1 
 
 l£x SlibrtB 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 " Ever' thing comes i' him who wails 
 
 S?:cept a loaned book." 
 
 A\ \-R\ Arc imT.C Ti'RAi. and Kim; Aki s Iji^r \in 
 Gli Tor Si ^Moi K B. Di RSI Oi i) York [.\m \R\ 
 
 W 
 
 1 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/annalsofcorporatOOchee 
 
•ANNALS 
 
 ' OF THE . \ 
 
 CORPORATION 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE LATE 
 
 .CTontestcD (Bltttions 5 
 
 WITH 
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 CONDUCT OF THE MAJORITY. 
 
 IN SEVEN NUMBERS. 
 
 By LTSANDER, 
 
 Do nothing vroug — norbcar it. — Euripides. 
 
 EW-YOPkK :^ 
 
 PRINTED BY DEXNISTON AND CHEETHAM^ 
 
 NO, 14)?, PEARL-STTUiT. 
 
Annals^ &c, 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 To the late MAJORITY in the COMMON COUNCIL. 
 
 Let Envy in a wliirhvind's bosom hurl'd, 
 Outrageous search the corners ol'tlie world, 
 Ransack Uie present times — look back to past. 
 Rip up theluture, and confess at last 
 No times, past, present, or to come, could e'er 
 Produce, and Wess the world, with such a pair. 
 
 Churchii l. 
 
 J SHALL not, Gentlemen, apologize to yau 
 for the delay of a publication^ with which you could 
 have readily dllpenfed. 
 
 Engagements more neceftary to myfelf, prevented an 
 earlier attention to your merits. The fame you have ac- 
 quired is fcarcely fufccptible of addition from the fceW« 
 pencil of a hiftorian. 
 
 Should I compliment you with the pofiefTion of talents 
 ©r public virtue, it would be a facrifice of fmcerity to po- 
 litenefs. The language of panegyric would be an infult 
 to the fenfibility of your feelings. Even the Philips of 
 your body would view it as the hidden fling of irony, or 
 the fatire of burlefque. 
 
 The acquirement of a public ftation is the greatcft in- 
 jury which a w:ak man can experience from Fortune. 
 
'4 
 
 Nature had calculated you to glide along the ftream of 
 private life, with eafy and undiftinguifhed infignificance. 
 You might even have continued refpe6l:able in a ftate of 
 happy obfcurity. Unfortunately for yourfelves you havebeen 
 a6lors upon a ftage, without capacity to execute the parts 
 you were called upon to perform. Bewildered and per- 
 plexed, enveloped in a labyrinth, loft in confufion, and ig- 
 norant of your characters, you had but too much reafon 
 to lament the abfence of your prompter. 
 
 You have undertaken the decidon of queftions, to which 
 you are incompetent. 
 
 You have ufurped the province of judges upon fubje£l:s 
 you do not underftand— with temerity you have deprived 
 your country of its moft valuable rights. It will be for- 
 tunate for yourfelves if you can refort for refuge to the 
 plea of indifcretion. 
 
 In the calmnefs of reflection you will acknowledge that 
 5 have treated you with delicacy and indulgence. "With 
 a field fo ample before me, had I given way to ridicule J 
 and invective, even my limited powers could have placed 
 your feelings upon the rack. 
 
 I claim no little merit for the exerclfe of clemency. — 
 You have been the authors and performers of the drama. 
 If you have rendered yourfelves contemptible or criminal, 
 the fault is your own. Your misfortunes or your vices 
 are not attributable to Lysander. 
 
 A city deprived of its freemen by the intrigues and 
 confpiracy of its magiftrates — Electors defpoiled of their 
 fufFrages by the arbitrary decifion of an interefted tribunal. 
 An election defeated by violence and ufurpation, pubHc 
 officers openly defer ting their pofts of duty, and leaving- 
 
5 
 
 a community to Its fate. Our police and Inftltutions fuf- 
 pended by ranmefs and petulancy. Our poor dependent 
 upon voluntary contribution. Our watch maintained by 
 individual patriotifm. Our lives and property expofed to 
 the attacks of midnight depredation, had it not been for 
 the interpofing hand of republican virtue. Such is a fum^ 
 mary and imperfe6i; piclure of madnefs, difappointment 
 and defperation. You, Gentlemen, have taught us an 
 important lelTon. You have convinced us how little the 
 tranquility of a great and populous city depends upon 
 niagiftrates like yourfelves. 
 
 We have approached a crifis which demands, and trufl: 
 me fliall obtain, a radical remedy. Our rights are too 
 ineflimable to be placed within the controui of any future 
 corporation. It is not the feat of an alderman, but the 
 eternal privileges of the people, which are at fhakc, nor 
 -fhall we be fatisfied with trivial, momentary, and tempo- 
 rizing meafures. The rights of a magiftrate may be fettled 
 by the interv^ention of a court of juftice. Thofe of the 
 inhabitants can only be reflorcd by the fuperior interpofi- 
 tion of the Legiflature. Such then fliould be tlie perfe- 
 vering efforts of patriotifm. We muft not relax in our 
 endeavours until the rights of the people are eftabliflied 
 [inon a firm, fubftautial, and unperiihable foundation. 
 
 LYSANDER. 
 
No. IL 
 
 tNTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 In times of public danger, it is every man's duty to withdraw Iiis tliougn^s 
 in some measure from iiis private interest, an-et employ part of his time for 
 the general welfare." Idler., 
 
 '^I^HE primary object of every political 
 eftablifliment, (liould be to promote the general welfare of 
 the people. The police of cities as well as the govern- 
 inent of "ftates, is intended to preferve the eflential interefls 
 of the public. Whenever we fpeak of the rights and the 
 powers of a corporation, it is proper to enquire who arc 
 the parties that compofe it ? and what are the purpofes 
 fcr which it was eftablifhed ? 
 
 If it (hould be contended that the prefcnt Charter of 
 this City was intended for the benefit of the members of 
 the Common Council, in oppofition te the priveleges of 
 the citizen. Should it be maintained that this Royal 
 grant, is the exciufive property of the aldermen and af- 
 liftantSj in derogation of the rights and libertie3 of the 
 inhabitants. — Then it would be time that the interpofing 
 hand of public juftice fhould be extended to demolifli 
 the fatal inftrumcnt of flavery and difgracc. 
 
 The prefent Charter was derived from the fucceflive 
 grants of former fovereigns. It was penned at periods, in 
 which the rights of the people were imperfectly under- 
 flood and eftablifhed. To promote the authority of the 
 Monarch, and to guard the high prerogatives of his throne 
 was the primary abject of government throughout every 
 
* 
 
 7 
 
 department of the empire. It is incompatible witli the- 
 intercfts of royalty, that the inflitutions of civil freedoni 
 ihould exift within any department of its dominions. The 
 power of the prince muft neteflarily be fupported by the 
 influence of his vicegerents. It muft be fortified and 
 protected by the fubordinate dominion of fiitclhte author- 
 ity. Hence it is that in our civil inftitutlons we ftill per- 
 ceive fomc glaring chara£lers of ariftocracy, and are yet 
 fubjefled to fome remains of the ancient policy, inconfift- 
 ent with the fpirit, the principles and the genius of our 
 government. 
 
 It is a matter of aftonlfhrnent, that a city fo enlightened, 
 and which has fo eminently contributed to the reftoratioir 
 of public liberty, fhould have fo long fubmitted to die 
 abufes of its municipal adminiftration. When we view 
 the men who compofe the majority of the Common Coun- 
 cil. When we confider the flendernefs of their influence 
 as individuals. When wc contemplate the paucity of their 
 talents, wc are Imprefl^ed with mingled emotions of furprlk 
 and indignation, that men fo deftitute of learning, fliould 
 have been permitted to become with impunity the defpoil- 
 crs of the rights of their fellow-citizens. 
 
 The mal-admlniftratica of our City-police, was un- 
 queftionably a part of a more general and complicatcii 
 fyftem. The fame policy which attempted the creatioiL 
 of armies — the multiplication of taxes, and prodigality ot" 
 expenditures, in. the nationijl government, dictated precife- 
 ly the fame meafures with refpect to our internal adminis- 
 tration. In the purfuit of this plan, it was neccflary that 
 their favorite inftru/nents fhould be rewarded, and that 
 the influence of the Commonalty fhould be compleatly a- 
 boliflied. Offices and emoluments were heaped upon the 
 needy or avaricious members of tiie board, ^nd there is buj: 
 
too much reafon to believe, that they were orlgmally cre- 
 ated to reward the demerits of poUtical infidelity. The 
 dignity of the magiftracy was degraded, and our principal 
 civil officers converted into contractors for jobs. The 
 character of an alderman was lost in that of a dock maft- 
 cr, or fuperintendant of fcavengers ; and the name of affift- 
 ant, confounded with fome fervile and petty employments- 
 Such was the univerfal practice of the Common Council, in 
 the donation of its offices — a practice engendered in corrup- 
 tion — It was continued without a fenfe of decency or a 
 feeling of fhame. 
 
 The adminiftration of the late Mayor, was uniformly 
 exerted to the deftruction of every popular principle in our 
 charter. Had it not been for the happy change which 
 has taken place in the affairs of the United States, there 
 is too much probability that his defigns would have fuc- 
 ceeded. 
 
 By the Charter of the City, as it at prefent ftands, the 
 inhabitants poff^ffed of corporate rights, are divided into 
 freeholders and freemen. In them the effential rights of 
 the body politic are centered. They are the fountain 
 from whence the government of the city, agreeably to its 
 incorporation, fliould in reality be derived. Every other 
 individual muft be confidered as a fojourner or tempor- 
 ary refident. For, except in times of public fairs, no other 
 perfon can legally exercife his trade or occupation, within 
 the limits of the town. Whatever may have . been the ori- 
 ginal policy of impofing this reftri^tion — However it 
 may have been intended to narrow the privileges of ci- 
 tizenfliip, it is obvious that the term.s of the charter lead 
 to the alternative, either, that a fufficlent number of free- 
 citizens muft be appointed^ or that the bufmefs of the city 
 muft be at an end. 
 
9 
 
 ft Is alfo dlrecled that tlic election of Charter Oihcer* 
 (hall be made by the freemen of thecity, being inhabitants, 
 and the freeholders of the refpedive wards. To be a 
 freeholder or a freeman, is therefore a necefTary pre-requl- 
 (ite to entitle an individual to the cleclive franchife. An 
 a£l of the leglflature has altered the former qualification 
 from a freehold generally, to one of twenty pounds. "With 
 a view to continue his own creatures into office, and know- 
 ing that the ftrong current of popular fentiment, was di- 
 rected agalnft him. In an early part of his adminlftration, 
 Mr. Varick made his daring and defperate effort to deftroy 
 the whole body of freemen, and to place the powers of 
 the city exclufively in the hands of the freeholders. Ac- 
 cordingly we find that fince the year 1 792, no more than 
 fifty four freemen have been appointed. Many of them 
 his friends, and moft of them only for the purpofe of be- 
 ing qualified to hold particular offices. This extraordinary 
 circumftance is matter of record, and placed above the reach 
 of controverfy. So completely did this wonderful man fuc- 
 ceed in his projeCt, that in a city, which boalts its 60,000 
 inhabitants, fcarcely 300 freemen can be found. 
 
 In the accomplifhment of this talk, an obftacle was 
 |5refented, which could only have been overcome by the 
 niofl furprifing fagacity, or perhaps overlooked by the mofl 
 egregious ftupidity. The charter had directed that no 
 man (hould purfue his occupation without firft obtaining 
 the freedom of the city. Its terms are pofitive aixl di- 
 rectory. It leaves the Chief Magiftrate no difcretionary 
 powers. Mr* Varick, in his magifterial capacity, found it 
 neceffiiry to grant licences to cartmen, rnd to the keepers 
 of inns. This confummate politician, in violation of the 
 charter, with liis ufual confiftcncy, gave the licences — 
 received the fees- — permitted the men to follow their oc-' 
 
 B 
 
f 
 
 to 
 
 mipations, an<r mofl ftrenuoufly refiifed them the ha^owe J 
 gift of freedom. * 
 
 So bold and flagrant a violation of public rights, is fcarce* 
 ly to be paralleled in the annals of hiftory. In the courfe 
 of a fevi^ years it produced a total revolution in the nature 
 of our government. The vi^hole body of freemen who 
 were intended to compofe a principal conftitucnt part 
 of the incorporation, are almoft extind, and in a little time 
 the hand of death muft terminate the exiflence of the re- 
 mainder. This mafter ftroke of policy was intended to 
 eftablifh a fyftem of tyranny, and by depriving the great 
 body of the people of their fhare in the reprefentation, to- 
 fubje6l them to the arbitrary dominion of the Commoa 
 Council. 
 
 The right of being reprefented In the body by whofc 
 laws we are bound conftitutes our moft valuable and eflen- 
 tial political privilege. It is the key ftone in the arch of public 
 liberty upon which the fafety and exiftence of the fabric 
 depends. Taxation without reprefentation is the grea teft- 
 badge of flavery and he who fubmits to it muft forfeit 
 
 * The jealousy of our late Mayor towards the Cartmen of this City wat 
 notorious That respectable body of men have acquired immortal honor 
 from their general patriotism and independence — I speak not to flatter 
 them — letth«?m wear the laurels they have won — feel towards them, and 
 therefore shall express the most sincere respect — Wherever I can advocate 
 their rights, gratitude shall prompt nae to do it. I feel that the posses- 
 sion of my own has been in * great measure owing to tlieir exertions. 
 Withholding from them the freedom of the city was occasioned by the 
 TOost tyrannical and illiberal policy. Like the conduct of the British 
 *nerchanti in refusing to give them employ, unless they voted against 
 their owu principles, it was intended to enslave them. It deprived them 
 not only of the privileges, but also of the station of citizens. It was aa 
 innovation. It was a violation of the charter which originated with Mr. 
 Varick, Mr. Duane and all preceding mayors, had usually conferred up- 
 on them the freedom of the city ; and justly considered themselves bouiMl 
 
 to do so. The city records prove the fact. From 1783 to 1792 — 
 
 688 freemen were appointed, of whom 393 were cartmen. From March 
 1793 to the present time, only 54 (amongst whom there is not a single 
 eartman) have been made. The conduwon* from such a fact are too strOQf , 
 and ebvioui to require corameat. L ys ANDER. 
 
liis pretenfions to the enjoyment of civil freedom. It ^\'a3 
 for the eftablifhment of this iiieftimable principle that \vc 
 refifted the power of Britain, and encountered the perils 
 of a fevcre and arduous conteft. In this revolution we 
 happily fucceedcd, and laid the ftrong foundation of a gov- 
 ernment of reprefcntation. Shall it then be faid that thofe 
 \rho are competent to the choice of the rulers of an em- 
 pire are incapable to elcdl the fubordinate members of a 
 corporation ? Mufl: it be recorded in our future annab, 
 that the men who withftood the fleets and armies of a pow- 
 erful monarch were compelled at length to bend beneath 
 the yoke of a board of aldermen ? Enjoying the full pof- 
 feflion of freedom with rcfpe61: to our national inftitutions. 
 Are we to fink into the abjed: condition of flaves, with 
 regard to our city adminiftration ? 
 
 Defeated in every other quarter, and driven from every 
 other refource, that party which has hitherto been falfely 
 denominated federal, were determined at all hazard, and 
 by every ad: of fraud to retain pofleflion of tlie government 
 of the city. 
 
 Although the late elecSbion for governor had abundantly 
 demonftrated that the republicans poffefs a majority of 
 freehold votes, yet it was fondly imagined that the influence 
 and property of ihe Englifli merchants would enable thofe 
 f'^V y^y^^ federalijis to retain their afcendancy. For a num- 
 ber of years our commerce has been principally engrofTed 
 by Britilh fubje6i:s. Enjoying our fpoils, largely partaking 
 of our riches, and retaining their loyalty to their fovereign. 
 They have been uniform and active inftruments in the 
 hands of ambition. United to the federalifts by a fimilarity 
 of views and identity of principles. The torics of the old 
 fchool united with thofe of the new, to effcdl tlic total fub- 
 verfion of our republican inftitutions. 
 
IE 
 
 in tFic profecmtlon cf their defignsthe tory ccralitlon es- 
 tabiiflied the pofition as a principal article of their creed, 
 that property and not individuals fhould be reprefented. 
 
