice. 
 
 A bni entitled "J.n act for emitting the sum of £200,000, for the 
 purposes therein rnentianed" was before the Council. Chancellor 
 Livingston reported the foUowiag objections, viz. : 
 
 Because, though a trading nation that receives a balance in 
 specie, may, by the strictest and most attentive observance of 
 public faith for a long series of years, support a limited paper 
 emission, no such credit can be obtained by a nation that pays an 
 annual balance. While paper circulates, it wiD. purchase specie, 
 and in proportion as it serves the purposes of a medium for the 
 internal commerce, exchange and produce of the country will rise, 
 and specie be emitted, till its scarcity enhances its price in paper, 
 or in other words, till the real sinks below the nominal value. 
 Thus, under circumstances similar to ours, an emission of paper ; 
 instead of increasing, will diminish the circulating medium; for as 
 the money of a country represents its produce, so credit repre- 
 sents the specie of the country, and can only exist while one may, 
 without difficulty, command the other. If the quantity of, pro- 
 
 52 
 
410 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 duce diminislies, money, the representative of it, depreciates ; so if 
 specie is either sent abroad or locked up, paper can only represent 
 that which remains ; and as the effect of paper, when the balance 
 is against a country, is to drain it of its specie, its own value is 
 daily diminishing, and with it the common medium of trade. 
 
 Because, whenever the bills of credit depreciate, the State is 
 defrauded of its revenues, individuals of their debts, commerce 
 languishes, or, instead of prodiicing wealth, is the parent of want, 
 till the State becomes bankrupt, and, after long struggles and 
 much private and public distress, learns this useful lesson, that a 
 medium of trade can only be procured by selling more than 
 we buy ; that this can be brought about but by industry and 
 economy, by working cheaper than those with whom we deal, and 
 not by laws that foster the idleness and dissipation which ^ long 
 war has created. 
 
 Because the bill, under the appearance of relieving the distress 
 of debtors, will in fact add to it. It does not enable them to dis- 
 charge their debts unless their creditors commence suits. Thus, 
 old debts will therefore accumulate by the annual addition of 
 interest ; and if the bills for which they mortgage their property 
 depreciate, they will get into the hands of a few persons who can 
 command specie ; and when the day of payment arrives, the mort- 
 gagor will not only be compelled to discharge his original debt in 
 specie but the amount of the bills of credit, and that, after having 
 probably incurred considerable loss in passing them. 
 
 Because, however paper may be funded, its credit (supposing 
 the causes before mentioned not to operate against it) must ulti- 
 mately depend upon that of the government which can divert, 
 with the same facihty that it can create a fund ; that to issue bills, 
 and by the same law to declare that new promises shall be paid 
 for old debts, and that the interest of the first lender shall be post- 
 poned to that of the last borrower, though the first has much and 
 the last no peculiar merit to plead, is in the same instant to solicit 
 and to destroy credit. 
 
 Because, by the fifty-second clause of the bill, certificates are to 
 be given for the remaining four-fifths of the interest due on certi- 
 ficates loaned to the State, on or before the first day of May, 
 which will be in the year 1787 ; when, agreeably to the calcula- 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 411 
 
 tions on whicli £50,000 are appropriated for the payment of the 
 interest due on the 1st January, 1785, the remaining four-fifths 
 must exceed £200,000. As no provision has been made for raising 
 any part of this large sum, nor is it probable that in the course of 
 one year, besides providing for the support of our own and the 
 Federal Government, so large a sum can possibly be raised, par- 
 ticularly after the appropriations that have been made for the 
 redemption of the new emission, it must be apparent that one of 
 the most important engagements it contains will not be complied 
 with, an observation that gives more weight to the last objection. 
 
 Because, by rendering the bills of credit receivable at the trea- 
 sury for the most productive revenues of the State, it leaves us 
 without other means of complying with federal requisitions, than 
 by a collection of some of the taxes or debts of the State in specie : 
 and yet no such determination can be made without depreciating 
 the paper and establishing different rules for the discharge of debts 
 due to private persons and the public; so that, should the bill be 
 enacted into a law, it will leave no other alternative but that of 
 violating the national faith pledged to the confederated States, or 
 that of doing injustice to individuals among our citizens. 
 
 Because the exertions of a State in critical moments depend 
 upon its credit: and this credit can only be maintained by availing 
 itself of every favorable opportunity to discharge debts incurred 
 in the day of danger; that to add, therefore, to this debt when the 
 State is at peace and has no public demand for money is directly 
 to contradict the most obvious principles of national policy. 
 
 Because the bill supposes a power in the State to establish the 
 credit of this paper, and yet applies only a small proportion 
 thereof to pay the debts already incurred on the faith of govern- 
 ment, but mortgages the most productive funds of the State for 
 the redemption of the new paper, and thus (discouraging virtuous 
 and patriotic exertions) postpones the interest of those creditors 
 who have lent their support to the State while struggling with 
 adversity, to the private advantage of others who may be willing 
 to engage in the new loan. 
 
 Because no provision is made for enabling the inhabitants of 
 the county of Columbia to borrow on the same terms with the 
 other citizens of the State, If the being able to take up public 
 
412 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 money on loan, is advantageous, ttey should be permitted to avail 
 themselves of that advantage. If it is disadvantageous, the bill 
 should not pass into a law. 
 
 City of New Yoek, April 14, 1786. Present — Governor Clin- 
 ton; Livingston, Chancellor; Morris, Chief Justice; Yates and 
 Hobart, Justices. 
 
 The bill entitled "An ad for emitting the sum of £200,000 in 
 tills of credit, for the purposes therein mentioned,^' being still before 
 the Council, Justice Hobart reported the following objections 
 (as a substitute for those immediately preceding, of Chancellor 
 Livingston), viz.: 
 
 Because, by the fifty-eighth section, it is enacted "that the bills 
 of credit to be emitted shall be a legal tender ia all cases where 
 any suit is or shall be brought or commenced for any debt or 
 damages, and the costs of suit in any stage of the proceedings 
 thereof," thus enabling a man to pay his debts in bills of credit, 
 before the credit of those bills is established, and it is ascertained 
 that the credit or will receive a valuable consideration in return 
 for what he had advanced to the debtor, which would prove an 
 unwarrantable interference in private contracts. 
 
 The supreme Legislature of the State, it is true, may, by an act 
 of sovereign power, annihilate at once all the debts that are due 
 in the State, without any consideration; but this cannot destroy 
 the justice of the demand, nor weaken the force of the obligation 
 in foro conscientice. So may they by the same power declare that 
 a piece of gold, of leather or paper shall be received ia satisfaction 
 for a debt contracted by the delivery of an ox or horse; bat this 
 cannot be deemed an honest payment unless the creditor can 
 replace the ox or the horse he sold, with the gold the leather or 
 the paper which he has been obliged to receive. 
 
 Money, considered as a medium of commerce, has in itself no 
 intrinsic value. The amount of the annual income of any person 
 or nation cannot be estimated by the number of pieces of money 
 which are received in the course of a year, but by the quantity of 
 the .comforts^ conveniences and necessaries of life which can be 
 
Objections not sanctioned bt the Council. 413 
 
 procured with those pieces of money. Their value does not 
 consist in themselves, but in the articles which people in general 
 will exchange for them; so that money, whatever may be the 
 materials of which it may be composed, is only the representative 
 of wealth. 
 
 Gold and sUver being scarce, metals, possessed of qualities 
 which facilitate the discovery of counterfeits, and serving alter- 
 nately for a inedium of commerce or an article of exportation, were 
 well calculated to force themselves into the universal circulation 
 they have obtained, notwithstanding their relative value with re- 
 spect to each other differs very much in different countries ; and 
 with respect to the necessaries of life in different ages, and some- 
 times from a coincidence of circumstances, in the course of a few 
 years, ia the same country. Hence, appears the injustice of those 
 laws which, in some nations, establish the coins made of those 
 metals as a tender in payment of debts. 
 
 Nothing could have been a more flagrant violation of the prin- 
 ciples of justice and common sense, than to have obliged a man in 
 Queens county, in the year 1779, to receive ten Spanish milled 
 dollars in payment for a cow which he had sold three years 
 before, when it would have taken seventy or eighty such dollars 
 to have replaced to him a cow of equal goodness. 
 
 If, then, it would be repugnant to justice to oblige a creditor to 
 receive a given sum of coined gold or silver in payment of a debt, 
 it would be unspeakably more so to oblige him to receive bills of 
 credit, which, in their best condition, are but the representatives 
 of sohd coin; and in the present instance it cannot be known that 
 they will obtain that credit till the experiment has been tried ; 
 when, should a depreciation ensue, many acts of injustice will 
 have taken place before it can be possible for the Legislature to 
 interpose to prevent the increasing evUs. 
 
 The bills proposed to be issued will, by virtue of this clause, 
 obtain a currency from one debtor to another; but, in the course 
 of circulation, they must fall into the hands of some persons who, 
 instead of paying debts, may want to purchase the necessaries of 
 life with them; and, unless they will answer this as well as the 
 other purpose, unless people will part with their superfluous com- 
 modities in order to obtain them as readily as pay their debts 
 
414 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 with them, they will not answer the purpose of a circulating 
 medium, much less of a tender for the payment of debts. 
 
 Nothing can, in justice and good conscience, serve for the pay- 
 ment of a debt, unless it be of equal value with the article for 
 which the debt was contracted. In this reciprocity of value con- 
 sists the validity of all contracts which have been heretofore 
 entered into ; and to authorize one of the parties to discharge the 
 obligations of those contracts with bills of credit, while there is a 
 possibility that those bills will not enable the other to purchase 
 commodities of equal value with those with which he parted at 
 the time the contract was made, will be to establish iniquity by 
 law. 
 
 City of New York, April 15, 1786. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Yates and Hobart, Justices. 
 
 The bill entitled "J.n act for e-tnitting the sum of £200,000 in bills 
 of credit, for the purposes therein mentioned,^'' being still before the 
 Council, Chief Justice Morris reported the following objections 
 (as a substitute to those of Justice Hobart and Chancellor Liv- 
 ingston), viz.: 
 
 Because, to emit further paper securities upon the credit of the 
 State, until those already in circulation are redeemed or appreciated 
 to their full value, is, in effect, increasing the debt of the State to the 
 immediate prejudice of its present creditors. The present State 
 securities are the paper engagements of the State to pay in money 
 the sums mentioned in them. The bUls of credit to be emitted 
 tinder this bill, will be no more (though they have a different 
 name), and will increase our evils by bringing more of the same 
 paper to that market (and which cannot be carried to any other), 
 when the other is selling for one-fourth of its value. The making 
 those bills receivable ia the custom house and treasury, as money, 
 of which they are only the representatives, may have a tendency 
 in some measure to preserve their credit; but it is against the 
 interest and derogatory to the credit of the State, that their most 
 productive funds should stand- engaged for the payment of a new 
 and voluntary debt gone into without consideration, when their 
 old ereditors, from whom they have had valuable consideration in 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 415 
 
 the hour of necessity, and for whose benefit those funds should in 
 some measure be applied, are if not made worse, at least not 
 bettered. 
 
 If those funds are sufficient to preserve the credit of the bills to 
 be emitted under this bill, they are equally sufficient to appreciate 
 the paper securities now in circulation, in proportion as £200,000 
 bears to the whole of them. 
 
 The Council further object to the fifty-eighth section of the said 
 bill, enacting "that the bills of credit to be emitted shall be a legal 
 tender in all cases where any suit is or shall be commenced for any 
 debt or damages ; and the costs of suit in any stage of the pro- 
 ceedings thereof." 
 
 Because, by the law to compel the receipt of paper at the value 
 the Legislature please to fix it, and which must in every other 
 instance receive its value from the will of the users, in the place 
 and stead of gold and sUver ; should the money depreciate, it 
 will be by law stripping the citizen of his property contrary to the 
 spirit of the Constitution, and will be working iniquity by the aid 
 of law. This clause will put an end to all credit in the State, 
 which will be extremely injurious to our commerce and against 
 the interest of the people. 
 
 Mr. Chancellor Livingston then offered the following objections, 
 as a substitute for those reported by him on the thirteenth instant, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because the fifty-eighth clause of the bill enacts "that the bills 
 of credit shall be a legal tender in all cases where any suit shall 
 be brought or commenced for any debt or damages and the costs 
 of suit," thereby interfering in private contracts, and imposing on 
 creditors the necessity of accepting State securities (for as such the 
 bills of credit must be viewed) in lieu of specie, which has a 
 known intrinsic value, while the value of the new emitted paper 
 must re$t on opinion only. 
 
 2. Because, -though the clause seems designed only to enable the 
 debtor to discharge the debt in paper, in case of his being sued by 
 the creditor, and thus to leave it optional with the creditor to re- 
 ceive such paper, or by delaying to prosecute for it, to wait till 
 the bills of credit have an established value or are out of circula- 
 
416 The Council op Eevision. 
 
 tion ; yet, in many cases, it compels him to receive it or lose his 
 debt on all simple contract debts, bills of exchange and notes of 
 hand, which must, by the laws, be prosecuted within a limited 
 time, or are rendered void. 
 
 8. Because laws which change or lessen the creditor's security 
 and free one set of men from their contracts, to the prejudice of 
 another, are not only contrary to that spirit of equal justice which 
 prevails in free governments, but are productive of the worst of 
 evils by loosing the bonds of society and causing a general cor- 
 ruption of manners. 
 
 Albany, March 5, 1790. Present — Governor Clinton; Living- 
 ston, Chancellor; Yates and Hobart, Justices. 
 
 The bill entitled "An act appointing commissioners vnih power to 
 declare the consent of the Legislature of this State, that a certain territory 
 within the jurisdiction thereof should be formed or erected into a new 
 State" was before the Council. The Governor reported the fol- 
 lowing objections to the bill, as being against the Constitution of 
 this State and the United States, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the said bill is calculated, and should it become a 
 law, may have the effect to take the property of individuals for the 
 benefit of the public without recompense, in direct violation of the 
 principle recognized in the seventh article of the amendments to 
 the Constitution of the United States, so lately ratified by the 
 Legislature of this State, which expressly declares "that private 
 property shall not be taken for pubhc use without just compensa- 
 tion." 
 
 2. Because this bill confers discretionary powers upon the Com- 
 missioners therein named, to destroy the rights and extinguish the 
 claims of the citizens of this and other States, to lands within a 
 certain district. The vacating of charters and patents, which are 
 among the most solemn rights, by the mere force of legislative 
 authority, is at all times a high-handed stretch of power, and 
 utterly incompatible with the idea of a just and more especially 
 of a free republican government, rendering the rights and titles 
 of citizens uncertain and insecure, depriving them of the benefit 
 of the ordinary course of justice, and leaving them dependent on 
 
.Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 417 
 
 the mere 'will of the Legislature, to the destruction of all confi- 
 dence in that government to which they submitted for the great 
 end of protection, as weU in the enjoyment of their property as 
 of their lives and liberties. And this bill is rendered the more 
 exceptionable by a delegation of this extraordinary power to indi- 
 viduals, and giving to their acts the force and validity of law 
 without being subject to the correction or examination of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 3. Because, by this bill, the. rights of citizens under charters 
 and letters patent, which may be ranked among the highest species 
 of contracts, may not only be impaired, but extinguished, in direct 
 violation of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, which declares that no State shall pass 
 any law impairing the obligation of contracts. 
 
 4. Because, if the district of Vermont should be erected into a 
 distinct State, and received into the Union without any further 
 intervention of this State than what is required by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, the proprietors of land would not be 
 deprived of their rights by this change of jurisdiction, but by the 
 operation of this bUl their claims may be extinguished and they 
 divested of the privileges secured to them as citizens of the United 
 States, by the second section of the third article of the Constitu- 
 tion, which extends the powers of the judiciary to cases of this 
 nature. 
 
 5. Because the acts of the commissioners, under this bill (should 
 it pass into a law), will either have the effect of extinguishing the 
 grants under New York and debarring the claimants of any 
 remedy in the Federal courts, or they will not. In the last case, 
 the act would be a deception upon the people of the district styled 
 Vermont, unworthy of government, and be far from promoting the 
 peace and happiness of the United States in general, or of this State 
 in particular, which the bill has in contemplation. In the first case, 
 it is to be observed, that the judicial power of the Union is, by the 
 second section of the third article of the Constitution, extended to 
 controversies between a State and citizens of another State; and it 
 is a well known fact, that citizens of other States claim lands in 
 the said district under patents granted by New York. If, then, 
 such citizens can have their remedy against this State in the 
 
 53 
 
418 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Federal courts, and command a compensation for the injury received 
 by annulling their grants, would it not be most unjust that our 
 own citizens should be precluded, merely because they live under 
 our immediate protection. 
 
 6. Because, although the bill may produce the effect of extin- 
 guishing the claims of the New York patentees, where they are 
 citizens of the State, and bound by its laws, yet this cannot be 
 urged with respect to citizens of another State, who may maintain 
 their suit against claimants under Vermont in a Federal court, and 
 recover just compensation ; while our citizens will be deprived of 
 redress, not because they have less justice on their side, but be- 
 cause this bill, in its operation, may have precluded them from 
 any remedy. 
 
 City of New Yoek, January 14, 1793. Present — Governor 
 Clinton; Livingston, Chancellor; Yates, Chief Justice; Hobart 
 and Lewis, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "^n act for lorescribing the times, places and man- 
 ner of holding elections for Senators to represent this State in the Senate 
 of the Congress of the United States of America," was before the Coun- 
 cil. Chancellor Livingston reported the following objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the Constitution of the United States directs that the 
 Senators be chosen from each State by the Legislature thereof. 
 If, by the Legislature is intended the members of the two houses 
 not acting in their legislative capacity, no law is necessary to pre- 
 scribe the mode of election, concurrent resolutions extending in 
 this case as well to the mode of election as to the choice of persons. 
 And the bill, as far as it goes, operates as a restriction upon the 
 constitutional rights of the two houses. If the Legislature are only 
 known in their legislative capacity, the Senators can constitution- 
 ally be appointed by law only, and no considerations arising from 
 inconvenience will justify a deviation from the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 2. Because the clause of the Constitution of this State, to which 
 the bill refers, declares that in case the persons nominated for 
 delegates shall not be on the lists both of the Senate and Assem- 
 bly, that then ttey shall be elected by joint ballot, &c. ; by which 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 419 
 
 means, if the same rule stall be adopted for the election of Sena- 
 tors, it may sometimes happen that Senators may be chosen who 
 shall not have one vote from the Senate, and at others by the 
 Senate in concurrence with a minority of the House of Assembly, 
 both of which elections would be directly repugnant to the spirit 
 and letter of the Federal Constitution, siace by that the Legislature 
 are to elect, and the Assembly without the voice of the Senate can 
 in no sense be termed the Legislature, nor can that word be applied 
 with more propriety to the Senate, acting in concurrence with a 
 minority of the House of Assembly, nor to either, without a sub- 
 mission of their bills to the Council of Revision ; and the rather, 
 as by the spirit of the Constitution, the Senators are the represen- 
 tatives of the Government of the States, as the House of Eepre- 
 sentatives is of the people of the United States, which shows the 
 peculiar propriety of confining the choice of the first to the State 
 as a State, and not to the members of either or both houses in 
 their individual capacity. 
 
 City of Kew York, March 11, 1796. Present — Governor 
 Jay ; Livingston, Chancellor ; Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.n act to authorize the raising moneys, iy tax, in 
 the city and county of New York, for defraying the public expenses," 
 was before the Council. Chancellor Livingston reported the fol- 
 lowing objections, viz.: 
 
 1. Because, in the first and second clauses of the bill, it directs 
 a tax on the estate, real and personal, of the freeholders and inha- 
 bitants within the said city and county, &c. If the word "and" is 
 to be taken conjunctively, then no freehold or real property can 
 be rated or taxed unless the proprietor is also an inhabitant, or no 
 inhabitant be taxed unless he is also a freeholder, both of which 
 constructions would work too many inconveniences to have been 
 within the intention of the Legislature. 
 
 If the word "and" is taken disjunctively, then the personal 
 estate of a freeholder may be rated, though he is not an inhabitant, 
 and the personal property is always attached to the person and 
 
420 The Coukcil of Eevision. 
 
 must be taxed wliere tlie owner inhabits, and thus induce a double 
 tax on some of the inhabitants of the State. 
 
 2. Because the second enacting clause of the bill directs that 
 "the said several sums of money shall be rated and assessed 
 according to the estate of each respective person so to be taxed," 
 without affording any rule by which such personal assessment is 
 to be made, or imposing any check upon this unbounded power: 
 no notice being directed to be given to the person taxed of the 
 amount of his tax till he is called upon for payment ; no specifi- 
 cation of the articles taxed, other than the general division required 
 by the act entitled "An act for the more effectual collection of 
 taxes in the city and county of New York," into real and personal 
 property, and no opportunity being afforded to persons who may 
 be improperly taxed of showing the injustice of the assessment; 
 no tribunal to which they can appeal from ignorance, corruption 
 or malice in the assessors ; no punishment annexed to their mis- 
 conduct be it ever so flagrant, nor any limitation whatever set to 
 their power, though this power is so exorbitant as to violate the 
 first principles of Free Governments, which should attentively 
 guard the property of every citizen against arbitrary impositions, 
 and afford tribunals to hear and determine every oppression under 
 which a citizen may labor. The spirit of such Governments 
 requires that the laws should accurately define the extent of every 
 duty they create, of every right they abridge, that the citizens may 
 know how to fulfill their duties and defend their rights ; whereas 
 this bill leaves the definition of their duty in this respect to the 
 arbitrary discretion of the assessors, and takes from them all legal 
 modes of defending one of their most important rights, the right 
 of property. 
 
 3. Because there is no provision in the bill to guard any person 
 who may have two places of residence, and may occasionally 
 reside at either, from being rated in both for his personal property, 
 an oppression under which it is well known some of the citizens 
 of this State have labored. 
 
 The objections were amended so as to read as in the body of 
 the work, page 
 
Objections not sanctioned bt the Council. 421 
 
 Albany, J^efinrary 16, 1797. Present— Governor Jay; Yates, 
 Chief Justice ; Hobart, Lansing and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled ^^ An act to render the funds of this State more pro- 
 ductive of revenue, " was before tbe Council. Judge Lansing reported 
 the following objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Because tbe biR in its wliole scope bears evident marks of an 
 intent to impose a restraint as well on the indiscreet use as the pal- 
 pable abuse of the powers intended to be conferred on the presi- 
 dent, directors and company of the Bank of New York; a restraint 
 obviously dictated by prudence, from the consideration of the im- 
 portant public interests intended to be confided to the management 
 of the directors of the bank; but it is inadequate to effect the 
 former of those salutary purposes, the fixed stock of the bank 
 arising from the acquisition of the stocks of the State not being 
 capable of affording an active capital to be used in the operations 
 of the bank unless previously converted into money, and thus the 
 provision that the total amount of the debts which the bank may 
 at any time owe, by contract, over and above the moneys then 
 actually iu the bank, may exceed the amount to which it is at pre- 
 sent restricted in the proportion which the aggregate sum of the 
 nominal value of the stocks added to $1,000,000 shall exceed the 
 sum of $1,000,000, extends the abUity of the bank to contract 
 debts to the amount of upwards of $8,000,000 on an active capital 
 of less than $1,000,000, and thus unduly increases the legal ability 
 of the bank to contract debts to an amount inordinately dispropor- 
 tionate to its means of prompt payment. 
 
 2. Because, whenever the exigencies of the bank may require a 
 resort to the auxiliary fund arising from the sale of the stocks, it 
 will probably depreciate in proportion to the pressure of the emer- 
 gency which requires the conversion of such stocks into money; 
 as by increasing the amount of the stocks at any time in market 
 beyond the existing demand, the price must unavoidably be 
 reduced, and thus the security of the State diminished in propor- 
 tion to the loss arising from that circumstance. 
 
 3. Because the introduction of the Comptroller or Treasurer into 
 the direction, and the injunctions on him to report the state of the 
 bank, in certain cases, to the person administering the government 
 cannot repress any imprudence of the directors, as to tbe emission 
 
422 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 of paper until their debts exceed tlie limitation contained in the 
 bill, the sense of the Legislature being conveyed by a very strong 
 implication that to contract debts to any amount within that limita- 
 tion would not be improper or imprudent. . 
 
 4. Because the bill is calculated to increase the quantity of cir- 
 culating paper, the abundance of which is already an evil of great 
 magnitude. 
 
 Albany, Ifarch 30, 1798. Present— Governor Jay; Lansing, 
 Chief Justice ; Lewis and Benson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to amend the act entitled '■An act for sup- 
 pressing immorality,''^ passed the 23d of February, 1788, was 
 before the Council. Judge Benson reported objections (found in 
 body of the work, page 316), and Judge Lewis reported the fol- 
 lowing objections in addition thereto, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the proyisions of said bill militate against the thirty- 
 eighth section of the^ Constitution by operating a preference to 
 that class of Christians who keep the first day of the week as holy 
 time, and an oppression of those who from a religious sense of duty 
 are observers of another day. 
 
 2. Because they think it unwise ever by law to impose obliga- 
 tifttis on the consciences of men in matters of opinion, such laws 
 being ever disregarded or imperfectly executed, and having a con- 
 sequent tendency to weaken the hands of government. 
 
 3. Because it has a tendency to increase offenses by restraining 
 acts the legality or immorality of which must ever depend on the 
 opinions and consciences of individuals. 
 
 4. Because it in some measure prescribes the manner of keeping 
 the Sabbath, which even among the most pious has varied in 
 almost every age, and is at this day very different among different 
 sects. 
 
 5. Because they believe that instead of improving morals, it will 
 have a contrary tendency, by exacting doubts of the divinity of a 
 religion which requires the aid of government for its support. 
 
 And the question being put whether the Council do agree to the 
 said additional objections, it passed in the negative, whereupon 
 Judge Lewis moved that the said additional objections should be 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 423 
 
 inserted in the minutes, and the question being put thereon it 
 passed in the affirmative. The Council then adopted the objections 
 as reported by Judge Benson. 
 
 Albany, ^P'^^ 2, 1799. Present — Governor Jay; Livingston, 
 Chancellor; Lansing, Chief Justice ; Benson, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "^In act for supplying the city of New York with 
 pure and wholesome water," was before the Council. The Chief 
 Justice reported the following objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the bill creates a corporation with a capital of $2,000,000 
 vested with the unusual power to divert its surplus capital to the 
 purchase of public or other stock, "or any other moneyed transac- 
 tions or operations not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws 
 of this State or of the United States," and which surplus may be 
 applied to the purposes of trade or any other purpose which the 
 very comprehensive terms in which this clause is conceived may 
 warrant. This, in the opinion of the Council, as a novel experi- 
 ment, the result whereof, as to its influence on the community, 
 must be merely speculative and uncertain, peculiarly requires the 
 apphcation of the policy which has heretofore uniformly obtained; 
 that the powers of corporations relative to their money operations, 
 should be of limited instead of perpetual duration. 
 
 Albajsty, March 8, 1803. Present — Governor Clinton ; Kent, 
 Livingston and Thompson, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled " J.7i act to increase the numher of wards in the city 
 of New York, and' equalize the same," was before the Coimcil. Jus- 
 tice Kent reported the following objections, viz.: 
 
 That the bill contains certain alterations in the charter of the 
 said city, and it not appearing in the said bill, or otherwise, that 
 the same are made upon the application or with the consent of 
 the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the said city, it is to be 
 intended that those alterations are liiade without sucih application 
 
424 The Council of Eevision- 
 
 or consent. It appears therefore improper that the said bill should 
 become a law. 
 
 1. Because the bill declares that from and after the first day of 
 October next, the city of New York shall be divided into nine 
 wards, and that the electors of each ward shall annually choose 
 one alderman and one assistant, and that not less than the mayor 
 or recorder and five aldermen and five assistants shall be a quorum 
 of the common councU of said city, or be competent to do any 
 business ; whereas, by the charter of the said city, it is granted 
 and declared that the same shall forever thereafter be and remain 
 divided into seven wards, and that forever thereafter there shall 
 
 yoe one mayor, one recorder, seven aldermen and seven assistants, 
 and that the mayor or recorder with four or more aldermen, and 
 four or more assistants, shall be forever thereafter called the 
 common council, and that the said common council, or the major 
 part of them, shall be invested with certain powers and autho- 
 rities. 
 
 2. Because this alteration of the said charter without the con- 
 sent of the mayor, aldermen and commonalty, is a breach of the 
 faith of government pledged to the said corporation ; for by the 
 charter the Crown covenants with the mayor, aldermen and com- 
 monalty of the said city, and their successors that they shall hold 
 and enjoy all the rights, privileges, powers and immunities by 
 the charter mentioned and granted, and that the same shall be 
 valid and effectual, notwithstanding any defect in reciting or men- 
 tioning such rights or any other defect or imperfection whatsoever, 
 and notwithstanding any statute of Parliament, or any act of 
 Assembly; and that if any fault or imperfection in time to come 
 should be found in the same, that the Crown will make any other 
 grant for the better giving, confirming and enjoying the premises 
 and every part thereof, when it shall be desired by the same 
 mayor, aldermen and commonalty, or their successors: and by an 
 act of Assembly passed the 14th October, 1732, the said charter is 
 declared to be valid and eflectual, and it is enacted that the said 
 mayor, aldermen and commonalty, and their successors shall for- 
 ever thereafter hold and enjoy all the rights, franchises, powers 
 and privileges so as aforesaid granted: and by the thirty -sixth 
 article of the Constitution of this State, the said charter, as well as 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 425 
 
 all other charters and grants made prior- to the 14th October, 1775, 
 is saved and confirmed. 
 
 3. Because, if the alterations contained in the said bill can be 
 made without the consent of the corporation, the charter may with 
 equal right be altered in other particulars, and may even be de- 
 stroyed whenever it shall seem meet to the Legislature. And not 
 only this, but every other charter, and every grant from govern- 
 ment can be altered or resumed at pleasure, for they all rest upon 
 the same foundation. The bill therefore establishes a dangerous 
 precedent. It involves a principle which' may lead to the destruc- 
 tion of all the chartered rights and property of the people of this 
 State, for rights and property cease ta be of value when the faith 
 of compact does not secure them, and they are to be held at the 
 will of any man or any set of men whomsoever. 
 
 Albany, April 4, 1804. Present — Governor Clinton ; Lewis, 
 Chief Justice ; Kent, Livingston, Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.?i act to restrain unincorporated hanhing associa- 
 tions,^^ was before the Council. Justice Livingston reported the 
 following objections, viz. : 
 
 That it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the 
 public good, that the said bill should become a law for the follow- 
 ing reasons : 
 
 1. Because it may be doubted whether any company of mer- 
 chants, although consisting of only two persons, can employ any 
 part of their capital as occasion may offer in making loans by dis- 
 counting notes, a business which may oftentimes be pursued to 
 the advantage of commerce and to individual benefit. 
 
 2. As the Mercantile Company and Merchants' Bank mentioned 
 in the bill were formed for the purpose of banking, when it was 
 lawful for the respective members thereof so to do, nothing but 
 the most manifest danger of some great public evils can justify a 
 legislative suppression of them. It is the duty of government to 
 extend protection and security to every citizen engaged in lawful 
 business, but if companies not only sanctioned by precedents, but 
 
 .'54 
 
426 The Council of Eevisiok 
 
 hitherto deemed beneficial may be thus dissolyed without urgent 
 necessity, or on the mere suggestion of possible mischiefs, the 
 spirit of commercial enterprise will be checked, and every species 
 of property rendered insecure; so far from any great dangers 
 being to be apprehended from these institutions, there is reason to 
 believe that their operations have been and will continue to be 
 salutary and useful. 
 