 Blindly attached to the fancied privileges of a lifelefs 
 fod, they forgot that maw, for vi^hom the God of Nature 
 made the Univerfe, received fuperior rights from heaven. 
 Mr. Varick, vi^hofe religion was confined to the prote£lion 
 of the rights of property, vi^ithout deigning to notice the 
 privileges of a being formed after the exprefs image of his 
 maker, had already extinguifhed the whole body of free- 
 rcicn. It only remained to marflial the privileged order of 
 freeholders in array. The playful proprietors of the the- 
 atre, and the bacchanalian owners of the Belvidere, pre- 
 fented a principal column of the phalanx — fraught with 
 madnefs and defpair, they refolutely refolved to withhol'd 
 tiie government of the city from the hands of the odious 
 republicans. 
 
 When from their plan of operations, it was difcovereS 
 that they had formed a fettled intention, by annihilating 
 freemen, and rendering the eftates, and not the perfons ot 
 Jaien, the baiis of reprefentation, to wreft from the people 
 their rights of eledion. To counteract thofe defigns, it 
 became neceffary for the republicans to oppofe them with 
 their own weapons. The law had declared that every man, 
 poflefled of a freehold to the amount of twenty pounds free 
 of incumbrances, fliall be entitled to vote for charter offi- 
 cers. Nothing more was requifite, than, that a fufficient 
 number of individuals fhould poflefs themfelves of an ef^ 
 tatc to that value, in conformity to the terms of the law. 
 Accordingly an alTociation of refpedable citizens wa§ 
 formed for the laudable purpofe of refiftirjg.the oppreffion 
 xve had fo long experienced ; reftoring the neceflary body 
 of freemen^ and re-eftabliHiing the ancient rights of the 
 
'3 
 
 ^itf. The refult of this memorable eIe£i:ion is well 
 known. Wc beheld an event which promifed the mofl 
 aufpicious confequences. The hopes and expedlatlons of 
 the public were on the eve of being realifed. A repub- 
 lican magiftracy would have enfured the correction of a- 
 ^ufcs — reftored the rights of the community — placed the 
 eleftive franchife upon a firm, liberal and conftitutional 
 bafis j and finally promoted the liberties and profperity of 
 :he city. 
 
 LYSANDER, 
 
*7o. in. 
 
 ON THE RIGHT OF SCRUTINT. 
 
 ■Their better part remains 
 
 To work in close design, by fraud or guile 
 ^'What force effected not." 
 
 MiLTO.V. 
 
 Jn public as well as private affairs it gen- 
 ially happens that the commifTion of one crime leads to the 
 perpetration of another. Unable to prevent the eledlion 
 of a majority of republican magiftrates, the federal mem- 
 bers of the Common Council were determined to defeat it 
 \)j a rafh and defperate interpofition of power* 
 
 In the recefles of hearts capable of defperate defigns, 
 they immediately refolved upon the exercife of a power> 
 of all others the moft dangerous and the moft liable to a- 
 bufe. This they term the right of fcrutinizing into the 
 votes; receiving and reje6i:ing them at their pleafure, and 
 thereby terminating the election in favor of any candidate 
 whom they may prefer. 
 
 It is eafy to perceive the confequences refulting from 
 fuch an exercife of authority. It renders eledions in a 
 great meafure nugatory, and enables the majority of any 
 public body, by ftratagem, intrigue and agreement, to con- 
 tinue themfelves in office as long as they think proper. 
 
 That fuch a right is recognifed by the charter is alto- 
 gether denied. But fhould it even be maintainable, it is fo 
 repugnant to the principles of our government, and pro- 
 
dti£l:ive of fuch dangerous evils as to require an Jmmediato 
 repeal. 
 
 The claufe in the charter from which this fingular clain> 
 has been derived, declares that the Common Council of the 
 city for the time being, or the major part of them {hall 
 have the fole povi'er of determining and deciding all elec- 
 tions of all and every their officers and mim/}erSf thereafter 
 to be chofen and elected in or for the faid corporation or 
 any part thereof. 
 
 With refpedi to this claufe, it Is to be obferved that on 
 account of the high importance and dangerous tendency of 
 the powers to which it is fuppofed to give rife, it lliould not 
 by any force of conftru£lion, be carried to an extent beyond 
 the precife import of the terms it employs. 
 
 In the firft place it is obfervabk that the expreflions con- 
 tained in it aie " officers and miniflers,^* It is entirely 
 filent with regard to members. 
 
 Now it is plain that the grant of a power to determine 
 the appointment or eledlion of a fubordinate officer or min- 
 ifter cannot ex vi termini apply to the member of a public 
 body. It is a general rule in law applicable to the inter- 
 pretation of all ftatutes, that a ftatute which treats of thing* 
 or perfons of an inferior rank, cannot by any general words 
 be extended to thofe of a fuperior. The example given 
 by Blackftone clearly, eliicidates the pofition. Thus a ftat- 
 ute treating of Deans, Prebendaries, and others having 
 fpiritual promotion is held not to extend to Bifhops, though 
 they havt fpiritual promotion. Deans being the higheft 
 perfons named, and Bifliops being of a ftill higher order. 
 
 The cafe given by Blackftone in illuftration of his rule, 
 ift infinitely ftronger than the claufe under difguftion. 
 
i5 
 
 ¥fiat cafe contains general terms, which might Include ev- 
 ery order of the clergy, (the defcription of perfons named.) 
 Yet it was decided that bifhops being fuperior to deans, 
 were not included in the generality of the terms. Tht? 
 charter only fpeaks of minifters and officers of the Commoi^ 
 Council. Without containing any general expreflion, 
 which could beconftrued to extend to the members of that 
 body. 
 
 That a clear diftin£t:ion exifts between the officers and 
 the m.embers of a council, common fenfe itfelf would dic- 
 tate. Yet, if it is necefTary. to cite authorities, the fceptic 
 is referred' to Kyd, on Corporations — to the fuppler 
 ment to Viner — and even to a claufe in the charter itfelf, dif 
 redlly following that, from which the extraordinary prero- 
 gative in queflion is claimed, which clearly diftinguifhes 
 an officer from a member of the corporation. 
 
 I am aware it will be contended, that an alderman is a 
 public officer as well 2iS2. member of the Common Council, and 
 that becaufe he is an officer, he is included within the terms 
 of the charter. But let it be replied, that his being a pub- 
 lic officer is not' fufficient to bring him within thofe 
 terms — he mufl be an officer of the Common Council ; 
 that is to fay, an officer in immediate relation to that body. 
 Examine the claufe, it contains the relative expreffion 
 
 their" that expreffion is emphatical, and governs the 
 conflru6^ion of the fentence — a right is thereby vefled in 
 the Common Council to decide upon the eledliion of their 
 officers and miniflers — an alderman is not an officer or a 
 minifter of that board — On the contrary, he pref.ies in, and 
 is a member of it. That body is compofed of aldermen and 
 affiflants. Will you be guilty of the abfurdity of terming, 
 them their own officers In relation to the Common Coun- 
 cil, an alderman is- nether an officer or a minifter. WhtJn 
 
1? 
 
 he is an oflicer, as in his capacity of juflice of the peace, 
 he is an oiFicer of the ftate, and not of the Comraon Coun- 
 cil. He maintains his feat in that body as a ftipcrlur prc- 
 -fiding member, and is above the reach of the cxpreiTions 
 contained in the charter. 
 
 It is remarkable that the charter itfelf, when it fpeaks 
 of an alderman as a public olhcer, is moft emphatically 
 expreffive upon this point. In appointing him a juflice of 
 the peace, and invelllng him v/ith judicial authority, it 
 ftyles him, in pofitive language, a juftice of us, our heirs, 
 and fucccflbrs. Before the rew-^lution he was an ofhcer 
 of the crown. Since that aufpicious period he is an offi- 
 cer of the people. With relation to the Common Council, 
 he is a member, and not an officer: he is not compre- 
 hended within the terms of the controverted claufc. 
 
 It has, indeed, been contended, that this power of fcru- 
 tiny does not depend upon the provifions of the chartv^r, 
 but that it is an authority incident to all corporations, in- 
 afmuch as every corporate or political body is entitled to 
 .create bye-laws for its own internal regulations. 
 
 In reply to this obfervation let it be remarked, that fuch 
 argument does not apply to the prefent cafe, for the verv 
 obvious reafon, that oar Common Council has never 
 thought proper to conltitute fuch bye-law. If a bve-law 
 to that effect had been made, its authority would liave 
 been queflioned — but, as fuch ordinance has never been 
 paffed, fhould we even admit the authority. Still it has 
 remained latent and inchoate, becaufe the proper mea- 
 fures have not been taken to afford it an effedual ope- 
 ration. 
 
 With regard to tlils general power of framing bye-laws 
 it is to be obfcrvcd, that it i«. Cvprcfcly prcvldtd by the 
 
it 
 
 charter, that fuch bye-laws fhall not be repugnant to the lavrt 
 or ftatutes of England, or of the ancient colony. Yet thU 
 provifion, though exprefsly made, was altogether unne- 
 eeflaryj for it is not to be denied, that thefe inferior go^ 
 vernmcnts niuft always remain fubordinate to the fuperioc 
 authority by which they are created. It is, therefore, a pofi- 
 tive rule, to be gathered from our legal writers, that every 
 bye-lav/ contrary to the general laws of the land is void; 
 and I (hall not hefitate to fuperadd the pofition, that no 
 bye-law is obligatory which is repugnant to the fpirit, the 
 genius, or the principles of the conftitution of a ftate. 
 
 Whatever may be the accordance in thofe rules which 
 diredl the private concerns of men, the principles of our 
 political law are extremely variant from thofe of England. 
 Our fyftem of national polity is eflentially different from 
 that of a community whofe conftitution recognizes the 
 cxiftence, and embraces the interefts, of different orders of 
 men. The general tendency of all the Englifh inftitu- 
 tions is, to fupport the powers of the throne, and to pro- 
 te£l: the privileges of the nobility — The ftream of royalty- 
 flows and circulates throughout every department of focr- 
 ety. Hence it follows, that their corporate eftablifhmcnts 
 have been modelled as miniatures of their general govern- 
 ment, and that the regulations of the former have refem- 
 bled the features and partaken of the qualities of the latter. 
 
 Our political inftitutions only acknowledge two leading 
 «nd primary objects — the maintenance of focial order, and 
 the prefervation of the rights of the people. Whatever 
 eftablifliment has a tendency to increafe the powers of one 
 part of the community, at the cxpence of the interefts of 
 another, is contrary to the nature of our civil conftitution*, 
 and repugnant to the principles of our revolution. Hence 
 then, it is neceffary tliat the operation «f every foreiga 
 
19 
 
 tflablifhmcnt (hoiild be caiitioufly exafiiincd before it i-, r.a^ 
 turalized here. Whatever inflltution is uncongenial wltl\ 
 our general fyftcm of policy muft be rejeaed, whether ic 
 •obtains in England or any otlier country on the globe. 
 
 I have made thcfe obfervations to fliew the manifefl in;- 
 propriety that would refult from an indifcriminate admiC- 
 fion of Britifli principles. It is pofitively denied, that the 
 pretended right of fcrutiny is appurtenant to corporation:; 
 by the general laws of England. That country abounds 
 with incorporated bodies, inftituted for a variety of pur- 
 pofes — fome political — fomc comm.ercial — fome religious 
 — fome literary — others again for carrying particular 
 charities into eflecSl. The powers of each depending upon 
 its general nature, or fpecific end, and more upon the par- 
 ticular grant, from which it derives its ordination, than 
 from the general provifions of law. 
 
 Again, among the Infinitude of corporations, fomc exllt 
 by prefcription, and fome are founded in written charter?.. 
 In the one cafe, they are governed by a continued feries 
 of ufage. In the other by the interpretation of the lanrj;- 
 uage of their charters. Amidft the cxtenfive field of legal 
 contention, which has been opened upon the fubje6l of 
 corporate bodies, not one folitary inflancc can be found 
 of an Englifh corporation claiming a right of fcrutiny, par- 
 allel to that which has been cxercifed by our Common 
 CounciK All the books and reporters are filent upon thai 
 point. From that filence fome have inferred that it has 
 never been difputed ; upon that very ground, I maintain 
 it has never been exercifed — for if the right had been uni- 
 vcrfally admitted, flill, in the progrefs of fo many years, 
 queftions would have arifen with refpedl to the manner of 
 its exercife, and prefented themfelvcs to ihe court of Iving's 
 Bench, in the shape of abufc?. 
 
2fO 
 
 Cin it then be pofFible, that a right fo extraordinary in its 
 nature, fo dangerous in its confequences, fo repugnant to 
 the principles of our government — an authority which ftrikes 
 at the very root of the elective franchife and places the pco«? 
 pie completely beneath the arbitrary controul of a board of 
 aldermen and afliftants, can be created and guaranteed by 
 the common law of the land ? Is a power fo exorbitant and 
 gigantic tobeexercifed upon the moft trivial and queftionablc 
 ground? Arc all our bpalted privileges held at the precarious 
 mercy of a Common Council I and all the inhabitants of 
 a great, enlightened and refpedTtable city reduced to abje^l 
 flavery by a little handful of undiftinguiflied citizens. 
 
 There is ftill a remaining view. In which I fliall confides 
 the fubjetl. I produce the fenfe of the legiflature againft 
 the atrocious and unprincipled ufurpation. Even before 
 the revolution, an acl of the colony was pa {Ted for the re-t 
 gulation of charter elections. Under our prefent eftabhfh- 
 ment the legillature has provided a flatute mofl exprefs- 
 3y apd avowedly for that purpofe. Examine the title ; you 
 fmd it to be " an a61: to regulate the eledion of charter 
 officers in the city of New-York." Infpeft, analyfe, pon- 
 der upon its contents; you perceive it to comprehend 
 every fuitable and every eflential provifion. 
 
 I contend that by this acl the fenfe of the legiflature is. 
 explicitly declared, and that it follows as a neceilary con- 
 clufion, either that fuch a power never cxiftcd, or if it did 
 obtain, that i t was thereby repealed ; the intention of the 
 legiflature is apparent from the title of the a£l, and from 
 the provifions which they have thought proper to eflablifh, 
 if it had been believed that the authority in queftion was 
 vefted in the corporation jand it was fafe to entrull it to their 
 hands. The legiflature could have had no rational induce- 
 ment for an interference upon the eccafion. If the regulation 
 
21 
 
 of charter declions was confidercd as the peculiar province 
 of the Cominon Council, and as a right vefted in them by 
 the charter, why was a folemn and deliberate ftatute pafTed 
 exprefsly and exclufively for tliat purpofe ? 
 
 Mod exprefs and pofitive language could not have more 
 clearly unfdMed the views of the Icgifiature upon the fub- 
 jecfV, than their very atSt of intcrpofmg upon the occafion. 
 
 Upon a perufal of this flatute it will be found to con- 
 tain every provifion which could have been deemed neccf- 
 fary for the regulation of charter elections. It afcertains 
 the time at which they are to take place. It dire£ls the 
 inode of conducing them. It prefcribcs the ofRcer who 
 is to prefidc. It ellablifhcs his powers and his duties. It 
 declares the quuliilcations to be poneiTed by the electors* 
 It renders tliem eflentially variant from the provifions con- 
 tained in the charter. It adopts a mode for deciding upoa 
 thofe qualificaticn s; and it even directs the particular 
 duties of the Common Council upon the occafion. 
 
 Before the efiacllcn of this ftatute, our cky cleclions took 
 place entirely under the operation of the charter ; but fince 
 that period they are governed by the particular directions of 
 this law. A remarkable exprefFion of the legiflature forci- 
 bly indicative of their intentions upon this point, appears to. 
 have been overlooked. The ftatute under contemplation 
 |)rovides that if the Common Council fliall not appoint in- 
 fpectors, or if thofe infpeclors ftiall neglect the performance 
 of their duties, that then, and then only, cleclions Jljall he had 
 a:cordhig to the dire^liotis in the chart er^ any thing in that acf 
 contained to the contrary notiuiihjlanding. Is it not therefore 
 manifeft, that the legiflature muft have cenfidered that law 
 as the only bafis upon which the elcdtion of charter officers 
 was thereafter to be founded ? Upon no contrary do£trinc 
 is it pollible to account for their cautious folicitude in 
 
prcnding againfl; thofe two particular ncgleds of duty. 
 By that ftatute they eftablifn a general rule — they render 
 thofe peculiar cafes an exception to that rule. Why did 
 they fo carefully provide that in thofe folitary infbanccs, 
 clcftions fhould take place in purfuance of the charter, if 
 in every] other refpe£l, they did not view the charter as 
 giving way to the ftatute ? 
 
 Let us now beftow fome particular attention upon the 
 a£i,and examine the regulations it has eftablifhed. 
 
 In the firfl place it authorizes and dire£ls the G5ramon: 
 Council within certain limits of time to Jix upon the places 
 ef eleBioHy it alfo diretts them to appoint infpe^tors, and 
 prefcribes their requifite qualifications— here then we find 
 the Icgiflaturc exercifing their controul over the Common 
 Council, and it is apparent that this body with refpect tor 
 Elections, mull a(St in Juhjerviency to the law. 
 
 In the fccond place, it prefcribes the powers and duties 
 of infpcctors; and here letmeimprefs the obfervation, that 
 t-hofe oiEcers are directed and empowered topreftde at elec- 
 tions, as well as to make returns. The expreflion of the 
 a£l: with rcfpe£l to the appointment of this officer are 
 wortliy of clofe and particular attention. A fit and dif- 
 creet perfon (fays the law) for each refpe£Hve "ward, being 
 a freeholder there or a fceeman of the faid city, fhall be 
 appointed to prejlde at, and be the infpe£lor or returniog 
 officer, to fee that the refpe61;ive elec^^ions be fairly con- 
 du£led and had. Here, then, it is apparent that the adb 
 has prefcribed for fuch officer a twofold divifion of pow- 
 ers and of duties, each feparate in its nature, and clearly 
 diftinguifnable from the other. The grammatical conftruc- 
 tion as well as the obvious import of the fentence is too 
 apparent to require argumentative dedu£tion, the conj unc- 
 tion et (and) placed between its branches precifely indi- 
 
22 
 
 fates their feparatc cxiflencc, and gives to each its fpecJ- 
 fied operation. The pcrfon fo appointed is to psesid* 
 at elections, and he is also to be the infpcdtor ox rctura- 
 ing officer. 
 
 He is to prefidc at, and to fee that the refpective ckAi- 
 ons are fairly had and conducted. The term prcfide, de- 
 rived from the latin prasideo fignifies being fet, or having 
 authority over. When it is diredlcd that an individual i* 
 to prefidewithrefpecl to afubjetSt matter, the true meaning 
 of the exprcflion is, that he pofTefTes authority over it it is 
 implied that he ftiall govern anxl dire£l, agreeable to the 
 Ipirit and intent of the power from whence he derives hi'> 
 ordination. He who is to prefide, and fee that electioni. 
 are fairly conducted, is rendered the principal ofScerj 
 with refpe£t to thofe ele6lions. 
 
 I place peculiar ftrefs upon this argument, becaufe I am 
 convinced it is conclufive, the law has placed a very im- 
 portant power in the hands of this officer. It has dire6t- 
 cd him to prefide at, and fee that eled^ions are fairly and 
 properly conducted, and it looks to him, and to hint 
 alone for the faithful performance of thofe duties. The 
 law was made for the fole purpofc of regulating the ele£li- 
 on of charter officers. Its exclufive intention was to place 
 thofe elections upon a wife, fecuxe and f^lutary foundatioK. 
 It was neceflary that this prefidential power fhould be 
 intrufted fomewliere. It was indifpenfible that fome in- 
 dividual fliould be appointed to prevent thofe who were, 
 not legally qualified from being admitted as eledtors. 
 It was politic that fuch power fliould be depofited in hand> 
 the leaft likely to abufe it. Every principle of public 
 jufticc and policy didlated that this prcfiding officer fitting 
 as the judge of clc6live qualifications, Ihould be difinter- 
 elted and impartial. It was eafy to perceive that the mtr^- 
 
bers of a corporation, frequently c-andidates themfclves, 
 were not difpaffionate judges. It mufi: have been perceiv- 
 ed that fuch authority placed in their hand was dangerous, 
 and liable to irrefiftible temptations. It was unfpeakably 
 evident that armed with fuch powers, they could at plea- 
 fure defeat every elediion, and render their offices of unli- 
 ■ mited duration. Hence, then, it was neceflary that the le- 
 giflature ihould interpofe its aid, and provide fome fuit- 
 able guard to preferve the privileges of the citizen. 
 
 Thirdly. The law prefcribes the qualifications of elect- 
 ors, and directs the mode of determining them. With ref- 
 pe£t to the firft point, as before obferved, it is variant 
 from the charter by reftriCling the right of voting to a free- 
 hold of twenty pounds. The particular manner in which 
 the zdi is drawn, its embracing every qualification and 
 inftituting a complete and comprehenfive fyftem, is alfo a 
 ftrong argument that the legiflature intended the ftatute 
 fiiould fupercede the charter with refpe6l to eleClions. 
 
 The method which the legiflature has adopted, for 
 deciding upon the qualification of eleClors, is another 
 ftrong hnk in the chain of argument, to prove, that they 
 •intended that a61: to conftltute the only inftrument for go- 
 verning elections. We have feen the high importance of 
 the office of infpector, its cxtenfive duties, and the confi- 
 dence repofed in it by law. In- order to prevent corrup- 
 tion and intrigue, to fupercede the exercife of an arbitrary 
 difcrction, and to protect the right of eleCtors, the law 
 has interpofed a fingle mode of trial, the one moft fuit- 
 able to the occafion, and perhaps the only practicable 
 method — That is the oath of the party, in the words a- 
 dopted by the law, comprehending every requifite, and 
 which is to be adminiftered by the prefiding officer. — 
 When we confider the inconveniences, the difficulties. 
 
25 
 
 and the delays of every other mode-, the"numbcrlefi qucf^ 
 tions that would neceflarlly arlfc ; the extreme intricacy 
 und technical nature of many of thofc queftions ; the time 
 which would unavoidably be confumed in their difcunion ; 
 the production of title-deeds ; the expofure of eftates ; 
 the examination of witncflcs ; the incompetency of every 
 tribunal except the regular courts of juftice ; the unwill- 
 ingnefs of eledors to expof*, themfelves to fo much trou- 
 ble and inconvenience ; that it would render ele6lions an 
 cndlefs field of litigation j — when we confider the abufes 
 to which any other method of decifion would give rife ; — 
 when we reflect upon the infuperable difficulties which 
 would attend every election j~when we contemplate the 
 highly dangerous powers which would refult from this ex- 
 traordinary right of fcrutiny^ — and, when we perceive 
 that the prefent conftruCtion of the a£t, places the dcd^ions 
 of our city magiftrates upon prccifely the fame footing with 
 thofe of the officers of ftate — the conclufibn is unavoidable, 
 that fuch interpretation is juft — That the decifion of the in- 
 fpe6lor, in his prefidentral capacity, and his records, tranf- 
 mitted in the chara6ter of returning officer, is final and 
 conclufive with refpedl to the rights of the party eledted. 
 
 Should we refort to arguments of convenience or expe- 
 diency, the fubje6l would become inexhauflible. Many 
 of thofe arguments are forcibly flated in the proteftof the 
 minority of the Common Council, which is incor- 
 I^orated in the pages of this work. To that protefh 
 I therefore take the liberty gf referring the reader. 
 
 Before I conclude the prefent number, permit mc to 
 enforce the danger which would refult from allowin^j 
 the corporation to alTume the right of deciding the value 
 of freeholds. Between certain limits that value is indefi- 
 nite. From tJic unalterable nature of tilings, it muft io(b 
 
 D 
 
2€ 
 
 etitirely m conje^bural opinion. It is not the fubje£l' of 
 definite evidence, nor is it fufceptible of precife judiciai 
 determination. Such a right, if exercifed, would be Hablc 
 to perpetual abufe. Corrupt, fraudulent, and partial de* 
 oiions would be mad^ without the means of redrefs, with- 
 out the poffibility of appeal.-^I purchafe a freehold for 
 the price of twenty pounds. The contract is an actual 
 one. The confideration was fairly paid. The payment 
 <?f fuch confideration is conclufive evidence of value — 
 it is the very flrongeft teftimony of which the cafe is fuf- 
 ceptible. It would be apparent, that the value of my 
 freehold was not £, looo. It would be equally apparent, 
 that it was more than twenty fhillings. But between fif- 
 teen and thirty pounds, the line of value would be fluctu- 
 ating, indiftinct, and evanefceot. Some men would com- 
 pute it at one price, other.j at a different. Who is then 
 to decide that invifible point of eftimation between the 
 hair- breadth of a fra6i:ion, whether it is worth the precife 
 fum of twenty pounds, entitling me to a vote, or the infi- 
 nitefimal particle of an atom lefs than fuch fum, depriving 
 me of the right ? Shall the corporation be permitted to 
 tell, me — " We, Sir, are the judges. We are determined 
 to eftimate your property at the fum of forty-nine dollars 
 and niaety-nine cents. It wants a fingle dime, or cent, 
 oT the value to entitle you to the privileges of a citizen. 
 It is againft our interefl to admit your vote. It would 
 deftroy the feat of one of our members. It would banifh 
 one of our favourite inftruments of corruption. We arc 
 the judges. Our determination is conclufive. We arc 
 fuperior to the idle tales of witnelTes. It matters nothing 
 to us what money you have paid. We will not accept 
 your oath, though the law has direfted the infpector to 
 take it. We determine your property to be worth as littlc- 
 as we pleafe. We repeat U — our decifion is conclufive. 
 
'^7 
 
 , You have no appc^il, no redrefs. The Supreme Gtmrt 
 
 . cannot direct a jury, nor fummons witnefles, to eftimate 
 this nice and delicate queftioii. We alone pofTcfo tlu^. 
 - ftandard of abftract trutli and mathematical exactitude ?" 
 
 Minute philosophers, ■who nicely see 
 
 Til' entrails of a gnat, dijsect a flea ; 
 
 Survey the world with mioroscbpic ey^, 
 
 And to an elephant convert a fly j 
 
 McTisure an atom by precisio n*s l^aws, 
 
 Balance the diff" rence of a pair of straws; 
 
 Pursue the fibres of a gra/u of sand. 
 Tell how much gold will buy each inch of land ; 
 Divide and subdivide each single hair, 
 ,With fairy magic gage a point in air. 
 Kewton! look down from the empyrean skies, 
 Confess to i^hilip thou wert not so wise. 
 Great Proclus ! Euclid! from your thrones Ijchold 
 What wonders rise — what sylph like pow'rs unfold! 
 Oh, sages! skill'd in every occult lore. 
 Imbued with science never taught before. 
 Hail! sapient owls! who know no mental night. 
 And loftier Charon*, heir of second sight! 
 Sages renown'd ! procsed with care to scan, 
 By geometric rules, the Rights ol Man ! 
 Explore each distant star through fancy's tube; 
 Fraction from fraction draw, and cube from cube; 
 Balance my freedom with aerial scales. 
 Pronounce, from mystic spells, what candidate prevails! 
 
 I afk thefe very intelligent and fagacious gentlemen — I 
 enquire of them jointly and individually, from what char- 
 ter — from what law — from what extraordinary procefs of 
 logical deduction, did you derive the fingular privilege and 
 miraculous faculty of analyfmg, to a fraction, the prccife 
 value of eflates ? Surely not from the charter of the citv. 
 That inftrument did not require any fpecific value ; it could 
 
 • The waters of the Wallabout might, in poetic language, be considiT- 
 cd as the Styxj and th« Prisoii-ship the bark ia which Charon fe ricd ll.o 
 siiadss of his rebel victims. 
 
^8 
 
 jaot grant you a power which it did not contemplate — furcly 
 not from the ftatute for regulating charter eleQions^-that a£i 
 cftablifhed a very different provifion — it intrufted the cafe 
 to the infpe£i:ors and required them to receive the oath o£ 
 the electors as the criterion to determine it. In whatever- 
 view we confider the fubjedl 5 the more it is fubmitted to 
 reflection, the ftronger is our conviction that the majority 
 of the Common Council have violently exercifed a power 
 to which they are not entitled — An authority which they 
 have neither the candour to difavow,the arguments to vin- 
 dicate, nor the ingenuity to defend. 
 
 LYSANBER- 
 
No. IV. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE SCRUTINY IN THE 
 FIFTH WARD. 
 
 ■ ^ — I Force 
 
 Usurps the throjie of justice." 
 
 AiCEWSlDI, 
 
 Inflexibly determined upon the accom- 
 plifhnnent of their prcdcflined purpofe, the majority of 
 the Common Council were obfliinate and inexorable ; deaf 
 to argument and callous to the impulfe of reflexion, they 
 rufhed precipitately into aftion without confidering the in- 
 juflice or the impolicy of their conduft. I would willingly 
 attribute their proceedings to the errors of the underftand- 
 ing, if they had not furnifhed too many fatal evidences of 
 depravity in the paflions. 
 
 In becoming their hiflorlan I hare undertaken an irk- 
 fome task. We perufe the annals of the Csefar's with in- 
 ftrudlion, but alas ! our advantages are attended with 
 dilTatisfa^tion and alloyed by continual difgufl. We na- 
 turally fhrink from beholding the frailties and vices of men, 
 and pant for an opportunity of contemplating the brigh-p 
 tcr afpedl of moral nature. Yet it is neceffary that truth 
 fhould extend her mirror and cxpofe the deformities of 
 individuals who have ventured to facrifice the rights and 
 liberties of thdr country. 
 
The prefent and fucceeding number fliall be dedicated 
 to a detail of the fcrutiny. Pains have been taken to col- 
 every material circumftance. A tranfa£lion fo im- 
 portant to the interefts of the pubUc fhould be univerfally 
 and corre£liy underflood. Confining myfelf in this num- 
 ber to the proceedings with refpe6t to the fifth ward, it 
 fhali be rendered as concife as may be warranted by perfpi- 
 cuity. 
 
 About a month before the eIe£lion, and fufficient to em- 
 brace the period required by law, Jofhua Barker, efq. and 
 thirty eight other citizens purchafed of Mr. Abraham Blood- 
 good, a lot of ground and tenement in Frankfort-ftreet, 
 for the price of two thoufand dollars : the purchafe was 
 fair and abfolutc and the confideration money was actually 
 paid. There was not the fliadow of an agreement, either 
 exprefied or implied, to re-convey the property. On the 
 contrary, it became to every intent the eftate of the pur- 
 chafers. Taking the price which was afbually paid as the 
 bafis of valuation ; every proprietor was rendered a freehold- 
 er to the amount of fifty one dollars and upwards. 
 
 James Roofevelt and John P. Ritter, efqrs. were the 
 candidates on the federal (or, as I fhall hereafter denomi- 
 nate it, the tory) fide. Philip I. Arcularius and James 
 Drake were fupported by the republicans — at the clofe of 
 the Poll, it appeared that Mr. Arcularius had a majority of 
 6 as Alderman and Mr. Drake, a majority of 8 as afliftant 
 , for the fifth ward. A return to this elFed was accordingly 
 made by the Infpeclor. 
 
 On the 1 8th of November, (the day fucceeding the c- 
 ieclion) letters demanding a fcrutiny were received from 
 MefTrs. J. Roofevelt and Ritter. This demand was readily 
 complied with by the Common Council, and Thurfday,. 
 
the 26th of November, appointed as the period for com-* 
 mencing tlic extraordinary drama. 
 
 The period between that day and the 4th of December 
 was principally occupied in the examination of the elect* 
 ors whofe fuffrages were challenged, and of witneflcs with 
 refpect to their qualifications^ 
 
 In dating the material cafes which became prefented for 
 decifion, I fliall commence with the votes in favour of Mr. 
 Arcularius, which were challenged by Mr. J. Roofevelt » 
 and afterwards ftate the fitiiation of the voters in favour 
 of the latter, who were objected to on the part of the 
 former. 
 
 The proceedings were commenced by a general challenge 
 againft the votes of the proprietors of the lot and tenement 
 in Frankfort-ftreet. 
 
 In fupportof fuch general challenge, five diftinct grounds 
 of exception appeared to be taken. 
 
 I ft. That the title deed was not executed on the day- 
 it purported to bear date. 
 
 2d. That the confideration money had not actually been- 
 paid. 
 
 3d. That the conveyance was not abfelute and bona 
 fide, but that fome fecret truft exifted to rcconvcy 
 to the grantor. 
 
 4th. That the property was not worth two thoufand 
 dollaps (the confideration money paid), and wab>. 
 therefore, infufiicient to entitle the feveral grantees 
 to a vote. 
 
 And, laftly, That the fame being a purchafe made for 
 the purpofc of voting at an election, was contrary to 
 law. 
 