 3. Because the bill in some instances essentially affects the rights 
 of individuals. It is well known that the stock of banking com- 
 panies, in general, sells at a considerable advance. On those there- 
 fore who have paid a premium on the original price of the stock 
 of either of those companies, and there must be many of this des- 
 cription, the bill operates in the nature of a penalty, although they 
 do not hereafter contravene any of its provisions; for it cannot be 
 denied that if suppressed in the manner proposed, the stockholders 
 will not be able to divide more, if so much, as the par value of 
 their shares, the excess which has been given by fair purchasers 
 who have violated no law will of course be lost, and in this way 
 a fine will be inflicted indirectly, at least, on many of the members 
 for doing what at the time was no offense. 
 
 4. Because the bill prohibits associations for the purpose of 
 doing any business which incorporated banks may do by virtue 
 of their respective acts of incorporation. Kow, inasmuch as the 
 Manhattan Bank, which is incorporated, may transact any kind of 
 business, it may be questioned whether any association or partner- 
 ship can hereafter be formed within this State for carrying on 
 commerce, or any other business whatever, however useful to the 
 public, and although no individual may have enterprise or capital 
 sufBcient to undertake it. But if the Manhattan company be not 
 regarded as an incorporated bank, then it must be an unincorpo- 
 rated association within the purview of the bill, and cannot issue 
 notes or loan money after the first Tuesday in May, 1805, which it 
 is conceived could not have been the intention of the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 427 
 
 Albany, March 26, 1805. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "Jlw act to incorporate the stocJcholders of the Mer- 
 chants' Bank in the city of New York" was before the Council. 
 Justice Spencer reported the following objections, viz.: 
 
 1. Because there are three banks already established bj law in 
 the said city of New York, possessing capital stock to the amount 
 of about $5,000,000, with authority to issue notes and create debts 
 to the amount of at least $15,000,000. And when it is con- 
 sidered that an alarming decrease of specie has taken place in the 
 United States generally, and still continues to take place, it is 
 jeopardizing the interests of the community to erect other banks, 
 and more especially in the city of New York, thereby to increase 
 the influx of bills of credit, already too great, and to further 
 banish from circulation the precious metals. 
 
 2. Because the bill contains no evidence, nor does there exist 
 any on the journals of either house, or by petition before the 
 Legislature, that the creation of a fourth bank in the city of New 
 York is required by the commercial interests of that city, or the 
 agricultural interests of the State; the obvious conclusion, therefore, 
 is that the said bill is passed to promote the cupidity of a few 
 individuals at the expense and manifest prejudice of those banks 
 already established by law; an incorporation under these circum- 
 stances would promote a dangerous species of speculation, the 
 bane of all well-regulated governments. 
 
 3. Because it appears by the journals of the honorable the 
 Senate of the thirteenth of March instant, that, on passing in that 
 body the first enacting clause of the said bill, fourteen Senators 
 voted in the affirmative, and twelve in the negative, and that 
 Ebenezer Purdy, Esq., was one of those who voted, in the affirma- 
 tive; and it further appears, by the journals of the honorable the 
 Assembly of the eighteenth of March instant, from the affidavits 
 of Stephen Thorn, one of the Senators, and Obadiah German, a 
 Member of the Assembly, that the said Ebenezer Purdy had 
 attempted to corrupt their votes, respectively, by holding out. to 
 them large rewards and benefits to induce them to vote in favor 
 of the said bill; and it also appears, by the said affidavit of the 
 
428 The Council of Eevision". 
 
 said Obadiali Grerman, that tlie said Ebenezer Purdy declared to 
 him that he had told the directors or agents of the said bank that 
 for his assistance in obtaining a charter for said bank, they must 
 admit him to be largely interested, and that upon that point there 
 was, between the said Purdy and the said agents or directors, a 
 mutual understanding, and that they, the said Purdy and German 
 might obtain more for their assistance than any other persons. 
 These facts, for ought that appears on the said journals of either 
 house, remain uncontradicted and unexplained. A case so novel 
 and extraordinary demands the exercise of all the constitutional 
 powers vested in the Council. If the said Ebenezer Purdy was 
 capable of offering the said bribes, or if he had an immediate and 
 certain interest in the passage of the said bill, his vote cannot be 
 considered legitimate, and he ought not to have voted thereon. 
 If the vote of the said Ebenezer Purdy be taken from the affirm- 
 ative side, there would have been but thirteen in favor of the said 
 first enacting clause, and had not the said Ebenezer Purdy been 
 improperly influenced by the aforesaid understanding between 
 him and the said agents or directors, he probably would have 
 voted against the said first enacting clause, in which case it does 
 not appear that the same would have passed. This probability 
 derives great force from another fact appearing in the said affidavit 
 of the said Obadiah German, namely, that the said Purdy told 
 the said German that he had a conference some time last fall with 
 the directors of the Merchants' Bank, and that he had become con- 
 vinced it was proper to incorporate the said bank, from which it is to 
 be inferred that before such improper means were made use of 
 by the said directors, with the said Ebenezer Purdy, he was 
 averse to their incorporation; it is further strengthened and sup- 
 ported by the fact that the said Ebenezer Purdy was, for his assis- 
 tance in obtaining a charter for the said bank, to be admitted to a 
 large interest therein; for had the said Ebenezer Purdy, before 
 such conference, been well disposed to an incorporation of the 
 said bank, there existed no inducement on the part of any of the 
 said directors to impart to him, to their own prejudice, an interest 
 in the said institution ; his duty as a legislator in that case, ought 
 to have prompted him in all proper ways to have advocated an 
 incorporation of the said bank. From these considerations it is 
 
Objectioits not sanctioned bt the Council. 429 
 
 fairly to be intended that the vote of tlie said Ebenezer Purdy 
 •was, on tlie passage of the said first enacting clause, influenced by 
 inducements the most improper, and that it was diverse to what it 
 would have been unless such unwarrantable means had been made 
 use of, and produced their intended effect. To sanction a bill 
 thus marked in its progress through one branch of the Legislature 
 with bribery and corruption, would be subversive of all pure 
 legislation, and become a reproach to a government hitherto re- 
 nowned for the wisdom of its councils and the integrity of its 
 legislatures; and it would, moreover, become a precedent danger- 
 ous in the highest degree in all future times. 
 
 4. Because, from the facts stated in the last objections, there are 
 at least good grounds to apprehend, should the said bill become a 
 law, that the public opinion will attribute its enactment to means 
 the most foul and unwarrantable; and thus a want of confidence 
 will be produced on the part of the people towards those to whom 
 legislative powers may be entrusted, and in the end the public 
 functionaries will lose that respect and confidence so essential to 
 the maintenance of the laws and the upholding of government 
 itself. 
 
 5. Because the facts stated in the affidavits of the said Stephen 
 Thorn and Obadiah German were not known to the honorable 
 the Senate, when the said bill passed that branch Of the Legisla- 
 ture; the Senate therefore had not, as they ought to have had, an 
 opportunity of acting on the said bill since the disclosure of a scene 
 of bribery and corruption hitherto unparalleled. It cannot be 
 believed, had it been known to that branch of the Legislature 
 that the directors or agents of the said bank had authorized indi- 
 viduals to corrupt their members, that they would have counte- 
 nanced and much less that they would have passed the said bill. 
 In a case thus circumstanced the said bill ought not to receive 
 the sanction of the Council. 
 
 Albany, March 28, 1806. Present — Governor Lewis; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Thompson and Spencer, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act for the relief of Henry Dehrd," was 
 
430 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 before the Council. The Chief Justice reported the following 
 objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the bUl provides that if any suit shall be already com- 
 menced against the said Henry Delord, to recover any fine, for- 
 feiture or penalty incurred for any infraction of the fourteenth 
 section of the act entitled "An act for the repacking and inspec- 
 tion of beef and pork," the same shall be discontinued on pay- 
 nlent or tender of the costs of such suit. The bill, therefore, in 
 the case of a suit already brought (which we may presume to be 
 the fact), interferes with and takes away a private right acquired 
 under the former statute, and which had become vested in the 
 party commencing the suit. The act above referred to gives one 
 moiety of every such forfeiture or penalty to any person who will 
 sue for the same ; and by the common law of the land the party 
 commencing such suit acquires a right of property in his propor- 
 tion of the penalty ; the popular action becomes his private action, 
 that thereby attaches such an interest in himself to his moiety 
 of the forfeiture, that a pardon of the offense will not affect it. 
 
 A-hBANY, March 8, 1811. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Thompson, Spencer, Van 
 Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to incorporate the stocJehoIders of the Union 
 Bank in the city of New York" was before the Council. Justice 
 Spencer reported the following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because it appears by the petition, signed by Amasa Jackson, 
 and others, styling themselves the president and directors of the 
 Jersey Bank, accompanying the said bill, that the said bank has 
 effected discounts and loans to a large amount, and it is not only 
 therefore to be intended, but it is also a notorious and public fact, 
 that the bank bills of the Jersey Bank are in extensive circulation 
 within this State. The ninth section of the bill enacts that unless 
 the president and directors of the Jersey Bank shall, within three 
 months after the passing of this act, surrender and dissolve the 
 charter they hold under the act of the Legislature of New Jersey, 
 or unless the same shall be otherwise dissolved, that then the act 
 intended to be passed into a law, and the provisions therein con- 
 
ObJECTIOKS not SAirCTIONED BY THE COUNCIL. 431 
 
 -tained, shall be null and void. The condition then on which the 
 new corporation is to have continuance beyond the space of three 
 months, being the dissolution of the charter held under the Legis- 
 lature of New Jersey, should that event take place, then it is 
 extremely doubtful whether there would exist any legal remedy, 
 in favor of such persons as are the holders of the bills and notes 
 of the Jersey Bank, to enforce the payment thereof after the dis- 
 solution of the charter under New Jersey; it is certain no suit 
 could be maintained against the persons who composed that cor- 
 poration in their natural capacity, and it appears equally clear 
 that no suit can be maintained against a dissolved corporation in 
 terminating its legal existence. The bill contains no provision 
 creating a liabihty on the part of the new corporation for the 
 debts due from and the notes and bills issued by the president and 
 directors of the Jersey Bank; the only liability created against 
 the new corporation is for bills obligatory, and of credit imder the 
 seal of the new corporation, and for bills or notes which may in 
 future be issued by it. If, therefore, there be any amenability on 
 the part of the new corporation for the debts of the old one, it 
 must arise not from any provisions in the bill, but from the com- 
 mon law; and although it be true that on an alteration in the 
 name of a corporation, whether by the addition of another com- 
 ponent part or otherwise, they retain the property which belonged 
 to them before the alteration, and are equally hable to all claims 
 and debts to which they were before subject, yet this is not that 
 case. The bill goes to create a new corporation, which is to con- 
 sist of the stockholders of the former corporation; the new cor- 
 poration is not an alteration of the old, but on the contrary, should 
 this bUl pass into a law, there would be coexisting two bbdies 
 corporate, the one created by the bill and the other under the law 
 of New Jersey, which latter the bill recognizes as in esse, and re- 
 quires to be dissolved. The principle on which the alteration in 
 name of a charter has been held not to work a prejudice is, that 
 such alteration produces only a mutation in the corporate style, 
 and the law supposes the same corporation to have been continu- 
 ally existing, though a modification of it has taken place. 
 
 But in the present case the former charter was granted under 
 another sovereignty, and although the same natural persons may 
 
432 The Council of Eevisioit. 
 
 be incorporated under a different sovereignty, sucli new incorpor- 
 ation cannot be considered as an alteration in tte former charter, 
 for it becomes at once a new legal entity. In this view, not only 
 the rights of persons holding the notes and bills of the Jersey 
 Bank are impaired by the bill, and the requirement it makes that 
 the former corporation be dissolved; but the. interests of the stock- 
 holders in the Jersey Bank are materially affected, inasmuch as 
 after dissolution of the former corporation, no suits could be 
 maintained for the debts due to the old corporation; not by the 
 old corporation, because it would not exist; and not by the new 
 because the right to sue for the debts of the old, are not given by 
 the bill. How the charter under New Jersey is to be dissolved 
 is not matter of inquiry for the Council ; they intend that such 
 dissolution will take place, because the persons intended to be 
 incorporated are required to effect it. A bill thus improvisory, 
 and which places upon at least a very doubtful footing the rights 
 of bona fide holders of the notes and bills of the Jersey Bank, to 
 an unknown amount, and which may, in its consequences, be 
 vastly iojurious, ought not to become a law of this State. 
 
 Albany, June 2, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice ; Thompson, Spencer, Van 
 Ness and Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.w act to incorporate the stockholders of the Bank 
 ofAinerica" was before the Council. Justice Spencer reported the 
 following objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the existing banking capital in the city of New York, 
 within which it is to be presumed the operations of the intended 
 bank are to be primarily and principally conducted, already 
 exceeds $8,000,000, and in the most prosperous times and whilst 
 commercial enterprise was unchecked by the depredations of 
 foreign nations, or the legal restraints of our own government, 
 this capital was found adequate to commercial exigencies. To ex- 
 tend the banking capital at the present period, when our foreign 
 commerce has become stagnant, and when the American nation is 
 in all human probability on the eve of a war in defense of our 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 433 
 
 commercial riglits, would be unnecessary and unwise, and proba- 
 bly productive of consequences highly injurious as well to indivi- 
 duals as to the public. 
 
 Because the bill goes to establish a bank with a capital of 
 $6,000,000, whilst the capitals of none of the existing banks, 
 exceed $2,000,000 ; the bill therefore concenters in a single insti- 
 tution a power alarming to the minor banks, a power which may 
 be wielded iu such manner as to destroy the independence of those 
 establishments, and may in the end prove highly detrimental not 
 only to the prosperity of the community, but may subvert those 
 institutions, in which many persons have embarked imder the con- 
 fidence of governmental protection, and upon the legislative faith 
 that no act would be unnecessarily passed which might impair or 
 destroy their security. 
 
 Because the bill does not restrain the operations of the intended 
 bank to the city of New York, but enables the directors thereof 
 to extend their operations and to establish their branches in other 
 parts of the State ; a power thus unlinaited may be exercised in 
 such a manner as not only to prejudice the interests, but to con- 
 trol the operations, destroy the independence and impair the secu- 
 rity of every bank north of the city of New York, whose capitals 
 are comparatively small, and thus property as well of individuals 
 as of the State, may be depreciated, if not endangered. A bill thus 
 improvisory and alarming, giving undefined and unnecessary 
 powers, and leaving the exertion of those powers to a few indivi- 
 duals, should it become a law, would materially weaken the confi- 
 dence of community in the justice, wisdom and foresight of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Albany, Jwne 16, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Van Ness, Justice. 
 
 A bUl entitled "An act providing for the election of r^esmiatives 
 for the State in the Congress of the United States," was before the 
 Council. Chief Justice Kent reported the following objections, viz. : 
 
 Because it provides that twenty-seven representatives for this 
 State in the House of Eepresentatives of the Congress of the United 
 55 
 
434 The Council of Revision. 
 
 States, for the term of two years, commencing on the fourth day 
 of March next, shall be elected on the third Tuesday of December 
 next, whereas seventeen of the said twenty-seven representatives 
 have already been elected by the people of this State, at the general 
 election held on the last Tuesday in April last. That such an 
 election was held is a fact of public notoriety, of which none can 
 pretend ignorance, and that such an election was lawfully held, 
 appears by the act of the Legislature of this State of the 24th 
 March, 1801, and of the 8th April, 1808, prescribing and regulat- 
 ing such elections. Those statutes were in force, unless repealed 
 by the act of Congress of the twenty -first of December last. But 
 the act of Congress did not repeal those statutes, neither by express 
 words nor by necessary implication. The act of Congress did 
 nothing more and intended nothing more than to declare the 
 number of representatives which each State was entitled to 
 under the last enumeration, and the apportionment made in 
 pursuance thereof If it had been intended to have altered 
 the existing regulations in the several States, as tothe time, 
 places and manner of holding elections for representatives, the 
 language would undoubtedly have been explicit. If the State 
 laws are repealed, it can only be on the ground that they are re- 
 pugnant to the act of Congress ; but unless such repugnancy be 
 absolute and necessary, it cannot work a repeal of the State laws ; 
 for it is a wise principle in the construction of statutes not to favor 
 a repeal by mere implication, because it tends to lessen the dignity 
 and authority of laws. This principle becomes of peculiar value 
 and importance when a question arises whether the laws of one 
 government, possessing jurisdiction in the case, are repealed by 
 those of another possessing a like jurisdiction and to be exercised 
 for its own preservation. The fact of a new enumeration and 
 apportionment of representatives will not of itself, and without 
 reference to any incompatibility resulting from it, produce a repeal 
 of the former State regulations ; for it may be that upon such new 
 enumeration and apportionment, the number of representatives 
 from a State will remain the same, without increase or diminution. 
 Nor does the increased inequality in the districts within the State 
 (if any there be) arising under the new enumeration, affect the 
 question ; for inequalities do and will exist upon every creation 
 
Objections not sanctioned bt the Council. 435 
 
 of districts, and the inequality, whatever it may be, goes only to 
 the equity and not to the constitutionality of the provision. When- 
 ever the State regulations in this respect are unequal and unjust, 
 it will be the duty, as it is at all times withia the power of Con- 
 gress to correct them. It is the absolute impracticability of execut- 
 ing the existing laws, under the new apportionment, that will 
 destroy them; and such a case would have occurred, if, instead of 
 twenty-seven representatives, this State had been entitled under 
 the last enumeration only to twelve representatives. But the 
 increase of the representatives beyond seventeen does not prevent 
 the election of seventeen under the existing laws, nor does such 
 an election disable the Legislature from providing afterwards for 
 the election of the residue. It rests in the discretion of the State 
 Legislatures to prescribe the time when and the mode in which 
 the representatives shall be chosen, and they may in the exercise 
 of that discretion cause part of the representatives to be elected at 
 one time and part at another. This power granted to the States, 
 is of a permanent nature. It is a substantive and general provi- 
 sion, and it is not to be construed as a temporary grant, expiring 
 with the period of each apportionment. In this State, the districts 
 have been repeatedly altered during the period of the same enume- 
 ration. The application of the power becomes requisite on every 
 new apportionment, in order to give such apportionment full effect, 
 but the former exercise of the power wUl remain good, so far as it 
 is not destroyed by an absolute repugnancy between the one pro- 
 vision and the other. Suppose there had been, on the last enume- 
 ration, no variation in the population or representation of this 
 State, must the former laws be reenacted in the same words to give 
 them force ? If there had been no election this last spring, it can- 
 not be doubted that the Legislature might have directed seventeen 
 representatives to be elected in December next, either in districts 
 to be estabhshed for the purpose or by a general ticket, and the 
 remaining ten representatives to have been elected at some other 
 time under the like provisions. Whatever doubt there might be 
 as to the wisdom, there could be none as to the competency of 
 such a regulation. Whatever our State regulations on the subject 
 may be, they remain vaUd and operative until altered either by 
 the power that enacted them or by an act of Congress made ex- 
 
436 The Council of EevisioiT. 
 
 pressly and for the purpose of altering them. Thougli the exist- 
 ing regulations of this State did not provide for the election of 
 more than seventeen representatives, they were competent and 
 binding to that extent, for it is another and generally sound maxim 
 in the construction of the statutes, that one statute is no further 
 repealed by a subsequent statute by implication than the case ren- 
 ders indispensable. 
 
 The former law is to operate to all the extent in which it can be 
 consistent by any possible construction with the provisions of the 
 subsequent law. 
 
 Albany, Junel9, 1812. Present — Governor Tompkins; Lan- 
 sing, Chancellor ; Kent, Chief Justice ; Van Ness, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "J.m act concerning the Judges of the Supreme 
 Court," was before the Council. Chancellor Lansing reported the 
 following objections, viz.: 
 
 Because the Constitution having recognized the Supreme Court, 
 in its organisation and powers, as existing under the colonial gov- 
 ernment, derived from those of the English common law courts of 
 King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, in none of which 
 courts, Colonial or English, have the number of judges at one time 
 exceeded j^w, has thus imperatively fixed that number as the com- 
 mon law maximum incapable of being exceeded, but by an express 
 act of the Legislature, in conformity to the declaration of the Con- 
 stitution, that such parts of the common law of England as com- 
 posed part of the law of the Colony should be and continue the 
 law of the land, subject to such alterations and provisions as the 
 Legislature of this State should from time to time make concern- 
 ing the same. 
 
 Because the bill authorizes the honorable Senate and Assembly, 
 by concurrent resolution, to direct the extension of the limitation 
 oi five judges to an indefinite number; thus evading the constitu- 
 tional revision of this Council, and precluding it from expressing 
 its opinion whether existing circumstances render it consistent with 
 the public good to enlarge the number in a case in which this 
 Council must constitutionally be presumed eminently qualified to 
 
^ Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 437 
 
 from a correct judgment on the subject, as its constituent members 
 are the executive and the judicial officers presiding in the superior 
 courts of original jurisdiction of the State. 
 
 Because the biU, from its nature and object, is indefinitely pros- 
 pective, and the powers granted by it incapable of being exhausted 
 by successive concurrent resolutions; thus not only destroying 
 the independence of the Council by exposing it to be borne down 
 by the introduction of new judges, whenever its measures do not 
 comport with the opinions of a major part of the members com- 
 posing the honorable Senate and Assembly, but placing the Coun- 
 cil in absolute subserviency to them, instead of forming the check 
 the Constitution intended upon this proceeding. 
 
 Because if the bill should become a law, and concurrent resolu- 
 tions should be passed during the present sessions for the appoint- 
 ment of one or more judges, this number might be doubled in the 
 next session, and subsequent members of the Legislature might 
 increase them by the same means a hundredfold, and thus the 
 salutary efficacy of the judiciary might be virtually impaired, and 
 the people of this State be burdened with a useless and intolerable 
 expense, unsanctioned in the forms prescribed by the Constitution, 
 or by the constituted authorities, to whom collectively, each acting 
 in the sphere assigned to it, the Constitution has committed these 
 important and incommunicable powers. 
 
 Because the business of the Supreme Court has of late been 
 so much diminished, that there is tww less necessity for a 
 greater number of judges than* there has been for several years 
 past. 
 
 Because the peace and prosperity of the State are inseparably 
 connected with an unshaken and implicit confidence of its citizens, 
 that the judiciary exercises its powers on the most solid and un- 
 doubted authority, the constitutionality and legitimacy of which 
 will not admit of hesitation or doubt ; and this bill if passed into 
 a law may affijrd strong grounds for such doubts. 
 
 The Council amended the above objections so aa to read as in 
 the body of the work, pages 37Q-1. 
 
438 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Albany, 4pn7 9, 1813. Present — Governor Tompkins ; Kent, 
 Chief Justice; Lansing, Chancellor; Thompson, Spencer, Yates 
 and Van Ness, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "J-W act for the encouragement of American manu- 
 factures," was before the Council. Chief Justice Kent reported the 
 following objections, ,viz. : 
 
 1. Because it establishes a corporation in the city of New York 
 entitled "The President and Directors of the Commission Com- 
 pany," with a capital of $600,000, and with power to contract debts 
 to double that amount, and the business of the company is declared 
 to consist "in making advances of money on American manufac- 
 tures and selling the same on commission," thus introducing a new 
 class of corporations into our statute book. It is setting a prece- 
 dent which, considering the unusual increase of incorporated com- 
 panies within the last few years, there is reason to apprehend will 
 be found pregnant with incalculable mischief to the equal rights 
 as to the personal interests of the community. It is bringing the 
 weight of a large moneyed capital and the addition of a great 
 fictitious credit into competition with private individuals in the 
 ordinary business of domestic trade. It is easy to foresee the 
 consequences of the competition. A numerous class of our fellow- 
 citizens, who, with moderate means, pursue the business to which 
 this bill directly or indirectly applies, and are thereby enabled to 
 maintain their families, to diffuse enterprise, to equalize profits, 
 and to give life and vigor to our domestic commerce, would be 
 obhged to yield the competition and retire from the market. Such 
 a company would be able to monopolize the business to which 
 they are to apply, by the aid of this combined capital, this fictitious 
 credit and this shelter of a charter ; and because all other commis- 
 sion merchants who have not these adventitious aids are obliged 
 to act solely upon their private credit and their personal responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 2. Because, though the bill imports to be passed for the encour- 
 agement of domestic manufactures, its provisions do not appear to 
 be calculated to promote that salutary object, inasmuch as the 
 tendency of the bill is to force the produce of the manufacturing 
 labor of the country into the warehouses of the company, from 
 whence it wiU issue to the purchaser loaded with what the bill 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 439 
 
 vaguely terms "the usual mercantile commissions witli tlie usual 
 charges." The profits of the company mil be in proportion to 
 the weight of the tax, which will ultimately fall upon the con- 
 sumer. 
 
 3. Because the disposition for speculation (which is already too 
 prevalent) and the success of this establishment will inevitably 
 lead to the increase of these trading corporations, as the govern- 
 ment cannot well deny to one set of merchants the favors which 
 they grant to another set with no better pretensions. If a body 
 of commission merchants are incorporated in New York for the 
 purpose of storing or selling flour, and the innumerable other arti- 
 cles of domestic manufactures, it will be found hereafter almost 
 impossible to set bounds to so alluring an example, and the inter- 
 nal commerce of the State may become engrossed by incorporated 
 companies. This would be against the public good, because every 
 institution which tends to lessen competition in mercantile business 
 is sure in the end to enhance the price of commodities to the con- 
 sumer. 
 
 Albany, January 25, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Lansing, Chancellor; Kent, Chief Justice; Van Ness, Spencer and 
 Yates, Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled '■'■An act to alter the name of the corporatixm of 
 Trinity Church in New York, and for other purposes" was before the 
 Council. Chancellor Lansing reported the following objections, 
 viz.: 
 
 1. Because of the members of the several incorporated societies 
 in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State, 
 formed in the city of New York after the passage of the act enti- 
 tled "An act for making such alterations in the charter of the cor- 
 poration of Trinity Church as to render it more conformable to 
 the Constitution of this State," have a right to vote at the annual 
 elections for the churchwardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, 
 though not having been members of the corporation of Trinity 
 Church within one year preceding such election, or any of the 
 chapels belonging to the same, and forming part of the same reli- 
 gious corporation, and holding, occupying, or enjoying a pew in 
 
440 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 the said Trinity Church, or any of the chapels thereof, or not 
 having partaken of the holy communion therein within such year, 
 In consequence of the rights and privileges vested in them by the 
 laws of this State and the incorporation of Trinity Church, the 
 limitation of the right of election provided by the bill may divest 
 or impair such right. And if any doubts exist respecting such 
 right of suffrage, it is consistent with the salutary principles of 
 the Constitution of this State to refer them to judicial cognizance 
 as the appropriate and legitimate resort of adverse claimants in 
 controverted cases of that description. This principle has been 
 heretofore recognized by the Council in an analogous case, and 
 which received the sanction of the honorable the Assembly by 
 an almost unanimous vote, as will appear by a reference to their 
 journals of the 7th of February, 1810. 
 
 2. Because the charter, being a private grant, and it not appear- 
 ing by recitals or otherwise what are the existing doubts respect- 
 ing the rights and privileges thereby given, the Council are 
 deprived of the means of judging whether any vested corporate 
 rights are not violated by the restrictions and provisions contained 
 in this bill. 
 
 3. Because the saving clause contained in the proviso to the last 
 section of the bill, " of the right of any person or persons, or of any 
 body corporate to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied 
 or enjoyed by the corporation of Trinity Church," is nugatory, 
 inasmuch as all such rights, so far as they respect the corporators, 
 depend principally upon, and are inseparably connected with the 
 right and privilege of being a member of the corporation and 
 voting for churchwardens and vestrymen who have the manage- 
 ment and disposition of the temporalities belonging to the corpo- 
 ration. 
 
 Albany, October 21, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice ; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to encourage privateering associations" was 
 before the Council. Chancellor Kent reported the following objec- 
 tions, viz.: 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 441 
 
 1. Becaiise privateering is merely tolerated and is not ap- 
 proved of, either by tJie maxims of pubHo law or the opinion of 
 enlightened jurists. The practice is Uahle to great disorder, and 
 as its professed object is the pliinder of private property for pri- 
 vate gain, its tendency is to impair the public morals, to weaken 
 the sense of right and wrong, and to nourish a spirit of lawless 
 ferocity. By the treaty between the United States and Prussia, 
 which was signed on the part of the former by John Adams, Ben- 
 jamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, and ratified by Congress 
 ia 1785, privateering was totally prohibited to either party when 
 at war with the other. So, the Constituent Assembly of Prance, 
 in 1792, and before the public passions had become intemperate, 
 passed a decree for the absolute suppression of privateering, as 
 unworthy of the nation. These opinions may have been upon one 
 extreme, though moderation in war is always the mark of wisdom ; 
 but to pass from them to the other extreme, and to give a direct 
 legislative encouragement to the practice by conferring on those 
 concerned in it, the extraordinary benefit and security of a charter 
 of incorporation (a favor hitherto reserved for municipal, com- 
 mercial, literary, cbaritable and religious purposes), seems not 
 to be conducive to the public good. The cupidity of individuals 
 is already sufficiently inflamed, and ever since our first existence 
 as a nation, the business of privateering hath, without such patron- 
 age, been found to be exceedingly active and alluring. 
 
 2. Because it is an unnecessary interference with the power of 
 Congress "to grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules 
 concerning captures on land and water." The government of 
 the United States is thus made the judge, to what extent, with 
 what aids and imder what regulations the practice ought to be pro- 
 moted. The whole subject matter of the bill belongs properly to 
 that government and not to the individual states, and it is to be 
 presumed that Congress have already made all the rules on the 
 subject of privateering which they deem consistent with the pub- 
 lic policy or the national character. The interfering regulations 
 of the States, on a matter of such general concerns, are the more 
 improper, since they may unintentionally, or under the influence 
 of local interests and local passions, pervert the policy or commit 
 the character of the nation; and this interference may also destroy 
 
 56 
 
442 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 uniformity and consistence of rule ; for if one State may encourage 
 the practice by rewards, another State may equally discourage it 
 by disabilities. 
 
 Because the effect of an incorporation is to weaken or destroy 
 the individual responsibility of those concerned in privateering, 
 and it has hitherto been found expsdient, both in this country and 
 in Europe, to require large personal security to guard the practice 
 from abuse. The protection and the cover of a charter must 
 greatly lessen the sense of legal obligation to good behavior. 
 
 Albany, October 22, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Thompson, Chief Justice ; Kent, Chancellor; Spencer, Justice. 
 
 A bill entitled "4n act concerning vessels in the port of New York" 
 was before the Council. Chancellor Kent reported the following 
 objections, viz.: 
 
 Because it gives to the corporation of New York a power to 
 remove at their discretion, at any time during the present war, and 
 without any cause to be assigned, all or any private vessels in the 
 harbor of New York to any part of this State or of the State of 
 New Jersey; and this removal to be at the risk and expense of the 
 owner, for which expense the owner is made personally liable to 
 suit This is vesting in that corporation a most arbitrary and 
 unprecedented control over the disposition of private property, 
 without making the power to depend upon the existence of some 
 absolute necessity. No doubt when such necessity exists, private 
 property must be subservient to the public safety, but the public 
 are then bound in all good conscience to indemnify instead of 
 charging the owner with the expense. If a house is to be pulled 
 down to arrest the progress of a fire, the owner ought not to pay 
 for pulhng it down. The bill is the more oppressive in this case, 
 since, under the severe affliction that now attends all commercial 
 property, the owner may not find it convenient to bear the expense 
 of the removal, or he may not deem the property of sufl&cient 
 value. The bill is also repugnant to the spirit of an express pro- 
 vision in the Constitution of the United States, which declares that 
 
Objections not sanctioned by the Council. 448 
 
 private property shall not be taken for public use -without just 
 compensation. 
 