With refpe£l to the firft, fecond, and third exceptTohf^ 
 there could not remain the veftige of a doubt. Evidence 
 was produced to demonftrate the reaUty of the purchafe^ 
 and the bma fide payment of the confideratiori. 
 
 it v/as frank iy admitted, that the purchafe was made to 
 entitle the proprietors to the elective franchife. It was 
 contended, that fuch purchafe was in purfuit of a legal 
 and laudable purpofe ; that no ftatute had been pafled to 
 prohibit it; and that it inverted the proprietors with 
 rights of which no power inferior to that of the legiflaturfr 
 could deprive them. 
 
 It only remained to eftablifh the value of tlie property. 
 
 On the one hand, Mr. Daniel Hitchcock depofed, that 
 he was acquainted with the property. That he was, of 
 had been, an afleflbr under the government of the United 
 States. That, in his aflefTment book, it ftands rated at a 
 thoufand dollars. That he thought he might be a toler- 
 able judge of its value. That, at the extent, he believect 
 it not worth more than fix hundred pounds. 
 
 Upon his crofs-examination, he admitted, that he had. 
 BOt made any accurate view fmce the ele6tion. That he 
 had never been in the upper part, or ftories, of the build- 
 ing. And, that it is cuftomary in afleffments to under- 
 value property. 
 
 Mr. Shimeal teftified, that he knew the lot and tene- 
 ment. That he was not acquahited with its value. That 
 lots will fell higher at one time than another. That he 
 ^Ivould accept of 2200 dollars for a full lot. That one 
 lot, in the neighbourhood, lately fold for 2000 dollars. 
 That it was impolBble for him to eflimate the value of any 
 ]©t. When aiked what price he would give for the lot in? 
 
S3 
 
 queftion, he very flirewdly replied he could not fay but if 
 he wanted it then he could tell what he would give for it*. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Peter Bonnet, Mr. Forbes, Mr. 
 A. Bloodgood, and Mr. I. Bedient were introduced as wit- 
 nefles to eftablifh the value of the lot and tenement. 
 
 Mr. Bonnet declared that he lived in the neighbourhood 
 — that he is a competent judge of the value of property as 
 far as fuch value is a fubjedl of eftimation — that he was 
 well acquainted with the property in qucftion, and that 
 were it his, he would not take two thoufand dollars for it. 
 
 Mr. Forbes mentioned his having a lot in the neighbour- 
 hood, which he eftimated at 1900 dollars, and that he would 
 not take a lefs fum for it — that the property of the voters 
 was really worth 2000 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Bloodgood teftified his firm belief that the property 
 was really worth the confideration paid for it. 
 
 Mr. Bedient ftated his being acquainted with the lot and 
 tenement in queftion : it faces a ftreet ; that fome time in 
 March laft, he talked aliout purchafing it. Mr. Bloodgood 
 then afked between eight hundred and nine hundred 
 pounds for it. He did not think it over rated at that time, 
 and retains the fame opinion ftilL 
 
 * The testimony of this Jionest German is a complete l urlesr;ue upon 
 the procei-dings of the Common Council. Wonderful that ihey should 
 jnot know tliat lots of ground will sell higher atone lime tlian'ano'.her, 
 until they received the information from the mouth of a witness. Thij 
 uncultivated man discovered more saiatily than any of them. It \ra» 
 impossible for him to ascertain the value rf any lot — he wa» conscious, 
 how much the ideas ef value rest in mere conjecture — he knew how mucb 
 
 they depended upon situation and cin uni^tances that suph oslima- 
 
 iion ttust greatly he governed by the purposes for which it is wanted, and 
 th« uses to which ii ii to be applied— that j-ropeity is more valuable, becausa 
 more serviccdblc to one man than auoih^r — that there is no grneral stand- 
 ard by which il can be measured with u> alhtmatical exaciilutc — he rouhl 
 not tell what he could jjivefor articles he did not want — a jjraiu of corn 
 is more valuable to acock, than an ingot of gold — When Mr. Sl.iujcal 
 ■wanted properly, then he could tell what he would give for il — and s-» 
 «ouId tUe wiisatres yf our Common Cc^ucil. 
 
 £ 
 
34 
 
 Such were the ohje^ilons, and fueh the teftlmony, with 
 refpect to the property purchafed in the fifth ward. I 
 fliall defer my obfervations upon the fubjedt, until I havQ 
 ftated the particulars of the other cafes. 
 
 The remaining voters in favor of Mr. Arcalarius, with 
 refpe^l to whom particular exceptions were taken, were 
 Edward Sands, James K. Delaplaine, Stephen Latham, 
 Henry B. Earl, Thomas Wilfon, Benjamin A. Egbert, and 
 'Gurdon S. Mumford. 
 
 Edward Sands had agreed to purchafe a lot of grouncj. 
 He produced a written contra£t, with an unexecuted deed 
 annexed. He had paid no part of the actual confidera-^ 
 tion, but he had paid upwards of 20 as intereft upon 
 it. He was in pofTeffion of the property when he voted, 
 had made improvements, and ftated it to have aiifenmorc 
 than ^. 20 in value fmce the purchafe. Under thefc cir- 
 cumflances he polTefled an equitable eftate. 
 
 Mr. Delaplaine had been poflTelTed of a confidcrable free- 
 hold 5 but, fome time ago, intending to leave the ftate^ 
 he executed a conveyance to Gilbert Everingham, and alfo 
 fuffered a judgment to be entered againft him, in favor of 
 Everingham, for three thoufand dollars. An affirmation 
 of Mr. Everingham was produced, ftating, that the only 
 purpofe of fuch conveyance and judgment was to fecure 
 about 500 dollars due to him from Delaplaine. That fuch 
 was the agreement when the conveyance was executed, 
 and, that, upon the payment of this fum, he is bound to 
 deliver to Mr. Delaplaine all vouchers refpefting the pro« 
 pcrty. The judgment was for the fame confideration, and 
 the value of the property, beyond the incumbrance, fufii- 
 cient to entitle the holder to a vote *. 
 
 * Upon a di-risigm wiV> refpa^t I0 th« T(»t« ©f Mr. D«laplaine, % majoiity . 
 
35 
 
 Mr. Latham's mother pofTclfcs an eftatc for life. He 
 has a vcfled remainder in fee. 
 
 The mother of Mr. Earl, during her coverture, convey- 
 ed a freehold to him — the father did not join in the con- 
 veyance. It was executed and acknowledged by the mo- 
 ther, but not in the manner prefcribcd by law for the con*- 
 vcyances of married women. Morris Earl, the father, 
 fome time afterwards agreed to the ODnveyance, and him- 
 felf executed another. Thofe conveyances were made fiK 
 or feven years fmce. Mr. Earl, the voter, has had the pof- 
 feflion under them — has made leafes of the property, and 
 is in the pernancy of the profits. Morris Earl has been dead 
 two or three years, and his widow has never interfered 
 with the pofleffion of her fon. • 
 
 m-erc against it, as follows : — In.favour cf the vote, iht Recorder, AHer- 
 men Barker, Miutliornc, Post, Messrs. Gilbert and V^rveeieu ; — Agairist 
 it, Aldermen Strong, Coles, Lenox, Boseit, Messicur* Biaiher, Tea Eytk, 
 Nitchie aad Carmer. 
 
 * I shall forbear advancing a legal opinion upon the Totc of Mr. Earl, 
 jior do I hesitate to admit the principle that the conveyauces of leme co- 
 verts, unless executed in the manner prescribed by law, are void. Yet 
 there may be circumstances alter coverture which amount to a re-del irery 
 cf the deed and thereby confirm and establish it. 
 
 Mr, Earl's remaining in possession and receiving the rents, coupled witli 
 his mother's acquiescence upward* of tvo years after ihc death ol herhus- 
 band, are features in his case which render it peculiarlv strong. 
 
 Althougli lam not prepared to advanse the position tliat those circum- 
 stances would amount in law to a constructive re-dclivery of the deed ^ 
 still I think that ii presents an important qucstiou which ought not to have 
 been hastily decided at the spur of tlie ri"i{)ment, witiiout consideration: 
 particularly when the law characters of the board requested an opportunity 
 to consult authorities upon the subjett. 
 
 Tlie case of Gotdright ex.dem. Carter ^ vs. Strcjihan and others, iu Co^uper^ 
 JO 1 . presents a leading decision upon this point. 
 
 Mr. and Mrs. Carterduring their cohabitation mortgaged rcrtain proper- 
 ty to whicli the latter became entitled. The instrument was not executed 
 according to the formalities prescribed bylaw to be oiwervcd in tliC con- 
 veyances ot feme coverts. But Mrs. Carter after tiie death af her husband 
 subscribed two papers, one Surrendering the posses»ion of the house to the 
 executors of the mortgagee, and the other directing the tenant to attorn to 
 those executors. 
 
 It is plain, that neither of those lubstquent acts could imount to a con- 
 vey ance; unL&ss predicated upon the original, though, informal jrant. 
 Lord Manslield, in delivtriug the opiuiou of tiie court •ilablished iwor 
 
3§ 
 
 Thomas Wilfon being pofTefTed of real property, by a 
 conveyance made in 1 795, granted the fame to Lincola 
 and Bifhop, their heirs and alTigns — to the ufe of his wife 
 during her life, and of his children afterwards. So that 
 neither the voter or any future hufband (hould intermeddle 
 with the property, or controul the v/ife's eftate. The de- 
 cinon againfl the vote of Mr. Wilfon, was unanimous. 
 
 Mr. Egbert's partner (Mr. Ward) obtained a lot of ground, 
 and contracted to fell a moiety to him. Mr. Egbert paid 
 500 dollars towards improving the lot, but no part of the 
 actual confi deration. Mr. Ward confiders him as the own- 
 er of a moiety, and that he has a right to retain the price of 
 it upon the fettlement of their partnerfhip accounts. Mr. 
 Egbert's was therefore a tni/} eftate^ the decifion againft 
 his vote was alfo unanimous, 
 
 Mr. Mumford was one of the grantees of the property 
 in Frankfort -ft reet, independent of the general obje6tions 
 with regard to that tranfaClion. It was alfo objeCled a- 
 gainil his vote, that a judgment of non profs upon a writ 
 of error, for 230 dollars and 99 cents, in favor of Hallett 
 and Bowne, ftands entered againft him and David Mum- 
 ford jointly, of the term of July, 1800. 
 
 To combat this objection an affidavit of Mr. Mumford, 
 was produced ftatiiig : 
 
 I ft. That the above freehold is of the value of 50 dollars 
 and upv/ards. 
 
 2. That he is feized of other freehold eftate in the city, 
 (but not in the ward) to the amount of 2000 dollars and 
 
 principles. — 1st. That such conveyance might be rendered valid by are-, 
 delivery ; and, 'Jd, That circumstances may amount to a redelivery \\\ 
 law. The circumstances in that case were decided to be sufficient lor the 
 purpose, and judgment was accordingly given lor the re])rvr£entatlves of 
 tile mortgagee. LYSAInDER, 
 
37 
 
 upwards, free of incumbrances, URicfs the above judgment 
 is to be confidered as fuch. 
 
 3. That Hallettand Bowne obtained a judgment agalnftr 
 him and David Mumford, for 168 dollars and 83 cents, oji 
 the 1 2th of April, 1798 ; and that a writ of error vva« 
 brought thereon. 
 
 4. That on the 17th of May 1 798, after the entry of the 
 judgment and the commencement of the writ of error, D, 
 M. and himfelf obtained a regular difcharge under the acb 
 for giving relief in cafes of infolvency, and that the amount 
 of the judgment was included in the inventory of debts ex- 
 hibited by them. 
 
 Laftly, that fuch judgment was rendered agninft thern 
 after their difcharge, for a pre-exiRing demand, from 
 which they were legally exonerated. Mr. Mumford's vote; 
 was alfo upon this ground rejected *. 
 
 We now proceed to the votes in favor of Mr. J. Roofe- 
 velt, wliich were obje6i:ed to on the part of Mr. Arcularius. 
 Thefe were the cafes of George Furman, Jonas Minturn, 
 Ebenezer Leggett, Jofeph Leggett, John, George, and 
 Leonard Minufe, Robert M«Devmot, T. S. Arden, C. Wal- 
 ton, E. Lyde, jun. and Uzal Tuttle. The four lirft were 
 cafes of trull *, the others, except Tuttle's cafe^ were upon 
 eftates of remainder. 
 
 Tlie property upon which Mr. Furman voted, was con- 
 veyed to his mother, to hold the fame to her ufe in trufl> 
 &c. for him. Mr. Furman's vote was admitted. 
 
 By the conveyance under which Mr. Minturn voted, 
 he was alfo a ce^uy que trud. His vote was admitted, f 
 
 * The division was as rolloT\s : — In favour o/ the vote, the. Recorder,. 
 AlileriMcn Barker and Minlliorne, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Verveelcn : — 
 Against it, Aldcnnrn Slron^, Coles, Lenox, and Po»t, Messrs. Brasher, 
 liitchie, anil 'i en Lyck. 
 
 •f- Division upon tht- votes of Mr. Furman aud Mr. Minium :— -In tJitif 
 
Ebenczer Lcggett had purchafed property of the cxectl* 
 tors of Hildrcth, for iioo pounds. He had paid 500 dol- 
 lars in part of the confideration to Mr. Walton, one of the 
 executors. He faw a deed, but did not know whether it 
 had been executed or not, it was to be executed by the 
 other executor. No pofitive agreement was made with 
 rcfpe£l to the terms of payment, and nothing had been 
 faid about a mortgage. Under thefe circumftances, Mr. 
 Lfggett polTeiTed an equitable intereft, but the legal eftate 
 V as not vefted in him i neverthelefs his vote was admitted* 
 
 Jofeph Leggett was in pofleiTion of a houfe and lot of 
 ground which he has occupied 6 or 7 years. It was pur- 
 chafed by Thomas Leggett, with the money of Jofeph, 
 but the title deeds were taken in the name of Thomas Leg* 
 gctt as grantee. Whatever remedy, in a court of chancery, 
 Jofeph might poflefs to enforce a conveyance from Thomas 
 to him, the legal eftate was undeniably in the latter. Yet 
 the vote of Jofeph Leggett was admitted. 
 
 It is untieceflary to (late the particulars of the titles of 
 the three Minufes, Meflieurs M*Dcrmot, Arden, Wal* 
 ton and Lyde. It is conceded on all hands that they were 
 feverally feized of vefted freehold remainders; their cafes 
 were parallel to that of Mr. Latham. Thofe votes wei* 
 properly rejedlcd by a confiderable majority. 
 
 Uzal Tuttle was in town, but did not appear to eftablifli 
 his vote. Ifaac L. Kip, efquire, appeared as a witnefs up- 
 on the occafion, and declared that he had been employed 
 by the voter to obtain a partition of his property. Mr. 
 
 favor, Aldermen Celes, Lenox, Bogcrt, and Post, Messrs. Brasher, Carmer, 
 l^itchie, andTtnEyck: — Against them, tlie Recorder, Aldermen Bark- 
 er, Minthorne, and Strong, Messrs. GTilbert, and Verveelen. 
 
 * In favour of adiwitting the votes of the Leggctts, Aldermen ColCj 
 Strong, Lenox, Post, and Bogert, Messrs. Brasiier, Ten Eyck, Carmer, 
 and Nitchie: — Against their admission, the Recorder; Aldcijneo Jiaiker, 
 *nd Minthorne, Messrs. Gilbert, and YerveekR. 
 
B9 
 
 I?jip faw cither an original will or a probate of one in favcr 
 of the voter and others ; and alfo a deed to the tcftator. 
 He ftatcd further, that an ordv^r for a partition was obtain- 
 ed in the Mayor's Court. Tattle's vote vi^as admitted by 
 a majority of two. 
 
 Sucli is a fuccin«£l: and accurate detail of the cafes of 
 contelted votes in that ward. Uponclofmg the teftimony, 
 the arguments of Mr. J. Roofevelt's counfel, were prin-^ 
 cipally dirc£lcd to eftablifli the admlfTibility of fufiiragey 
 upon the bafis of remainders and truft eftatec. 
 
 As the decifion with refpc^l to cftates in remainder was 
 correal. Obfervations upon that point, are altogether un- 
 necellary. It is proper that fome refle£lions fhould b^ 
 made upon the fubjedl of trufts. 
 
 An eftate in truft is entirely the creature of a court of 
 equity, and diverted of every property of a legal freehold.* 
 It is a right to receive the profits, and to difpofe of the 
 land in equity — properly fpeaking, it is an equitable title 
 to lands. But the legal eftate f is vefted in the truftec, 
 and even if he conveys it to another without notice of the 
 truft, the ccftuy que truft, or party poiTefling the equit- 
 able intereft, would be bound by his z^. If the truftec 
 commits felony, the lands are forfeited by the Englifti law, 
 and the ceftuy que truft muft refort to his remedy in 
 chancery §. If a truftee deviles all his eftates, fuch gen- 
 eral devife palTes an eftate, of which he was but truftee, 
 and the ccftuy que truft muft again apply to equity for re- 
 drefs againft the devifee J. No conveyance by the ccf- 
 tuique truft can work a forfeiture of the legal eftate of truf- 
 tee y. The widow of the ccftuy que truft is not entitkd 
 to dower. *'*^ The legal eftate — every legal right, privilege 
 
 ♦Sandert 177. {S»nd«r» m. ^Idem 192. IIU^- y Wen SOI. ♦♦'i ilk iC: 
 
4-0 
 
 and remedy Is in tlie truftee, and not in the ceftuy que 
 truft. The mtereft of the latter is no where recognifcd or 
 ■perceived, except within the walls of a court of equity. 
 
 But fo precipitate were the federal gentlemen, in ruihing 
 upon an inftant decifion, that even if they had the legal abi- 
 lity to inveftigate the queftion, they did not allow them- 
 felves an hour for the purpofe. Incompetent as they un- 
 doubtedly were to an accurate examination of the fubje£i:, 
 •had they only read and bellowed the refleflion of a moment 
 upon the a£l for regulating our charter elections, convic- 
 tion mull have flafhed upon their minds, however uninform- 
 ed. Without travelling farther, it is apparent from that 
 llatute, that the ele6live franchife is rcpofed in the truftee, 
 and not in the ceftuy que truft. A claufe in that very a£l 
 exprefsly recognizes the right, and limits its operation : 
 For, it is thereby declared, that the truftee for an infant, or 
 a body corporated, {hall not be qualified to vote. Moft 
 evidently intimating, that every other truftee is intitled to a 
 fufFrage. 
 
 If a truftee (and it may be neceffary to inform the ma- 
 jority of our Common Council, that the truftee is the 
 perfon pofleilmg the legal eftate). If the truftee did not 
 by law poflefs the right to vote, do thofe very learned and 
 fagacious gentlemen believe that the kgiflature of this ftatc 
 would have been fo abfurdly ignorant as to pafs a folemn 
 and deliberate ftatute for reftri£ting the exercife of a right 
 which does not exift at all ? As the cafe now ftands, the 
 queftion lies between the Corporation and the Legiflature. 
 Certain it is, that they are at variance upon the fubjedt. 
 One or other of thefe bodies has readered itfclf ridiculous^ 
 
 In the confufion of the fubjecl, the Common Council is 
 alfo moft directly in a ftate of war with itfelfr Whetlier 
 
41 
 
 it proceeded from accident or dcfign, from the wanderingi 
 of honcft ignorance, or the back-fliding of fmilter intention, 
 it is apparent that tliey made inconfiftent decifions upon 
 the fame fubjedl. The cafes of Sands and Egbert, and 
 perhaps of Delaplaine, prefented trufts as marked anddif- 
 tinguifhable as tliofe of Furman, Mint urn and the Lcggettg. 
 It is true that the latter had paid either the whole or a part 
 of the confideration money. Sands had paid his money 
 in tlie form of intcreft, and Egbert had advanced his in the 
 ihapc of improvements upon the property. In eitlier cafe, 
 the contraQ: had been partly executed, and a court of c- 
 quity would equally compel a fpecific performance. The 
 true queftions were, whether the parties poflcfied an equit- 
 able intercft, and whether an equitable intereft entitled 
 its proprietor to a fufFrage. Sands and Egbert were in 
 poflefiion as well as the others. If chancery would decree 
 a fpecific execution of the contradl in their favor, their 
 Iruft eftates were equal in degree to thofe of Furman, Min- 
 ium, and the Leggetts. Mofl wonderful, that gentlemen 
 fo extremely blind to principle, by an inftant miracle of in- 
 telligence, (hould fuddenly acquire the aftonifliing acute- 
 nefs to fallen upon a dift.in6lion without a difference. 
 
 An Involuntary fmile may be excited by the weaknefs. 
 Off the follies of individuals. We cannot fupprefs our indig- 
 nation upon beholding manifeft depravity and injufticc. 
 On the 4th of December, at an advanced period of the eve- 
 ning, the Common Council, from the open court room, in 
 the City-Hall, retired from the obfervatlon of fpe(^ators to 
 the private recefles of their cliamber. No fooner had they 
 arrived within thofe walls, than a motion was made for an 
 inftant decifion. In vain was it urged by the mayor, that 
 the queftions were difficult, profefTional, and entitled to de- 
 liberation. Authorities had been produced by counfd, 
 
 ■ F 
 
42 
 
 whicli he had not an opportunity to examine. He rcqueft- 
 cd time to infped thofe authorities, and offered to meet 
 the board at as early a period as they fhould appoint. Hrs 
 efforts to produce a flate of difpaffionatc deUberation, were 
 entirely fruitlefs. Warrried with the object in view, and 
 eager to execute their predetermined purpofe, the federal 
 members were obftinate and inexorable. Admitting their 
 want of information upon the queftions they were about to 
 decide — conftrained to acknowledge their incompetency. 
 On that very evening, within an hour after the arguments 
 of counfel, without debate, without confideration, fup- 
 prefTmg difcuffion and filencing the voice of reafon, did they 
 with all the indecency of precipitation, deprive near forty- 
 freeholders of their legal rights of fuffrage, and banifh 
 from their feats, an alderman and affiftant, who were re- 
 turned as eletted with all the folemnitics and requifitcs 
 prefcribed by hw ! ! ! 
 
 Upon the memorable queflion with refpe£l to the le^- 
 3ity of the votes upon the property purchafed of Mr. 
 Bloodgood, the following was the divifion : — In favour of 
 their admifhon, the Recorder, Aldermen Barker, and 
 Minthorne, and MefTrs. Gilbert and Verveelen : Againft 
 them, Aldermen Coles, Strong, Lenox and Foil, and 
 Meifrs. Brafher, Ten Eyck and Nitehie. 
 
 To clofe the honorable fcene with proper dignity and- 
 grace, Mr. Brafher now produced his celebrated revoluti- 
 on — a meaiure calculated to enrol him among the mofl 
 confpicuous fons of fame. Let me give a fac JmiU of tJic 
 extraordinary inllrument — 
 
 Whereas fundry perfons, thlrty-nlhe in number, thir-^ 
 •ty-fix of ivhome voted at the late election of Charter Offi- 
 cers in the fifth ward, to wit, Josuah^ Barker^, 
 ^ ^ * Qatera defunU * ^ ) 
 
by combination among tliemfclves, for the avowed purpofe 
 of obtaining votes at the faid ele(£lion, on the i6th day of 
 November laft, purchafed a lot of ground, and the build- 
 ings thereon, fituate in the faid ward, from one Abraham 
 Bloodgood, at the price of 2000 dollars^ and took his con- 
 Tcyauce for the fame to themfelves, their heirs, & afTigns, 
 as tenants in common. And whereas it has been quefliion- 
 cd whether the faid tenements were in truth of fufFicient 
 value to entitle the faid feveral perfons to vote at the faid 
 cIe£lion : And alfo, whether a freehold purchafed 
 aforefa;d by fuch combination, for the fole and avowed 
 purpofe of voting at the then election of charter officers, 
 could afford a qualiiication to the purchafers for voting as 
 aforefaid. And whereas the evidence produced by the 
 f)arties, and the arguments of their council, have been 
 heard and duly attended to — 
 
 Therefore, Refolved, as the fenfe of this board, 
 
 " ift. That the faid combination is contrary to the true 
 intent and fpirit of the charter of this city and of the a£t 
 of the legiflaturc regulating the eledlion of charter offi- 
 cers, and is to be confidcred as a fraud * upon the election 
 of evil and dangerous example — calculated to defeat the 
 regular and deliberate exercifc of the important privilage 
 of voting for charter officers by covert and fmifter artifices 
 and contrivances of a fmall number of individuals. 
 
 * I Mould ask tliose conscientious gentlemen, who are so extremely 
 liberal in their charges of Fraudj whether the total annihilation of the 
 V hole body of freemen if not a greater fraud than the purchaie of a free- 
 hold to become entitled to a vote? Is not the denial of the privilege of 
 vpting, to tJie grc5^ majority of citizens, a public ofi'cnce of much more 
 evil and dangerous example ? I* it not infinitely more calculated to de- 
 feat the freedom of charier elections? It is a direct and wanton outrage 
 Wpoo the feelijJgs and rights of the people. 
 
 J-ySANDER. 
 
44 
 
 2dly. That the faid lot of ground and the building 
 thereon are not, in the judgment of this board, of fufficient 
 value to entitle thirty-nine perfons each to a vote in the 
 election of charter officers, and, 
 
 Sdly, for the reafons aforefaid, this board doth re- 
 je£t and difallow the votes of the faid thirty-fix perfons fo 
 given as aforefaid." 
 
 This precious morfel of logical fagaclty was carried by 
 the accuftomed majority. 
 
 It was thereupon refolved, that James Roofevelt,efquire, 
 by a majority of legal votes, was elected alderman, and 
 John P. Ritter, efquire, affiftant of the fifth ward. That 
 the clerk of the city, (hould be directed without delay, to 
 inform them of the decifion of the Common Council in 
 their favor, and give them notice to attend the board, to 
 take the oaths of office, prefcribed by law. 
 
 Thus ended the folemn mockery of this unexampled 
 icrutiny. An event which muft produce impreffions up- 
 on the mind, never to be effaced. An exercife of power 
 fo arbitrary and unparalleled, as the entire deftru^lion of a 
 popular election, muft in future place the liberties of the 
 people within the complete controul of the members of the 
 Common Council, unlefs meafures are adopted to prevent 
 the repetition of fuch an outrage. It remains to be afcer- 
 tained, whether the inhabitants of this city will purfue the 
 legal means of eftablifhing their rights upon a firm, faluta- 
 ry and conftitutional foundation, or fink fupinely into the 
 lethargic flumbers of defpotifm. 
 
 LYSANDER. 
 
No. V. 
 
 HISTORY OF ^fHE SCRUTINY IN THE FOURTH 
 WARD— PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON 
 COUNCIL.— QUALIFICATION OF THE 
 RETURNED MEMBERS- 
 
 " PsTfy rage?cl ; 
 " And partial power, and licence unrestraiu'd." 
 
 Thomson. 
 
 ** To what an height wi'l human madness rise ! 
 
 Where will its impious daring Sx its bounds ? 
 « If eacii succeeding age gains strength, and swelli 
 <* With ranker villainy." 
 
 Potter's Euripides. 
 
 /\^FTER adopting the principles in Mr. Brafli- 
 cr's refdlution, it was evident that the appearance of an 
 inveftigation into the election of the Fourth Ward was 
 idle and infulting. It was clear, that every material quef- 
 tion had already been decided — and it feemed manifeft, 
 ^ that the majority of the board were prepared to venture 
 upon every extremity for the accomplifhment of their 
 purpofe. 
 
 Previous to their recent declfion, fome flattering hopes 
 of juftice had been entertained. The majority had care- 
 fully abftained from committing themfelves witli regard 
 to the votes upon the property which had been purchafed 
 from Mr. Bloodgood. So long as it was poflible, they 
 aniioufly evaded tlie fubjeCt, and exprcfled their wilhes, if 
 
46 
 
 not their expectations, that a dctermmatlon fiiould be 
 made without involving that point. In the view of thofe 
 gentlemen, it was a matter of .extreme delicacy. It was 
 a painful and embarraffing fubje6l ! Could they have 
 fuccecded in eftablifhing more challenges, we {hquld ne- 
 ver have heard of their prefent decifion. 
 
 The fevcnth of December was the day appointed by 
 law for admlniflcring the official oaths -to the different 
 charter officers. Three o'clock in the afternoon was the 
 hour appointed for that purpofe. A meeting of the Com- 
 mon Council was directed in the morning, with a view of 
 determining the fcrutiny before the period afligned for 
 the reception of the new members. 
 
 Cornelius C. RoofeTelt, and P. H. Wendover, efquires, 
 were the republican candidates. J. Bogert and Nicholas 
 Carmer, were their competitors. The former were return* 
 cd to be duly ele(3:ed by a majority of 33 votes. 
 
 The onpofite candidates appeared in the morning, and 
 j)roduced their refpe£live lifts of challenges. Thofe lifts 
 Jiaving juft been interchanged, it was not to be cxpedled 
 that Mr. Roofevelt fhould have been ready to proceed un- 
 til he was furniftied with the exceptions of his antagonift. 
 He rcquefted an indulgence of only two hours for the nc- 
 ceffary preparation, and exprelfed his willingnefs to comi 
 mcnce the proceedings at the expiration of -that time. 
 
 In this ftagc of the bufinefs, Alderman Coles, after ex- 
 pending the time which was neceffary in the compofition 
 and correction of it, introduced the foHowing remarkable 
 refolution : 
 
 Whereas, at the eleCtion for charter officers in the 
 f ourth Ward, held on the ^third Tuefday of Novemb^i^ 
 
47 
 
 laft, \t appears by a return made by the Infpedor of Uid 
 ' ckdion, that Cornelius C. Roofevelt had a majority of 
 votes for alderman, and P. H. Wendovcr had a majority 
 of votes for affiftant aldferman. 
 
 And whereas, fince the faid cledion, to wit, on Mon- 
 day lafl the 30th ultimo, John Bogert, a candidate for tho 
 office of alderman, and Nicholas Carmer, a candidate for 
 the office of affiftant, at faid ek£tion, did prefent to thia 
 board their memorials, Jibing forth that the faid Cornelius 
 C. Roofevelt and P. H. Wendover were not duly and 
 legally elected, and demand a fcrutiny for the purpofc 
 of determining who of the faid candidates were legally 
 ele£led, and which memorial they did fubftantiate by their 
 oaths, as thereunto required. 
 
 « And whereas, this board did, as will appear by their 
 minutes, determine to grant the prayer of fuch memoria!^ 
 and the refpedtive candidates have been furnifhed with in- 
 formation of fuch determination of this board, and this 
 day at ten o'clock was affigned for the faid Cornelius C, 
 Roofevelt and Peter H. Wendover to appear and fubilan- 
 tiate the votes objected to by the faid John Bogert and 
 Nicholas Carmer. 
 
 « And whereas, the faid Cornelius C. Roofevelt and 
 P. H. Wendover did appear this morning, and ftate to 
 this board, that they were not then ready to fubftantiate 
 the faid votes objcded to. 
 
 << Therefore, Refolved, that the faid Cornejlus C. Roofe- 
 velt and Peter H. Wendover are not yet duly and legally 
 cleded alderman and affiftant, nor can they be permitted 
 to take the neccflary oaths as fuch, or take their feats at 
 this board, until the faid fcrutiny {hall be fully examined 
 and determined upon." 
 
A refolutlon that members regularly returned eledled 
 by a large majority, are not yet duly eledled, to fay the 
 kail, was an a6l of aftonifhing boldnefs. It was exercif- 
 ing a power parallel to that which is fometimes exercifed 
 by the Enghfh fovereign, that of difpenfing with the laws 
 by a non ohftante edict. It was ufurping an arbitrary con- 
 troul over the elections of the people. A propofition fo 
 monllrous was an overmatch for the genius of federalifm 
 itfelf. Upon a divifion, fix members rofe in its favour, and 
 fix againft it. It was accordingly loft by the cafting vote of 
 the recorder*. 
 
 MelTrs. Roofeveltand Wendover having withdrawn from 
 the council-chamber under the impreifion that the fcru- 
 tiny was not to proceed until the next day, a motion was 
 made, that they fhould be notified to proceed immediately. 
 Upon a divifion, the votes upon each fide were equal, and 
 the motion was negatived by the recorder. 
 
 The bufinefs of the morning ciofed with a refolution in- 
 troduced by Alderman Lenox, in the following words : 
 
 « Whereas a fcruitany has been demanded, & granted 
 for the fourth ward of this city, & the fame being pro- 
 ceeded on, and their not being fufficient time to finifli the 
 faid fcruitany before the time by law for qual'ijieng the mem- 
 bers duly eie^bed on the 1 7th day of November laft. 
 
 Therefore refolved as the fenfc of this board, that the al- 
 derman & ajfifatjty returned as cle£l:ed at the faid elec- 
 tion, ought not to be qualified into office until fuch fcruit^ 
 mtiy be determined." 
 