 The Council amended the above objections so as to read as in 
 the body of the work ; page 377. 
 
 Albany, October 24, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor ; Thompson, Chief Justice ; Spencer and Yates, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bUl entitled " J.w act to authorize the raising of troops for the 
 defense of this State" was before the Council. The Chancellor 
 reported the following objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Because the Constitution of the United States has granted to 
 Congress the power to raise and support armies,- and with it the 
 exclusive power to lay and collect imposts, and the concurrent 
 power to lay and collect taxes, duties and excises in order to pro- 
 vide for the common defense and general welfare. After such a 
 transfer of power and of the best resources of the State, the raising 
 immediately so large an army as twelve thousand men, and at the 
 sole expense of the people of this State, so far as respects the 
 organization, bounty and equipment of the corps, and which ex- 
 pense alone, according to the terms of the bill, may amount to 
 nearly or quite $2,500,000, is an undue, disproportionate and most 
 burdensome contribution for the common defense. The individual 
 States, as States, have nothing to do with the war except for the 
 mere purpose of self-protection. The entire power of creating, 
 conducting and concluding war, and with it the correspondent 
 duties and responsibilities, are confided exclusively to the govern- 
 ment of the United States. Nor do the provisions of the bill cor- 
 respond with its title ; for the troops so raised are to be placed for 
 two years under the command and at the disposal of the govern- 
 ment of the United States, without any restriction as to place or 
 object, and who may accordingly employ them wherever they 
 please, and upon such projects of conquest as may suit the policy 
 of the government, while the defense of this State from actual inva- 
 sion may, in the meantime, be left to be borne by its remaining 
 citizens. 
 
444 The Council of Revision-. 
 
 2. Because the mode of raising the army by compulsory assess- 
 ments and drafts, will be unjust, unequal and grievously oppres- 
 sive in its operation. The poorest counties in the State must raise 
 as many soldiers, in proportion to their population, as the most 
 •n-ealthy. The bill is not intended for the case of an occasional 
 draft or detachment of a portion of the militia for some sudden 
 and pressing emergency, according to the hitherto received policy 
 of our mild militia systems, and which were never intended to 
 change essentially the free and independent character of citizens. 
 The scheme of this bill is to transfer, forcibly and by military law, 
 citizens into soldiers for long national service, and thereby break- 
 ing up, probably forever, all their plans of business, and the man- 
 ners and morals and habits of domestic life. And this new plan 
 of raising an army appears to be as unnecessary as it is alarming. 
 It is hardly to be supposed that the government of the United 
 States, if it really deserves and retains the affection and confidence 
 of the nation, cannot raise by voluntary enlistments and on reason- 
 able terms a force adequate to all the just purposes of national 
 defense. Nothing, however, short of extreme necessity can justify- 
 any government, and especially the government of a free people, 
 in raising ai-mies by means so vexatious, revolting and arbitrary 
 as those proposed by the present bill, and which cannot but remind 
 us of its analogy in too many of its details to the memorable code 
 of the French conscription, and which, as it is well known to the 
 world, produced the most intolerable miseries in France. 
 
 3. Because the bill does not allow of any exemption from de- 
 tachment for personal service as common soldiers in this army to 
 persons who may have heretofore borne military rank, or who are 
 still officers in the militia, nor to aliens of any denomination or 
 description, nor to the professors and pupils in our seats of learn- 
 ing, nor to any of the existing civil officers of the government of 
 this State, however exalted in station or venerable in character ; 
 while all the civil officers of the government of the United States 
 are exempted by the laws of Congress, and by the provisions of 
 this bill. The painful consequence of such indiscriminate requisi- 
 tion may be felt but cannot be described. It follows that the 
 ordinary duties of government, and even the administration of 
 justice, may be suspended ; and an odious and degrading distinc- 
 
OsJECTIOira NOT SANCTIONED BY THE COUNCIL. 445 
 
 tion is created between the officers of tlie two govenunents, thougli 
 the same official characters in each are equally important to the 
 pubhc welfare, and ought to be equally protected in the exercise 
 of their functions. 
 
 4. Because the bill provides that the Governor shall appoint by 
 brevet all the officers of this army, and who are authorized to act 
 and to hold their rank untU the Council of Appointment shaU have 
 made the appointments. This is in direct violation of the twenty- 
 third article of the Constitution of this State, which declares "that 
 all officers other than those who by the Constitution are directed 
 to be otherwise appointed, shall be appointed by the Council." 
 There is the less necessity for this breach of the Constitution, and 
 for the creation of such immense patronage and unwarrantable 
 power in the Governor, since there is an existing Council ready 
 and competent to perform their duty. 
 
 5. Because by the bUl, if a person has property situate in two 
 or more counties, the property in the county in which he does not 
 reside is made liable, under the name of non-resident property, to 
 assessment for its proportion of the bounties in that county, though 
 such owner is also charged with his proportion of the assessment 
 of the class in which he belongs and resides, and agreeable to his 
 estate, circumstances and ability. By this means he becomes 
 doubly taxed, contrary to the most obvious principles of equality 
 and justice, and the new lands for which he becomes thus amerced 
 to procure a soldier, are at the same time wholly unproductive of 
 revenue, and as little liable to be affected by any incursions of the 
 enemy as they are by the wild beasts which now inhabit them. 
 
 Albany, October 24, 1814. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer and Yates, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitled "An act to authorize Ae raising of a corps of iSea 
 Fendhhs" was before the Council. The Chancellor reported the 
 foUowiag objections, viz. : 
 
 Because the Governor is, by the bill, authorized to appoint by 
 brevet all the officers of the said corps, who are to hold their re- 
 
446 The Council of Kevisioit. 
 
 spective commissions until the Council of Appointment shall have 
 appointed the said officers, thereby rendering that organ of execu- 
 tive power unnecessary, until the Governor, in his pleasure, shall 
 think it expedient to use it, and thereby forestalling the judgment 
 of the Council when it is to be called into session. The Consti- 
 tution knows nothing of appointment by brevet, and if such an 
 idea has heretofore crept into any of our voluminous and complex 
 militia law, it is believed it never extended further than to the case 
 of an existing commissioned officer, to meet the occurrence of some 
 vacancy in a superior grade, and if it did, the precedent is not 
 binding. The Council of Appointment is the only constitutional 
 power to appoint, and if the Legislature can, by law, vest in the 
 Governor the power of appointing new military officers by brevet, 
 with authority and pay as officers, they may, with equal propriety, 
 authorize him to appoint brevet judges and sheriffs, and make 
 brevet removals, and thus render the Council wholly useless, and 
 one of the essential organs of our Constitution may, at last, fall 
 a sacrifice to a French term. The word brevet is no more appli- 
 cable to any legitimate construction of our Constitution, than if it 
 was taken from the Chinese language. In the French vocabulary, 
 from which it is borrowed, it means only an informal, honorary or 
 titular appointment, and in the French customs, according to the 
 information of the French Academy, there are brevet dukes, brevet 
 abbes, brevet apprentices and brevet courtezans, as well as brevet 
 generals and colonels. The people of this State were once called 
 upon in Convention to declare their sense of the powers of the 
 Council of Appointment, and although the Governors had before 
 asserted and exercised the exclusive right of nomination, the Con- 
 vention were so scrupulous on the subject, that they rejected this 
 construction, however wise and salutary it might have been con- 
 sidered. Whatever, then", we may think of the original institu- 
 tion of the Council of Apppointment, or of the limited preroga- 
 tives of the Governor, it is a duty in which we have no choice, to 
 support the one in all its rights, and to prevent the other from all 
 usurpation ; and if we permit such an important pillar of the 
 Constitution as the Council of Appointment to be removed, the 
 whole fabric may soon be brought to the ground, and bury us 
 beneath its ruins. 
 
OBjrcTio:5sB KOT SAsanossD by the Cokscil. 447 
 
 The ChancdloT also stated that he appKed the aforesaid objec- 
 tions, in all respects, to the bill entitled '-An act to aathozize Ac 
 raising of two raiments of men of color." 
 
 Albaxt, April 11, 1815. Present — Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer and Piatt, 
 Justices. 
 
 A biQ entitied "An act to amend an act mtiUed An act jar regulat- 
 mg daUions,' passed March 29, 1813," was before the CounciL 
 The Chancellor reported the following objections, viz. : 
 
 1. Becanse the bill requires every black or mulatto person, 
 within the dty of Xew York, to make and exhibit, at his own 
 expense, before the mayor, recorder or raster, satisfectory proof 
 of his fieedom, and to cause a certificate thereof from the officer, 
 to be recorded and produced to the inspectors, to entitle him to 
 vote at any election; and not only every other black or mulatto 
 person, who may be fiee and qualified to vote, is immediately sub- 
 jected to this provision, but it includes, after the first of Mav 
 next, all iiiose who may have heretofore given the due proof of 
 their freedom, and obtained the requisite certificate thereof in the 
 mode preaaibed by the existing laws. By this means, a qualifi- 
 cation already acquired under a provision made specially for such 
 persons, is to be disregarded and rendered null, and a new quali- 
 fication exacted. 
 
 2. Because the bill requires not only proof of their fieedom to 
 be made and certified in manner aforesaid, but also of their quali- 
 fications to vote in respect to property ; thereby subjecting tiiis 
 dracnption of pera>ns to a new mode of ascertaining their real 
 and personal estates, and presenting a diSFerent test of property to 
 one class fix)m what is presented to other classes of citizens, and 
 thus rendering the provision unequal and partial in its operation. 
 
 3. Because the bill is not only unequal in respect to free and 
 qualified voters of that description, as distinguished from whites, 
 but it is still further unequal, by subjecting those who reside in 
 the city of Kew York to proofe and burdens not required of those 
 who reside elsewhere. 
 
448 The Council of Rkyisioht. 
 
 4. Because the bill requires, in addition to the proof and certifi- 
 cate aforesaid, that every such negro or mulatto, at least five days 
 before the commencement of any election, including the elec- 
 tion to take place on the twenty-fifth instant, shall dehver to the 
 register his affidavit, stating the particulars of his qualifications as 
 to property; and if he omits to do this, and is challenged at the 
 election, he shall not vote, unless he proves to the satisfaction of 
 the inspectors, by one or more witnesses, that he is in all respects 
 qualified to vote. Thus, further, a new and peculiar proof is to 
 be exacted of this class of people, notwithstanding they may have 
 made satisfactory proof to the mayor, recorder or register, in the 
 form prescribed by law, of their freedom and qualifications. 
 Checks and regulations so multiplied, must tend greatly to impair 
 the value, by increasing the difficulty, of using the right of suf- 
 frage; and no doubt can be entertained that such provisions as to 
 property would be deemed and felt, by any other class of citizens 
 selected from the rest, as the object of them, to be most injurious 
 and most unjust. This part of the bill will fall with particular 
 severity upon such negroes and mulattoes as by the law of the 
 land are entitled to vote at the next election, since a few days only 
 can intervene between the promulgation of the law in New York, 
 and the time fixed for filing their affidavits. Such interference 
 with the exercise of an existing and precious right, and especially 
 on the eve of a pending election, must, of necessity, oblige the 
 persons affected by it, either to abandon the right altogether, or 
 to submit to excessive diligence, or great and painful inconven- 
 ience. It is creating a precedent, which is the more dangerous, 
 as it may hereafter be extended, on grounds equally just, to other 
 descriptions of citizens, and prove fatal to the liberties of our 
 country. 
 
 Albany, April 13, 1815. Present— Governor Tompkins; 
 Kent, Chancellor; Thompson, Chief Justice; Spencer and Piatt, 
 Justices. 
 
 A bill entitied "^n act apportiordng the representation of this 
 State cuxordiTig to the rule prescribed hy the ChnstilMlMm," was before 
 
QsjEcnnKS 3cot SAXtrroxsD by ike CorsciL. 449 
 
 d»e CooitdL Hie OianoelkH' r^coted i^e fiiUo^rii^ objeetkHis, 
 
 TIE.: 
 
 Because it kaT?s the senaioTia^ di^riete to oontinij^ in tLeir 
 former sisrte of inequality, and dispropoTrion to cadi ofliesr; aad 
 liiat inequditT, owii^ to the increase of pc^mbtaon and otSBsequeit 
 increase of rgsr^eaitation, in the western disrrict lias grown to be 
 a great evil, as it dgaives die inhatatante of diat di?rric- of dtdr 
 doe share of represeiixaiicii in the Owmdil erf Appoantsneat, and 
 reuders it extremely difficolt for Ihe iiiliaKTanTs di^eof to obtain 
 fiiat knowledge of i^ie different parts of the ^iismci -srliich is 
 reqiuate tooiaMe than to unite in the choice of npi^it and inte]- 
 Ggent candidates. 
 
 Albast, 3~->iv,-:;fear 5, 1S16. Prsent — G-c^Tem or Tbompscn: 
 Kent. C!kai«5ellor; Th{M3i|Bon, C3uef Juscce: Spencer, Tan Xess. 
 Yates and PLin, Jnstiees^ 
 
 A Isfl eniixled "Ah aei is? siq^pi^ss dmdu^~' was beftae the Ooan- 
 <al, to whidbi ^k Oiancdlor Kported liefoHo-wiag objecSkHas, Tit, 
 as inoon^stait with the sjHiit of the GxisiitJition; because, 
 
 By the second secdon of the Isil, ereiy persrai to be elected a 
 monber of ihe Saaate or Asseml^]y. or to be deeded or app(^ted 
 to any office, caTil or mihtaij, exog»t town c^Boeas, and eTery 
 person to be admitted a eoimseloT, attorney or sc^idtor <rf any 
 oonit, shaD, in addition to the oalhs now prescribed by law, late 
 an oath or a&matioa that he has not be^i ^sgaged <h- oonoamed 
 in a, dud since the first day of July now I^sr past, nts- will be 
 so concerned during tiie coittinuanoe of the act and while an 
 inbaHtant <rf this Stata. 
 
 This pro-riacn establishes a, test or qnaliScaii(Hi for office, on- 
 known to the CoDStitation, dangerous i^s a precedent and inoon- 
 sdsteni widi the principles of liberty. 
 
 It cannot be necessary for the G(»indl to dedare tliat they 
 soionnly bear lesiiiQonT against the practice of dueling as bai^ 
 GToel and wi^ed, and eqaally oondaaned by the law of die land 
 and by the .inst and bEncToient preceps of Chrisrianity. To take 
 life in this way is mui^r by the ooiiimon law, whether he that 
 gave or he that accepted the chall^ige &11, ai^ if conTicsion and 
 
450 The Council of Eevisiok. 
 
 pTinislunent have not duly followed tlie crime, it has not been the 
 fault of the law, nor of the judges by whom it was to be pro- 
 nounced. But to whatever cause we may impute the feeble exe- 
 cution (as the biU evidently supposes) of the existing laws on 
 this subject, there is no occasion that wiU warrant the introduction 
 of unsound principles of legislation. 
 
 Test oaths, as a qualification for public trust, other than the 
 oath of allegiance and the usual oath of of&ce, are inconsistent with 
 the letter and spirit of our American Constitutions. In some in- 
 stances there is an express declaration against them. The requi- 
 sition in the present case is not founded on any religious test, but 
 it is equally tyrannical, for it requires every man, before he can 
 receive or enjoy any public trust, to acquit himself, upon oath, of 
 a particular crime, without being legally accused of it, and when 
 he stands innocent under the intendment of law. 
 
 The bill in this respect reverses the maxim of the common 
 law, and presumes every man guilty. "With equal right, if 
 not with equal reason, he might be compelled to clear himself of 
 every other crime without being put to answer by indictment or 
 presentment, and without the privilege of an appeal to his peers. 
 It is dangerous to admit a principle so destructive of civil liberty 
 into the code of our statute law. A most terrible inquisition 
 might thus be erected over the consciences of men. The penalty 
 of refusal to answer is not indeed in this case the rack or the stake, 
 but it is extremely severe, being no less than a disqualification to 
 hold any place of honor, profit or trust, or even to exercise one of 
 the learned professions. Dueling does not appear to be so grievous 
 a public evil, nor does it usually denote such depravity of moral 
 principle as other examples of murder, and as arson, rape, forgery 
 and various kinds of larceny, swindling and fraud. It often pro- 
 ceeds from a lofty and scrupulous but misguided sense of reputa- 
 tion. Why may not these other offenses, and all other immoral 
 acts, be brought to the same test, and checked by the same means? 
 Times may hereafter arise when an undue zeal for refornj, or a 
 fierce and intolerant fanaticism, might easily be led to proceed from 
 crime to crime, and from one misdemeanor to another, with the 
 same potent remedy, until every man is obliged to renounce his 
 civil privileges or swear to the purity of his whole life. 
 
Objections not sanctioned bt the Council. 451 
 
 The bill extends this oath to attorneys at law before they can be 
 permitted to practice, but it is not applied to candidates for the other 
 learned professions, though the same reasons would seem to apply, 
 and though the admission of physicians and surgeons is equally 
 the subject of legislative regulation. The bill therefore is not 
 impartial in the. imposition which it creates. If the principle be 
 just, it ought to have a general and equal application. It ought 
 to be extended not only to candidates for office, but to every man 
 who offers himself to vote, and especially to jurors, who are con- 
 cerned in the administration of justice. 
 
 The latter part of the oath is equally new and repugnant to 
 sound principles of government. The oath hitherto imposed upon 
 persons entering into a public trust is the ordinary oath of office, 
 importing that they will execute their trust faithfully, and import- 
 ing nothing more, and when the trust ceases the obligation of the 
 oath also expires. But the oath in this case is that they will re- 
 frain from a particular crime, having no special relation to their 
 office, not only while in office, but during the continuance of the 
 act, or whUe inhabitants of this State. This is binding, by a reli- 
 gious solemnity, and for life, one class of citizens to the exclusion 
 of the rest, and in their private as well as public capacity, to obey 
 a law equally applicable to all the community. ■ There is no reason 
 why the oath should apply to them when they become private 
 citizens, any more than to the rest of the people. It is also very 
 questionable whether it be wise or expedient to bind private citi- 
 zens by oath to obey any particular law that is of public and per- 
 manent concern. The impression of an oath is apt to be weakened 
 in proportion as it is less special in its object, and less immediate 
 in its application. The civil obligation to obey the law is the same 
 without as with the oath, and to call in the aid of religion to the 
 support of a single case only in the penal code, may impair the 
 force and sense of obligation to general obedience. This extra- 
 ordinary sanction may as well be applied to every as to any pub- 
 lic law; and the effect of such a provision upon the efficacy of 
 oaths, and the consciences of those who take them, would, as we 
 fear, be exceedingly injurious. 
 
 It is no doubt the duty of the lawgiver to provide suitable 
 penalties for the violation of every law, but we apprehend there 
 
452 The Council of Eetision. 
 
 is no instance to be met witli ia the ordinary course of civil gov- 
 ernment, in wMcli the citizens were called on to bind themselves 
 by oath to the perpetual observance of any public law. All that 
 is precious and valuable in society, property, liberty, character and 
 life, essentially depend upon the credit of testimony upon oath, 
 and every measure that diminishes the reverence or impairs the 
 confidence due to that great sanction to truth is most deeply to be 
 deplored. 
 
APPEE'DIX, A. 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF MICHAEL ULSHOBFFER, CHAIEMAN.OP THE SELECT COMMIT- 
 TEE TO "WHOM WERE REFERRED, BT THE ASSEMBLY, THE 
 OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF REVISION TO THE BILL 
 ENTITLED "AN ACT RECOMMENDING A CONTENTION OP 
 THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE," (N. T.) COMMUNICATED TO 
 THE ASSEMBLY JANUARY 9th, 1821. 
 
 The committee report to the House that they have examined 
 the said objections, and have bestowed their deliberate attention 
 upon the subject. 
 
 It is certainly to be regretted that so much agitation has been 
 produced in the public mind by the course which the bill in ques- 
 tion has taken. The opinion of the CouncU, independent of its 
 constitutional effect, has heretofore been much respected. But on 
 this occasion it has perhaps been less estimated, owing to the divi- 
 sion of opinion existing among the members of the Council, as 
 well as to serious doubts entertained whether the objections of the 
 majority are at all well founded, and to a question, moreover, 
 whether the Council possess the constitutional power arbitrarily to 
 object to the passage of bills, upon mere opinions, vaguely ex- 
 pressed, respecting their propriety or expediency. 
 
 It may well be doubted whether the Council of Eevision was 
 ever iatended as a legislative branch of the government, or in 
 effect to exercise the powers of legislation. Such a construction 
 cannot fairly be given to the Constitution. The third article 
 declares that "whereas, laws inconsistent with the spirit of the 
 Constitution or with the public good, may be hastily and unadvis- 
 edly passed," and for this reason the Council was established to 
 
456 The Coukcil of Eevisiok. 
 
 revise all bills about to be passed into laws by the Legislature. 
 And it cannot be believed that this article ought to receive so liberal 
 a construction as to give the Council legislative powers, or to au- 
 thorize them to object to any bill upon questions not of plain con- 
 stitutional doubt, or of substantial and paramount considerations of 
 public good. 
 
 This bill (as your committee conceive) is not inconsistent with 
 the spirit of the Constitution, for that instrument is silent as to its 
 amendment, and the bill is framed in conformity to the spirit 
 of the only precedents that have taken place in our own State, 
 and in other States under like circumstances. It is not inconsis- 
 tent with the public good, for the public voice has called for this 
 law. It has not been hastily and unadvisedly passed, for it has 
 been the subject of public discussion, by the people and in 
 the Legislature for years. Yet the Council have, on their own 
 responsibility, chosen to construe this act as, in some way or other, 
 unwise, unsafe or inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. 
 And such is the organization of the powers of the Council (what- 
 ever doubts may exist as to the constitutionality of their exercise 
 in the present case), that no alternative remains but to carry the 
 law into effect, if possible, by a vote of two-thirds of the members 
 present in each house. 
 
 If, in a more ordinary legislative act than the present, the Coun- 
 cil interposed ambiguous objections, however trivial they might 
 seem, and denied the evidence upon which a law was founded, 
 still the consequence appears to be the same. For although "the 
 supreme legislative power within this State" is vested in "two dis- 
 tinct bodies of men," viz., the Senate and Assembly, " who together 
 shall form the Legislature," ' nevertheless, the Council may, by their 
 construction, declare any act to be inconsistent with the spirit of 
 the Constitution or the public good, or improper, inexpedient or 
 unwise; and in this way they would coerce the Legislature to pass 
 all laws by a vote of two-thirds of each house ; thereby establish- 
 ing a third branch of the legislative authority as odious in its 
 features as would be a Senate for life. This never could have been 
 contemplated by the framers of our Constitution, and it is at vari- 
 ance with the principles of republican government. In the present 
 
 ' Second Article of the Constitution. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Eepobt. 457 
 
 case, although the Council seem to insinuate as the ground of their 
 objections to this law, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the 
 Constitution, yet there is much difilculty in saying under what 
 particular head they range their objections ; but they unequivo- 
 cally assume to prescribe to the Legislature "the most wise and 
 safe course" of calling a convention contrary to the manner in 
 which our Constitution was itself formed, and contrary to a prece- 
 dent under that Constitution, sanctioned by a previous Legislature 
 and Council. But it is profitless to dilate further on this head. 
 The subject is thus noticed as one furnishing additional proof of 
 the extent to which the authority of the Council may be carried. 
 And when a convention is assembled, it remains to be solemnly 
 determined whether such an exercise of power is in conformity to 
 the letter or spirit of our charter; and whether a Council (all of 
 whom, except the Executive, are independent of the people) should 
 be allowed any longer to enforce so dangerous an authority. 
 
 Being thus necessitated to consider these objections as properly 
 taken, it remains to decide if they are well founded. 
 
 Let us notice the manner in which the first convention was 
 ordained in this State in 1777. 
 
 When the regular frame pf Colonial government was dissolved, 
 the people elected delegates to a Congress and committees. And 
 this "government by congresses and committees" they considered 
 as "temporary expedients, and to exist no longer than the griev- 
 ances of the people should remain without redress." ' But many 
 and great inconveniences were found to attend this mode of govern- 
 ment. The Continental Congress therefore "recommended to the 
 respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where 
 no government sufficient to the exigency of their affairs had been 
 established, to adopt such government as should, in the opinion 
 - of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happi- 
 ness and safety of their constituents in particular and America in 
 general." 
 
 The State Congress therefore resolved that "Whereas, doubts 
 have arisen whether this Congress are invested with sufficient 
 power and authority to deliberate and determine on so important 
 a subject as the necessity of erecting and constituting a new form 
 
 * 1 Eevised Laws, 29. 
 68 
 
458 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 of government, and internal police, to the exclusion of all foreign 
 jurisdiction, dominion and control 'whatever. And whereas, it 
 appertains of right to the people of this Colony to determine the 
 said doubts: therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That it be recommended to the electors in the several 
 counties in this Colony, by election in the manner and form pre- 
 scribed for the election of the present Congress, either to authorize 
 (in addition to the powers vested in this Congress) their present 
 deputies, or others in the stead of their present deputies, or either 
 of them, to take into consideration the necessity and propriety of 
 instituting such new government, as in and by the said resolution 
 of the said Continental Congress is described and recommended ; 
 and if the majority of the counties, by their deputies, shall be of 
 opinion that such new government ought to be instituted and 
 established, then to institute and establish such a government as 
 they shall deem best calculated to secure the rights, liberties and 
 happiness of the good people of this Colony." ' 
 
 The general Congress which recommended as above, acted under 
 a league of the States; and the State Congress was a kind of tem- 
 porary State Legislature. Yet this State Congress did recom- 
 mend the election of delegates to a general convention. The 
 people confirmed the act of the State Congress by the election of 
 delegates; and those delegates formed our present State Constitu- 
 tion. There was no preliminary question as to the expediency of 
 the measure submitted to the people, nor any submission of the 
 Constitution itself The election of the delegates was the only 
 decision by the people in 1777. 
 
 Our Constitution containing no provision for its own amend- 
 ment, we were left, when occasion should require, to establish 
 some mode of alteration. It was not until about the year 1800, 
 that a necessity appeared for calling a convention. 
 
 Governor Jay, at the opening of the session (November 4, 1800), 
 by message, requested of the Legislature "that provision should 
 be made by law for electing a convention, for the sole and exclu- 
 sive purpose of ordaining what shall be the number of senators 
 and representatives at future periods, and of fixing the limits, 
 which it shall at no time hereafter exceed." To this, however 
 
 ' 1 Revised Laws, 30. 
 
Michael Ulshoepfer's Eepobt. 459 
 
 tlie Legislature added tlie power of determining a question, 
 violently agitated at that time, respecting the rights of the mem- 
 bers of the Council of Appointment. 
 
 And this additional authority was granted rather in opposition 
 to another message of Governor Jay (February 26, 1801), who 
 desired the Legislature themselves to pass a "declaratory statute" 
 on the subject, or refer it to the judiciary. Yet, with everything 
 at that time calculated to call for a strict scrutiny of legislative 
 powers, the act passed on the 6th of April, 1801. 
 
 It provides "that it shall and may be lawful and it is hereby 
 proposed to the citizens of this State to elect, by ballot, delegates 
 to meet in convention, for the purpose of considering the parts of 
 the Constitution of this State, respecting the numbers of senators 
 and members of Assembly in this State, and with power to limit 
 and reduce the number of them, as the said convention may 
 deem proper; and also for the purpose of considering and deter- 
 mining the true construction of the twenty-third article of the 
 Constitution of this State, relative to the right of nomination to 
 office; but with no other power or authority whatsoever." 
 
 During the passage of this law in the Assembly an attempt was 
 made to introduce a prior appeal to the people, as to the expe- 
 diency of calling a convention, but the attempt was defeated.' In 
 the Senate an equally unsuccessful attempt was made to apportion 
 the number of delegates to be chosen to the convention according 
 to the State census, which was then on the point of being made.' 
 The bill, however, passed without providing for any reference to 
 the people in the first instance, as to the expediency of calling a 
 convention, and without submitting to their approbation the alter- 
 ations after they had been made. Thus leaving to them only the 
 right to choose delegates in conformity to the rule of 1777, and 
 implying from the votes of the people, an approbation of the 
 convention, and an approval of the alterations which should be 
 made by their delegates. 
 
 The history of the act of 1801 presents some other remark- 
 able facts. "We find among the names of the senators voting for 
 that act, those of our present Governor De Witt Clinton, and of 
 our present Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer. We find these same 
 
 • Assembly Jour., 1801, pp. 236, 237, 244. » Senate Jour., 1801, pp. 48, 71, 122. 
 
460 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 gentlemen voting against a new apportionment of the delegates 
 according to the census then about to be taken. And we consider 
 this as the more worthy of remark, as these gentlemen were two 
 of the members of the Council of Appointment who differed with 
 Governor Jay; men who doubtless had pondered well the course 
 which they were pursuing, and who, on the subject of the con- 
 vention, as well as on the dispute respecting the appointing power, 
 might well be supposed (to borrow their own language) not "to 
 be actuated by an ambitious competition for power, or by an 
 unwarrantable spirit of party." ' Yet we are called upon at this 
 late day to believe, as these same gentlemen would now represent, 
 that it was, in 1801, more "advisabk that the previous sense of 
 the people should have been taken." And they now likewise repre- 
 sent, contrary to the act of 1801, the expediency and iitness of a 
 new apportionment of delegates to the proposed convention. 
 
 This law passed the Council of Eevision unanimously. The 
 Council was then composed of Governor Jay, Eobert E. Living- 
 ston, John Lansing, Morgan Lewis, Jacob Eadcliff and James 
 Kent. Messrs. Livingston and Kent were absent when the act 
 was passed by the Council. All these gentlemen had the right 
 and power of objecting to the law. And if the Executive had 
 entertained a doubt of its constitutionality, or even of its expedi- 
 ency, he might have sent expresses for the absent members to any 
 part of the State. 
 
 The number of delegates to that convention was one hundred 
 and eight. Of these, seventy came from the counties on the Hud- 
 son, from Long Island and Staten Island. The northern and 
 western counties were represented by thirty-eight delegates. As 
 might naturally be expected in a new and growing State, where a 
 census is directed to be taken once in seven years, the census of 
 1801, taken subsequently to the passage of the law for a conven- 
 tion, varied considerably the apportionment of members from what 
 it was fixed at seven years previously. A prospective census 
 would always show, as in that instance, an excess in some cases 
 and deficiency in others, in the number of members from the 
 counties. The delegates were, however, elected by all the free 
 citizens of this State, aged twenty-one years and upwards. 
 
 ' Assembly Journal, 1801, p. 201. 
 
Michael Ulshoepfeb's Eepoet. 461 
 
 Here then, it will be seen, was a convention called witli no pre- 
 vious or subsequent reference to the people; and one, moreover, 
 wMoh-was restricted in its powers by an act of the Legislature, on 
 the sanction given to that act by the votes of the people for dele- 
 gates. If it was necessary to add the weight of names to the pre- 
 cedent of 1801, we could cite a catalogue from all classes of poli- 
 ticians who belonged to the Senate and Assembly, and Convention 
 of that year; men whose characters would do honor to any State, 
 and whose talents would stamp with authority any act in which 
 they unitedly participated. 
 
 Having thus shown the origin and adoption of the Constitution 
 of this State, and of the amendments thereof, your committee will 
 next call your attention to that of the United States. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States was formed in September, 
 178,7. The old Congress recommended the State Legislatures to 
 appoint delegates to revise the old Articles of Confederation.' 
 There was no previous reference of the question to the people. 
 Instead of amending the old Articles, the Convention made an 
 entirely new Constitution. This was an act of sovereign authority 
 by the Legislatures in time of peace; the pubhc safety being 
 guarded by the subsequent reference of the Constitution to the 
 people of each State in Convention, held "undei* the recommenda- 
 tion of its Legislature." ^ 
 
 Your committee cannot forbear to cite a few excellent remarks 
 applicable to this occasion, and to the notice just taken of the 
 convention of all the States in 1787. They wUl be found in No. 
 41 of the Federahst.' Speaking of the authority which, instead of 
 amending the old Articles of Confederation, formed the present 
 Constitution of the United States, Mr. Madison remarks: "It is 
 time now to recollect that the powers were merely advisory and 
 recommendatory ; that they were so meant by the States, and so 
 understood by the Convention; and that the latter have accord- 
 ingly planned and proposed a Constitution which is to be of no 
 more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless 
 it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is ad- 
 dressed." Immediately afterwards, noticing the conduct of the 
 opposers of the proceedings of the Convention, amongst other 
 
 'ILawsU.S., 59, 70,72. " 1 R. L., 24 ' VoU, ed. 1802, pp. 266, 267. 
 
462 The Council of Revision. 
 
 things, he urges that it could not "have been forgotten that no 
 little ill-timed scruples were any where seen, except in those who 
 wished to indulge, under these masks, their secret enmity to the 
 substance contended for. They must have borne in mind, that as 
 the plan to be framed and proposed was to be submitted to the 
 people themselves, the disapprobation of this supreme authority 
 would destroy it forever; its approbation, blot out all antecedent 
 errors and irregularities. It might even have occurred to them 
 that where a disposition to cavil prevails, their neglect to execute 
 the degree of power vested in them, and still more, their recom- 
 mendation of any measure whatever, not warranted by their com- 
 mission, would not less excite animadversion, than a recommenda- 
 tion at once of a measure fully commensurate to the national 
 exigencies. ■ Had the convention, under all these impressions, and 
 in the midst of all these considerations instead of exercising a 
 manly confidence in their country, by whose confidence they had 
 been so peculiarly distinguished, and of pointing out a system 
 capable, in their judgment, of securing its happiness, taken the 
 cold and sullen resolution of disappointing its ardent hopes, of 
 sacrificing substance to forms, of committing the dearest interests 
 of their country to the uncertainties of delay, and the hazard of 
 events; let me ask the man who can raise his mind to one elevated 
 conception, who can awaken in his bosom one patriotic emotion, 
 what judgment ought to have beeii pronounced by the impartial 
 world, by the friends of mankind, by every virtuous citizen, on 
 the conduct and character of this assembly? Or, if there be a 
 man whose propensity to condemn is susceptible of no control, let 
 me then ask, what sentence he has in reserve for the twelve States 
 who usurped the power of sending deputies to the convention, a 
 body utterly unknown to their Constitutions; for Congress, who 
 recommended the appointment of this body, equally unknown to 
 the confederation; and for the State of New York, in particular, 
 who first urged and then complied with this unauthorized inter- 
 position." 
 
 The legislative right to call a general convention was exercised 
 by the Connecticut Legislature in 1818." In that State, there was 
 no constitutional provision on the subject; and by the recommen- 
 
 ' Niles' Register, vol. 14, p. 309. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Keport. 463 
 
 datory resolution which they passed, there was no prior, but there 
 was a subsequent reference to the people, as proposed by the bill 
 now under consideration. 
 
 It now becomes necessary to trace the history of the convention 
 bni before us. 
 
 Independent of other subjects of complaint, which are eminently 
 entitled to deliberate attention, the great grounds of dissatisfaction 
 towards our Constitution, are the state of the elective franchise, 
 and the nature of the appoiating power. If the "declared sense 
 of the American people, on the very point, cannot but be received 
 with great respect and reverence," our Constitution, as to the elec- 
 tive franchise, cannot be denied to require amendment. In this 
 particular, the constitutional provisions of our sister States are ia 
 decided variance with ours; and the Council of Eevision might 
 have had as little doubt as the Legislature, that our citizens are 
 almost unanimously in favor of altering our charter, so as to con- 
 form more nearly to those of our sister States. It was to have 
 been hoped, too, that in respect to the Council of Appoiatment, no 
 doubt could be entertained of the opinions of the people. If ever 
 there was a feature in a Constitution universally condemned in its 
 present shape, it is that which regulates the appointing power. 
 
 By a reference to the journals of the Legislature, their proceed- 
 ings, and the course of public opinion, on the subject of a Conven- 
 tion, may be clearly traced ; and the different publications of the 
 day contain the debates and other discussions on the various 
 points. On the 13th of February, 1818 (41st session), Mr. Ed- 
 wards, in the House of Assembly, brought in a bill for a Convention, 
 "for the purpose of considering such parts of the Constitution as 
 relate to the appointment of officers." The various proceedings 
 had thereon will be found in pages 345, 346, 354, 355, &c. 
 The legality of an act recommending the election of delegates was 
 not questioned. But success did not attend this effort. In the 
 forty-second session, January 12, 1819, the subject was again 
 agitated. It was again attempted to call a restricted Convention 
 for the same object; but the undertaking failed, although no 
 doubts were suggested as to the recommendatory authority of the 
 Legislature. (See pages 92, 95, 156, 161, 336, 450, &c.) At the 
 opening of the forty-third session in January, 1820, the present 
 
464 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Executive, whose duty it is to recommend sucli matters to the 
 Legislature "as shall appear to him to concern its good govern- 
 ment, welfare and prosperity," stated to them, in his speech, that 
 "the Constitution of this State was formed nearly forty -three 
 years ago," and "that attempts have been made at various times 
 to call Conventions to introduce alterations, which have only suc- 
 ceeded in a single instance." After loxidly proclaiming the neces- 
 sity of altering "the appointing power," he adds, "and I have no 
 hesitation in recommending a Convention for this and such other 
 purposes as may be imperatively required by the public welfare; 
 and I do this under a fall persuasion that the powers of the Con- 
 vention cannot transcend the objects committed to their cognizance, 
 by the concurrent act of the Legislature and people." ' 
 
 Now, it may be asked, who is here requested to decide on "such 
 other purposes" as the "public welfare" requires to be submitted 
 to the Conventioa ! Certainly, the Legislature. And the " concur- 
 rent act of the Legislature and people" (in the recommendation of 
 the election and in the choice of delegates) is a sanction of the 
 whole proceeding, without any prior or after reference to the peo- 
 ple, according to the "single instance" of 1801. He speaks of 
 attempts "to call Conventions" as being frequently made, and as 
 calls for the exercise of legislative authority; and attributes their 
 failure to fears on the part of the Legislature "that an innovating 
 spirit might predominate." 
 
 That part of the Governor's speech was referred to a joint com- 
 mittee of the Senate and Assembly," who, on the 18th January, 
 1820, reported: "the committee, on this occasion, cannot forbear 
 to remark, that whilst they witness in our sister States, generally, 
 a disposition to embrace the opportunity presented in the present 
 favorable state of our affairs as a nation, of introducing such wise 
 and salutary measures of improvement as the times ssem peculiarly 
 favorable for carrying into effect, in this State, unfortunately, 
 though a like disposition is ardently cherished by a great part of 
 community, our energies are almost rendered nugatory by our 
 divisions" into parties, &o. They " recommend the calling of a 
 Convention " for the purpose of considering that part of the Con- 
 stitution relative to "the Council of Appointment;" that part 
 
 ' Assembly Journal, 1820, pp. 15, 16. Assembly Journal, 1820, p. 29. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffee's Eepoet. 465 
 
 which "relates to the Council of Eevision, and that which deter- 
 mines the qualifications of voters at elections." And the committee 
 express decided opinions in favor of the extension of the elective 
 franchise, of altering the appointing power, and of curbing the 
 authority of the Council of Eevision.' 
 
 This committee was friendly to the present Governor, and framed 
 their bill according to the speech, but did not provide for any 
 reference to the people other than the choice of delegates. 
 
 But when the Assembly acted on the bOl, Mr. Attorney-General 
 Oakley, after declaring in his introductory remarks "that the 
 pubhc voice is now in favor of a Convention" ' moved an amend- 
 ment, by which provision was to be made for an unrestricted or 
 general Convention; in which event he suggested that he would 
 propose to refer the proceedings of the delegates to the decision 
 of the people. His proposition failed by a small majority.' He 
 did not, however, even intimate a, prior appeal to the people. 
 After many other efforts, an attempt was made to put the question 
 to the people to vote, first, for a general Convention; second, for a 
 special one; or, third against any Convention. This proposition 
 was carried by a small majority in committee ; but the House, by 
 refusiag the committee leave to sit again, put an end to the ques- 
 tion of a Convention at that session." 
 
 This brings us to the present session (44th), at the opening of 
 which, November 7, 1820, Governor CHnton again recommended 
 the subject. "The Constitution (he says) contains no provision 
 for its amendment.- In 1801, the Legislature submitted two specific 
 points to a Convention of delegates chosen by the people, which 
 met and agreed to certain amendments. Attempts have been 
 made at various times to follow up this precedent, which have 
 been unsuccessful, not only on account of a collision of opinion 
 about the general policy of the measure, but also respecting the 
 objects to be proposed to the Convention. These difficulties may 
 be probably surmoimted, either by submitting the subject of 
 amendments generally to a Convention, and thereby avoiding 
 
 ' Assembly Journal, pp. 110, 111. 
 
 * Albany Argus, February 15, 1820. 
 
 3 Assembly Journal, 1820, pp. 426, 427. 
 
 * Assembly Journal, 1820, pp. 441, 442. 
 
 59 
 
466 The Council of Revision. 
 
 controversy about tlie purposes for whicli it is called, or by sub- 
 mitting the question to the people in the first instance to determine 
 whether one ought to be convened. And, in either case, to pro- 
 vide for the ratification by the people, in their primary assembhes, 
 of the proceedings of the Convention." 
 
 The last of these propositions, in point of order (viz., to submit 
 the question in the first instance to the people), appears evidently 
 to have been intended by the Governor as the least acceptable in 
 his opinion ; and only to be resorted to, in case the Legislature 
 could not agree to recommend any Convention. 
 
 In conformity to the first suggestion of this speech, of "submit- 
 ting the subject of amendments generally to a Convention," the 
 bill now before us was passed by both branches of the Legislature; 
 and was subsequently received back, by this House, from the 
 Council of Eevision, with objections, upon the casting vote of 
 that Governor who requested the enactment of the law. 
 
 Your committee are as fully satisfied as the Council can be that 
 "the Constitution is the will of the people expressed in their 
 original character, and intended for the permanent protection and 
 happiness of them and their posterity ; and it is perfectly consonant 
 to the republican theory, and to the declared sense and practice 
 of this country, that it cannot be altered or changed in any degree, 
 without the expression of the same original will." The question, 
 however, to be decided is, in what manner the expression of this 
 will is to be obtained ? The main point seems to be, that any 
 change of the Constitution must be by the act of the people. This 
 has, heretofore, in this State, been considered to be effected by the 
 choice of delegates by the people. The act of the Legislature was 
 deemed legal, in calling for the election of delegates, as the act of 
 the people. No such law, it was taken for granted, would be 
 passed, but in accordance with the public wish. The delegates 
 represent the people, and act agreeably to their interests; and if 
 such a case could occur as a Convention being called by the Legis- 
 lature when none was desired by the people, it would be merely 
 nugatory in its effects, as the delegates of the people would of 
 course adjourn without any proceedings. 
 
 In examining this subject, it seems unnecessary to draw any 
 distinction between general and restricted Conventions. We have 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Eeport. 467 
 
 before quoted examples of both ; and tbere is no rule which is 
 applicable to the one, nor any reasoning which is not equally so 
 to the other. If the prior " expression of the original will " is 
 necessary before the Constitution can be " changed in any degree^^ 
 (as the Council suggests), then a single alteration thus made is as 
 unlawful and improper as would be the remodeling, the whole 
 frame of government. 
 
 But when it was notorious that, for years, attempts had been 
 made in the Legislature to call restricted Conventions ; when the 
 objects for which a Convention was desired by the people were so 
 well known; and when even the Executive of this State had 
 advised to the course of calling a general Convention, in order to 
 make those special amendments, so necessary to the well-being of 
 the State, it was not to have been expected that the Council would 
 throw upon the people, or the Legislature, the foul imputation 
 that the Constitution would be "probed and perhaps disturbed to 
 its foundation." If such an imputation was to have been indulged, 
 they might rather have turned their eyes towards an individual 
 who advised the measure, and then gave the casting vote against 
 it. If there was any danger, of false professions, or improper 
 views, might not the charge have been, with more fairness and 
 coloring of truth, visited upon those of whose unsteadiness of 
 principle the Council certainly had "legitimate and authentic evi- 
 dence " in the journals of 1801. 
 
 Many of the facts and circumstances before detailed, may be 
 viewed as the evidence of public sentiment respecting the necessity 
 of a Convention in this State ; and the proceedings of the Legisla- 
 ture, especially at so many sessions, may be likewise regarded as 
 the opinions of enlightened men, respecting the authority of the 
 Legislature to recommend the choice of delegates. Indeed, the 
 course of things at the last and previous election justifies the infer- 
 ence, that the people acted, in some measure, in reference to this 
 question ; and the passage of this bill cannot but be regarded as a 
 conclusive proof of the public opinion. Nay more ; if we turn our 
 attention to the proceedings of the people as ascertained by public 
 meetings and publications, the right of the Legislature to recom- 
 mend the choice of delegates always has been admitted. Nor can 
 a single instance be found, prior to these objections from the Oouji- 
 
468 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 cil, where the people have ever claimed that a previous submis- 
 sion should be made to them as to the expediency of calling a 
 Convention. Even so late as the year 1820, a certain pamphlet, 
 extensively circulated by a committee devoted to the views of the 
 Governor (which was laid on the tables at the last session) and 
 written with a view "to promote the amendment of an ill-balanced 
 Constitution," ridicules the idea of a Convention emanating from 
 the people in the first instance, as being "neither practicable, defi- 
 nite or rational," and not only unqualifiedly denies that a Conven- 
 tion can in any manner be restricted, but declares the method of 
 calling a Convention by an act of the Legislature to be "certainly 
 the most safe, sure, practicable plan that can be adopted." ' 
 
 But the Council have no " legitimate and authentic evidence," 
 and they deny that any exists, of public opinion calling for this 
 Convention. Independent of the public discussions on this sub- 
 ject, and the proceedings of the people, which they must have 
 seen and heard, the acts of the Legislature, and the recommenda- 
 tions of the Governor, ought certainly to have been received as 
 the test of public opinion. What other evidence do they require? 
 or is it to be conceded that the Council are to receive petitions and 
 proofs, and to act in all things as a legislative branch of the gov- 
 ernment? The two Houses of the Legislature, elected by the 
 people, are responsible for the facts upon which they proceed. 
 
 Besides, the formal, strict and technical evidence of the science 
 of law cannot be transferred into legislation; and that may be 
 sufi&cient proof to ground important political transactions upon, 
 which would not be received in the same form in a court of justice. 
 
 Let us now briefly notice the " declared sense of the American 
 people" as to the provisions of the bill before us, so far as that 
 sense may be gathered from discordant constitutional provisions. 
 
 The present Constitution of the United States may be amended 
 by the proposition of Congress to the several State Legislatures ; 
 or of one State Legislature to the rest ; or by the States requesting 
 Congress to call a Convention ; or by Conventions of the people 
 in three-fourths of the several States. 
 
 Somewhat similar in principle, are those State Constitutions in 
 which alterations emanate from the ordinary legislative bodies and 
 
 ' "The Appeal," pp. 75, 78, 79, &c. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Eeport. 469 
 
 are afterwards submitted to the confirmation, either of the votes 
 of the people, or of a Convention of the people, or subsequent 
 legislative bodies, viz., Maine, Connecticut, Maryland, Georgia, 
 and the proposed Constitution of Missouri. 
 
 In Vermont, amendments are proposed by a body of censors, 
 directed to be chosen once every seven years by a provision in 
 the Constitution of that State. The censors call a Convention, 
 and publish the proposed amendments, but there is no after refer- 
 ence to the people. 
 
 The State Constitutions in which the opinions of the people in 
 their original capacity is required to be taken on the expediency 
 of calling a Convention are those of New Hampshire, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois. 
 
 Delaware and South Carolina are not ingenuously quoted by 
 the Council, as they contain a double plan of amendment ; and 
 can be assigned to neither of the preceding classes. By the Con- 
 stitution of Delaware, two-thirds of the Legislature may propose 
 amendments ; and if three-fourths of the next Legislature approve 
 thereof, the same are part of the Constitution. This plan of amend- 
 ment being prescribed to the Legislature, it is further provided 
 that they shall not call a Convention for that purpose, without the 
 previous assent of the people. The same provisions, in substance, 
 exist in the Constitution of South Carolina. And the propriety 
 of thus restricting the Legislature as to a Convention, is manifest 
 in those instances where the other legislative mode of amendment 
 exists. But ia neither case is there any subsequent reference to 
 the people. 
 
 The Constitutions of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Caro- 
 lina, Virginia, and of our own State, present no provisions as to 
 amendments. Nor does the charter of Ehode Island. 
 
 The Constitution of Massachusetts does not contain any provi- 
 sion for its future revision ; and although it did provide simply 
 for amendments in the year 1795, by referring the preliminary 
 question to the people (which seems to have continued to be the 
 practice of the State) yet, in relation to the effect of such a provi- 
 sion. Governor Brooks, in his message of January 13, 1820, makes 
 a pertinent remark. "As that article was designed for the parti- 
 cular case of a revision in the year above mentioned, it does not 
 
470 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 seem reasonable to conclude that the general power of the Legisla- 
 ture can be abridged by that specific provision." ' 
 
 The Council quote instances to prove "that though the people 
 be not previously consulted on the question (of the propriety of 
 calling a Convention), yet a more than ordinary caution and check 
 upon such a measure was indispensable." In the first place, this 
 idea being opposed to the practice of our own State, it is carrying 
 the doctrine of construing our rights and duties by the provisions 
 of other States, to a most dangerous and unwarrantable length. 
 In the next place, it will be found that the two-thirds required in 
 South Carolina and Georgia (quoted by the Council) are upon the 
 vote on making the amendments. In both cases a publication for 
 three months is made ; and in the next Legislature, two-thirds are 
 necessary, to agree to the amendments prescribed by the previous 
 Legislature. 
 
 Thus, it appears that when the Legislature are to make the 
 amendments, two-thirds are required to agree: but where the 
 Legislature have nothing to do with the amendments, and merely 
 recommend the election of delegates for that purpose (as in this 
 State and Connecticut), a majority is sufiicient, especially when 
 those amendments are to be decided upon, not by a subsequent 
 Legislature, but by the votes of the people themselves. 
 
 The Council are incorrect in stating that the Constitutions of 
 Georgia and South Carolina, are alike in prescribing that no Con- 
 vention shall be called, but by a vote of two-thirds of the Legisla- 
 ture. That clause is not in the Constitution of Georgia, and the 
 case of South Carolina has been noticed before. 
 
 It will thus be seen, that none of the Constitutions where there 
 is a prior appeal to the people, require any subsequent reference, 
 with the single exception of New Hampshire ; nor is any other 
 instance to be found, when there is a subsequent reference of the 
 amendments, that the prior appeal is required. 
 
 It would therefore seem to be a constitutional principle, to be 
 drawn from most of these cases, that at some stage of an under- 
 taking to amend a Constitution, a reference should be made to the 
 people : but whether that be prior, or subsequent to a Convention, 
 seems not material, especially in those oases where the amendments 
 
 ' NUes' Register, vol. 5 (New Series), p. 370. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Eeport. 471 
 
 are not made by the Legislature, but by delegates of the people 
 chosen for that special purpose; and indeed, the latter method (a 
 question to be decided by the votes of the people, upon the final 
 ratification of the amendments) is, in the opinion of your commit- 
 tee, the best safeguard to life, liberty and property. 
 
 Nevertheless, it must be manifest that the various and discor- 
 dant constitutional provisions of other States, whatever they may 
 be, cannot be called in to check the legislative powers, or to pre- 
 scribe the duties of those States which, like our own, have no pro- 
 visions in their Constitutions on the subject of amendments. Even 
 out of the eleven provisions quoted by the Council, seven existed 
 anterior to the act of 1801, and were disregarded as no authority; 
 all tending to prove, that the recommendatory power is possessed 
 by the Legislature, unless restricted; and that the Legislature 
 must decide upon the propriety of exercising it; a rule fully 
 recognized by the Convention of all the States in 1787.' 
 
 But whilst we admit the general principle, as far as one can be 
 gathered from all these Constitutions, it merely proves that the 
 knowledge of proposed amendments, before their being finally 
 adopted, should be brought home to the people, so that they may 
 be enabled, either by a Convention, or in a subsequent Legisla- 
 ture, or by direct votes, to give their opinion upon them. This 
 is the whole sum and substance of the principle. 
 
 The bUl now under consideration, is conformable to this prin- 
 ciple, inasmuch as it provides, that the people shall elect their own 
 delegates to make the amendments, and for subsequently submit- 
 ting the amendments, to the decision of those who made choice of 
 the delegates, viz., " all free male citizens of this State of the age 
 of twenty-one years and upwards." If the people approve, the 
 proceedings of the Convention are part of the Constitution ; if not, 
 those proceedings are nugatory and void. 
 
 But it is further objected by the Council, that the bill contem- 
 plates submitting the question on the amendments in toto, and not 
 affording an opportunity to discriminate as to those amendments. 
 This provision, upon the whole, appears to your committee a mat- 
 ter of expediency. A Constitution is a work of system, in which 
 every part is so connected with the whole, and the whole with 
 
 » 1 Kevised Laws, 24. 
 
472 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 every part, that it is hardly in the power of human wisdom to 
 strike out partic^ilar portions without deranging the economy of 
 the whole. A Convention is best calculated for such an under- 
 taking. Indeed, it might be urged, with great force, that the pro- 
 ceedings and decisions of a Convention, like those of all large 
 deliberative bodies having a variety of interests and feelings to 
 contend with, must be a work of compromise, where the whole, 
 and not all the several distinct parts, are agreed to by the Conven- 
 tion, and should be thus submitted, upon the whole, to the people; 
 otherwise, it would be found difficult to unite a majority, either 
 of the Convention or of the peOple, in favor of every part ; and, 
 consequently, the whole system would be deranged, by discordant 
 opinions and interests. If propositions, distinctly stated, are 
 negatived, what remains ? Does not anarchy ensue ? Or are the 
 people not only to strike out, but to amend the proceedings of the 
 Convention ? If so, the powers of the Convention, in promoting 
 the public good, by reconciling the conflicting interests and opin- 
 ions, are wholly nugatory; and a whole system, which they might 
 adopt for government, or for any particular feature in the Consti- 
 tution, might readUy be thrown into confusion by questions upon 
 its distinct parts; nay the appointment and powers of a Conven- 
 tion, in such a case, would be entirely useless, inasmuch as the 
 people, if they are not too numerous for the purpose, and if they 
 cannot delegate their authority in that respect, might certainly as 
 well form the whole plan themselves as to judge of it, not only 
 upon the whole but upon its distinct parts : and in the latter case, 
 also, necessarily to form new features in the place of those which 
 they reject. It is the general tenor of all constitutions, laws and 
 pubUc proceedings which, being the work of conciliation and com- 
 promise, are accepted by the people. Each portion of the repre- 
 sentatives yield something to unite a majority upon the whole 
 plan. These remarks are equally applicable to the proceedings 
 of a limited or a general Convention. For if, in the proposed 
 Convention, a compromise of interest and opinions was effected, 
 by which the popular branch of the Legislature surrendcTed its 
 power of electing the Council for the appointment of all officers, 
 to the Senate, in consideration of the extension or equalization of 
 the elective franchise; -and if the former amendment was to be 
 
Michael Ulshoeffer's Eeport. 473 
 
 approved, upon a distinct vote, and the latter rejected, then the 
 whole reason and equity of the compact, plan or undertaking 
 •would be totally destroyed, and the fair intentions of the Conven- 
 tion be entirely subverted. 
 
 The submission of .the United States Constitution to the States, 
 to be approved or disapproved, in toto^ is a strong instance in 
 favor of this position ; for no one will deny that the State Con- 
 ventions, in that instance, were better adapted to dehberate, and 
 to decide on the parts to be accepted or rejected, than meetings to 
 be held but for three days at the polls. In that case, the Consti- 
 tution was generally admitted to be defective in certain parts; 
 and the question was, whether, upon the whole, it was desirable. 
 It was adopted, leaving it for the constitutional authority, after- 
 wards, calmly and deliberately, to modify and correct the instru- 
 ment.° 
 
 The present Constitution of Connecticut was likewise submitted, 
 in toto, to the people of that State, in 1818. Indeed, no instance, 
 it is believed, is to be found in which a reference for decision was 
 made according to the instruction of the Council. The proposi- 
 tion offered in the present Convention of Massachusetts, to submit 
 their doings separately to the people, is the only case where such 
 an idea appears to have been the subject of serious deliberation ; 
 and it stiU remains to be seen whether it is possible for that Con- 
 vention to adopt a principle heretofore considered wholly imprac- 
 ticable, and never acted upon, as your committee believe, in a 
 single instance. 
 
 One other idea is hinted by the Council, viz., a delay of the 
 Convention until the taking of a new census. A State census ? 
 That will not be taken till late in the year 1821, and before the 
 returns can be made out, and a law be passed, the year 1822 
 would expire. A United States census? The Legislature of 1801, 
 although situated in aU things as we now are, and having the 
 same means of obtaining the United States census, never even 
 ventured to attempt to apportion the delegates according to it. 
 The Council of Eevision, sworn to support our Constitution and 
 laws, we cannot presume, either advise or direct such a basis of 
 
 ' 1 RcTised Laws, 24. ^ 1 Revised Laws, 26. 
 
 60 
 
4:74 The Council of Revision. 
 
 apportionment. In case, however, it is decided to delay for either 
 census, the Legislature will set a precedent, by which upon such 
 pretexts, they will constantly be called upon to withhold acting 
 on important bills. But we could not act upon the United States 
 census at this session, even if it were proper. The enumeration is 
 taken upon different principles from those of the State ; and the 
 arrangement of the classes of population would prevent our obtain- 
 ing the DATA necessary for a complete apportionment of the dele- 
 gates. 
 
 So far as an exact and justly proportioned division of delegates 
 or representatives can be periodically obtained, according to our 
 Constitution, it is certainly necessary and desirable ; but it may 
 well be questioned whether it would be conformable to the spirit 
 of our Constitution to alter the appointment until the regular State 
 census is taken. 
 
 In the case of the Conventions of 1777 and 1801, no regard was 
 paid to the circumstance of inequality, as it might appear by a 
 prospective census ; and in the before mentioned case of Connecti- 
 cut, the delegates were the same in number as the members of 
 Assembly. "We certainly have no rotten boroughs in our State ; 
 we are all represented ; and our counties, once in seven years, are 
 assigned their proportion of representatives according to their 
 number of electors. The provision of the Constitution of Maine, 
 'in this respect, which (after directing a census and apportionment 
 every ten years), declares that "the rights of representation so 
 established, shall not be altered until the next general apportion- 
 ment," is in conformity to the practice of all the States, as far w 
 we know, where there is no similar constitutional declaration. 
 
 Every ten years Congress direct a census.' The representation 
 is, nevertheless, considered suflS.cient, as well on the ninth as on 
 the first year, to authorize them to propose amendments to the 
 Constitution ; and the ratification thereof, by the legislatures, may 
 be made under as great or even a greater degree of inequality. 
 
 In the Constitution of Tennessee, provision is made for taking 
 an enumeration of the inhabitants every seven years, at which 
 time the representatives are apportioned; and in the same Consti- 
 tution, the Conventions which may be called, are directed "to con- 
 
 ' Article 1, § 2, Constitution of the United States. 
 
Michael Ulshoeffee's Eepoet. 475 
 
 sist of as many members as there be in the General Assembly." 
 In Ohio, Louisiana and Kentucky, the census is directed to be 
 taken every four years. On this census the delegates are, in like 
 manner, apportioned. A similar provision may be found in the 
 Constitution of Mississippi. 
 
 The principle of apportioning the delegates to a Convention 
 according to the number of representatives assigned under the 
 last preceding State census, is thus sanctioned by the practice of 
 our own State, by the constitutional provisions of other States,, 
 and by every law calling a Convention, which has come to the 
 knowledge of your committee. 
 
 Furthermore, according to our last State census, the northern 
 and western counties of the State, which in 1801 had only thirty- 
 eight delegates in Convention, out of one hundred and eight, will 
 now have seventy -four out of one hundred and twenty -six ; whilst 
 the southern and North river counties, which in 1801 had seventy 
 out of one hundred and eight members, will now have but fifty-two 
 out of one hundred and twenty-six. 
 
 Inasmuch, therefore, as "all free male citizens of this State, of 
 the age of twenty-one years and upwards," are to vote for delegates 
 by the bill before us ; and believing that the difference by a new 
 apportionment of delegates in favor of any part of the State would 
 be totally negative in its effects, and that the present apportionment 
 could not be altered but by a delay much to be deprecated in its 
 consequences, your committee do not consider this a ground for 
 suspending proceedings relative to a Convention, more particularly 
 as the amendments are ultimately to be submitted to the decision 
 of those who elected the delegates. 
 
 The evils under which this State has labored from the defects of 
 her Constitution are so great, and the call for alleviation so loud ; 
 the subject has been so long before the people and before the Legis- 
 lature ; it has been so thoroughly examined, and is so well under- 
 stood, that your committee cannot but look upon a bill fiixing the 
 earliest period, consistent with a fair opportunity of suffrage, for 
 the choice of delegates, as that best calculated for the exigency of 
 our affairs. 
 
 The second Tuesday in February is a day sufficiently distant in 
 the present state of public information for all beneficial purposes; 
 
476 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 and the final appeal to the people will afford full and ample oppor- 
 tunity to protect the public principles of the State. 
 
 In every view, then, which your committee can take of this sub- 
 ject they consider the objections of the Council as themselves 
 inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and in no respect 
 well founded ; and they are also of the opinion that the said bill, 
 entitled "An act reconimending a convention of the people of 
 this State," ought, notwithstanding the objections of the CouncQ 
 of Eevision, to be passed into a law. 
 
 On the fifteenth January succeeding the report, the House agreed 
 with that report, but on the question whether they should pass the 
 bill notwithstanding the objections of the Council of Eevision, re- 
 fused to pass it, and consequently it failed to become a law. Forth- 
 with, on motion of Mr. Ulshoeffer, a committee was appointed " to 
 take into consideration the said subject of a Convention, and to 
 report thereon, by bill or otherwise, with all convenient speed." 
 