 This refolution was accordingly pafled. Aldermen 
 Lenox, Coles and Poll, and Melfrs. Ritter, Brafher, Ten 
 
 *' Alderrnen Lenox, Co^es, and Post, and Messrs, Brasher, Tea Eyck , 
 xnd Nitchie were in favour of the resolution. 
 
 Aldermen Barkei, Miuthorne «ud Stjong, and Mcffrs. RitUr, VcrYe«l«a. 
 and Gilbert vot«d against it. 
 
Eyck and Nltchic voting in its favour, and Aldermen Bar-* 
 ker, Minthorne, Strong, Meflieurs Gilbert, and Ver- 
 ycelcn in the negative. 
 
 After refolving to recommence the fcrutiny the ncx* 
 Uay at 5 o'clock, the Common Council adjourned to meet 
 in the afternoon, for the purpofe of being qualified for the 
 cnfuing year. 
 
 Retaining the fame integrity and firmnefs, which fo em- 
 inently diftinguifhed him, while a reprefentative in Con- 
 grefs ; in the meeting of the afternoon the mayor admin- 
 iftered the oaths of office to Aldermen C. Roofevelt and 
 Mr. Wendover, as well as to the other charter officers 
 cle£l. The poll lift was prefented to him.' It was a re- 
 cord which he was bound to obey. It was an important 
 crifis. He purfued his own impreffions of law and recli- 
 tude. He regarded only the confcientious dilates of duly. 
 
 On the 8th of December, the Common Council met in 
 purfuance of their adjournment, to refume the confidera- 
 tion of the fcrutiny. Mr. Riker, of counfel for Alderman 
 C. Roofevelt and Mr. Wendover, fubmitted the queftion, 
 whether, as they had been already fworn as members, and 
 thereby taken the legal poffeffion of their feats, the Common 
 Council were legally entitled to proceed. The mayor 
 mentioned tlie refolution of the board, and the fcrutiny 
 proceeded. 
 
 The firft cafe prefented, -ivas that of Smith Valentine. 
 A deed was produced to him, and 73 other perfons for a 
 houfe and lot of ground in Dey-ftreet. 
 
 Daniel D. Wickham and Return Strong the fubfcribing 
 wkneffes to that deed, were introduced ; both of them 
 fworc to the execution of it. The latter tcfti&ed its dclir-' 
 
 G 
 
5® 
 
 cry toW.Boyd, cfquirc, as the general agent of the grantees , 
 
 The board then proceeded to examine witneffes with 
 refpe£l to the value of the property. 
 
 Mr. George Stanton fwore that the day before, he was 
 requefted to examine it. That he accordingly went and 
 examined it throughout. It is the houfe and lot No 50, 
 Dey-ftreet — is confiderably out of repair, and in his opinion 
 worth about ^1500. 
 
 Dr. Gardner Jones teftified, that he owns a houfe and 
 lot in Dey-ftreet, which he valued at ^.2500 ; that he 
 knew the houfe and lot No. 50 ; that about 6 or 7 years 
 ago he offered ^.2200 for the houfe of Mrs. Crookes, next 
 door to it ; Mrs. C. then afked ^.2500 for her houfe and 
 lot ; flie continues to afk the fame price, but has lately faid 
 file would take ^.2400 in a£lual money. He has feen the 
 houfe No. 50, and been in the front room ; it looks rather 
 better than the houfe of Mrs. Crookes, and, as far as his^ 
 knowledge extends, " is as eligible as that." Dr. Jones 
 gave 1900 for his houfe about 6 years ago; it was 
 then in a very unfinifhed ftate. 
 
 Thomas Miller lately bought the houfe No. 5 2 in the 
 fame ftreet ; No. 50 is of the fame fize, and improvements 
 pretty much the fame. In May laft, he gave 5 300 dols. for 
 his houfe; he believes No. 50 is not as good; fuppofes 
 about 1000 dollars difference ; believes that No. 50 may 
 be worth about 4000 dollars, perhaps a little more; he 
 was never infide of it; the building is of the fame fizc 
 with his own ; he thinks it appears fomewhat older ; his 
 houfe was iifured at 2000 dollars ; it would rent for^ 2 00 ; 
 he fuppofe* N0.50 would rent for 150, if in good order; 
 he valued vacant lots at 1000. 
 
51 
 
 Mr. Striker owns the houfc and let No, 55 Dey-ftrect ; 
 knows the houfe No. 50, but has never been in if, his is 
 1 00 by 2:; feet in dimcnfion, and has alfo an L to it ; he 
 valued his at £.2$oo ; the houfe No. 50 is pretty much 
 like the houie of Mrs. Crookcs. 
 
 Mr. Stanton being called again, declared, that Mrs* 
 Crookes' houfe was much better than the houfe No. 50 
 that it has a back building, and is worth j^. 400 more ; and 
 that he was lately commifTioned to fell as good a houfe, as 
 good a lot and as good a ftand for ^.1700. 
 
 Mr, John Utt teftified, that he owns the houfc and lot 
 No. 3oDey-n:reet j that his lot is 77 by 25 feet in dimen- 
 fion ; that within a year paft, he has been offered, and re- 
 fufed, ^.2200 i that he has been in the lower part of the 
 houfc No. 50, and believes it to be fully worth the money 
 given for it, 
 
 John Swartwout, Efquire, and Mefirs. Matthew L. Da- 
 vis and James Warner, fevcrally appeared, and teftified 
 that they were feized of freeholds in the 4th ward to tlic 
 anjount of ;^.2o in their own rights, over and above all in- 
 cumbrances; and that they had polTefled the fame for the 
 fpacc of thirty days and upwards preceding the elediono 
 Several queftions were put to them, which they did not 
 confider themfelvcs bound to anfwer. Thefe gentlemen 
 ■were acquainted with their rights, and pofTefTed th« fpirit 
 to defend them. Stridly adhering in their oath to 
 the qualifications prefcribed by law, they declined re- 
 plying to interrogatories not pertinent to the occafion. In 
 the habit of extorting the moft fervile and implicit obedi- 
 ence, the board of Common Council could not brook the 
 appearance of oppofition to their authority, tlieir pro- 
 ceedings were luftantly thrown into a ftate .of diftradtion^ 
 
52 
 
 Xcaying the cle£lors, the witnefTes and fpeftators, they 
 abruptly retired to their private chamber, without afford- 
 ing ^thc parties a notice of their intention, or appointing 
 any period for the continuance of the fcrutiny. 
 
 The eledors and witnefles accordingly departed. No foon- 
 cr had the Council arrived within their room, but they felt 
 the aM'kwardncfs and delicacy of their fituation. By their 
 own a<3:, they had interrupted the proceedings. It was 
 the wilh of the majority inftantly to decide-, yet, what 
 apology could they offer to excufe fuch precipitation ? In 
 the performance of a criminal tafk, the interval between 
 the refolution and its accomplifhmcnt muft be dreadful. 
 Eager to terminate the farce, but apprehenfive of the con- 
 fcquences, in the midft of their refolution, they endured 
 the tortures of fear, anxiety and fufpenfe. 
 
 They had retired with precipitation — the evening had 
 far advanced — by a fudden guft of paffion, they had com- 
 pelled the parties to withdraw — ele6tors and witnefles had 
 all difperfed into tlie different quarters of the city — each 
 had retired to his refpe61:ive abode, and engaged in differ- 
 ent purfuits. To coUedl them together, that evening, was 
 impra£ticabic •, yet, if pofTible to produce the appearance 
 of formaHty and a femblance of juflice, Mr. Roofevelt 
 and Wendover, at that late hour of the night, were called 
 upon to furnifh further evidence to fubftantiate the votes 
 in their favor j and given to underfland, if they had fuch 
 teftimony to offer, the board were then ready to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Riker, of eounfel for the returned magiftrates, who 
 had remained in the city-hall to await the iiTue of this ex- 
 traordinary fcene, immediately replied in writing, That he 
 had further evidence to offer as to the other voters whojGe 
 right to vote had not been examined into. That the evi* 
 dence weuld be, that the voters, refpeclively, had a fice^ 
 
55 
 
 hold eftate of the value of upwards of fifty dollars in the 
 fourth ward of the city of New-York, in their own refpec- 
 thre rights, free of all incumbrances. That the voters 
 would refpedlivcly prove they were poffefled of their faid 
 freeholds more than thirty days preceding the late eleclioii 
 for charter officers. That they had made no promifc, cx- 
 prefs or implied, to transfer or re-convey their or either of 
 their refpedlive freeholds; and that they had paid the full 
 confideration of fifty dollars at the leall for each of the 
 faid freeholds. That the witnefles to prove tlie fame attend- 
 ed in the room in the city-hall v/hicli was afligned for the 
 purpofe ; but that the honorable board having adjourned 
 without appointing any time or place for further inquiry, 
 and the witnefles not knowing when or where to attend the 
 board, it was out of the power of the counfel to produce 
 the teftimony that evening. 
 
 Although the Common Council, by their own tiO:, had 
 completely difperfed the witnefles, in defiance of all the 
 circumftances urged by counfel, the ufual majority of the 
 board refolvcd upon an immediate decifion. A queftion 
 was accordingly tr^b^n upon the vote of S. Valentine," 
 which was negatived as follows: For admitting his vote, 
 the Recorder, Aldermen Barker and Mint home,! MeflVs. 
 Gilbert and Verveclen.— Againit it, Aldermen Coles, Le- 
 nox, Strong and J. Roofevelt, and Meflirs. Brafher, Ten 
 Eyck, Nltchie and Rltter. 
 
 The recorder then introduced a refolutlon in the follow- 
 ing words^: 
 
 " Whereas at the fcrutiny which has taken place this 
 evening, witnefles were examined as to the qualification of 
 ^mith Valentine, John Swartwout, Mathew L. Davis, and 
 James Warner, as ele€lors at the bfl: eledion for charter 
 
54 
 
 officers in this city, and whereas the board have decided 
 the qualification of Smith Valentine, as infufiicient to vote 
 at fuch ele£lion. And whereas it is propofed to take a 
 queftion on the qualification of N . Roome, of whofe right 
 to vote, further teftimony is offered to be produced by the 
 returned members, at the next meeting of this board — • 
 therefore, refolved that this board ought not to proceed t& 
 the decifion of the qualification of any other voter at fuch 
 election, with refpeci to which the teftimony offered has not 
 been produced, on account of the adjournment of this 
 board to the council room." 
 
 Even this refolution, the moft juR aiid reafonable, which 
 can poffibly be conceived, was negatived. The recorder, 
 Aldermen Barker and Minthorne, MelTrs. Gilbert and 
 Verveelcn only, voted in its favor jand Aid. Coles, Lenox, 
 Strong, J. Roofevelt, Melfrs. Braflier, Nitchie, Ten Eyck, 
 and Rioter, for its rejedion. 
 
 The next queflion was upon the right of Nicholas Roomc, 
 Mr. Gilbert, Aldermen Barker, Minthorne, and Mr. Ver- 
 veelen, perceiving the determined fpiritofthe majority, de- 
 clined voting, and intimated their intention to prepare a 
 proteft againftfuch unjuflifiable procecdure. Mr. Roome's 
 vote was rejected, the recorder only rifing in its favor. 
 
 Aldermen Lenox then prefented the fubfequent refo- 
 lution : 
 
 « Whereas the witneffes produced on the part of Corne- 
 lius C. Roofevelt, efq. and Mr. P. H. Wendover to fub- 
 ftantiate the votes objeded to by John Bogart, efq. and Mr. 
 N. Carmer, have refufed to anfwer the queftions put to 
 them, touching the purpofes for which the freehold on which; 
 ^ey refpedively voted, was pur chafed ; 
 
55 
 
 ■ And whereas no evidence has been produced to thia 
 board, to fhew that a certain William Jenning, who con-* 
 reyed to the pcribns whofe votes are objected to, and upon 
 which conveyance tlie faid votes were given, had a legal 
 title to the eitate faid to be conveyed to the faid TOters 
 
 "And whereas the grantees of the faid property were noC 
 produced in order that the board could have fully afcertain- 
 ed all the circumftances relative to the fame *, And the 
 board being fully convinced * that the faid property was 
 purchafed fecrctly, with the fole view of creating votes un- 
 duly to influence the ele<£lion of alderman and afliftant, at 
 the late ele6tion in the fourth ward ; 
 
 ^'Therefore refolved that the votes fo objedled to by John 
 Bogcrt and N. Carmer, and contained in the deed referred 
 to, are unlawful, in as much as the property was not of 
 the value required by law — free of incumbrances, and the 
 fame is contrary to the fpirit of the charter of this city, 
 and the laws of this ftate, relating thereto," 
 
 Mr. Lenox's refolution was carried by a majority of 
 three ; himfelfy Aldermen Coles, Strong, and J. Roofe- 
 velt, Meflrs. Braflier, Ten Eyck, Nitchie, and Ritter, vo- 
 ted for it ; and the Recorder, Aldermen Barker, Minthorne, 
 MeiTrs. Gilbert and Verveelen as^ainft it. 
 
 A refolution was then unanimoufly pafled, " that the 
 mayor be requcfted to take the opinion of General Hamil- 
 ton in writing on the following queftion, to wic, whether 
 under the charter of this city the board have any authority 
 to queftion the right of a freeholder, or freeman to his feat 
 when returned duly ele£led by the rctuining officer, as 2. 
 member ?"f 
 
 * Without evidence ! 
 I General Hamilton iiai lincc declixied giving bis cpiuioD upoa tJkt lubj^ct, 
 
S6 
 
 The bufinefs of the evening clofcd with a refoIutto« 
 « that upon a fcrutiny, had relative to the eledioii of an al- 
 derman and afliftant for the fourth ward, it appeared that 
 John Bogcrt had a majority of votes for alderman, and 
 Nicholas Carmer for afliftant." That the faid John Bogert 
 was therefore duly eleded alderman, and the faid Nicho- 
 las Carmer afliftant of the fourth ward, and that they take 
 their feats accordingly- 
 Such was the termination of this extraordinary pro- 
 ceedure. A tranfadion fo flagrant, and unprincipled,;fcarcely 
 requires any comment. An attempt to deftroy the rights of 
 magiftrates returned to be duly ele6ted, a decifion precipi- 
 tated without affording an opportunity for the examinati- 
 on of witnefies. The exercife of a jurifdi6^ion without 
 any inveftigation of its legality, and the requeft of a profef- 
 fional opinion, after a decifion already irrevocably made, 
 are circumftances, which thofe gentlemen will ftiortly be 
 called upon to juftify to the feelings of an infulted commi*- 
 nity. 
 
 LYSANDER. 
 
No. Vt, 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL SUBSEQUENT TO 
 THE SCRUTINY— PROTEST OF THE MINORITY— APPLI- 
 CATION AND REFUSAL OF MR. BOGERT— SECESSION 
 OF THE FEDERAL MEMBFRS— PRESENT STATE 
 OF THE CITY. 
 
 " See! self-abandonM, Iiow tliey roam adrift, 
 I)Mh'd o'er the town, a miserabie wreck I" 
 
 Thomson, 
 
 ^^^FFAiRS were now approaching to a 
 crifis which required an union of temperate deliberation^ 
 t^'ith inflexible perfeverance. The defigns of the federal 
 majority had become completely unveiled. It was a con- 
 teft between ufurpation and juftice. The arbitrary claims 
 of the corporation were oppofed to the rights of the people. 
 The balance was fufpended between liberty and flavery« 
 A ftate of fuch diforder demands the interpofition of the 
 fovereign authority. Submiflion at this period would have 
 amounted to a dereli£tion of every principle of honor. Ic 
 would have been a total abandonment of the caufe of the 
 city. 
 
 The mayor and the recorder are the perfons appointed 
 by law to adminifter the oaths of office to the charter offi-« 
 cers ele£t. It has been ufual in pra6i:ice, to adminiiter fuch' 
 oaths in the prefencc of the Common Council, but thaf 
 Colemnity is not in ftriQnefs required by the charter. In 
 ihe performance of this duty, the mayor, or the recorder, 
 
 H 
 
tfiuft be governed by a found difcretion. They tliemfelves- 
 tnuH perform the z^, and they muft judge of its propriety. 
 Alderman Roofevelt of fehe fourth ward, and Mr. Wen- 
 dover, had already been qualified — they had taken their" 
 feats at the board, and were placed in the legal polTelTion of 
 their offices. Their eledion was apparent from the face 
 of the record returned. The right of fcrutiny was con- 
 tefted, and the preponderance of argument was evidently 
 againfl the propriety of its exercife. The Mayor and the 
 Recorder had been prefeht during the whole of the pro- 
 ceedings. They were fpedlators of their injuftice. They 
 had witnefled their illegality. Under thefe circumftances 
 Mr. Bogert applied to take the oath of office. Upon what 
 principle of juftice could k have been adminiflered ? The 
 right of Alderman Roofevelt was evident. Could the 
 prctenfidns of two claimants have been admitted at the 
 fame moment ? Could he havs been deprived of his of- 
 fice previous to the deeifion of a tribunal acknowledged to 
 be competent ? 
 