 The committee consisted of Michael Ulshoeffer of New York, 
 John C. Spencer of Ontario, "William Thompson of Seneca, Simeon 
 Ford of Herkimer, and Erastus Boot of Delaware. 
 
 Immediately upon this, Mr. J. C. Spencer, in pursuance of pre- 
 vious notice, brought in a bill entitled "An act to obtain the 
 authority of the people of this State for the meeting of a Conven- 
 tion to revise the Constitution, and to provide for the election of 
 delegates to such Convention, when authorized to be held." This 
 bill was read twice and referred to the above select committee. 
 
 On the seventh of February, the said committee, by Mr. 
 Ulshoefifer, their chairman, reported 
 
 "That they have performed the duties assigned to them, and 
 submit the result of their deliberations with a strong reliance that 
 it will be satisfactory. 
 
 "The recent meetings which have been held in the several coun- 
 ties of this State, in addition to the prior expression of the public 
 opinion, must have obviated the doubts of the most skeptical, as 
 to the voice of our citizens being in favor of a Convention. When 
 we consider that the subject of a Convention has been so long 
 
Michael Ulshoeffee's Second Eeport. 477 
 
 before the Legislature and before the public, and how general an 
 expression of sentiment has been heretofore and recently pro- 
 nounced in favor of that measure, your committee consider that a 
 sound reason cannot be given for putting a previous question as to 
 the expediency of a Convention. 
 
 "By the custom of our State, the Legislature has an undoubted 
 right to recommend the choice of delegatfes without any previous 
 question as to the expediency of the measure, and without any 
 submission of the amendments that may be made. The choice of 
 delegates, according to our practice and experience, is a sufficient 
 guard and security. This legislative power to recommend has 
 been frequently exercised in our State, and has been found salu- 
 tary in its effects. Of the three Conventions which have been 
 called in our State, not one affords an instance of a previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 "If, however, the provisions of other States were to bind the 
 Legislature and people of this State, still the alternative would be 
 offered to follow those precedents which prescribe a previous ques- 
 tion, or those which prescribe that the amendments themselves 
 shall be submitted to the decision of the people; or we might 
 conform to any of the other discordant precedents of the subject. 
 But we are not tied down to the precedents of other States, and 
 cannot therefore be told that our legislative powers are to be meted 
 out to us, not according to our own constitutional practice. If, 
 however, the representatives of the people, according to the 
 wishes and interests of their constituents, think it expedient to re- 
 quire the amendments which may be made by the Convention to 
 be submitted to the people for their determination, it is their own 
 right so to do. But this is not to be considered as sanctioning the 
 idea that the various prescriptions of other States, which have 
 been made by Conventions, are to be strictly followed by our Le- 
 gislature. We unquestionably have the right to call a Convention 
 according to our own practice. As it respects the practice of our 
 sister States who put the previous question, but do not refer the 
 amendments to the decision of the people, your committee cannot 
 recommend that such a course should be adopted. The reference 
 of the amendments which may be made, to the final vote of our 
 citizens, is a valuable feature which your committee recommend 
 
478 The Council op Eetision. 
 
 in preference to a superfluous and unnecessary vote as to the ex- 
 pediency of a Convention. And when we pay a just regard to the 
 voice of the people of this State, as to the question of the propriety 
 of a Convention (a voice which has been so recently and so unani- 
 mously expressed by all classes of citizens), the very origin of this 
 Convention may be ascribed emphatically to the demands of the 
 people. 
 
 "The report on the subject of a Convention, made on the ninth 
 day of January last, contains the history in detail of but two of 
 the three Conventions which have been called within this State. 
 The one of 1777 was authorized hy a resolution of the State Con- 
 gress ; that of 1788 was called by a joint resolution of the two 
 houses of the Legislature, and that of 1801 was called by a law 
 which is mostly a transcript of the resolution of 1788. The two 
 former were general in their powers, and the latter restricted. There 
 can be no doubt, as your committee conceive, of the right of the 
 Legislature to recommend a Convention by either method. Insa- 
 much as the proceedings of the Legislature of 1788, relative to the 
 Convention of that year, were not fully noticed in the before men- 
 tioned report, your committee have annexed the same Hereto. All 
 the precedents of our own State abundantly prove that the Legis- 
 lature may call a Convention by resolution or by law; that the 
 number of delegates should be the same as the number of mem- 
 bers of Assembly under the last preceding State census, and that 
 a majority of the Legislature may call such Convention. 
 
 " Your committee have framed a bill providing that the election 
 of delegates shall be recommended to take place on the third 
 Tuesday of June next; that the Convention shall assemble at 
 Albany on the last Tuesday of August next; and that the said 
 Convention shall submit their proceedings to the decision of the 
 citizens, at such time and in such manner as they shall direct, 
 ■which bni the committee have directed their chairman to ask 
 leave to introduce." 
 
 _ Leave being granted, Mr. Ulshoeffer forthwith introduced the 
 bill entitled "An act recommending a Convention of the people 
 of this State," which was read twice and committed to a commit- 
 
Peoceedings on Convention' Bills. 479 
 
 tee of the whole House. The select committee were discharged 
 from the further consideration of the bill. "to obtain the authority 
 of the people of this State for the meeting of a Convention to revise 
 the Constitution, and to provide for the election of delegates to 
 such Convention, when authorized to be held," and it was ordered 
 that the said bill be referred to the committee of the whole when 
 on the above bill, "recommending a convention of the people of 
 this State." 
 
 On the fourteenth (February), after amending the bill, James 
 Burt of Orange, and James M'Kown of Albany, were added to the 
 select committee, to which committee the bill was again referred. 
 
 On the seventeenth, Mr. Ulshoeffer introduced the bUl again 
 into the House, which was twice read and committed to a commit- 
 tee of the whole. 
 
 On the twenty-third, the House agreed with the committee of 
 the whole in their report on the bill (which had been amended), 
 and on the twenty -sixth the bill passed and was delivered to the 
 Senate, which, on the seventh of March following, passed the same 
 without amendment. 
 
 On the thirteenth succeediag, the Council of Eevision transmit- 
 ted to the Assembly its sanction of the bill, which sanction, on 
 the fifteenth, was communicated to the Senate. 
 
 Pive days later, viz., on the twentieth of March, "William C. 
 Bouck brought into the Senate a bill "To amend the act entitled 
 'An act recommending a Convention of the people of this State,'" 
 which was read twice and committed to a committee of the whole. 
 
 On the twenty-eighth the biQ passed the Senate and was sent for 
 conciirrence to the Assembly, which, on the succeeding third of 
 April, passed it without amendment. On the same day it received 
 the sanction of the Council and consequently became a law. 
 
 The question as to whether there should be a Convention was 
 submitted to the people at the ensuing April election, and passed 
 upon by them affirmatively. The Convention assembled at Albany 
 on the twenty-eighth of August following, and adjourned on the 
 tenth of the succeeding November. The result of their delibera- 
 tions was the Constitution of 1821. 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST 
 
 BILLS VETOED BY THE COUNCIL. 
 
 1778. February 3: page. 
 
 An act requiring all persons holding offices or places under 
 the Government of this State to take the oaths therein 
 prescribed and directed, 201 
 
 February 20 : 
 
 An act to prevent the exportation of flour, meal and grain 
 out of this State, 203 
 
 .... Marcb 25 : 
 
 An act to regulate elections within this State, 208 
 
 March 25 : 
 
 An act for raising moneys to be applied towards the public 
 exigencies of this State, 212 
 
 .... March 30: 
 
 An act for raising seven hundred men to be employed in 
 the defense of this State, 214 
 
 .... Novembers: 
 
 An act for raising a further sum by tax, to be applied 
 towards the public exigencies of this State, 214 
 
 1779. March 14: 
 
 An act for forfeitures and confiscations, and for declaring 
 the sovereignty of the people of this State in respect of 
 
 all property within the same, 220 
 
 61 
 
482 The Council of Eetision. 
 
 1779. September 24: paoe. 
 
 An act for continuing the powers of the commissioners for 
 detecting and defeating conspiracies, and for other pur- 
 
 therein mentioned, 226 
 
 October 15 : 
 
 An act to indemnify the sheriff of the county of Ulster 
 against involuntary escapes on civil processes, and for 
 other purposes therein mentioned, 221' 
 
 October 21: 
 
 An act to prevent horse -racing and theatrical entertain- 
 ments, 228 
 
 1780. March 4: 
 
 An act for the immediate sale of part of the forfeited 
 estates 229 
 
 Marcb 8 : 
 
 An act to facilitate the levying the taxes for supporting the 
 poor and defraying the contingent expenses in the coun- 
 ties of Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Dutchess, Try on 
 and Charlotte, 231 
 
 .... May 12 : 
 
 An act for the more effectual suppression of vice and im- 
 morality, 232 
 
 .... October 5 : 
 
 An act for the amendment of the law directing the sales 
 of forfeited lands, 233 
 
 October 9 : 
 
 An act for the appointment of a Council to assist in the 
 administration of the Government during the recess of 
 the Legislature, 234 
 
 1781. March 8 : 
 
 An act more effectually to collect the deficiencies in assess- 
 ments of wheat, and to lay an embargo on the exporta- 
 tion of flourj meal and wheat out of the State 235 
 
Bills Yetoed by the Council. .483 
 
 1781. March 26 : page. 
 
 An act to relieve certain persons in the county of Charlotte 
 from the penalty of an act entitled " An act for raising 
 levies to reinforce the armies of the United States," 237 
 
 .... Maxell 27: 
 
 An act to suspend certain parts of an act entitled "An act 
 for raising by tax a sum equal to $150,000 in specie," 
 and of an act entitled "An act approving of the act of 
 Congress of the 18th day of March, 1'780, relative to the 
 finances of the United States, and making provision for 
 redeeming the proportion of this State of the Bills of 
 Credit to be emitted in pursuance of the said act of 
 Congress, and for other purposes therein mentioned," ... 237 
 
 .... Marcli29: 
 
 An act to amend an Act entitled "An act for regulating 
 the Militia of the State of New York," 238 
 
 .... March 29: 
 
 An act to prevent evil-minded persons supplying the enemy 
 with provisions, and for other purposes therein men- 
 tioned, 240 
 
 .... June 30: 
 
 An act for raising a tax in specie, and a tax in paper 
 currency, 241 . 
 
 1782. April 10: 
 
 An act to empower Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Record 
 ers and Aldermen to try causes to the value of £10 
 and under, and to repeal certain acts therein men- 
 tioned, 241 
 
 .... Aprilll: 
 
 An act for raising the sum of £18,000, and the further sum 
 of £18,000 by tax within this State, and for settling 
 public accounts, 243 
 
 .... ApriI13: 
 
 An act to stay suits against public officers for a limited 
 time, 244 
 
484 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1783. March 20: pace. 
 
 An act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors with 
 respect to the imprisonment of their persons, 244 
 
 March 24: 
 
 An act to remove certain doubts relative to the powers of 
 the Commissioners of Sequestration, 245 
 
 1784. January 15: 
 
 An act declaratory of the alienism of the persons therein 
 described, 246 
 
 .... January 15 : 
 
 An act to amend an act relative to debts due to persons 
 within the enemy's lines, 248 
 
 March 30 : 
 
 An act for apprehending of persons in any county upon 
 warrants granted by the Justices of the Peace of any 
 other county, 249 
 
 April 20: 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of the 
 city and county of New York, to raise moneys, by tax, 
 for the purposes therein mentioned, 251 
 
 May 4 : 
 
 An act for raising £100,000 within the several counties 
 therein mentioned, 252 
 
 May 10 : 
 
 An act to encourage the settlement of the waste and unap- 
 propriated lands within this State, 253 
 
 .... May 12: 
 
 An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this 
 State, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 264 
 
 May 12 : 
 
 An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited 
 estates within this State, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 256 
 
Bills Vktoed by the Council. 485 
 
 1784. November 25 : page. 
 
 An act to empower Elizabeth Debevois, widow, and 
 Johannes B. Lott and John Vanderbilt, Esq., administra- 
 tors to the estate of Joost Debevois, deceased, to sell and 
 dispose of the real estate of the said Joost Debevois, for 
 the payment of his debts and other purposes, 256 
 
 November 27 : 
 
 An act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the city 
 and county of New York, altering the mode of punish- 
 ment in certain cases of petit larceny, and for the con- 
 finement of vagrants and lewd persons to hard labor, . . . 257 
 
 1785. March 1 : 
 
 An act to regulate inoculation for the small pox in the city 
 and county of Albany, and in the counties of Suffolk 
 and Dutchess, 258 
 
 .... March 3 : 
 
 An act to enable the courts therein mentioned to issue 
 commissions for the examination of witnesses in certain 
 cases, 259 
 
 March 8 : 
 
 An act incorporating the several tradesmen and mechanics 
 of the city and county of New York, ' 261 
 
 March 9 : 
 
 An act for the indemnification of the Commissioners of 
 Sequestration, and the Commissioners of Forfeitures, and 
 the lessees under them, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 26^ 
 
 March 9 : 
 
 An act to prevent delay in the collection of taxes, and for 
 giving relief in certain cases, 266 . 
 
 March 12: 
 
 An act to explain and amend an act entitled "An act impo- 
 sing duties on certain goods, wares and merchandise 
 imported into this State," passed 18th November, 1784, 267 
 
486 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1785. March 21 : paqb. 
 
 An act for the gradual abolition of slavery within this 
 State, 268 
 
 .... Marcli28: 
 
 An act to remove doubts respecting an act entitled "An act 
 to abolish entails ; to confirm conveyances by tenants in 
 tail ; to distribute estates real of intestates ; to remedy 
 defective conveyances to joint tenants, and directing the 
 mode of such conveyances in future," passed the 12th 
 July, 1782, 270 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act to enable persons to discharge debts due, to this 
 State for moneys loaned while this State was a Colony, 271 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act to appoint the place of holding the Supreme Court 
 of Judicature of this State in future, and to prolong the 
 terms thereof, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 272 
 
 April 6 : 
 
 An act to incorporate the German Society for encouraging 
 emigration from Germany; relieving the distresses of 
 emigrants, and promoting useful knowledge among their 
 countrymen, 273 
 
 .... AprHll: 
 
 An act to cure certain 'defects in deeds and conveyances of 
 real estates, 274 
 
 April 20: 
 
 An act incorporating the inhabitants residing within the 
 limits therein mentioned, 274 
 
 .... April 20: 
 
 An act to vest the estate of William R. Van Cortlandt in 
 trustees for the payment of his debts, and other purposes, 275 
 
 .... April 20: 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 in Common Council convened, to order the raising 
 
Bills Vetoed bt the Council. 487 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 moneys, by tax, for the maintenance of the poor and 
 other contingei^t expenses arising in the said city of New 
 York, 216 
 
 1785. April 22: 
 
 An act for the relief of William Gilchrist, 277 
 
 .... April 26: 
 
 An act for the payment of the salaries of the . several offi- 
 cers of Government, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 278 
 
 1786. February 27 : 
 
 An act for settling intestates' . estates, proving wills and 
 granting administrations, 279 
 
 1787. February 13 : 
 
 An act for settling intestates' estates, proving wills and 
 granting administrations, 281 
 
 Marcli 19 : 
 
 An act directing a mode of trial and allowing of divotcea.- 
 in cases of adultery, 282 
 
 .... April 11: 
 
 An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value 
 of £10, 283 
 
 .... April 21: 
 
 An act for regulating the fees of the several officers and 
 ministers of the Courts of Justice within this State,. . . . 285 
 
 1788. February 7 : 
 
 An act for apprehending and punishing disorderly persons, 286 
 
 March, 20: 
 
 An act to extend the powers of the Commissioners of the 
 Land Office to the cases therein mentioned, and for 
 other purposes, 288 
 
 .... March 22: 
 
 An act for the relief of the creditors of William Van 
 Derlocht, and for other purposes therein mentioned,. . . 289 
 
488 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1788. March 22 : paqh 
 
 An act for directing the settlement of the public accounts, 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, 289 
 
 1789. July 15 : 
 
 An act prescribing the manner of holding elections for 
 Senators to represent this State in the Senate of the 
 United States, 290 
 
 1790. Aprils: 
 
 An act for the relief of John Henry and others, 291, 
 
 .... Aprils: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to appropriate 
 the lands set apart to the use of the troops of the line of 
 this State, lately serving in the army of the United 
 States, and for other purposes therein mentioned, and for 
 extending relief to the persons therein named," 293 
 
 1791. February 21 : 
 
 An act to invest the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the city of New York with power to license and regu- 
 late the fees of hackney coaches, and to lay a tax on all 
 wheel carriages within the city and county of New York, 294 
 
 March 1 : 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 of the city of New York to order the raising moneys, 
 by tax, for the purposes therein mentioned, 298 
 
 1792. December 1 : 
 
 An act for electing representatives for this State in the 
 House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 
 States of America, 299 
 
 .... December 19 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for establishing 
 and opening lock navigations within this State," ...... 301 
 
 1793. February 27 : 
 
 An act for vesting the lanas appropriated for highways and 
 streets in the city of New York, in the corporation of 
 the said city, 303 
 
Bills Yetoed by the Council. 489 
 
 1794. February 21 : page. 
 
 An act for the relief of Mathew Trotter, 304 
 
 .... March 27: 
 
 An act further to amend the act entitled "An act for the 
 better laying out, regulating and keeping in repair all 
 common and public highways aiid private roads in the 
 counties of Ulster, Orange, Dutchess, Westchester, 
 Washington, Albany and Montgomery," 305 
 
 1795. March 31 : 
 
 An act for the relief of certain persons claiming lands in 
 the patents therein mentioned, 30,5 
 
 .... April 9: 
 
 An act for the better support of the Oneida, Onondaga 
 and Cayuga Indians, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 308 
 
 1796. March 11 : 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys, by tax, in the city 
 and county of New York, for defraying the public ex- 
 penses, 309 
 
 1797. February 10 : 
 
 An act for raising a further sum of money for repairing 
 the Court House and Gaol in the county of Herkimer, 309 
 
 March 31 : 
 
 An act enabling the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the city of Hudson, to order . the raising 
 money for the payment of a night watch, 310 
 
 April 1 : 
 
 An act to enable St. John Honeywood to continue an 
 attorney in certain causes, 311 
 
 .... April 3: 
 
 An act authorizing the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 of the city of Albany, to raise a sum of money, by tax, 
 for defraying the expense of lighting the lamps and for 
 
 the support of a night watch, 311 
 
 62 
 
490 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1798. January 2 : paoe. 
 
 An act to vest certain powers in the freeholders and inhabi- 
 tants of the villages of Troy and Lansingburgh, and for 
 other purposes therein mentioned, 312 
 
 .... January 2 : 
 
 An act further to amend the act entitled "An act to organ- 
 ize the Militia of this State," 313 
 
 Janviary 26 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Anna Breadbake, 314 
 
 February 2 
 
 An act authorizing the use of paper instead of parchment, 
 in certain legal proceedings, 315 
 
 Marcli 23 : 
 
 An act repealing an act entitled "An act for granting and 
 securing to John Fitch the sole right and advantage of 
 making and employing the steamboat by him lately 
 invented, and for other purposes, 315 
 
 Marcli 30 : 
 
 An act to amend, the act entitled "An act for suppressing 
 immorality,'' 316 
 
 April 2 : 
 
 An act for raising money to finish and repair the Court 
 House and Gaol in Queens county. An act to authorize 
 the raising a sum of money for making certain neces- 
 sary accommodations for the Gaol, and certain repairs for 
 the Court House, in the county of Rensselaer. An act 
 to raise a sum of money for building a Court House and 
 Gaol in Delaware county, and for other purposes ; and 
 An act for building a Court House and Gaol in the 
 county of Schoharie, 317 
 
 1799. April 2 : 
 
 An act to amend the Statute of Limitations, 317 
 
 1800. Marcli 19 : 
 
 An act giving certain powers to the magistrates of this 
 State, in relation to seamen in foreign service, 318 
 
Bills Vetoed by the Council. 491 
 
 1800. April 8 : page. 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, 
 and for other purposes, 319 
 
 1801. Pebniary 27 : 
 
 An act for establishing and regulating a ferry across the 
 Hudson river, between the town of Mount Pleasant, in 
 the county of Westchester, and Clarkstown, in the 
 county of Rockland, 320 
 
 .... March 30: 
 
 An act authorizing John Marshall and Gilbert Brown to 
 erect a mill-dam .and grist-mills across and upon Mill 
 creek, in the town of Rye, and county of Westchester, 
 and to enable certain persons interested in lands contigu- 
 ous thereto, to assent to the same 320 
 
 .... MarcliSl: 
 
 An act concerning the proof of deeds and conveyances, . . 321 
 
 April 7 : 
 
 An act authorizing Masters in Chancery to appoint guard- 
 ians for infants, 323 
 
 1802. April 3 : 
 
 An act declaring certain waters in the counties of Steuben 
 and Chenango, to be public highways, and repealing 
 part of the act entitled "An act to regulate highways," 324 
 
 1803. Marcli 26 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the 
 recovery of debts and demands to the value of £10, in 
 the city of New York," passed the 16th of February, 
 1797, 325 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act for granting and securing to Philo Norton, the sole 
 right and advantage of erecting and employing, for a 
 limited time, machines for carding wool and spinning flax 
 and hemp, within certain counties within this State,. . . 327 
 
492 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1804. April 4: page. 
 
 An act relative to the election of charter oflBcers in the 
 city of New York, 327 
 
 .... JSTovember 6 : 
 
 An act concerning libels, 328 
 
 1805. February 25 : 
 
 An act to enable the Eector, Church Wardens and Vestry- 
 men of St. Ann's Church, of the town of Brooklyn, to 
 sell their parsonage house and lots of ground thereto 
 appertaining, for the purposes therein mentioned, 329 
 
 March 21: 
 
 An act for the relief of Nathaniel Shaler and others, .... 330 
 
 .... March 80: 
 
 An act to incorporate the trustees of the Marine Hospital, 
 in the city of New York, 330 
 
 1806. January 28: 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act declar- 
 ing the crimes punishable with death or with imprison- 
 ment in the State Prison, and for other purposes," 335 
 
 .... January 28 : 
 
 An act relative to dower in certain cases therein men- 
 tioned, 333 
 
 .... January 28 : 
 
 An act authorizing Zilpha Smith to convey, by deed, the 
 title to certain lots of land, 334 
 
 January 28 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Mary Keynolds, administratrix of 
 Andrew Reynolds, deceased, 335 
 
 .... January 28 : 
 
 An act for incorporating the Newburgh Aqueduct Asso- 
 ciation, and for other purposes, 335 
 
 April 2 : 
 
 An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned, 337 
 
Bills Yetoed bt the Council. 493 
 
 1806. April 4: p^^j. 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act appointing Com- 
 missioners for the inspection of turnpike roads," 338 
 
 ...■. April 4: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate high- 
 ways in relation to certain towns in the county of West- 
 chester," 339 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for the more 
 speedy recovery of debts to the value of $25, and for 
 other purposes," 340 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act granting to John E. Hallenbake, and such other per- 
 sons as with him shall associate, the privilege of laying 
 out and constructing a free road, 341 
 
 1807. January 27 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act relative to unap- 
 propriated and forfeited lands, and for other purposes," 342 
 
 January 27 : 
 
 An act relative to the punishment of certain crimes, 343 
 
 .... Aprils: 
 
 An act relative to Columbia College, in the city of New 
 York, 344 
 
 .... April 6 : 
 
 An act to restrain insurance of lottery tickets, and for 
 other purposes, 345 
 
 1808. January 26: 
 
 An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned, 348 
 
 .... November 1 : 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act to grant 
 to Terence Donnelly and others, the exclusive right 
 of running stage wagons on the west side of Hudson 
 
49i The Council op Revision. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 river, between the city of Albany and tbe northern 
 boundary line of the State of New Jersey," passed the 
 26th day of February, 1803, 349 
 
 1808. November 1 : 
 
 An act to enable the Directors and Company of the Cana- 
 joharie and Palatine Bridge, to rebuild the same, 350 
 
 1809. February 24: 
 
 An act for laying out Canal street, in the city of New 
 York, and for amending the acts relating to streets and 
 roads therein mentioned, 350 
 
 February 24 : 
 
 An act to enable the Trustees of the Reformed Dutch 
 Church, of the township of New Utrecht, in Kings 
 county, to sell the parcel of land therein mentioned, . . . 352 
 
 March 14 : 
 
 An act to equalize the four great districts of the State, 352 
 
 1810. January 30: 
 
 An act to establish surveys in the city of New York, and 
 to grant additional powers to the Mayor, Aldermen and 
 Commonalty of the said city, in relation thereto, 355 
 
 January 30 : 
 
 An act for the relief of William H. Devoe, 356 
 
 .... January 30 : 
 
 An act to establish and confirm the original surveys of the 
 lots in the Military Tract, 356 
 
 .... January 30 : 
 
 An act granting relief in certain cases to the inhabitants 
 of the city of New York, and to the inhabitants of the 
 town of Brooklyn, in Kings county, 357 
 
 January 30 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Nicholas Hardenburgh, Thomas C. 
 Jansen and others, and for other purposes, 357 
 
Bills Vetoed by the Council. 495 
 
 1810. March 30 : page. 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Thomas H. Taylor, 
 deceased, 358 
 
 .... MarcliSO: 
 
 An act for the relief of Persis Pain and others, 359 
 
 .... MarcliSO: 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Philo Day, deceased, 360 
 
 .... April 2: 
 
 An act for the relief of the Ministers, Elders and Deacons 
 of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, in the town 
 of German Flats, in the county of Herkimer, 360 
 
 1811. March 23 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of Andrew 
 Jones, deceased, 361 
 
 .... March aO: 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other pur- 
 poses, 362 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other pur- 
 poses, 362 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of William H. 
 Philips, deceased, 364 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act for the relief of James Ford, 365' 
 
 1812. January 28 : 
 
 An act for the security of the estates of femes covert, in 
 certain cases, 366 
 
 .... March 14 : 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of George Teeple, 
 deceased, 367 
 
496 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1812. May 26 : paoe. 
 
 An act to authorize the guardians of Phebe B. Hart, Sally 
 Ann Bloom, Eliza Bloom and Jane Bloom, to execute a 
 deed to James Gazley, 36*7 
 
 June 10 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of John Schultzs, de- 
 ceased, 368 
 
 ..,, June 15: 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of Anthony Marvin, 
 deceased, 308 
 
 June 16: 
 
 An act for the relief of Nancy Fairchild and her infant son, 369 
 
 June 19 : 
 
 An act incorporating trustees to manage such funds as 
 Alexander Proudfit may dispose of for pious and chari- 
 table gospel purposes, 369 
 
 November 3 : 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, STO 
 
 1813. March 12: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the 
 clerks of the Supreme Court of this State, and for other 
 purposes,'' 3Yl 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act relative to the eastern branch of the Schoharie 
 turnpike, 3T2 
 
 April 6 : 
 
 An act concerning joint tenants and tenants in tail, regulat- 
 ing descents and abolishing entails, 373 
 
 .... April 8 : 
 
 An act restraining bigamy, 374 
 
 .... April 9: 
 
 An act to revive and amend the act entitled "An act to 
 incorporate the Harlaem Bridge Company, and for build- 
 ing another bridge across the Harlaem river, 375 
 
BiLis Yetoed by the Coottcil. 497 
 
 1813. AprU12: p^^^. 
 
 An act limiting the period of bringing claims and prosecu- 
 tions against forfeited estates, 376 
 
 1814. October 22: 
 
 An slct concerning vessels in tlie port of New York, 311 
 
 .... October 24: 
 
 An act to aid in the apprehension of deserters from the 
 army and navy of the United States, 311 
 
 1815. AprH 18 : 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, 
 and for other purposes, 379 
 
 1816. April 5:- 
 
 An act to incorporate the Bank of Niagara, 380 
 
 1818. January 27 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other 
 purposes, 381 
 
 February 27 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other 
 purposes, 382 
 
 1819. April 9: 
 
 An act concerning the Courts of General Sessions of the 
 Peace, 388 
 
 1820. March 7: 
 
 An act relative to the Eoman Catholic Benevolent Society, 
 in the city of New York, 388 
 
 November 7 : 
 
 An act to authorize certain proceedings in Chancery to be 
 done by certain county officers, 389 
 
 November 20 : 
 
 An act recommending a Convention of the People of this 
 
 State, 390 
 
 63 
 
498 The Council of Eeyision. 
 
 1821. "Marct 23 : pagk 
 
 An act authoriziBg the building of a toll bridge across the 
 Esopus creek, in the town of Saugerties, in the county 
 of Ulster, and for other purposes, 394 
 
 March 31 : 
 
 An act to amend "An act to perpetuate the testimony of 
 witnesses in certain cases," passed April 5, 1813, 895 
 
 1822. January 2 : 
 
 An act in addition to "An act relative to the common lands 
 of the freeholders and inhabitants of '. lem," passed 
 March 28th, 1820, 399 
 
 .... Maxell 29: 
 
 An act to authorize the Trustees of Farmers' Hall Acad- 
 emy, to be Trustees of a Common School District, and 
 for other purposes, 400 
 
 Marcli 29 : 
 
 An act relative to the city of Schenectady, 401 
 
 March 29 : 
 
 An act for rebuilding a bridge in the town of Minisink, . . 402 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST 
 
 OF BILLS IN THE APPENDIX. 
 
 1785. April 26: page. 
 
 An act for the payment of the salanes of the several oflB- 
 cers of Government, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 405 
 
 1786. Aprils: 
 
 An act for the relief of Creditors against Heirs, Devisees, 
 Executors and Administrators, and for proving Wills 
 respecting Real Estates, 408 
 
 .... April 13: 
 
 An act for emitting the sum of £200,000 for the' purposes 
 therein mentioned, 409 
 
 , . . . April 14 : 
 
 An act for emitting the sum of £200,000 in Bills of Credit 
 for the purposes therein mentioned, 412 
 
 April 15 : 
 
 An act for emitting the sum of £200,000 in Bills of Credit 
 for the purposes therein mentioned 414 
 
 1790. Marcli5: 
 
 An act appointing Commissioners with power to declare 
 the consent of the Legislature of this State, that a cer- 
 tain territory within the jurisdiction thereof should be 
 formed or erected into a new State, 416 
 
 1793. January 14 : 
 
 An act for prescribing the times, plac^ and manner of 
 holding elections for Senators to represent this State in 
 
500 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 the Senate of the Congress of the United States of 
 America, 418 
 
 1796. Marcli 11 : 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys by tax in the city 
 and connty of New York, for defraying the public expenses, 419 
 
 1797. February 16 : 
 
 An act to render the Funds of this State more productive 
 of Revenue, 421 
 
 1798. March 30 : 
 
 An act to amend the act entitled "An act for suppressing 
 immorality," 422 
 
 1799. April 2 : 
 
 An act for supplying the city of New York with pure and 
 wholesome water, 423 
 
 1803. Marcli 8: 
 
 An act to increase the number of wards in the city of New 
 York, and equalize the same, 423 
 
 1804. April 4: 
 
 An act to restrain unincorporated Banking Associations, 425 
 
 1805. March 26: 
 
 An act to incorporate the stockholders of the Merchants' 
 Bank in the city of New York, 427 
 
 1806. March 28 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Henry Delord, 429 
 
 1811. March 8 : 
 
 An act to incorporate the stockholders of the Union Bank 
 in the city of New York, 430 
 
 1812. June 2 : 
 
 An act to incorporate the stockholders of the Bank of 
 America, 432 
 
 June 16 : 
 
 An act providing for the election of Representatives for 
 the State in the Congress of the United States, 433 
 
List of Bills ik the Appendix. 501 
 
 1812. June 19 : page. 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, .... 436 
 
 1813. April 9 : 
 
 An act for the encouragement of American Manufactures, 438 
 
 1814. January 25 : 
 
 An act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity 
 Church in New York, and for other purposes, 439 
 
 .... October 21: 
 
 An act to encourage Privateering Associations, 440 
 
 .... * October 22 : 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, 442 
 
 .... October 24: 
 
 An act to authorize the raising of troops for the defense of 
 this State, 443 
 
 .... October 24: 
 
 An act to authorize the raising of a corps of Sea Fenci- 
 hles, 445 
 
 ■1815. April 11 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for regulating 
 elections ;" passed March 29th, 1813, 447 
 
 .... April 13: 
 
 An act apportioning the representation of this State accord- 
 ing to the rule prescribed by the Constitution, 448 
 
 1816. November 5 : 
 
 An act to suppress dueling, 449 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST 
 
 OF BILLS THAT DID NOT BECOME LAWS PKOM THE VETOES 
 OF THE COUNCIL. 
 
 1778. November 5 : pa£,j,_ 
 
 An act for raising a further sum by tax, to be applied to- 
 wards the public exigencies of this State, 214 
 
 1779. MarcliM: 
 
 An act for forfeitures and confiscations, and for declaring 
 the sovereignty of the People of this State in respect of 
 all property within the same, 219 
 
 .... September 24 : 
 
 An act for continuing the powers of the Commissioners 
 for detecting and defeating conspiracies, and for other 
 purposes therein mentioned 226 
 
 .... October 15 : 
 
 An act to indemnify the Sheriff of the county of Ulster 
 against involuntary escapes on civil processes, and for 
 other purposes therein mentioned, 227 
 
 .... October 21: 
 
 An act to prevent Horse racing and Theatrical Entertain- 
 ments, 228 
 
 1780. March 8: 
 
 An act to facilitate the levying the taxes for supporting the 
 poor, and defraying the contingent expenses in the coun- 
 ties of Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Dutchess, Tryon 
 and Charlotte, 231 
 
604 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1780. May 12 : page. 
 
 An act for the more effectual suppression of vice and 
 immorality, ?32 
 
 .... October 5 : 
 
 An act for the amendment of the law directing the sales 
 of forfeited lands, 233 
 
 .... October 9 : 
 
 An act for the appointment of a Council to assist in the 
 administration of the Government during the recess of 
 the Legislature, 234 
 
 1781. March 29: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for regulating the 
 Militia of the State of New York," 238 
 
 March 29 : 
 
 An act to prevent evil-minded persons supplying the enemy 
 with provisions, and for other purposes 240 
 
 1782. April 13 : 
 
 An act to stay suits against public officers for a limited 
 time, 244 
 
 1783. March 20 : 
 
 An act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors with 
 respect to the imprisonment of their persons, 244 
 
 March 24 : 
 
 An act to remove certain doubts relative to the powers of 
 the Commissioners of Sequestration, 245 
 
 1784. January 15 : 
 
 An act declaratory of the alienism of the persons therein 
 described, 246 
 
 .... January 15 : 
 
 An act to amend an act relative to debts due to persons 
 within the Enemy's lines, 248 
 
Bills that did not become Laws. 505 
 
 1784. March 30 : page. 
 
 An act for apprehending of persons in any county upon 
 warrants granted by the Justices of the Peace of any 
 other county, 249 
 
 JSTovember 25 : 
 
 An act to empower Elizabeth Debeavois, widow, and Jo- 
 hannes E. Lott and John Vanderbilt, Esquire, Adminis- 
 trators to the estate of Joost Debeavois, deceased, to sell 
 and dispose of the real estate of the said Joost Debea- 
 vois, for the ■pa3rment of his debts and other purposes,. . 256 
 
 .... November 27 : 
 
 An act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the city 
 and county of New York, altering the mode of punish- 
 ment in certain cases of Petit Larceny, and for the con- 
 finement of vagrants and lewd persons to hard labor,. . 259 
 
 1785. March 1: 
 
 An act to regulate inoculation for the small pox in the 
 city and county of Albany, and in the counties of Suf- 
 folk and Dutchess, 258 
 
 Marcla 3 : 
 
 An act to enable the Courts therein mentioned to issue 
 commissions for the examination of witnesses in certain 
 cases, 259 
 
 March 8 
 
 An act incorporating the several tradesmen and mechanics 
 of the city and county of New York, 261 
 
 March 9 : 
 
 An act to prevent delay in the collection of taxes, and for 
 giving relief in certain cases, 266 
 
 .... March 21: 
 
 An act for the gradual abolition of Slavery within this 
 State, : 268 
 
 .... March 28: 
 
 An act to remove doubts respecting an act entitled "An 
 act to abolish entails ; to confirm conveyances by tenants 
 64 
 
506 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 in tail ; to distribute estates real of intestates ; to 
 remedy defective conveyances to joint tenants, and 
 directing the mode of sucli conveyances in future, passed 
 July 12, 1782, 210 
 
 1785. April 6 : 
 
 An act to incorporate the German Society for encouraging 
 emigration from Germany ; relieving the distresses of 
 emigrants, and promoting useful knowledge among their 
 countrymen, 2*73 
 
 .... April 11: 
 
 An act to cure certain defects in deeds and conveyances of 
 real estate, 274 
 
 April 20: 
 
 An act incorporating the inhabitants residing within the 
 limits therein mentioned 274 
 
 April 22 : 
 
 An act for the relief of William Gilchrist, 277 
 
 1786. February 27 : 
 
 An act for settling intestates' estates, proving wills and 
 granting- administrations, 279 
 
 1787. April 21 : 
 
 An act for regulating the fees of the several officers and 
 ministers of the Courts of Justice within this State,. . . 285 
 
 1789. July 15 : 
 
 An act prescribing the manner of holding elections for 
 Senators to represent this State in the Senate of the 
 United States, ■ 290 
 
 1790. April 3 : 
 
 An act for the relief of John Henry and others, 291 
 
 April 8: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to appropriate the 
 lands set apart to the use of the troops of the line of 
 this State, lately serving in the army -of the United States, 
 
Bills that did not become Laws. 507 
 
 PAGE 
 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, and for ex- 
 tending relief to the persons therein named," 293 
 
 1791. February 21: 
 
 An act to invest the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 of the city of New York with power to license and regu- 
 late the fees of Hackney Coaches, and to lay a tax on 
 all wheel carriages within the city and county of New 
 York, 294 
 
 March 1 : 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the city of New York to order the raising moneys by 
 tax for the purposes therein mentioned, 298 
 
 1792. December 1 : 
 
 An act for electing representatives for this State in the 
 House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 
 States of America, 299 
 
 1793. February 27 : 
 
 An aet for vesting the lands appropriated for highways 
 and streets in the city of New York, in the corporation 
 of the said city, 303 
 
 1794. February 21 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Mathew Trotter, 304 
 
 .... Marcli27: 
 
 An act fiirther to amend the act entitled "An act for the 
 better laying out, regulating and keeping in repair all 
 common and public highways and private roads in the 
 counties of Ulster, Orange, Dutchess, Westchester, 
 "Washington, Albany and Montgomery, 305 
 
 1797. MarcbSl: 
 
 An act enabling the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the city of Hudson to order the raising a 
 sum of money for the payment of a city watch, 310 
 
608 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1797. April 1 : page. 
 
 An act to enable St. Jolin Honeywood to continue an attor- 
 ney in certain causes, 311 
 
 Aprils: 
 
 An act authorizing the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 of the city of Albany to raise a sum of money by tax 
 for defraying the expense of lighting the lamps, and for 
 the support of a night watch, 311 
 
 1798. January 2 : 
 
 An act further to amend the act entitled "An act to organ- 
 ize the Militiaof this State," 313 
 
 January 26 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Anna Breadbake, 314 
 
 1799. April 2 : 
 
 An act to. amend the Statute of Limitations, 31^ 
 
 1800. Marcli 19 : 
 
 An act giving certain powers to Magistrates of this State 
 in relation to seamen in foreign service, 818 
 
 1801. February 27 : 
 
 An act for establishing and regulating a ferry across the 
 Hudson River, between the town of Mount Pleasant in 
 the county of Westchester, and Clarkstown in the county 
 of Rockland, 320 
 
 .... Marcli 31: 
 
 An act concerning the proof of deeds and conveyances, . . 321 
 
 .... Marcli 31: 
 
 An act concerning mortgages, 323 
 
 April, 7: 
 
 An act authorizing Masters in Chancery to appoint guard- 
 ians for infants, .' 323 
 
Bills that did not become Laws. 509 
 
 18Q2. April 3 : page. 
 
 An act declaring certain waters in the counties of Steuben 
 and Chenango to be public highways, and repealing part 
 of the act entitled "An act to regulate highways," .... 324 
 
 1803. March 26 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the 
 recovery of debts and demands to the value of £10 in 
 the city of New York," passed February 16, ll9l, 325 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act for granting and securing to Philo Norton the sole 
 right and advantage of erecting and employing for a 
 limited time, machines for carding wool and spinning 
 flax and hemp within certain counties within this State, 3 2 7 
 
 1804. November 6 : 
 
 An act concerning libels, 328 
 
 1805. MaTOh 21 : ' 
 
 An act for the relief of Nathaniel Shaler and others, 330 
 
 .... March 30: 
 
 An act to incorporate the Trustees of the Marine Hospital 
 in the city of New York, 330 
 
 1806. January 28 : 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act declaring 
 the crimes punishable with death, or with imprisonment 
 in the State Prison, and for other purposes," 331 
 
 January 28 : 
 
 An act authorizing Zilpha Smith to convey by deed the 
 title to certain lots of land, 334 
 
 . , . . January 28 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Mary Reynolds, administratrix of 
 Andrew Reynolds, deceased, 335 
 
 .... January 28 : 
 
 An act for incorporating the Newburgh Aqueduct Associa- 
 tion, and for other purposes, 335 
 
510 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1806. April 2 : page 
 
 Am act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned 337 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate high- 
 ways in relation to certain towns in the county of West- 
 chester," 339 
 
 .... April 4 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for the more 
 speedy Recovery of debts to the value of $25, and for 
 other purposes," 340 
 
 .... April 4 : 
 
 An act granting to John R. Hallenbake, and such other 
 persons as with him shall associate, the privileges of lay- 
 ing out and constructing a free road, 341 
 
 1807. January 27 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act relative to unap- 
 propriated and forfeited lands, and for other purposes," 342 
 
 .... January 27 : 
 
 An act relative to the punishment of certain crimes 343 
 
 .... Aprils: 
 
 An act relative to Colilmbia College in the city of New 
 Yort, 344 
 
 April 6: 
 
 An act to restrain insurance of lottery ticiets, and for 
 other purposes, 345 
 
 1808. January 26 : 
 
 An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned, 348 
 
 .... November 1 : 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act to grant 
 to Terence Donnelly and others the exclusive right of 
 running stage wagons on the west side of Hudson River, 
 between the city of Albany and the northern boundary 
 line of the State of New Jersey," passed the 26th day 
 of February, 1803, 349 
 
Bills that did not become Laws. 511 
 
 1808. November 1 : 
 
 An act to enable the Directors and Companj of the Cana- 
 joharie and Palatine Bridge to rebuild the same, 350 
 
 1809. February 24: 
 
 An act for laying out Canal street ifi the city of New York 
 and for amending the acts relating to streets and roads 
 therein mentioned, 350 
 
 February 24 : 
 
 An act to enable the Trustees of the Reformed Dutch 
 Church of the township of New Utrecht, in Kings 
 county, to sell the parcel of land therein mentioned,. . . 352 
 
 Marcb 14 : 
 
 An act to equalize the four great districts of this State, ... 352 
 
 1810. January 30 : 
 
 An act to establish surveys in the city of New York, and 
 to grant additional powers to the Mayor, Aldermen and 
 Commonalty of the said city in relation thereto, 355 
 
 January 30 : 
 
 An act for the relief of William H. Devoe, 356 
 
 January 30 : 
 
 An act to establish and confirm the original surveys of the 
 lots in the Military Tract, 356 
 
 .... January 30 : 
 
 An act granting relief in certain cases to the inhabitants 
 of the city of New York, and to the inhabitants of the 
 town of Brooklyn in Kings county, 357 
 
 .... January 30 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Nicholas Hardenburgh, Thomas C. 
 Jansen and others, and for other purposes 357 
 
 .... Marcli30: 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Thomas H. Taylor, 
 deceased, 358 
 
512 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1810. March 30 : page. 
 
 An act for the relief of Persis Pain and others, 359 
 
 .... March 30: 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Philo Day, deceased, 360 
 
 April 2 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the Minister, Elders and Deacons 
 of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in the town 
 of German Flats in the county of Herkimer, 360 
 
 1811. March 23 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of Andrew- 
 Jones, deceased, 361 
 
 March 30 : 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other pur- 
 poses, 362 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other pur- 
 poses, 362 
 
 .... April 5 : 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of William H. 
 Phillips, deceased 364 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act for the relief of James Ford, 365 
 
 1812. January 28: 
 
 An act for the security of the estates of femes covert in 
 certain cases, 366 
 
 March 14 : 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of George Teeple, de- 
 ceased, 367 
 
 .... May 26 : 
 
 An act to authorize the guardians of Phebe B. Hart, Sally 
 Ann Bloom, Eliza Bloom and Jane Bloom, to execute a 
 deed to James Galley, 367 
 
Bills that did not becoue Lams. 613 
 
 1812. June 10: ^^^_ 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of John Schultzs, de- 
 ceased, 368 
 
 June 15 : 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of Anthony Marvin, de- 
 ceased, 368 
 
 June 16 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Nancy Fairchild and her infant 
 son, 369 
 
 June 19 : 
 
 An act incorporating Trustees to manage such funds as 
 Alexander Proudfit may dispose of for pious and chari- 
 table Gospel purposes, 369 
 
 Noyember 3 : 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court,. ... 3 '70 
 
 1813. Marcli 12 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the 
 clerks of the Supreme Court of this State, and for other 
 purposes," 3*71 
 
 April 5 
 
 An act relative to the eastern branch of the Schoharie turn- 
 pike, 372 
 
 .... April,6: 
 
 An act concerning joint tenants and tenants in tail, regu- 
 
 : descents, and abolishing entails, SlS 
 
 ... Aprils: 
 
 An act restraining bigamy, 374 
 
 ... April 9: 
 
 An act to revive and amend the act entitled "An act to 
 incorporate the Harlaem Bridge Company, and for 
 building another bridge across the Harlaem river, 375 
 
 ... Aprill2: 
 
 An act limiting the period of bringing claims and prosecu- 
 tions against forfeited estates, 376 
 
 65 
 
514 The Coun-cil of Eevision. 
 
 1814. October 22: page. 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, ..... S11 
 
 October 24: 
 
 An act to aid in the apprehension of deserters from the 
 Army and Navy of the United States, 311 
 
 1815. AprH 18 : 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, 
 and for other purposes, ■ . . . 379 
 
 1816. AprH 5 : 
 
 An act to incorporate the Bant of Niagara, 380 
 
 1818. January 27 : 
 
 An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other pur- 
 poses, 381 
 
 1819. April 9 : 
 
 An act concerning the Courts of General Sessions of the 
 Peace, 388 
 
 1820. Marcli 7 : 
 
 An act relative to the Eoman Catholic Benevolent Society 
 in the city of New York, 388 
 
 JSToTember 7 : 
 
 An act to authorize certain proceedings in Chancery to be 
 done by certain county officers i 389 
 
 .... November 20 : 
 
 An act recommending a Convention of the People of this 
 State, 390 
 
 1821. Marcli 23: 
 
 An acti authorizing the building of a toll bridge across 
 the Esopus Greet, in the town of Saugerties, in the 
 county of Ulster, and for other purposes, 394 
 
 Marcli 31 : 
 
 An act to amend "An act to perpetuate the testimony of 
 witnesses in certain cases," passed April 5, 1813, 395 
 
Bills that did not become Laws. 515 
 
 1822. January 2 : paqe. 
 
 An act in addition to "An act relative to the common lands 
 of the freeholders and inhabitants of Harlaem," passed 
 March 28, 1820, ,. 399 
 
 .... Marcli29: 
 
 An act to authorize the Trustees of Farmers' HaJl Acad- 
 emy to he Trustees of a Common School District, and 
 for other purposes, 400 
 
 .... March. 29: 
 
 An act relative to the city of Schenectady, 401 
 
 .... MaTc]i29: 
 
 An act for rebuilding a bridge in the town of Minisint, . . 402 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST 
 
 OF BILLS THAT BECAME LAWS NOTWITHSTANDING THE 
 
 OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL, BY A TWO-THIED 
 
 YOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE. 
 
 1778. Febraary 3 : page. 
 
 An act requiring all persons holding ofiBces or places under 
 the Government of this State, to take the oaths therein 
 prescribed and directed. ( This bill was amended by the 
 Legislature in accordance with the objections of the 
 Council, and then passed ), . .1 201 
 
 February 20 : 
 
 An act to prevent the exportation of flour, meal and grain 
 out of this State, 203 
 
 Marcb 25 : 
 
 An act to regulate elections within this State, 208 
 
 Marcb 25 : 
 
 An act for raising moneys to be applied towards the public 
 exigencies of this State, 212 
 
 .... March 30 : 
 
 An act for raising seven hundred men to be employed in 
 the defense of this State, 214 
 
 1780. Marcli4: 
 
 An act for the immediate sale of part of the forfeited 
 estates, 229 
 
 1781. March 8 : 
 
 An act more effectually to collect the deficiencies in assess- 
 ments of wheat, and to lay an embargo on the exporta- 
 tions of flour, meal and wheat out of the State, 235 
 
518 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 1781. Marc]i26: pase. 
 
 An act to relieve certain persons in the county of Cliarlottd 
 from tlie penalty of an act entitled " An act for raising 
 levies to reinforce the army of the TJnite'd States," 231 
 
 Marcli 27 : 
 
 An act to suspend certain parts of an act entitled "An act 
 for raising by tax a sum equal to $150,000 in specie," 
 and of an act of Congress of the 18th day of March, 
 1780, relative to the finances of the United States, and 
 making provision fbr redeeming the proportion of this 
 State of the Bills of Credit to be emitted in pursuance 
 of the said act of Congress, and for other purposes 
 therein mentioned, 237 
 
 June 30: 
 
 An act for raising a tax in specie, and a tax in paper 
 currency, 241 
 
 1782. April 10 : 
 
 An act to empower Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Record- 
 ers and Aldermen to try causes to the value of £10 
 and under, and to repeal certain acts therein men- 
 tioned, 241 
 
 .... Aprilll: 
 
 An act for raising the sum of £18,000, and the further sum 
 of £18,000 by tax within this State, and for settling 
 public accounts, 241 
 
 1784. April 20: 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of the 
 city and county of New York, to raise moneys, by tax, 
 for the purposes therein mentioned, , 251 
 
 May 4 : 
 
 An act for raising £100,000 within the several comities 
 therein mentioned, 252 
 
 .... May 10 : 
 
 A.n act to encourage the settlement of the waste and unap- 
 propriated lands within this State, 253 
 
Bills that became Laws. 519 
 
 1784. May 12: 
 
 An act to preserve tlie freedom and independence of this 
 State, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 254 
 
 .... May 12: 
 
 An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited 
 estates within this State, and for other pm'poses therein 
 mentioned, 256 
 
 1785. Marct 9 : 
 
 An act for the indemnification of the Commissioners of 
 Sequestration, and the Commissioners of Forfeitures, and 
 the lessees under them, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 265 
 
 .... March 12: 
 
 An act to explain and amend an act entitled "An act impos- 
 ing duties on certain goods, wares and merchandise 
 .imported into this State," passed 18th November, 1*784, 267 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act to enable persons to discharge debts due to this 
 State for moneys loaned while this State was a Colony, 271 
 
 April 5 : 
 
 An act to appoint the place of holding the Supreme Court 
 of Judicature of this State in future, and to prolong the 
 terms thereof, and for other purposes therein nientioned, 272 
 
 .... April 20: 
 
 An act to vest the estate of William E. Van Cortlandt in 
 trustees for the payment of his debts, and other purposes, 275 
 
 .... April 20: 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
 in Common Council convened, to order the raising 
 moneys, by tax, for the maintenance of the poor and 
 other contingent expenses arising in the said city of 
 New York, 276 
 
 .... April 26: 
 
 An act for the payment of the salaries of the several ofiicers 
 of Government, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 278 
 
520 The Council of Eevisiou. 
 
 1787. February 13 : paob. 
 
 An act for settling intestates' estates, proving wills and 
 granting administrations, 281 
 
 Marcli 19 : 
 
 An act directing a mode of trial and allowing of divorces 
 in cases of adultery, 282 
 
 April 11 : 
 
 An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value 
 of £10, 283 
 
 1788. February 7 : 
 
 An act for apprehending and punishing disorderly persons, 286 
 
 Marcli 21 : 
 
 An act to extend the' powers of the Commissioners of the 
 Land Office to the cases therein mentioned, and for other 
 
 purposes, 
 
 288 
 
 .... Marcb.22: 
 
 An act for the relief of the creditors of William Van 
 Derlocht, and for other purposes therein mentioned,. . . 289 
 
 Marcli 22: 
 
 An act for directing the settlement of the public accounts, 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, .' 289 
 
 1792. December 19 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for establishing 
 and opening lock navigations within this State," 301 
 
 1795. March 31 : 
 
 An act for the relief of certain persons claiming lands in 
 the patents therein mentioned, 306 
 
 April 9 : 
 
 An act for the better support of the Oneida, Onondaga 
 and Cayuga Indians, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned, 308 
 
 1796. Marcli 11 : 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys, by tax, In the city and 
 county of New York, for defraying the public expenses, 309 
 
Bills that became Laws. 621 
 
 1797. February 10 : 
 
 •' _ PAGE. 
 
 An act for raising a further sum of money for repairing 
 the Court House and Gaol in the county of Herkimer, 309 
 
 1798. January 2: 
 
 An act to vest certain powers in the freeholders and inhabi- 
 tants of the villages of Troy and Lansingburgh, and for 
 other purposes therein mentioned, 312 
 
 .... February 2 : 
 
 An act authorizing the use of paper instead of parchment, 
 in certain legal proceedings, 315 
 
 March 23 : 
 
 An act repealing the act entitled "An act for granting and 
 securing to John Fitch the sole right and advantage of 
 making and employing the steamboat by him lately 
 invented, and for other purposes," 315 
 
 .... March 30 : 
 
 An act to amend the act entitled "An act for suppressing 
 immorality," 316 
 
 .... April 2: 
 
 An act for raising money to finish and repair the Court 
 House and Gaol in Queens county. An act to authorize 
 the raising a sum of money for making certain neces- 
 sary accommodations for the Gaol, and certain repairs for 
 the Court House, in the county of Rensselaer. An act 
 to raise a sum of money for building a Court House and 
 Gaol in Delaware county, and for other purposes therein 
 mentioned ; and An act for building a Court House and 
 Gaol in the county of Schoharie, 317 
 
 1800. April 8 : 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, 
 and for other purposes, 319 
 
 1801. March 30 : 
 
 An act authorizing John Marshall and Gilbert Brown to 
 erect a mUl-dam and grist-mills across and upon Mill 
 66 
 
1804. Aprn 4: 
 
 An act relative to the election of charter officers in the 
 city of New York, 327 
 
 1805. February 25: 
 
 An act to enable the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestry- 
 men of St. Ann's Church, of the town of Brooklyn, to 
 sell their parsonage house and lots of ground thereto 
 appertaining, for the purposes therein mentioned, 329 
 
 1806. April 4: 
 
 An act relative to dower in certain cases therein men- 
 tioned, 333 
 
 April 4 : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act appointing Com- 
 missioners for the inspection of turnpike roads," 338 
 
 1818. February 27: 
 
 An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other 
 purposes, 382 
 
ALPHABETICAL INDEX 
 
 BILLS VETOED BY THE COUNCIL. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abolitiox of Slavery: 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 An act relative to the, 268 
 
 Admestistration of Government : 
 
 An act relative to the, 234 
 
 Albany : 
 
 Night watch, 311 
 
 Alienism : 
 
 An act declaratory of the alienism of the persons therein de- 
 scribed, 246 
 
 Amendment of Acts : 
 
 233, 238, 248, 267, 293, 301, 305, 313, 316, 317, 325, 338,339, 
 
 340, 342, 371, 375, 395 
 
 Army: 
 
 An act relative to the army of the United States, 237 
 
 Assessments : 
 
 An act more effectually to collect the deficiencies in assessments 
 of wheat, and to lay an embargo on the exportation of flour, 
 meal and wheat out of the State, 235 
 
524 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 B. 
 Bank of Niagara: p^pj, 
 
 Aa act to incorporate the, 380 
 
 Bigamy : 
 
 An act restraining, 374 
 
 Bills of Credit: 
 
 An act relative to, 237 
 
 Bounty Lands: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to appropriate the 
 lands set apart to the use of the troops of the line of this State, 
 lately serving in the army of the United States, and for other 
 purposes therein mentioned, and for extending relief to the 
 persons therein named," 293 
 
 Breadbake, Anna: 
 
 An act for the relief of, 314 
 
 Bridge : 
 
 An act for rebuilding a bridge in the town of Minisink, 402 
 
 Brooklyn : 
 
 An act concerning relief to the inhabitants of, 357 
 
 c. 
 
 Canajoharie and Palatine Bridge: 
 
 An act to enable the Directors and Company of the Canajoharie 
 and Palatine Bridge to rebuild the same, 350 
 
 Canal Street: 
 
 An act relative to ; in the City of New Yorlc, 350 
 
 Chancery : 
 
 An act to authorize certain proceedings in Chancery to be done 
 by certain county oflBcers, 389 
 
 Chapman, Eunice: 
 
 An act for the relief of, and for other purposes, 381 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 525 
 
 Chaetee Officers: 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 An act relative to ; m the City of New York, 327 
 
 Chenango County: 
 
 An act relative to "Waters being public highways, 324 
 
 Chubches : 
 
 An act to enable the Eector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen 
 of St. Ann's Church, of the town of Brooklyn, to sell their 
 parsonage house and lots of ground thereto appertaining, for 
 the purposes therein mentioned, j 329 
 
 An act to enable the Trustees of the Reformed Dutch Church 
 of the township of New Utrecht, in Kings county, to sell 
 the parcel of land therein mentioned, 352 
 
 An act for the relief of the Ministers, Elders and Deacons of the 
 Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, in the town of German 
 Flats, in the county of Herkimer 360 
 
 City of New York: 
 
 See New York City and County. 
 
 Clerks, Supreme Court: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the clerks 
 of the Supreme Court of this State, and for other purposes," 371 
 
 Columbia College: 
 
 An act relative to, S44 
 
 Commissioners op Land Office: 
 
 An act to extend the powers of the Commissioners of the Land 
 Office to the cases therein mentioned, and for other purposes, 288 
 
 Commissioners of Sequestration: 
 
 An act to remove certain doubts relative to the powers of the 
 Commissioners of Sequestration, 243 
 
 An act for the indemnification of the Commissioners of Seques- 
 tration and the Commissioners of Forfeitures, and the lessees 
 under them, and for other purposes therein mentioned,. . . . > 265 
 
528 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 commissionees op tuenpike eoads: page. 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act appointing commis- 
 sioners for the inspection of turnpike roads," 338 
 
 Commissions for Examination op "Witnesses: 
 
 An act to enable tlie courts therein mentioned to issue commis- 
 sions for the examination of witnesses in certain cases, 259 
 
 Confiscated and Foefeited Estates: 
 
 An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates 
 within this State, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 256 
 
 CONSPIEACIES: 
 
 An act for continuing the powers of the commissioners for 
 detecting and defeating conspiracies, and for other purposes 
 therein mentioned, 226 
 
 Convention : 
 
 An act recommending a Convention of the People of this State, 390 
 
 Conveyances: 
 
 An act relative to, 2V0 
 
 Council: 
 
 An act for the appointment of a Council to assist in the admin- 
 istration of the Government during the recess of the Legis- 
 lature, 234 
 
 Ceeditors: 
 
 An act for the relief of the creditors of William Van Derlocht, 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, 289 
 
 Ceimes: 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act declaring the 
 crimes punishable with death or with imprisonment in the 
 State Prison and for other purposes," 332 
 
 An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned, 33*7 
 
 An act relative to the punishment of certain crimes, 343 
 
 An act relative to certain crimes therein mentioned, 348 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 527 
 
 D. 
 
 Day, Philo, Heies of: p^^^. 
 
 An act for the relief of tte teirs of Philo Day, deceased, 360 
 
 Debeatois, Joost, Estate : 
 
 An act to empower Elizabeth Debeavois, widow, and Johannes 
 E. Lott and John Vanderbilt, Esq., administrators to the estate 
 of Joost Debeavois, deceased, to sell and dispose of the real 
 estate of the said Joost Debeavois, for the payment of his 
 debts and other purposes, 256 
 
 Debts : 
 
 An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value of £10, 283 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for the more speedy 
 recovery of debts to the value of $25, and for other purposes," 340 
 
 An act to amend an act relative to debts due to persons within 
 the enemy's lines, 248 
 
 An act to enable persons to discharge debts due to this State 
 for moneys loaned while this State was a Colony, 271 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the reco- 
 very of debts and demands to the value of £10, in the city 
 of New York," passed the 16th day of February, 1797, 325 
 
 Deeds ajto CoirvEYAisrcES : 
 
 An act to cure certain defects in deeds and conveyances of real 
 estate, • 274 
 
 An act concerning the proof of deeds and conveyances, 321 
 
 An act to authorize the guardians of Phebe B. Hart, Sally Ann 
 Bloom, Eliza Bloom and Jane Bloom, to execute a deed to 
 James Gazley, ^^ ' 
 
 Defense : 
 
 An act for raising seven hundred men to be employed in the 
 defense of this State 214 
 
 Delawaee County: 
 
 Act relative to Court House and Gaol in 317 
 
62S TSE CotJNCIL OF EEYlSIOiJ. 
 
 Descents : paoe. 
 
 An act regulating descents, •■ • • 373 
 
 Deserters : 
 
 An act to aid in tlie apprehension of deserters from the Army 
 and Navy of the United States,. 377 
 
 Devoe, William H. : 
 
 An act for the relief of William H. Devoe, 356 
 
 DiSOEDEBLY PERSONS: 
 
 An act for apprehending and. punishing disorderly persons, 286 
 
 Divorces : 
 
 An act directing a mode of trial and allowing of divorces in cases 
 of adultery, 282 
 
 Dower : 
 
 An act relative to Dower in certain cases therein mentioned, . . 333 
 
 Duties : 
 
 An act to explain and amend an act entitled "An act imposing 
 duties on certain goods, wares and merchandise imported into 
 this State," passed 18th November, 1784, 267 
 
 E. 
 