 To the application of Mr. Bogert, the Mayor replied with 
 calmntfs, that he had forefeen the queftion, and had exa- 
 mined it with impartiality. That, in his official c6ndu6i:, 
 he fliould fteadily endeavour to adhere to the path of duty 
 — regretting the neceffity which compelled him to differ 
 from the majority of the Common Council, he could not 
 avoid purfuing the dictates of his Own opinion. He, there- 
 fore, declined adminiftering the oath to Mr. Bogert. The 
 Recorder, upon being appealed to, coincided in fcnti-v 
 ment with the Mayor. 
 
 I ihall not detail the warmth of expreflion vrhich enfued. 
 it would be more honorable to deliberative affemblies if 
 dlSerenges in opiniou did not too often lead them to adts 
 
59 
 
 of the greatefl Indecorum. It was obfcrvcd by Aldermak 
 Coles, tliat no difficulty could cnfue, for that Mr. Bo|^ctl 
 was entitled to his feat as a magillrate of the preceding 
 year. To this it was replied, that fuch could not be the 
 cafe, becaufe his fuccelTor had already been fworn. 
 
 Only one ftep remained to be taken, and that was, by 
 an a£t of violence, to deprive Alderman C. Roofevelt and 
 Mr. Wendover of their feats. It was accordingly moved, 
 that the clerk fhonld be dire£led to erafc their names from 
 the minutes of the board. Succefsfully oppofed by ths 
 republicans, and diiven to defperation, they were prepar- 
 ed to purfue tlie utmofl extremes of raflinefs and indeli- 
 cacy. To pronounce a juft decifion was not their obje£l. 
 Their only wifli was to retain their wonted afcendancy. 
 Defeat, in thiscontefl, they viewed as a prelude to the re- 
 floration of the public rights, and die powers of the Com- 
 mon Council as a bulwark for the fupport of ariftocracv. 
 In vain had the law officers of the corporation expreiTed 
 their fentiments upon a fubjc6l with which they were mod 
 converfant. Fruitlefs were the attempts to introduce deli- 
 beration and difcuffion. The end was too important to be 
 facrificed to the inferior confiderations of probity and juf- 
 ticc. Accordingly, the motion of Mr. Coles muft be view- 
 ed as the remaining a£t of defperation, and as an evidence 
 of fettled intention to .>cffi:cl the purpofes of the majority, 
 without a nice difcrimiiiation of the means to be em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Upon the divlfion being called. Aldermen Coles, Strong, 
 Lenox, J. Roofevelt, MeflVs. Nitchie, Ten Eyck, Braflicr 
 and Ritter appeared in its favour. The Recorder, Alder- 
 iiien Barker, Minthorne, C. Roofevelt, Meffi-s. Gilbert, 
 Vcrveclen, and Wendover voted againll it. The Mayor 
 
6a 
 
 jnterpofed his voice ; the number of votes was equal on 
 each fide ; the motion was accordingly Joft. 
 
 The Interference of MelTrs. C. Roofevelt and Wendover 
 jnay, perhaps, by fome, be confidered as indelicate; fuch 
 opinion, however, would not be founded in juflice. If their 
 own rights alone had been involved, it would have been en- 
 titled to weight ; but the prefent was a public queftion, in 
 which the liberties of their conftituents were at (lake. On 
 the prefent occafion they purfued the impulfe of duty ; 
 they could not abandon the interefts, nor difappoint the ex- 
 pectations, of the ward they reprefented. 
 
 Equally juflifiable was the condud of Mayor. In a 
 crifis which demanded the exercife of duty, the rights of 
 his fellow-citizens could not be facrificed to falfe delicacy 
 If he had a voice to give, could l\e juftify withholding it ? 
 At a moment when his country required his exertions, in— 
 ad^ivity would, with juftice, have been confidered criminal. 
 As a conftituent member of that body he is entitled to a 
 vote. Upon a prelFing emergency, when it can be effec- 
 tual, he is bound to exercife it. 
 
 I am aware it has been believed that the Mayor has only a 
 calling vote in cafes of equal divifion. This opinion, however 
 current, has been received without inveftigation ; Hke ma- 
 ny other received errors, it muft be deflroyed whenever it 
 becomes the fubjedt of argument. If he is a member of the 
 board, he muft be entitled to the privileges refulting from 
 that ftation. If we are governed by precedent, or analogy, 
 we need not travel far. Neither the vice-prefident of the 
 United States nor the lieutenant-governor of this ftate^ 
 except upon an equal divifion, have a right to vote in the 
 refpedive bodies over which they prefide ; the reafon is 
 obvious, becaufe they are not members. The governor iik 
 
6i 
 
 «nly cntitkd to a caftiiig vote in the council of appointment, 
 although he is a conflituent member of it. The rcafon is 
 equally obvious, bccaufc he is cxprefsly reRriclcd by the 
 conftitution. That prohibition would have been entirelf 
 idle if the right of voting was not otherwifj confidcred as 
 appurtenant to memberfliip. In the houfe of reprefenta* 
 tives of the union, and in the aflembly of this ftate, the re- 
 fpe£live fpeakers have undoubtedly a vote in their capacity 
 of members 5 and repeated inftanccs can be adduced of the 
 cxercife of that right. 
 
 Language cannot defcribe the mortification and difap- 
 pointmcnt difplayed upon this queftion. Confternation and 
 confufion inftantly prevailed. In a moment, the federalids 
 perceived the darling obje6i: of their illegal condu£^ com- 
 pletely defeated. To their unfpeakable aftoniflmient and 
 difmay, they difcovered they were no longer -a. majority in 
 that board over which they had hitherto reigned with arbi- 
 trary fway. Unable to conceal their emotions, they called 
 for an inflant adjournment, and left the board, as it ap- 
 pears, with the intention to meet no more. 
 
 During thefc tranfa&ions, the minority of the hoard pre- 
 fented their promifcd protefl j from the agitation excited by 
 thofe proceedings, they were not furnifhed with an oppor- 
 tunity of having it read. It was, therefore, delivered to the 
 clerk, and filed among the records of the Common Council. 
 It is a document too interefting to be^ omitted in the annals 
 'of their proceedings. 
 
 PROTEST OF THE MINORITY. 
 
 "We the underfigned members of the Common Council 
 iof the city of New-York;, do folemnly ^liflent from, an.l 
 
4t 
 
 f Yoteft agamfl the proceedings and decirions of a majority 
 ,of that board in relation to the late eledions in the fourth 
 ^nd fifth wards, and demand that this our proteft may be 
 entered of record upon the minutea. 
 
 Bccaufe, in thofe proceedings, the majority of this board 
 have aflumed an authority to which they are not at prefent 
 entitled by the charter of this city or by the laws or confti- 
 tution of their country : 
 
 Becaufe, in the exercife of that authority they have zd:- 
 ed partially, precipitately, in oppofition to the weight of 
 evidence, and contrary to law : 
 
 Bedaufe the legiflature has regulated the election of 
 eharter officers by a law of the ftate and by eftablifhing 
 the qualifications of electors of thofe officers, and providing 
 a method of telling thofe qualifications, to wit, by the 
 oath of the eledor, to be adminiftered by the infpe£tor. 
 kave virtually repealed any provifion for that purpofc 
 which might otherwife have been derived from the charter : 
 
 Becaufe, by that a£l of the legiflature, made for the folc 
 and avowed purpofe of regulating our charter eledlions, 
 the infpedtor is exprefsly made the prefiding as well as re- 
 turning officer, inafmuch as he is thereby invefted with 
 judicial powers, his return, with refpe<9: to the qualfficatU 
 g>n of ele(5lors, is final and conclufive upon this board : 
 
 We are ftrongly imprefled with this opinion, and believe 
 it to be hwt forafmuch as we are convinced that the autho- 
 rity of the legiflature is paramount to the charter or bye-? 
 laws of any corporation : 
 
 Becaufe, in paffing that ad for the exprcfs purpofc of re* 
 gulating our charter eleftions, it was the intention of the 
 
<f5 
 
 ^cgiffature to place thofc ele6lions upon a foundation pwf^- 
 manent, certain, confonant to the fpirit of our Jaws, con- 
 formable to the fpirit of our conftitution, and friendly W 
 the rights of the people : 
 
 Becaufe, in every other ele£\Ion, the oath of the free- 
 holder, with refpedt to the value and exiftence of hig' 
 ellate, is confidered to be finaj : 
 
 Becaufe, 'in the exerclfe of fuch tranfcendent powers 
 by the Common Council of the corporation, there does 
 not exift an adequate refponfibility : 
 
 Becaufe the authority claimed and exercifed by the nia- 
 jority of this board is unlimited, undefined and undefina- 
 ble, inverting them with high and arbitrary powers — pow- 
 ers dangerous to the rights and franchifes of the inhabitants 
 of tUs city : 
 
 Becaufe the exerclfe of that authority involves the trial 
 of freehold, prefenting queftions intricate and difficult, to 
 the decifion of which this board is altogether incompe- 
 tent : 
 
 Becaufe this corporation poflefles not the power of 
 cre£ling itfelf into a felf-created tribunal, to decide upon 
 the value of an elector's eftate : 
 
 Becaufe there is no precife and determinate ftandsrd by 
 >vhich to e ft i mate the value of freeholds. We have feen 
 how much that val-ae refts in mere opinion j we have heard 
 the cftimation of every witnefs vary with circumftances 
 and fitUation ; we have perceived how widely men of equal 
 judgment and difcretion will differ from each other: a 
 power fo loofe, fo vaft, affording fuch unlimited latitude trf 
 
^4 
 
 4ifcretl0H, wpuM enable a majcrity of this board to be- 
 come, with perfect impunity, the arbiters of eledions : 
 
 Bccaufe the authority claimed by a majority of thif 
 board might and would, upon every ele6i:ion, involve in- 
 jiunierable trials : 
 
 Becaufe this board potTefles not the power of compelling 
 the attendance of witnefles or electors, nor to enforce 
 Their anfwers to interrogatories when they have attended: 
 
 Becaufe the man returned e\eQ:ed to an office acquires 
 thereby a jta legitimum, or perfect right. Forafmuch^ 
 therefore, as it is an univerfal axiom in law, that every 
 perfe£^ rig^t poffefles its correfpondent remedy, it follows 
 as the dire6t and inevitable conclufion, that the tribunal 
 which is too imbecile to grant the remedy, poflefles not the 
 jurifdidlioa : 
 
 Becaufe, further, in the exercife of this power, every 
 elector will be inevitably driven to the alternative of for-* 
 feiting his fufFrage, or expofing particularly the nature, 
 extent and evidences of his title, and thereby perhaps de- 
 flroy the fecurity of property, and occafion an endlefs 
 Iqene of general litigation. 
 
 Becaufe k would enable the majority of this board, by 
 a confpiracy among themfelves, to be continued, or to in- 
 troduce their creatures into olEce, in open contempt and 
 defiance of a majority of electors : 
 
 And, finally, becaufe fuch power is wholly incompatible 
 with the rights, liberty and fafety of the inhabitants of 
 this city. 
 
 In the exercife of that authority they have acled partial- 
 ly, becaufe, in the cafes of truft eftates, in favor of the 
 
65 
 
 one candidate they have decided for the admifTion of th^ 
 votes, while with refpe<Sl to the other, the truft cftates 
 werecqual in degree, and entitled to the fame remedy before 
 an equitable forum. Tliey have neverthelefs totally, and 
 inconfiftentiy rejected them. 
 
 They have a£led precipitately, becaufe with refpe£l to 
 one ward, they abruptly retired. And notwithlbanding 
 further teftimony was offered to fupport the rights and 
 qualifications of the electors, they decided the fate of the 
 ele£lion, without affording an opportunity for the produc- 
 tion of that teftimony. 
 
 Thev have adlcd in oppofition to the weight of evidence 
 — ^inafmuch as witli refpe6l to the fifth ward. The pay- 
 ment of the confideration money for the eftate, upon which 
 thereje£led ele£lors gave their fuffirages, was clearly proved, 
 to them *, and becaufe the value of that eftate was eftablifh- 
 ed by a large majority of competent and difinterefled wit- 
 nelTes. 
 
 They have afted contrary to law, for all and every of the 
 reafons aforefaid. 
 
 They have alfo a£ted in direft contravention of law, by 
 their novel and extraordinary refolution, That no man is 
 entitled to vote upon a freehold estate, becaufehe purchafed 
 it for that purpofe ! 
 
 We confidently maintain that by the laws of the land, 
 every citizen poflcfTed of a freehold of the value of twenty 
 pounds,, beyond incumbrances in this city, obtains thereby 
 the eleftive franchife, that this board has not the authority 
 to inquire into the motives which induced the purchafe of 
 his property — and that his right derived from the charter 
 of this city, and the laws of the ftiate, can only be abridged 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 or modified by an tlO: of the legiflature. In depriving up- 
 wards of one hundred freeholders of their legal rights of fuf- 
 frage, this board has exercifed a ftretch of authority arbitra- 
 ry, unparalleled, and highly dangerous to the rights of the 
 inhabitants of this city. 
 
 December, 14th, 1801, 
 JOSHUA BARKER, HENRY VERVEELEN, 
 MANGLE MINTHORNE, Wm. W. GILBERT. 
 
 It now became a fubjeft of rumour, that the federal 
 members had formed the refolution to abandon their feats, 
 in the Council, and to leave the city to its fate. That by 
 fufpending all public burmefs,.and withholding the appro- 
 priation of funds, an inftant termination would be put to 
 our inftitutions of police. A determination fo wild and ex- 
 travagant even in the gentlemen who conceived it, was with 
 difficulty credited. But time and enquiry gave confirmation 
 to the report. From a fpirit of conciliation, and with a 
 view of prefcrving the tranquililry and harmony of the city, 
 the mayor propofed without delay the mod liberal terms of 
 accommodation. It was recommended that all the gen- 
 tlemen, whofe feats were contefted, fhould poftpone their 
 attendance, until their re fpe61:ive rights fhould be determin- 
 ed. That to prevent the procraftination attendant upon 
 law proceedings, an accurate flatement of the cafes fhould 
 be made, and fubmitted. immediately to the judgment of 
 the Supreme Court. That on account of the urgency of 
 circumflances, a decifion fhould be requefled in the early 
 part of January term, and that in the mean time no queflion 
 which had the femblanca of party fliould be taken in that 
 board. 
 
 No anfwer having been received to fuch propofitions, in 
 order to bring matters to that flate of certainty which be- 
 GAme more and more necefTary to the public repofe, a meet- 
 
«7 
 
 ing of Common Council was fummoncd for tlie i8th of 
 December. The republican members punclually attended, 
 and not a fmgle federal* gentleman appeared ; at length all 
 fufpenfe was terminated by the following letter, which was 
 received and dirc6led to the Mayor : 
 
 INSTRUMENT OF SECESSION^ 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Having too much reafon to think that a deliberate plan 
 has been formed to violate the eflabliflied rights and ufageA 
 of the corporation, both by obtruding upon them perfons, 
 as members of it, whom the Common Council have alrea- 
 dy determined to be not duly elected s and alfo, by your 
 claiming, and, as wc fuppofe, ufurping a ri»ht to vote in 
 cafes where it never has been exercifed by your predecef- 
 fors j we feel it our duty to declare our intention to oppofe 
 thefe meafures, and to fupport what we confider our juft 
 rights. A fpirit of conciliation, and a wifli to avoid the 
 inconveniencies that might refult from the fufpenfion of 
 public bufinefs, would have induced us to form a tempora- 
 ry arrangement, confident with the prefervation of thofe 
 rights, until fuch time as the queftions that had arifeii 
 might receive a legal dccifion. Wc are forry to find that 
 our efforts for this purpofe have been ineffectual, and that 
 you perfift in confidering Meflrs. Cornelius C. Roofevelt 
 and Peter H. Wendover as members of the Common 
 Council. After the refolution of the board upon that fub- 
 je6t, it would be improper for us to recognize or adl: with 
 them as fuch, unlels their pretenfion fliould receive a legal 
 fan6lion. We Jhally therefore^ before our meeting ivith you in 
 Common Council^ expeEl to be fatisfed that thofe gentlemen -wilt 
 not be received as members of the beard againfl our confent^ un- 
 * The public will understand the sense in which I use the term fcd<ra*. 
 