 Elections : 
 
 An act for electing representatives for this State in the Souse 
 of Kepresentatives of the Congress of the United States of 
 America, 299 
 
 An act prescribing the manner of holding elections for Senators 
 to represent this State in the Senate of the United States,. . 290 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other purposes,. . 362 
 
 An act to prevent frauds at elections, and for other purposes,. . 362 
 
 An act to regulate elections within this State, 208 
 
 Embargo : 
 
 See Assessments. 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 529 
 
 Emigbation: p^^jj,_ 
 
 An act to incorporate the Gemaan Society for encouraging emi- 
 gration from Germany ; relieving the distresses of emigrants, 
 and promoting useful knowledge among their countrymen, . . 273 
 
 Enemy: 
 
 An act relative to supplying the, 240 
 
 Entails and Conveyances: 
 
 An act to remove doubts respecting an act entitled "An act to 
 abolish entails ; to confirm conveyances by tenants in tail ; to 
 distribute estates real of intestates ; to remedy defective con- 
 veyances to joint tenants, and directing the mode of such 
 conveyances in future," passed the 12th of July, 1782, 270 
 
 Escapes : 
 
 An act relative to involuntary, 227 
 
 Examination of "Witnesses: 
 
 An act to enable the Courts to issue commissions, &o., 259 
 
 EXPOETATION OP Flodr, &c. : 
 
 An act to prevent the exportation of flour, meal and grain out 
 of this State, 203 
 
 F. 
 
 Faiechild, Nancy: 
 
 An act for the relief of Nancy Fairchild and her infant son, 369 
 
 Faemees' Hall Academy: 
 
 An act to authorize the Trustees of Farmers' Hall Academy to 
 be Trustees of a Common School District, and for other pur- 
 poses, ^^^ 
 
 Femes Coveet: 
 
 An act for the security of the estates of femes covert in certain 
 cases, 3^^ 
 
 Feeey : 
 
 An act for establishing and regulating a ferry across the Hud- 
 son river, between the town of Mount Pleasant in the county 
 67 
 
630 The Council of Revision. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 of Westeliester, and Clarkstown in the county of Rock- 
 land, 320 
 
 Fees: 
 
 An act for regulating tlie fees of tlie several officers and minis- 
 ters of the Courts of Justice witKin this. State 285 
 
 Finances : 
 
 An act relative to the finances of the United States, 237 
 
 Fitch, John: 
 
 An act repealing an act entitled "An act for granting and secur- 
 ing to John Fitch the sole right and advantage of making and 
 employing the steamboat by him lately invented, and for 
 other purposes," 315 
 
 FoKD, James : 
 
 An act for the relief of James Ford, 365 
 
 Forfeited Estates: 
 
 An act for the immediate sale of part of the forfeited estates, 229 
 
 An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates 
 ■within this State, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 256 
 
 An act limiting the period of bringing claims and prosecutions 
 against forfeited estates, 3Y5 
 
 Foefeited Lands: 
 
 An act for the amendment of the law directing the sales of for- 
 feited lands, 233 
 
 Forfeitures and Confiscations: 
 
 An act for forfeitures and .confiscations, and for declaring the 
 sovereignty of the people of this State in respect of all pro- 
 perty within the same, 220 
 
 Feeedom and Independence of New Yoek: 
 
 An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this State, 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, 254 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 531 
 
 Fbee Eoad: 
 
 . . PAGE. 
 
 An act granting to Jolin E. Hallenbake, and such other persons 
 as with him shall associate, the privileges of laying out and 
 constructing a free road, 34I 
 
 G. 
 
 Geneeal Sessions: 
 
 An act concerning the Courts of General Sessions of the Peace, 388 
 
 German Society: 
 
 An act to incorporate the, 273 
 
 Gilchrist, William: 
 
 An act for the relief of, 277 
 
 Government : 
 
 An act relative to, 234 
 
 Gospel Purposes: 
 
 An act incorporating trustees to manage such funds as Alexan- 
 der Proudfit may dispose of for pious and charitable gospel 
 purposes, 369 
 
 H. 
 
 Hackney Coaches and Wheel Carriages: 
 
 An act relative to, 294 
 
 Hallenbaee, John E. : 
 
 An act granting the privileges to; to layout and construct a 
 free road, 341 
 
 Hardenburgh, Nicholas: 
 
 An act for the relief of Nicholas Hardenburgh, Thomas C. Jan- 
 sen and others, and for other purposes, 357 
 
 Hablaem Bridge Company: 
 
 An act to revive and amend the act entitled "An act to incorpo- 
 rate the Harlaem Bridge Company, and for building another 
 bridge across the Harlaem river," 375 
 
632 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Haelaem Common Lands: page. 
 
 An act in addition to "An act relative to the common lands of 
 tlie freelioldei's and inhabitants of Harlaem," passed March 
 28, 1820, 399 
 
 Henry, John: 
 
 An act for the relief of John Henry and others, 291 
 
 Herkimer County: 
 
 An act relative to Court House and Gaol in, 309 
 
 Highways : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate highways 
 in relation to certain towns in the county of Westchester," . . 339 
 
 An act repealing part of the act entitled "An act to regulate 
 highways," 324 
 
 Highways and Private Eoads: 
 
 An act further to amend the act entitled "An act for the tetter 
 laying out, regulating and keeping in repair all common and 
 public highways and private roads in the counties of Ulster, 
 Orange, Dutchess, Washington, Westchester, Albany and 
 Montgomery," 305 
 
 Highways and Streets: 
 
 An act relative to, 303 
 
 HoNEYWooD, St. John: 
 
 An act to enable St. John Honeywood to continue an attorney 
 in certain causes, 311 
 
 Horse Racing: 
 
 An act to prevent Horse Eacing and Theatrical Entertainments, 228 
 
 Hudson City: 
 
 An act relative to a night watch in, 310 
 
 I. 
 
 Immorality : 
 
 An act to amend the act entitled "An act for suppressing immo- 
 rality," 316 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 533 
 
 Importation : p^^^^ 
 
 An act relative to,. 267 
 
 Incorporation : 
 
 An act incorporating tie several tradesmen and meclianics of 
 the city and county of New York, 261 
 
 An act incorporating the inhabitants residing within the limits 
 therein mentioned (Hudson, N. Y.), 274 
 
 An act to incorporate the trustees of the Marine Hospital, in the 
 city of New York, 330 
 
 An act for incorporating the Newburgh Aqueduct Association, 
 and for other purposes, 335 
 
 An act to incorporate the Bank of Niagara, 380 
 
 Indemnity : 
 
 An act to indemnify the sheriff of the county of Ulster against 
 involuntary escapes on civil processes, and for other pur- 
 poses therein mentioned, 227 
 
 An act for the indemnification of the Commissioners of Seques- 
 tration, and the Commissioners of Forfeitures, and the lessees 
 under them, and for other purposes therein mentioned, ... . 265 
 
 Indians : 
 
 An act for the better support of the Oneida, Onondaga and 
 Cayuga Indians, and for other purposes therein mentioned,. . 308 
 
 Inoculation : 
 
 An act to regulate inoculation for the small pox in the city and 
 county of Albany, and in the counties of Suffolk and 
 Dutchess, 258 
 
 Insolvent Debtors: 
 
 An act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors with respect 
 to the imprisonment of their persons, 244 
 
 Insurance : 
 
 An act to restrain insurance of lottery tickets, and for other 
 purposes, "^" 
 
534 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Intestates' Estates: pase. 
 
 An act for settling intestates' estates, proving wills and granting 
 administrations, 279 
 
 An act for settling intestates' estates, proving wills and granting 
 administrations, 281 
 
 J. 
 
 Jansen, Thomas C. : 
 
 An act for the relief of, 357 
 
 Joint Tenants and Tenants in Tail: 
 
 An act concerning joint tenants and tenants in tail, regulating 
 descents, and abolishing entails, 373 
 
 Jones, Andrew, Eepeesentatites op : 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of Andrew Jones, 
 deceased, 361 
 
 Judges : 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, 370 
 
 L. 
 
 Levies : 
 
 An act relative to, 237 
 
 Libels: 
 
 An act relative to, 328 
 
 Lock Navigations: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for establishing and 
 opening lock navigations within this State," 301 
 
 Lottery Tickets: 
 
 An act to restrain insurance of lottery tickets, and for other 
 purposes, 345 
 
 M. 
 Marine Hospital: 
 
 An act relative to the, in the City of New York, 330 
 
Ikdex op Bills Vetoed bt the Council. 535 
 
 MARViisr, Anthony: 
 
 ' _ PAGE. 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of Anthony Marvin, deceased, 368 
 
 Masters in Chancery: 
 
 An act authorizing Masters in Chancery to appoint guardians 
 for infants, 323 
 
 Military Tract: 
 
 An act to establish and confirm the original surveys of the lets 
 in the Military Tract, 356 
 
 Militia : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for regulating the 
 Militia of the State of New York," 238 
 
 An act further to amend the act entitled "An act to organize the 
 Militia of this State," 313 
 
 Mill-Dam and Gkist-Mills: 
 
 An act authorizing John Marshall and Gilbert Brown to erect a 
 mill-dam and grist-mills across and upon Mil! creek, in the 
 toven of Rye, and county of Westchester, and to enable certain 
 persons interested in lands contiguous thereto, to assent to the 
 same, 320 
 
 MiNISINK : 
 
 An act for rebuilding a bridge in the town of, 402 
 
 Money : 
 
 An act for raising £100,000 within the several counties therein 
 mentioned, 252 
 
 An act for raising a further sum of money for repairing the 
 Court House and Gaol in the county of Herkimer, 309 
 
 An act esabling the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Common- 
 alty of the city of Hudson, to order the raising money for the 
 payment of a night watch, 310 
 
 An act authorizing the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the city of Albany, to raise a sum of money, by tax, for 
 defraying the expense of lighting the lamps and for the sup- 
 port of a night watch, 311 
 
536 The Council of Ee vision. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 An act relative to Queens, Rensselaer, Delaware and Schoharie 
 counties, 317 
 
 Moneys towards Public Exigencies: 
 
 An act for raising moneys to be applied towards the puhlio exi- 
 gencies of this State, 212 
 
 An act for raising a further sum by tax, to be applied towards 
 the public exigencies of this State, 214 
 
 N. 
 
 Newbuegh Aqueduct Association: 
 
 An act for incorporating the Newburgh Aqueduct Association, 
 and for other purposes, 335 
 
 New York City and County: 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of the city 
 and county of New York, to raise moneys, by tax, for the 
 purposes therein mentioned, 251 
 
 An act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the city and 
 county of New York, altering the mode of punishment in 
 certain cases of petit larceny, and for the confinement of 
 vagrants and lewd persons to hard labor, 257 
 
 An act incorporating the several tradesmen and mechanics of 
 the city and county of New York, 261 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty in 
 Common Council convened, to order the raising moneys, by 
 tax, for the maintenance of the poor and other contingent 
 expenses arising in said city of New York, 276 
 
 An act to invest the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the 
 city of New York with power tc license and regulate the 
 fees of hackney coaches, and to lay a tax on all wheel car- 
 riages within the city and county of New York, 294 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the 
 city of New York to order the raising moneys, by tax, for 
 the purposes therein mentioned, 298 
 
Index op Bills Vetoed by the Council. 
 
 537 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 An act for vesting the lands appropriated for highways and 
 streets in the city of New York, in the corporation of said 
 ^^y' 303 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys, by tax, in the city and 
 county of New York, for defraying the public expenses,. ... 309 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the 
 recovery of debts and demands to the value of £10 in the 
 city of New York," passed the 16th day of February, 1797, . . 325 
 
 An act relative to the election of charter officers in the city of 
 New York, 327 
 
 An act to incorporate the Trustees of the Marine Hospital in the 
 city of New York, 33q 
 
 An act relative to Columbia College, in the city of New York, 344 
 
 An act for laying out Canal street, in the city of New York, 
 and for amending the acts relating to streets and roads 
 therein mentioned, g5Q 
 
 An act to establish surveys in the city of New York, and to 
 grant additional powers to the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the said city in relation thereto, 355 
 
 An act for granting relief in certain cases to the inhabitants of 
 the city of New York, and to the inhabitants of the town of 
 Brooklyn in Kings county, 357 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, 377 
 
 An act relative to the Eoman Catholic Benevolent Society in 
 the city of New York, 388 
 
 ISTlAGAEA : 
 
 An act to incorporate the Bank of, 380 
 
 Night Watch: 
 
 An act concerning a night watch in the City of Hudson, 310 
 
 An act concerning a night watch in the City of Albany, 311 
 
 68 
 
538 The Council of Kevision. 
 
 O. 
 
 Oaths : page. 
 An act requiring all persons holding offices or places under the 
 Government of this State to take the oaths therein pre- 
 scribed and directed, 201 
 
 P. 
 
 Pain, Peesis: 
 
 An act for the relief of Persis Pain and others, 359 
 
 Paper and Pabchment: 
 
 An act authorizing the use of paper instead of parchment, in 
 certain legal proceedings, 315 
 
 Patent Lands: 
 
 An act for the relief of certain persons claiming lands in the 
 patents therein mentioned, 305 
 
 Perpetuation of Testimony: 
 
 An act to amend "An act to perpetuate the testimony of wit- 
 nesses in certain cases," passed April 5, 1813, 395 
 
 Petit Larceny: 
 
 An act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the city and 
 county of New York, &c., 257 
 
 Philips, "William H., Eepresentatives of: 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of William H. 
 Philips, deceased, 364 
 
 Poor: 
 
 An act relative to the maintenance of the, 276 
 
 Proudfit, Alexander: 
 See Trustees. 
 
 Public Accounts: 
 
 An act for directing the settlement of the public accounts, and 
 for other purposes therein mentioned, 289 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 539 
 
 Public Officees: 
 
 An act to stay suits against public officers for a limited time, 244 
 
 Q. 
 
 Queens Countt: 
 
 An act relative to the Court House and Gaol in, 317 
 
 B. 
 
 Belief : 
 
 An act to relieve certain persons in the county of Charlotte fnom 
 the penalty of an act eiititled " An act for raising levies to 
 reinforce the army of the United States," 237 
 
 An act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors in respect 
 ■to the imprisonment of their persons, 244 
 
 An act for the relief of William Gilchrist, 277 
 
 An act for the relief of the creditors of William Van Derlocht, 289 
 
 An act for the relief of John Henry and others, 291 
 
 An act for the relief of Mathew Trotter, 304 
 
 An act for the relief of certain persons claiming lands in the 
 • patents therein mentioned, 305 
 
 An act for the relief of Anna Breadbake, 314 
 
 An act for the relief of Nathaniel Shaler and others, 330 
 
 An act for the relief of Mary Reynolds, administratrix of Andrew 
 Reynolds, deceased, 335 
 
 An act for the relief of William H. Devoe, 356 
 
 An act for the relief of Nicholas Hardenburgh, Thomas C. Jan- 
 sen and others, and for other purposes, 357 
 
540 The Council of Eevisioit. 
 
 Belief : page. 
 
 An act for granting relief in certain cases to the inhabitants of 
 the city of New York, and to the inhabitants of the town of 
 Brooklyn, in Kings county, 357 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Thomas H. Taylor, deceased, 368 
 
 An act for the relief of Persis Pain and others, 369 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Philo Day, deceased,. . . . 360 
 
 An act for the relief of the Minister, Elders and Deacons of the 
 Eeformed Protestant Dutch Church in the town of German 
 Flats in the county of Herkimer, 360 
 
 An act for the relief of the representatives of Andrew Jones, 
 deceased, 361 
 
 An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other pur- 
 poses, 381 
 
 Eetnolds, Mart: 
 
 An act for the relief of Mary Reynolds, administratrix of Andrew 
 Eeynolds, deceased, 335 
 
 EoMAN Catholic Benevolent Society: 
 
 An act relative to the Roinan Catholic Benevolent Society, in 
 the city of New York, 388 
 
 Eensselaee County: 
 
 An act relative to the Gaol and Court House in, 317 
 
 S. 
 
 Salaries : 
 
 An act for the payment of the salaries of the several oiScers of 
 Government, and for other purposes therein mentioned, .... 278 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, and 
 for other purposes, / 319 
 
 An act for the payment of certain officers of Government, and 
 for other purposes, 379 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 541 
 
 Schenectady : 
 
 An act relative to the city of Schenectady, 401 
 
 Schoharie County: 
 
 An act concerning Court House and Gaol in, SlV 
 
 ScHOHAEiE Turnpike: 
 
 An act relative to the eastern branch of the, 372 
 
 Schultzs, John, Heirs of: 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of John Schultzs, deceased,. . 368 
 
 Seamen : 
 
 An act giving certain powers to magistrates of this State, in 
 in relation to seamen in foreign service, 318 
 
 Senatorial Districts: 
 
 An act to equalize the four great districts of the State,. . 352 
 
 Settlement of Lands: 
 
 An act relative to the, 253 
 
 Shaler, Nathaniel: 
 
 An act for the relief of Nathaniel Shaler and others, 330 
 
 Slavery : 
 
 An act for the gradual abolition of slavery within this State,. . 268 
 
 Smith, Zilpha: 
 
 An act authorizing Zilpha Smith to convey, by deed, the title 
 to certain lots of land, 334 
 
 Sovereignty : 
 
 An act for forfeitures and confiscations, and for declaring the 
 sovereignty of the people of this State in respect of all pro- 
 perty within the sanie, 220 
 
 Stage Wagons: 
 
 An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act to grant to 
 Terence Donnelly and others the exclusive right of running 
 stage wagons on the west side of Hudson Eiver, between the 
 city of Albany and the northern boundary line of the State 
 of New Jersey," passed the 26th day of February, 1803,. . 349 
 
542 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Statute of Limitations: page. 
 
 An act to amend the, 317 
 
 Steuben County: 
 
 An act declaring the waters of Steuben county to be public 
 highways, 324 
 
 Supplying the Enemy: 
 
 An act to prevent evil-minded persons supplying the enemy with 
 provisions, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 240 
 
 Supreme Couet: 
 
 An act to appoint a place of holding the Supreme Court of 
 Judicature of this State in future, and to prolong the terms 
 thereof, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 272 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, 370 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act concerning the clerks 
 of the Supreme Court of this State, and for other purposes," 371 
 
 Surveys : 
 
 An act to establish surveys iti the city of New York, &c., .... 355 
 
 An act to establish and confirm the original surveys of the lots 
 in the Military Tract, 356 
 
 Suspension : 
 
 An act to suspend certain parts of an act entitled "An act for 
 raising by tax a sum equal to $150,000 in specie," and of an 
 act entitled "An act approving of the act of Congress of the 
 18th day of March, 1780, relative to the finances of the 
 United States, and making provision for redeeming the pro- 
 portion of this State of the Bills of Credit to be emitted in 
 pursuance of the said act of Congress, and for other purposes 
 therein mentioned," 237 
 
 T. 
 
 Tax: 
 
 An act for raising a further sum by tax, to be applied towards 
 the public exigencies of this State, 214 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 543 
 
 ... PAGE. 
 
 An act for raising a tax in specie, and a tax in paper currency, 241 
 
 An act for raising the sum of £18,000, and the further sum of 
 £18,000 by tax within this State, and for setthng public 
 accounts, 243 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of the 
 City and County of New York, to raise moneys by tax for 
 the purposes therein mentioned, 251 
 
 An act for raising £100,000 within the several counties therein 
 mentioned, 252 
 
 An act to prevent delay in the collection of taxes, and for giving 
 relief in certain cases, 266 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty in 
 Common Council convened, to order the raising moneys by 
 tax for the maintenance of the poor and other contingent 
 expenses arising in the said city of New York, 2*76 
 
 An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the 
 city of New York to order the raising moneys by tax for the 
 purposes therein mentioned, 298 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys by tax in the City and 
 County of New York, for defraying the public expenses, ... 309 
 
 An act for raising a further sum of money for repairing the 
 Court House and Gaol in the county of Herkimer, 309 
 
 An act enabling the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Common- 
 alty of the city of Hudson to order the raising money for 
 the payment of a night watch, 310 
 
 An act authorizing the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the city of Albany to raise a sum of money by tax for defray- 
 ing the expense of lighting the lamps, and for the support of 
 a night watch, 311 
 
 An act to vest certain powers in the freeholders and inhabitants 
 of the villages of Troy and Lansingburgh, and for other pur- 
 
 therein mentioned, 312 
 
54A The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Tax : vABK 
 
 An act for raising money to finish and repair the Court House 
 and Gaol in Queens county ; an act to authorize the raising 
 a sum of money for making certain necessary accommoda- 
 tions for the Gaol, and certain repairs for the Court House, in 
 the county of Kensselaer ; an act to raise a sum of money 
 for building a Court House and Gaol in Delaware county, and 
 for other purposes therein mentioned ; and an act for build- 
 ing a Court House and Gaol in the county of Schoharie, . . 317 
 
 An act to suspend certain parts of an act entitled "An act for 
 raising by tax a sum equal to $150,000, in specie,'' 237 
 
 An act to facilitate the levying the taxes for supporting the poor 
 and defraying the contingent expenses in the counties of 
 Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Dutchess, Tryon and Charlotte, 231 
 
 An act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the City and 
 County of New York, &c., 257 
 
 Taylor, Thomas H., Heirs of: 
 
 An act for the relief of the heirs of Thomas H. Taylor, deceased, 358 
 
 Teeple, George: 
 
 An act relative to the real estate of George Teeple, deceased, . . 367 
 
 Ten Pound Courts: 
 
 An act to empower Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Recorders and 
 Aldermen to try causes to the value of £10 and under, and 
 to repeal sundry acts therein mentioned, 241 
 
 Tenants in Tail: 
 
 See Entails and Conveyances. 
 
 Ten Pound Debts : 
 
 See acts in relation to, 283, 325 
 
 Terms, Supreme Court: 
 
 See acts in relation to, 228, 272 
 
 Toll Bridge: 
 
 An act authorizing the building of a toll bridge across the Esopus 
 Creek, in the town of Saugerties, in the county of Ulster, 
 and for other purposes, 394 
 
Index op Bills Vetoed by the Council. 545 
 
 Tradesmen and Mechanics' Incoeporation : p^g^. 
 
 An act relative to, 261 
 
 Trotter, Mathew: 
 
 An act for the relief of, 304 
 
 Trot and Lansingburgh : 
 
 An act in relation to tlie villages of, 312 
 
 Trustees : 
 
 An act incorporating trustees to manage sucli funds as Alexan- 
 der Proudfit may dispose of for pious and charitable Gospel 
 purposes, 369 
 
 An act to vest the estate of William E. Van Cortlandt in trus- 
 tees for the payment of his debts, and other purposes, 275 
 
 An act to incorporate the trustees of the Marine Hospital, in 
 the City of New York, 330 
 
 An act to enable the Trustees of the Reformed Dutch Church, 
 of the township of New Utrecht, in Kings county, to sell the 
 parcel of land therein mentioned, 352 
 
 An act to authorize the Trustees of Farmers' Hall Academy to 
 be Trustees of a Common School District, and for other pur- 
 poses, 400 
 
 Twenty-Five Dollar Debts: 
 
 An act for the recovery of, 340 
 
 U. 
 
 Unappropriated and Forfeited Lands: 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act relative to unappro- 
 priated and forfeited lands, and for other purposes," 342 
 
 V. 
 
 Vagrants and Lewd Persons: 
 
 See act for the more easy assessment of taxes in the City and 
 
 County of New York, &c., 257 
 
 69 
 
546 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Van Cortlandt, William E., Estate of: 
 
 An act to vest tie estate of William E. Van Cortlandt in trus- 
 tees for the payment of Ms debts and other purposes, 275 
 
 Van Deelocht, William, Ceeditoes of: 
 
 An act for the relief of the creditors of William Van Derlocht, 
 and for other purposes therein mentioned, 289 
 
 Vessels : 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, Sl1 
 
 Vice and Immoealitt: 
 
 An act for the ifiore effectual suppression of vice and immo- 
 rality, 232 
 
 W. 
 
 Wabeants : 
 
 An act for apprehending of persons in any county upon war- 
 rants granted by the Justices of the Peace of any other 
 comity, 249 
 
 Waste and Unappeopeiated Lands: 
 
 An act to encourage the settlement of the waste and unappro- 
 priated lands within this State, 253 
 
 Watees : 
 
 An act declaring certain waters in the counties of Steuben and 
 Chenango to be public highways, and repealing part of the act 
 entitled "An act to regulate highways," 324 
 
 Westchestee County: 
 
 Au act concerning highways of, 339 
 
 Wheel Caeeiages: 
 
 An act to lay a tax on, , 294 
 
 Wills and Administeations : 
 
 See acts in relation to, 279, 281 
 
Index of Bills Vetoed by the Council. 547 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Witnesses : 
 
 An act to enable the courts, &c., to issue commissions, &c.,. . . 259 
 
 An act to amend "An act to perpetuate the testimony of wit- 
 nesses in certain cases," passed April 5, 1813, 395 
 
 "Wool Carding and Spinning Machines: 
 
 An act for granting and securing to Philo Norton the sole right 
 and advantage of erecting and employing for a limited time, 
 machines for carding wool and spinning flax and hemp within 
 certain counties within this State, 327 
 
ALPHABETICAL INDEI 
 
 OF BILLS IN THE APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Amendment of Acts: 
 
 422, U1 
 
 America, Bank of: 
 
 An act to incorporate the stockholders of the Bank of America, 432 
 
 American' Manufactures : 
 
 An act for the encouragement of, 438 
 
 Apportionment : 
 
 An act apportioning the representation of this State according 
 to the rule prescribed by the Constitution, 448 
 
 B. 
 
 Banking Associations: 
 
 An act to restrain unincorporated Banking Associations, 425 
 
 Banks: 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Merchants' Bank 
 in the city of New York, 427 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Union Bank in 
 the city of New York, 430 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Bank of Ame- 
 rica, 432 
 
550 The Council of Eetisiok. 
 
 Bills of Credit: page. 
 
 An act for emitting tlie sum of £200,000 in Bills of Credit for 
 tlie purposes therein mentioned, 409, 412, 414 
 
 C. 
 
 Commissioners : 
 
 An act appointing Commissioners with power to declare tlie 
 consent of the Legislature of this State, that a certain ter- 
 ritory within the jurisdiction thereof should be formed or 
 erected into a new State, 416 
 
 Creditors : 
 
 An act for the relief of Creditors against Heirs, Devisees, Exe- 
 cutors and Administrators, and for proving Wills respect- 
 ing Real Estates, 408 
 
 D. 
 
 Dblord, Henrt: 
 
 An act for the relief of, 429 
 
 Dueling : 
 
 An act to suppress dueling, 449 
 
 E. 
 
 Elections : 
 
 An act to amend an act entitled "An act for regulating elec- 
 tions," passed March 29th, 1813 447 
 
 An act concerning the elections of United States Senators, .... 418 
 
 An act concerning the election of Representatives in Con- 
 
 '. 483 
 
 I. 
 
 Immorality 
 
 An act to amend the act entitled "An act for suppressing immo- 
 rality," 422 
 
List of Bills in the Appendix. 551 
 
 iNCOEPOEATIOlSrS : 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 An act to incorporate the StocHiolders of the Merchants' Bank 
 in thecity of New York, 427 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Union Bank in 
 the city of New York, 43O 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Bank of Ame- 
 rica, 432 
 
 J. 
 
 Judges : 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, 436 
 
 M. 
 
 Meechajstts' Bank: 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Merchants' Bank 
 in thecity of New York, 42T 
 
 N. 
 
 New Yoek City: 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys by tax in the city and 
 county of New York, for defraying the public expenses,. ... 419 
 
 An act for supplying the city of New York with pure and 
 wholesome water, 423 
 
 An act to increase the nimiber of wards in the city of New York 
 and equalize the same, 423 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Merchants' Bank 
 in the city of New York, 427 
 
 Au act to' incorporate the Stockholders of the Union Bank in 
 the City of New York, 430 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Bank of Ame- 
 rica, 432 
 
552 The Council of Eetision". 
 
 New Yore City: page. 
 
 An act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church 
 in New York, and for other nurposes, 439 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, 442 
 
 P. 
 
 Pbivateeeing : 
 
 An act to encourage Privateering Associations, 440 
 
 R. 
 
 Eepeesentatives, Congress : 
 
 An act providing for the election of Kepresentatives for the 
 State in the Congress of the United States, 433 
 
 Relief : 
 
 An act for the relief of creditors against heirs, devisees, execu- 
 tors and administrators, &c., 408 
 
 An act for the relief of Henry Delord, 429 
 
 S. 
 
 Salaries : 
 
 An act for the payment of the salaries of the several ofiScers 
 of Government, and for other purposes therein mentioned, 405 
 
 Sea Fencibles: 
 
 An act to authorize the raising of a corps of Sea Fdncibles, . . 446 
 
 Senators, Congress: 
 
 An act for prescribing the times, places and manner of holding 
 elections for Senators to represent this State in the Senate of 
 the Congress of the United States of America, 418 
 
 State Funds: 
 
 An act to render the Funds of this State more productive of 
 Revenue, 421 
 
List of Bills in the Appendix.. 553 
 
 Supreme Court: ^^g^-^_ 
 
 An act concerning the Judges of tlie Supreme Court, 436 
 
 T. 
 
 Tax: 
 
 An act to authorize the raising moneys by tax in the city and 
 county of New York for defraying the public expenses, 419 
 
 Trinity Church: 
 
 An act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church 
 in New York, and for other purposes, 439 
 
 Troops : 
 
 An act to authorize the raising of troops for the defense of this 
 State, 443 
 
 U. 
 
 Union Bajstk: 
 
 An act to incorporate the Stockholders of the Union Bank in 
 the city of New York 430 
 
 V. 
 
 Vermont : 
 
 An act concerning the erection of the district of Vermont into 
 a new State, 416 
 
 Vessels : 
 
 An act concerning vessels in the port of New York, 442 
 
 W. 
 
 Water : 
 
 An act for supplying the city of NeW York with pure and 
 wholesome water, ^■^^ 
 
 Wills : 
 
 An act relative to proving Wills respecting real estates 408 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Abolition of Slavery, 523 
 
 Admiriistration of Government, 234 
 
 Admiralty Colleges in Holland 73 
 
 Admiralty Court, History of, 72-84 
 
 Albany Night Watcb, 311 
 
 Alexander (James), appointed Attorney-General, 52 
 
 Alienism, 246 
 
 Amendment of Acts, 233, 238, 248, 267, 293, 301, 305, 313, 
 
 316, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 342, 371, 375, 395, 422, 447 
 
 America, Bank of, 432 
 
 American Manufactures, 438 
 
 Appointment, Sketch, of the Council of, 109, 110 
 
 Apportionment, 448 
 
 Army,.U. S. 237 
 
 Assessments, 235 
 
 Attorney-Generals (Assistant), 37, 174, 175 
 
 Attwood (William), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, ... 31 
 
 Appointment, 50 
 
 Judge, Court of Admiralty, 74 
 
 B. 
 
 Bank of America, Charter of, 132, 133, 432 
 
 Bank of Niagara, 380 
 
 Banking Associations, 425 
 
 Banks, 427, 430, 432 
 
556 The Council of Ebvision. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Barculo (Seward), appointed Circmt Judge, 2d Circiut, 66 
 
 Barker (Greorge P.), appointed Attorney-General, 67 
 
 Bayard (Nicholas), Trial of, 38, 39 
 
 Beardsley (Samuel), appointed Ciiief Justice and Justice 
 
 Supreme Court, 66 
 
 Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit, 67 
 
 Attorney-General, 67 
 
 Benson (Egbert), Biographical Sketch of, 181-188 
 
 First Attorney -General, 58, 60 
 
 Justice Supreme Court, 56, 60 
 
 Agency relative to Constitution of United States, . . . 183, 184 
 
 Northeastern Boundary, 185-187 
 
 Objections to Bills, ,. 306, 316 
 
 Benson (Eobert), Marshal and Provost Marshal High Court 
 
 of Chancery, 77 
 
 Betts (Samuel E.), appoiated Circuit Judge, 2d Circuit, 66 
 
 Bickley (May), appointed Attorney-General, 51 
 
 Bigamy, 374 
 
 Bills of Credit, , , , , , 237, 409, 412^ 414 
 
 Bills returned by Council with objections, number of, 7 
 
 Birdsal (John), appoiated Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit, 67 
 
 Bloom (George), appointed District Attorney, Middle Dis- 
 trict, 173 
 
 Board of Trade and Plantations, Sketch of, 31 
 
 Bounty Lands, 293 
 
 Bradford (William), Editions of Colonial Laws, 37 
 
 Bradley (Eichard), appointed Attorney-General, 52 
 
 Breadbake (Anna), 314 
 
 Bridge, rebuilding in Town of Minisink, , 402 
 
 Bridges (John), appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme 
 
 Court, 50, 51 
 
 Judge of Vice- Admiralty, 75 
 
 Bronson (Greene C), appoiated Chief Justice and Justice 
 
 Supreme Court, ■. 66 
 
 Attorney-General, ^ 67 
 
 Bronson (Isaac H.), appointed Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit, . . , 67 
 
 Brooke (Chidley), Justice, suspended from office, 29 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
General Index. 657 
 
 Face. 
 
 Brooklyn, relief to inliabitants of, 357 
 
 Broughton (Sampson), Attorney-General, 51 
 
 Broughton (Sampson Shelton), appointed Attorney-General, 51 
 
 Burr (Aaron), appointed Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Butler (B. ¥.), Eevised Statutes, 69 
 
 0. 
 
 Canajoiarie and Palatine Bridge, 350 
 
 Canal Street, City of New York, .' 350 
 
 Chambers (John), Justice Supreme. Court, appointment, 51 
 
 Chancellor, Governors of the Province acting as, 16 
 
 Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors, appointment of, . 18 
 
 Chancery, 389 
 
 Chapman (Eunice), relief of, 381 
 
 Charter Officers, City of New York, ; 327 
 
 Chenango County, Waters in, Public Highways, 324 
 
 Chief Justices and Justices Supreme Court, Occupation, 50, 51 
 
 Salaries 29, 32, 57, 58 
 
 Tenure,- 33, 58, 62 
 
 Churches, 329, 352, 360 
 
 Circuit and Oyer and Terminer Courts, Clerk of, 37, 66 
 
 Circuit Courts, 34, 35, 63, 68 
 
 Circuit Court, Clerks of, 64 
 
 Clinton (De Witt), Biographical Sketch of, 138-143 
 
 Chnton (George), Biographical Sketch of, 87-111 
 
 Elected Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, 54 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned by Council, 416 
 
 Code of Procedure, 69 
 
 Confiscated and Forfeited Estates, 256 
 
 Colonial Council, Sketch of, 28 
 
 Colonial General Assembly, Sketch of, 25 
 
 Columbia College, ■ 344 
 
 Commissioners, 416 
 
 Commissions for Examination of Witnesses, 259 
 
 Commissioners of Land Office, 288 
 
 Comissioners of Sequestration, 245, 265 
 
 Commissioners of Turnpike Eoads, 338 
 
558 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Compilations and Eevisions Laws of State, 1774-1821, 58 
 
 Eevised Statutes, 69 
 
 Conspiracies, 226 
 
 Constitution of 1777, 5, 9 
 
 Of 1821, 61 
 
 Of 1846, 67 
 
 Constitution of the United States, origin of, 183, 184 
 
 Controversy between New York and Massachusetts relative 
 
 to their public lands, 151-156 
 
 Controversy between New York and Vermont relative to 
 
 territory, 94-106 
 
 Convention, 390 
 
 Convention of Representatives of the State of New York, 17, 54 
 
 Conveyances, 270 
 
 Cornbury (Lord), ordinances, 14, 30 
 
 Cosby, (Governor), sues for salary, 70 
 
 Council, 234 
 
 Council at Plymouth, 153 
 
 Council (Colonial), Sketch of, 28 
 
 CounciL for New England, 153 
 
 Council of Appointment, Sketch of, 109-111 
 
 CounciL of Peter Minuet, ; 8 
 
 Coimcil of Revision, History of, 5 
 
 Council of Safety, 54 
 
 Court of the Schout, Burgomaster and Schepens, 8, 22, 73 
 
 Court for the Trial of Impeachments, Clerk of, 10, 11 
 
 Court for the Trial of Impeachments, , 11 
 
 Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 
 
 History of, 7-11 
 
 Court of Admiralty, History of, 72-84 
 
 Court of Appeals, Clerk of, 11 
 
 Court of Appeals, History of, 11 
 
 Court of Assize, 8, 12, 23 
 
 Court of Chancery, History of, 12-19 
 
 Court of Exchequer, Sketch of, 70 
 
 Court of Mayor and Aldermen, 8, 73 
 
 Court of Orphan Masters, established by Stuyvesant, 20 
 
 Courtpf Oyer and Terminer, 8, 24, 34, 35, 36, 5,5, 64, 65,. 68 
 
General Index. 559 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 Court of Oyer and Terminer, Clerks of, 66 
 
 Court of Probates, 21 
 
 Courts of Sessions under tlie "Duke's Laws," 12, 23 
 
 Courts of Equity held by tlie Circuit Judges, 17 
 
 Courts of Justice, act to settle, 12, 23 
 
 Cowen (Esek), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 66 
 
 Circuit Judge, 4th. Circuit, 67 
 
 Cozine (John), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60 
 
 Creditors, 289, 408 
 
 Crimes, 332, 337, 343, 348 
 
 Cushman (John P.), appointed Circuit Judge, 3d Circuit, 67 
 
 D. 
 
 Day (Philo), relief of Heirs of, 860 
 
 Dayton (Mathew), appointed Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit, .... 67 
 
 Debeavois (Joost), Estate of, 256 
 
 Debts, 248, 271, 283, 325, 340 
 
 Deeds and Conveyances, 274, 321, 367 
 
 Defense, 214 
 
 De Lancey (James), Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, 50, 51 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor, 31 
 
 De Lanoy (Peter), appointed Judge Court of Admiralty, ... 73 
 
 Delaware County, Court House and Gaol in, 317 
 
 Delord (Henry), relief of, .... '. 429 
 
 Denio (Hiram), appointed Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit, 67 
 
 De Peyster (Abraham), Chief Justice and Justice Supreme 
 
 Court, 31, 50, 51 
 
 Descents, 373 
 
 Deserters, 377 
 
 Devoe (WiUiam H.), relief of, 356 
 
 Digests of Colonial Laws, 1691-1773, 37 
 
 Disorderly Persons, • 286 
 
 District Attorneys, 175 
 
 Divorces, 282 
 
 Dower, 333 
 
 Duane (James), appointed Attorney-General, : 52 
 
 Dudley (Joseph), appointed Chief Justice Supreme Court, 29, 50 
 
560 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dueling, suppression of, 449 
 
 Duer (John), Bevised Statutes, 69 
 
 Duer (William A.), appointed Circuit Judge, 3d Circuit, .... 67 
 
 Duke's Laws, Courts under the, 23, 24 
 
 Duties on certain goods, wares and merchandise imported into 
 
 this State, 267 
 
 E. 
 
 Edmonds (John W.), appointed Circuit Judge, 1st Circuit, 66 
 
 Edwards (Ogden), appointed Circuit Judge, 1st Circuit, 66 
 
 Elections, 208, 290, 299, 862, 418, 438, 447 
 
 Elmendorph (C. E.), appointed District Attorney, Middle Dis- 
 trict, 173 
 
 Elmendorf (Lucas), appointed District Attorney, Middle Dis- 
 trict, 173 
 
 Emigration, ;..... 273 
 
 Emmett (Thomas Addis), appointed Attorney-General, 61 
 
 Emott (James), appointed Circuit Judge, 2d Circuit, 66 
 
 Enemy, supplying the, 240 
 
 Entails and Conveyances, 270 
 
 Escapes, Involuntary, 227 
 
 Examination of Witnesses, 259 
 
 Exportation of Flour, &c., 203 
 
 Eyles (Sir Joseph), suit of, relative to the Oblong Patent, ... 15 
 
 Fairchild (Nancy), 369 
 
 FarmeTs' Hall Academy, 400 
 
 Fees, 285 
 
 Femes Covert, security of Estates of, 366 
 
 Ferry, 320 
 
 Field (David Dudley), Code of Procedure, 69 
 
 Finances, U. S., : 237 
 
 Fitch (John), 315 
 
 Fletcher (Governor), 29, 73, 74 
 
 Ford (James), relief of, 365 
 
General Index. 561 
 
 Page. 
 
 Forfeited Estates, 229, 256, 376 
 
 Forfeited Lands, ,. ., 233 
 
 Forfeitures and Confiscations, 220 
 
 Forts Montgomery and Cliaton, stormed by the British, 90-92 
 Fred (Captain John), Marshal and Sergeant-at-Mace, Court of 
 
 Admiralty, 75 
 
 Freedom and Independence of New York, 254 
 
 Free Eoad, 341 
 
 Gardner (Addison), appointed Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit 67 
 
 General Assembly (Colonial), Sketch of, 25 
 
 General Sessions, 388 
 
 German Society, Incorporation of, 273 
 
 Gilchrist (William), 277 
 
 Gospel Purposes, 369 
 
 Government, 234 
 
 Governors (Colonial), acting as Chancellors, 16 
 
 Graham (David), Code of Procedure, 69 
 
 Graham (James), appointed Attorney-General, 29, 51 
 
 Advocate, Court of Vice-Admiralty, 74 
 
 Graham (Lewis), appointed Judge High Court of Admiralty, 77 
 
 Gray (Hiram), appointed Circuit Judge, 6th Circuit, 67 
 
 Great Seals of the State of New York, description of, 120 
 
 Greenleaf (Thomas), Edition of the Laws, 58 
 
 Gridley (Philo), appointed Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit, 67 
 
 H. 
 
 Hackney Coaches and Wheel Carriages, 294 
 
 Hall (WiUis), appointed Attorney-General, 67 
 
 Hallenbake (John R.).' ^^^ 
 
 Hampton (John), arrives in New York, • 40 
 
 Hardenburgh (Nicholas), Thomas 0. Jansen and others, re- 
 hef of, 357 
 
 71 
 
562 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 PAoa 
 
 Harlem Bridge Company, 375 
 
 Hardy (Governor), 16 
 
 Harison (Francis), appointed Judge of Admiralty, 75 
 
 Harlaem Common Lands, 399 
 
 Hawkios (Samuel), appointed District Attorney, Middle Dis- 
 trict, 173 
 
 Hawley (Gideon), Superiatendent of Common Schools, 132 
 
 Heathcote (Caleb), Judge of Admiralty, 75 
 
 Henry (John), and others, relief of, 291 
 
 Herkimer County, Court House and Gaol in, 309 
 
 Highways, 324, 339 
 
 Highways and Priyate Eoads, 305 
 
 Highways and Streets, 303 
 
 Hildreth (Matthias B.), appointed Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Hobart (John Sloss), Biographical Sketch of, 177 - 80 
 
 Justice Supreme Court, 53, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 231, 234, 253, 
 
 256, 258, 261, 267, 273, 276, 282, 293, 298 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned, 412 
 
 Hoffman (Josiah Ogden), appointed Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Hoffman (Murray), Assistant Vice-Chancellor, 1st Circuit, ... 18 
 
 Honeywood (St. John), 811 
 
 Horse Eaciag and Theatrical Entertainments, 228 
 
 Horsmanden (Daniel), appointed Chief Justice and Justice 
 
 Supreme Court, 50, 51 
 
 Digest of Colonial Laws, 37 
 
 Hudson City, night watch in, 310 
 
 Hunter (Governor), 14 
 
 Lnmorahty 316, 422, 427, 430, 432 
 
 Importation, 267 
 
 Licorporation, 261, 274, 330, 335, 380 
 
 Indemnity, ■.' 227, 265 
 
 Indians (Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga), 308 
 
 Inoculation, 258 
 
 Insolvent Debtors, 244 
 
General Indes. 563 
 
 Page. 
 
 Insurance,' 345 
 
 Intestates'. Estates, 279- 281 
 
 J. 
 
 Jamison (David), appointed Attorney-Greneral, 51 
 
 Jansen (Thomas J.), relief of, 357 
 
 Jauncey (James), appointed Keeper or Master of the Eolls, . . 19 
 
 Jay (John), Biographical Sketch of, 112-127 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice, 59 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 201, 203, 208, 212, 214 
 
 Jewett (Freeborn Gr.), appointed Justice Supreme Court, .... 66 
 
 Johnson (Thomas), appointed Justice Supreme Court, .. . 29, 50 
 
 Joint Tenants and Tenants in Tail, 373 
 
 Jones (Andrew), Eepresentatives of, relief of, 361 
 
 Jones (David), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 31, 51 
 
 Jones (Samuel), appointed Chancellor, 18 
 
 Jones (Samuel) and Eichard Varick's Edition of the Laws, . . 58 
 
 Jones (Thomas), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 51 
 
 Judges of the Supreme Court, 370, 436 
 
 Justices of Colonial Supreme Court empowered to take affi- 
 davits, 35 
 
 K. 
 
 Keeper, or Master of the Eolls, 19 
 
 Kempe (John Tabor), appointed Attorney -General, 52 
 
 Kempe (WiUiam), appointed Attorney-General, 52 
 
 Kent (James), Biographical Sketch, 162-164 
 
 Appointed Chancellor, 17 
 
 Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, 59, 60 
 
 Kent and Eadcliff 's Eevised Laws of 1802, 58 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 319, 328, 330, 
 333, 336, 338, 339, 342, 344, 345, 348, 352, 356, 358, 
 359, 360, 365, 372, 373, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381, 388, 
 
 389, 390, 395 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned, 423, 430, 433, 438, 440, . 
 
 442, 443, 445, 447, 449 
 
664 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Kent (William), appointed Circiiit Judge, 1st Circmt, 66 
 
 King (Enfus), 134 
 
 Kingston, Burning of, 92, 93 
 
 Lansing (John), Jr., BiograpMcal Sketch of, 159-162 
 
 Appointed Chancellor, 17 
 
 Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, 59, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 299, 801, 304, 
 310, 312, 313, 314, 317, 320, 321, 323, 325, 327, 328, 
 329, 349, 350, 352, 355, 357, 361, 362, 366, 367, 368, 
 
 369, 370, 374 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned, 421, 423, 436, 439 
 
 Lawrence (John), appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, . . 50 
 
 Lawrence (Nathaniel), appointed Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Legislature of New York, First Meeting of, 55 
 
 Leisler (Jacob), Trial of, 24 
 
 See also, with reference to Court of Admiralty, 73 
 
 Levies, 237 
 
 Lewis (Morgan), Biographical Sketch of, 127-130 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, 59, 60 
 
 Attorney-Greneral, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by CouncO, , 303 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned, , 422 
 
 Libels, 328 
 
 L'Hommedieu (Ezra), relative to bill granting privileges of 
 
 Steam Navigation to Eobert E. Livingston, 158 
 
 Livingston (Henry Brockholst), Biographical Sketch of, 191-193 
 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned by Council, 425 
 
 Livingston (Eobert E.), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 51, 59. 
 
 Biographical Sketch of, 149, 159 
 
 Author of section creating Council of Eevision, 6 
 
 First Chancellor of State, 17, 53 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, . . 214, 219, 226, 
 227, 228, 235, 241, 246, 248, 249, 251, 265, 266, 268, 
 
 270, 274, 283, 286, 291, 294, 309, 315, 318 
 Objections to Bills not sanctioned, 409, 415, 418, 419 
 
General Index. 565 
 
 Lmngston (William.) and Wniiam Smitli's Pigest Colonial 
 
 Laws,, 37 
 
 Lock Navigations, 301 
 
 Lottery Tickets, 345 
 
 London Company, 153 
 
 Loomis (A.), David Dudley Eield and David Graham, Code 
 
 of Procedure, , . . . , 69 
 
 Ludlow (George D.), Master of tlie EoUs and Superintendent 
 
 of Police, 19 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court 51 
 
 Ludlow (Thomas), appointed Marshal Court of Admiralty, . . 75 
 
 M. 
 
 Marcy (William L.), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 66 
 
 Marine Hospital in the City of New York, 330 
 
 Marshall (Jarvis), Marshal Court of Vice- Admiralty, 74 
 
 Marvin (Anthony), 368 
 
 Masters in Chancery, 323 
 
 McCoun (W. T.), appointed Vice-Chancellor, 18 
 
 McKemie (Francis), Trial of, 39-41 
 
 McKesson (John), appointed Eegister High Court of Admi- 
 ralty, 77 
 
 McKissock (Thomas), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 66 
 
 Merchants' Bank 427 
 
 Milbourn (Jacob), ■ 24 
 
 Military Tract, 356 
 
 Militia, '. 238, 313 
 
 Mill-Dam and Grist-Mills, 320 
 
 Milward (Robert), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
 Minisink, rebuilding a bridge in the town of, 402 
 
 Mitchell (Dr. Samuel L.), relative to bill granting privileges 
 
 of Steam Navigation to Eobert E. Livingston, 158 
 
 Mompesson (Roger), appointed Chief Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
 Appointed Judge Admiralty Court 75 
 
 Monell (Robert), appointed Circuit Judge, 6th Circuit, 67 
 
566 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Money, 252, 309, 310, 311, 317 
 
 Moneys towards Public Exigencies, 212, 214 
 
 Morris (Lewis), appoiated Chief Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
 Morris (Lewis), Jr., appointed Judge Admiralty Court, . 75 
 
 Morris (Eicliard), Biographical Sketch, 165-168 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice, 55, 59 
 
 Judge Court of Vice- Admiralty, 75 
 
 Declines appointment of Judge High Court of Admiralty, 77 
 Objections to bills sanctioned by Council, 229, 232, 259, 
 
 271, 272, 274, 277, 279, 281, 285 
 
 Objections to BiUs not sanctioned, 405, 408, 414 
 
 Moseley (Daniel), appointed Circuit Judge, 7th Circuit, 67 
 
 N. 
 
 Newburgh Aqueduct Association, 835 
 
 Negro Plot, History of proceedings, 42-49 
 
 Nelson (Samuel), appointed Chief Justice and Justice Su- 
 preme Court, 66 
 
 Circuit Judge, 6th Circuit, 67 
 
 New York Great Seals, Description, 120 
 
 New York, Description of the City in 1741, 43 
 
 New York (Colonial) Council, Sketch, 28 
 
 New York (Colonial) General Assembly, Sketch, 25 
 
 New York Provincial Congress, 16, 52, 53 
 
 New York City and County, 251, 257, 261, 276, 294, 298, 
 303, 309, 325, 327, 330, 344, 350, 355, 357, 377, 388, 
 
 419, 423, 427, 430, 432, 439, 442 
 
 New York Council of Safety, 54 
 
 New York, Plan of Government under Council of Safety, 17, 54 
 
 New York City, Charter Oficers 327 
 
 NichoUs (Eichard), appointed Eegister of Vice- Admiralty 
 
 Court, 75 
 
 Night "Watch in the cities of Hudson and Albany, 310, 311 
 
 Niagara, Bank of, 380 
 
 Northeastern Boundary Line, History of, 185-187 
 
G-ESTERAL Index. 567 
 
 0- 
 
 Page. 
 
 OaHey (Tkomas J.),, appointed Attorney-General, 61 
 
 Oaths, 201 
 
 Oblong Patent, 15 
 
 Officers in Cliancery, Number in 1752, 1823, 1846, 18 
 
 Opinions (written), origin in. Supreme Court, 57 
 
 Opposition to Court of Chancery, 13-15 
 
 Pain (Persis), and others, relief of, 359 
 
 Paper and Parchment, 315 
 
 Parker (Amasa J.), appointed Circuit Judge, 3d Circuit, 67 
 
 Patent Lands, 305 
 
 Perpetuation of Testimony, 395 
 
 Petit Larceny, 257 
 
 Philips (William H.), relief of Eepresentatives, 364 
 
 Philipse (Adolph), Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
 PhHipse (Frederick), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 51 
 
 Pinhome (William), appointed Justice Supreme Court, . . 29, 50 
 
 Judge of Admiralty, 74 
 
 Plan of Grovemment under Council of Safety, 17, 54 
 
 Piatt (Jonas), Biographical Sketch of, 195, 196 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 382 
 
 Poor, Maintenance of the, 276 
 
 Popham (William), appoiated Clerk Court of Exchequer, ... 72 
 
 Privateering, 440 
 
 Proceedings on the BUls recommending the Convention of 
 
 1821, -. 478, 479 
 
 Provincial Congress, K Y., 16, 52, 53 
 
 Public Accotrnts, 289 
 
 Pubhc OfBicers, staying suits against, 244 
 
 Pratt (Benjamin), appointed Chief Justice Supreme Court, . . 50 
 
568 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Page, 
 
 Queens Coiinty, Court House and Graol in, 317 
 
 Quit Eents, 97 
 
 R. 
 
 Eadcliff (Jacob), BiograpMcal Sketcli of, 189-191 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60 
 
 Objections to BUls sanctioned by Council, 318, 324 
 
 Eayner (Jobn), appointed Attorney-General, 51 
 
 Eegents of the University, Sketcli of, 107 
 
 Eelief, 237, 244, 277, 289, 291, 304, 305, 314, 330, 335, 356, 
 
 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 381, 408, 429 
 
 Eensselaer County, Gaol and Court House in, 317 
 
 Eeporter, Court of Cbancery, 17 
 
 Eeporter, Supreme Court, 67, 63 
 
 Eepresentatives, Congress, 433 
 
 Eevised Laws of 1802, 1813, 58 
 
 Eevised Statutes, 69 
 
 Eeynolds (Mary), ■ 335 
 
 Eobertson (Antbony L.), Assistant Vice-Cbancellor 1st Circuit, 19 
 Eochester (William B.), appointed Circuit Judge, 8tb Circuit, 67 
 Eoman Catholic Benevolent Society, City of New York, , . . 388 
 Euggles (Charles H.), appointed Circuit Judge, 2d Circuit, . . 66 
 Eules of Supreme Court of the State; the first drawn by 
 
 Judge Benson, 56 
 
 S. 
 
 Salaries, 278, 319, 379, 405 
 
 Salaries of Chief Justice and Justices Supreme Court, 32, 29, 
 
 57, 58, 63, 69 
 
 Salaries of Circuit Judges, 66 
 
 Sandford (Lewis H.), Assistant Yice-Chancellor, 1st Circuit, . . 19 
 
 Sandford (Nathan), Chancellor, 18 
 
 Savage (John), appointed Chief Justice, 66 
 
Genekal Index. 569 
 
 Schenectady, city of, 401 
 
 Schoharie County, Court House and Gaol in, 317 
 
 Schoharie Turnpike, eastern branch of the, 372 
 
 Schultzs (John), relief of the Heirs of, 368 
 
 Scott (John Morin), elected Associate Justice Supreme Court 
 
 but declined office^ 53 
 
 Sea Fencibles, 445 
 
 Seals (Great) of the State of New York, description of, .... . 120 
 
 Seals Supreme Court, 55, 56, 62 
 
 Seamen, 318 
 
 Senatorial Districts, to equalize the four great, 352 
 
 Senators, Congress, 418 
 
 Settlement of Lands, ; 253 
 
 Shaler (Nathaniel), and others, relief of, 330 
 
 Skinner (John B.), appointed Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit, 67 
 
 Slavery, the gradual abolition of,, within this State, 268 
 
 Smith (William), appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme 
 
 Court, 29, 50, 51 
 
 Judge Court of Vice- Admiralty, 74 
 
 Smith (William), the elder, appointed Justice Supreme Court, 51 
 
 Attorney-General, 52 
 
 Smith (Zilpha), 334 
 
 Sons of Liberty, origin of phrase, 177 
 
 Sovereignty, 220 
 
 Special Pleading, what time it came in use in the Province 
 
 in English Language, 34 
 
 Spencer (Ambrose), Biographical Sketch, 174-176 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, 59, 60 
 
 Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 330, 332, 334, 
 
 335, 337, 343, 357, 399 
 
 Objectipns to Bills not sanctioned, 427, 430, 432 
 
 Spencer (John C), B. F. Butler and John Duer, Eevised 
 
 Statutes, 69 
 
 Stage Wagons, 349 
 
 State Funds, 421 
 
 State Eeporter, 12 
 
 72 
 
570 The Council of Eevisioit. 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 Statute of Limitations, 317 
 
 Steuben County, waters of public higbways, 324 
 
 Street (Kandall S.), appointed District Attorney Middle Dis- 
 trict, 173 
 
 Strong (Selab B.), appointed Circuit Judge, 2d Circuit, 66 
 
 Supplying tbe Enemy, 240 
 
 Supreme Court, 272, 370, 371, 436 
 
 Supreme Court Bench, number composing it, . . . 27, 31, 56, 61 
 
 Wbo composed it at commencement of Eevolution, 52 
 
 Disruption, 52 
 
 Supreme Court, Clerks, 32, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 69, 371 
 
 Supreme Court of Judicature, History under tbe Colony, 22 - 52 
 
 Under Constitution of 1777, 52-61 
 
 Under Constitution of 1821, 61-67 
 
 Under Constitution of 1846, 67-69 
 
 Admission to Practice in, 34, 56, 66, 69 
 
 Surrogates' Court, 20 
 
 Suspension, 237 
 
 Surveys, 355, 356 
 
 Sutherland (Jacob), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 66 
 
 T. 
 
 Talcott (Samuel A.), appointed Attorney-General, 61-67 
 
 Tax, 214, 231, 237, 241, 243, 251, 252, 257, 266, 276, 
 
 298, 309, 310, 311, 312, 317, 419 
 
 Tayler (John), Biographical Sketch of, 147, 148 
 
 Taylor (Thomas H.), relief of Heirs, 358 
 
 Teeple (George), deceased, real estate of, 367 
 
 Ten Pound Courts, 241 
 
 Terms of Supreme Court, 28, 30, 54, 55, 57, 61, 68 
 
 First term held under the Constitution of State, 55 
 
 Thompson (Smith), Biographical Sketch, 173, 174 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, . . 59, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council,.. 340, 341, 356, 372 
 
 Throop (Enos T.),. appointed Circuit Judge, 7th Circuit,. 67 
 
 Toll Bridge, 394 
 
General Index. 571 
 
 Page. 
 
 Tompkins (Daniel D.), Biographical Sketch, 130-137 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 375 
 
 Tracy (Albert H.), appointed Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit, 67 
 
 Tradesmen and Mechanics' Incorporation, 261 
 
 Trials by Jury established in the Courts under Act of 1691, 27 
 
 Trinity Church, 439 
 
 Troops, 448 
 
 Trotter (Mathew), relief of, 304 
 
 Troy and"Lansingburgh, 312 
 
 Trustees, 275, 830, 352, 369, 400 
 
 Tudor (John), appointed Eegister Court of Vice- Admiralty, 74 
 Twenty-Five Dollar Debts 340 
 
 U. 
 
 -UlshoefiEer (Michael), Report to the Assembly relative to the 
 objections of the Council of Revision to the Act recom- 
 mending, a Convention, 455-476 
 
 Second. Report, 476-478 
 
 Unappropriated and Forfeited Lands 342 
 
 Union Bank, City of New York, 430 
 
 V. 
 
 Vagrants and Lewd Persons, 257 
 
 Van Buren (John), appointed Attorney-Greneral, 67 
 
 Van Buren (Martin), appointed Attorney -General, 61 
 
 Van Cortlandt (Pierre), chosen Lieutenant-Governor, 54 
 
 Van Cortlandt (Stephen), appointed Chief Justice and Justice 
 
 Supreme Court, • • 29, 50, 51 
 
 Van Cortlandt (William R.), Estate of, 275 
 
 Van Dam (Rip), proceedings in Court of Exchequer relative 
 
 to, and Governor Cosby, 70 
 
 Van Der Donck (Adriaen), Remonstrance, 22 
 
 Van Derlocht (WiUiam), Creditors of, 289 
 
 Vanderpoel (James), appointed Circuit Judge, 3d Circuit, ... 67 
 Van Ness (William P.), and John Woodworth, Revised Laws 
 
 of 1813, 58 
 
572 The Council of Eevision. 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 Van Ness (WiUiam W.), Biographical Sketch of, 194 
 
 And John Woodworth's Eevised Laws of 1813, 58 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by CouncU, 362, 365 
 
 Van Schaack (Peter), Digest Laws of the Province, 37 
 
 Van Vechten (Abraham), appointed Attorney-General, 60 
 
 Varick (Eichard), appointed Attorne; sneral, 60 
 
 Vermont Controversy, History of, . 94-106 
 
 Vermont, erection tato a new. State, '. 416 
 
 Vessels in the Port of New York, 377, 442 
 
 Vice and Lnmorality, the more, effectual suppression of, 232 
 
 Vioe-Chancellorships of 1st and 8th Circuits, 18, 19 
 
 Assistant Vice-Chancellorship, 1st. Circuit, 18 
 
 Virginia (1st Colony), 153 
 
 Virginia (2d Colony), '. 153 
 
 W. 
 
 Walters (Eobert), appointed Justice Supreme Court, .... 31, 50 
 
 Walworth (Eeuben H.), appointed Chancellor, 18 
 
 Circuit Judge, 4th Circuit, 67 
 
 Warrants, 249 
 
 Waste and Unappropriated Lands, 253 
 
 Water, supplying City of New York, 423 
 
 Waters, 324 
 
 Webster and Skinner's Edition of the Laws, 58 
 
 Wenham (Thomas), appointed Justice Supreme Court, 50 
 
 Westchester Coimty, highways of, 339 
 
 Wheel Carriages, a tax on, ; 294 
 
 Whiting (Bowen), appointed Circuit Judge, 7th Circuit, 67 
 
 Whittlesey (Frederick) appointed Vice- Chancellor, 8th Cir- 
 cuit, 19 
 
 Justice Supreme Court, 66 
 
 Willard (John), appointed Circuit Judge, 4th Circuit, 67 
 
 Williams (Nathan), appointed Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit, .... 67 
 
 Wills and Administrations, 279, 281, 395, 408 
 
 Witnesses, 259 
 
GrENERAL LSFDES. 573 
 
 Page. 
 
 Woodwortk (Jolm), BiograpMcal Sketcli of, 196-198 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court, 60, 66 
 
 Attorney-General, » 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 394 
 
 Wool Carding and Spinning Machines, 327 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yates (Joseph C), Biographical Sketch of, . . . .- 144-146 
 
 Appointed Justice Supreme Court 60 
 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 350 
 
 Yates (Robert), Biographical Sketch of, 168-172 
 
 Appointed Chief Justice and Justice Supreme Court, . . 59, 60 
 Objections to Bills sanctioned by Council, 291, 311 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zenger (John Peter), Trial of, 71 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 19, 2d paragraph, for " Lewis H. Sanford succeeded Murray Hoffman 
 as Vice-Chancellor," read: Lewis H. Sandford succeeded Murray Hoffman as 
 Assistant Vice-Chancellor. 
 
 Page 52, 1st line, for "William Smith,'' read: William Smith the elder;'' 
 and in note 3, for " 1751," read 1752. 
 
't&fct 
 
 s??. 
 
 ssi'l.-*^"^ 
 
 
 s^^ 
 
 ^-^sv-^v^--'"'"-;