6-8 
 
 f.i/ their right to feats in it has hee?i judicially ejlahli/hed. We 
 Jhall alfo expe5l that the uniform pr a 5i ice of the hoard luill'be 
 conformed to, refpeBing the vote of the prefidi?rg officer, until a 
 l/gal decifion to the contrary pall have been obtained. It is 
 with reludance that we fubmit to the neceffity of addreff- 
 ing you in this manner. We are fefifible that evils of conft^ 
 derahle magnitude may refult from the prefent flate of things ; 
 l^ut, as we are confcious that wc are doing our duty and 
 defending our rights, we confole ourfelves with the reflec-» 
 tion that thofe evils will not juftly be imputed to u&. 
 
 We are, with due refpe(3:. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient fervants, 
 
 JOHN B. COLES, 1>HILIP BRASHER, 
 
 ROB. LENOX, JOHN NITCHIE. 
 
 SELAH STRONG, JOHN P. RITTER, 
 JAMES ROOSEVELT, PH. TEN EYCK. 
 
 It was thus imagined by thofe gentlemen, that by hold- 
 ing a rod in terrorem over the heads of the republicans, and 
 that by menacing them with a profpe61: of diforder and 
 confufion, they would at length be coerced into compli- 
 ance. The city watch was to be aboliflied — the lamps ex- 
 tinguifhed' — darknefs and difmay pervade our ftreets — the 
 midnight robber and the defperate affaffin were to prowl for 
 prey and plunder unmolefted — without a magiftracy, and 
 deftituteof police, impunity was to be granted to every a^fc 
 of deiperation, and the hand of amnefty extended to every 
 enormity and every crime. The houfelefs child of pover- 
 ty — the hoary-headed grandfire — decrepid matron — and 
 •ftill more helplefs infant of defpair, all born to happier days 
 and brighter profpe6ts, were, with unfeeling apathy and 
 x;old indifference, to be fuddenly baniflied from the only ha- 
 
^bitation and flcnder pittance wliicli public charity had giv- 
 en them ; feeble with infancy,- infnmity or age — oppreiled 
 with hunger — the flood of life congealed by winter's freez- 
 ing cold — to periOi at the gate of foaie more favored, n©t 
 more defcrving being. 
 
 For fome time at leafft tliofe evils, perhap?, might not 
 have been realifed , the patriotlfm of the watch, more Hea- 
 dy than that of the deferting magiftrates, would have in- 
 duced them to adhere to their pofts*, and look to the re flo- 
 tation of public tranquillity for their accuflomed compenfa- 
 tion ; but, at a feafon of the year when every want of life 
 becomes mod indifpcnfible and prefling, was it convenient, 
 or was it poffibb for this ufeful body of citizens, however 
 willing in intention, to make fuch facrifices at the fhrinc 
 of duty ? admitting the mod favorable pofture of affairs 
 that the public guard could have been maintained. "What 
 was to become of the city poor ? Deferted by the men 
 who had always (lilcd themfelves the Jleady advocates of or- 
 dery certain it was, that the provifions for the alms-houfe 
 could not laft throughout the ilgorous extremity of win- 
 ter. 
 
 It was now the only alternative to fupport the ncccffary 
 inflitutions of the city by voluntary contribution, or permit 
 the contemplated fcene of peril and diforganization to en- 
 fue. Did the republicans defire the little triumph of a par- 
 ty ? Could they have viewed with pleafure the punifhment 
 of their weak and thoughtlefs opponents ? Or, did they 
 fteadily purfue the fubflantial welfare of their country ? 
 Had they wi'ihcd the gratification of a triumph, they might 
 
 * It is justice to this useful body of citi/cns to stale thrxt snoli was their 
 detcnninalion ; tlier would taitl^uilly Iiavc pcrforiiicii their duties. Proud, 
 haughty and insolent aristocrat! learn to reverence liic virtues of the peo- 
 ple. VVhat a reproacli to the deseilin;,' magistrates ii conveyed by lUis cit- 
 «uni!^tancc! 
 
70 
 
 hare fat filent fpe^lators, and with eyes unmoved beheld 
 the tempeft of dcftruftion gather, ripen, burft with ven- 
 geance on the heads of their wretched and inconfiderate 
 antagonifts. There was not room for choice. Without 
 hefitation fome of our moft refpedable citizens inftantly 
 jnterpofed the mean's of relief. Republicans were anxious 
 to fhare in the honours of patriotifm. To their immortal 
 honour let it be remembered, that the only disappointment 
 experienced on this emergency was by thofe who wiflied to 
 contribute their funds or their credit, and had not the op- 
 portunity. A fufEcient capital was fpeedily furnifhed to fup- 
 ply the wants of the winter, and fliould the queftions now 
 depending remained unfettled in ' the fpring, the citizens 
 may reft afiured, that whatever other inconveniencies may 
 be fuftained, the neceflary police eftablifhments of the 
 public fhall be preferved until the bleffings of harmony and 
 regular government are fully reftored. 
 
 LYSANDER. 
 
No. Vil. 
 
 MEANS OF REDRESS. 
 
 All safety rests on honest counsels : these 
 Immortalize the statesman, bless the itate. 
 
 YouN-«, 
 
 Determin'd hold 
 
 Your independence ; for that once destroy'd, 
 Unfounded, freedom is a morning dream 
 That flits atrial from the spreading eye. 
 
 Thomsov. 
 
 Jt would be of little fervicc to point out 
 the exigence of evils, without entering into a confideration 
 of the remedies moft proper to be adopted. In detediing 
 abufes, without devifmg the redrefs which ought to be ad- 
 jniniftered, we perform but a fmall proportion of our du- 
 ties. The moft valuable part is neglected or forgotten. At 
 a crifis of affairs fo important as the prefent, we are e- 
 qually called upon to deliberate and to ad. It is neceflary 
 that a decifive refolution fhould be taken, and in the lang- 
 uage of Junius let it be remembered, " there is none fo 
 likely to be fupported with firmnefs, as that which has 
 been adopted with moderation." 
 
 The great obje([t of our endeavours fiiould be to amend, 
 and not to deflroy — to repair, and not to proftratc a fabric 
 which may be rendered truly valuable. We fliould care- 
 fully diftinguifh between the abufes of an inftitution poflef- 
 fed of many excellencies, and one that is radically and uni- 
 verfally defc61ivc. The charter of this city is fufccptiblc 
 
of being rendered an inftrumentof cxtcnfive and permari- 
 ent utility. It is the ground work of many of our moft 
 neceflary and falutary cftablifliments j eftablifhments, unclef 
 which we have long continued to fiourifh and to profpen 
 
 If I may be indulged in the ufe of the metaphor, I con- 
 £der the charter as an houfe eminently calculated for the 
 fafety and convenience of its inhabitants. Though built 
 upon a foHd foundation, time has difcovered fome defeats 
 in th^ outlines of its plan, and rendered amendments ne- 
 ceflary for its permanent prefervation. Experience and 
 an advanced tafte in the fcience of archite£lure, have fug- 
 gefted certain improvements, beneficial to its occupantSo 
 It is certainly accordant with the didtates of wifdom, that 
 fuch amendments fhould be made — they are alterations of 
 additions to the ftru£lure of the edifice, calculated to ren-* 
 der it more commodious, valuable and fscure. 
 
 He is no friend to the exiftence of an inllitution, who h 
 anxious to retain the abufes, to which it is fubjecSted. In 
 its prefentfhape,our charter is fickly and effeminate. With- 
 out the guardian interference of the patriot, it does not 
 promife a long duration. From a continued feries of ufur- 
 pations, its principles have been diftorted, and fome of its 
 moft material provifions entirely difregarded. Inftead of 
 affording protection and fecurity to the rights of the citi- 
 zens, it has been converted into an engine to deprive them 
 of their moil valuable privileges* 
 
 The principal evils under which we at prefent labour,- 
 may be clafltid under the following divifions : 
 
 I. A defective and partial reprefentation in the Conar- 
 mon Council of the city. 
 
1$ 
 
 II. The ufurpation of authority, with refp€<Sl: to thfi- 
 Scrutiny of cle6lions ; and, 
 
 III. The want of a fuitable provifion to fecure the ap^ 
 pointment of freemen, and to render their political exill- 
 ence independent of the v/ill of the ofliccrG of the corpo- 
 lation. 
 
 The city reprefentation is at prefent aknoft exclufivcly 
 ■confined to the freeholders ; during the late charter elec- 
 tion, only 150 perfons voted in the capacity of freemen. 
 This is a pracl:ice equally repugnant to the provifions of 
 the charter and to the principles of our government. The 
 right of eledion is the life of liberty — it is the root of eve° 
 ly other privilege — the moment it is loft, civil freedom be- 
 comes entirely extin6^:, and the citizen reduced to a date of 
 abje6l fervility and dependence. 
 
 It is the fundamental principle of reprefentativc govern- 
 fnents, that the people are bound by laws, in refpec^ of the 
 confent which they are fuppofed to give. This confcnt ie 
 .^xpreffed by the voice of their reprefentative. Taxatioa 
 and reprefentation are confidered as correlative — he who is 
 bound to contribute to the exigencies of the public is enti- 
 tled to reprefentation in the body by which thofe contribu- 
 tions are affelTed. 
 
 No fufTicient reafon can be afligned why the elective 
 /ranchife fliould be confined to the freeholders. It is not 
 recognifed by any found principle, nor is it to be found in 
 any law. The city government was introduced for the ge-- 
 neral profperity of the citizens ; every inhabitant is equally 
 bound by its regulations, and fubje6l to its ordinances. 
 The powers of the Common Council are complicated and 
 cxtenfive ; they are not confined to the fuperintendance of 
 real T5roperty — they extend to every fubje6l and every 4c- 
 
74 
 
 yartmcnt of police. Every houfeholdcr and inhabitaui is 
 perpetually fubje£t to the ordinances of the Common Coun<- 
 cil, and is therefore entitled to the right of being repre- 
 fented. 
 
 It has indeed been artfully infmuatcd, that it is proper 
 the right of reprefentation fhould be confined to freehold- 
 .ers, becaufe it is their property which is taxed by the Com- 
 mon Council. But, let it be confidered, that the power of 
 aflefhng taxes is only a fmgle branch of their general fuper- 
 intendance j there are an infinitude of regulations in which 
 the citizens at large are equally interefted. Befides, the 
 Common Council taxes every houfeholder as well as every 
 freeholder ; and if our decifion depended upon the fingl? 
 circumftance of taxation, the conclfuiaon would be evident: 
 in favor of the general extenfion of the right. It is, more- 
 over, worthy to be obferved, that there are many iiiterefts 
 in land entitled to equal attention with the freeholds. Much 
 of our property lies in long leafes ; the houfes are built and 
 the improvements made by the tenant-, his interefl Is 
 prefent^ that of the landlord remote. It is the former, and 
 TxOt the latter, who is taxed. Again, even admitting that 
 taxes are invariably laid upon the freeholds, yet the tenant 
 is equally interefted and equally entitled to reprefentation ; . 
 for, by the general practice of the city, the tenant pays the 
 taxes. 
 
 But the charter is explicit upon the fubje6i: ; it invefls 
 the eleftive franchife in the freemen as well as the free- 
 holders. Now, Avho are the freemen of the city, except its 
 regular houfeholders and inhabitants ? Not fo, it is retort- 
 ed j only fuch as the mayor and four aldermen think pro- 
 per to appoint. 
 
 Impoffible, that fuch fhould be the genuine intention of 
 ^^e charter .J but if fo^ it is time that the evil fhould be coiv- 
 
15 
 
 yciSled. 'Ihe rights of every citizen, {landing under th« 
 fame circumftances, muft be equal. It is unjuft that a 
 power fliould exifl to rcfufe to one what is granted to ano- 
 ther. Such a fyllem of favoritifm and partiaHty is too 
 odious to be endured by a people who hdve the mod dif- 
 tant conceptions of liberty. 
 
 As the charter now ftands, it is liable to continual 
 abufe. Without a legiflative interference, the ric^hts of a 
 majority of the inhabitants muft always remain at the mer- 
 cy of a few of the magiftrates. 
 
 It is completely within their power to confine .the re- 
 prefentation to the freeholders, or extend it at their plea- 
 fure. This authority is equally formidable to the freehold- 
 ers, and to the inhabitants at large. It, in efFe£l, eftablifh- 
 es a dangerous controul over all. On the one hand they 
 may refufe to appoint freemen. Thofe already made, mufh 
 yield to death. The whole order of men becomes extin<St^, 
 and ^the powers of the city confined to the proprietors of 
 land. On the other hand, it is equally in their power to 
 confer the freedom of the city upon the moft abandoned, 
 and diflblutc vagrants, without limitation, and thereby 
 coerce the freeholders into a compliance with their views. 
 
 While the eledlive privilege is confined to freemen, the 
 power of appointing them is, in other words, the power o£ 
 appointing voters. It is an extraordinary pra£l:icc that a 
 legiflative body fhould defignatc the perfons who are to 
 cle6l its members. 
 
 Whenever a mayor and four ildermcn concur in fenti- 
 mcnt, they may appoint whomfoevcr they plcafe as free- 
 men. It is therefore completely within their power to de- 
 cide the fate of chartei cleiiions. Such powder may be gra-" 
 
ftfying fo ttie unthinking parti z an. It mufl evea? be oBnox*- 
 ious to the enlightened and independent patriot, 
 
 A few individuals may fay to one citizen, you {hall 
 be a freeman, becaufe you will vote in our favour/' To 
 another, " Thou (halt not be free, becaufe your fuffrag? 
 would be given againfl us." Let us not rejoice at the exift- 
 cnce of fuch power, becaufe to-day it may comport with 
 Our momentary interefts. There is always an evil in the 
 violation of principles •, remember that it furnilhes a dan- 
 gerous precedent, which to-morrow may be exercifed 
 again ft us. 
 
 There is only one remedy to eradicate the evil; that is, 
 to render elections independent. The mifchiefs which 
 have happened already may be repeated hereafter, unlefs ef- 
 fedlual mcafures are taken to prevent them. It is neceflary 
 that the privileges of electors fliould be defined by law, 
 and no longer dependent upon the precarious provifions of 
 the charter. Let it be folemnly afcertained who are enti- 
 tled to the right, and let fuch right be exercifed without 
 the pofTibility of becoming defeated by the violence of par- 
 ty, or the defperate attempts- of any ihterefted body. Un- 
 til fuch falutary regulation takes place, we muft remain in a 
 ftate of uncertainty and infecurity — no power inferior to 
 the Icgillature is fufficient for the purpofe — they alone can 
 afford us fubftantial and beneficial redrefs. 
 
 2. The power of fcrutiny which has lately been exercif- 
 ed, is fo manifeftly repugnant to every rational and fober 
 principle as to render a ferious difcuflion of the fubjedt an* 
 infult to the underftanding of the public. It would be, 
 therefore, equally unneceffary and improper to repeat the 
 obfervations which have already been made. Let it be re- 
 membered, that there never was a power which afford-*- 
 
71 
 
 ed greater licenfe, and greater temptations to abufe.- 
 It is a power ungoverned by principle, uncontroulcd by de- 
 finite and rational rules of decifion, wholly arbitrary and' 
 difcraionary in its exercife, and enabling the Common 
 Council, from views and motives prepenfc, to determine 
 the fate of every ele(Slion at their plcafure. It is, there- 
 fore, indifpenfibly neceflary that a pofitive a6l of the legif- 
 lature ftiould be pafled, prohibiting its exercife in future. I 
 alfo ftrenuoufly recommend to my fellow-citizens, as the 
 furcft fafeguard of their rights, that they fliould exert their 
 laudable endeavours to obtain the legifl^tive fan£lion in fa- 
 vor of the following provifions : ift. That the eledive fran- 
 chife fliall be fecured, and extended to all the regular inha- 
 bitants of the city, within fuch rational and liberal limita- 
 tions as may be confidered necefhiry for the public good. 
 2nd. That all elections fhall be, in future, by ballot. 3d. 
 That no citizen fhall be permitted to vote out of tlie ward 
 in which he refides, 4th. That the right of challenge be 
 given to every ele£lor. And, 5th. That three infpedors, 
 or prefiding ofBcers, be appointed ; that all clialknges be 
 made at the time of the election, and decided by the in- 
 fpe6lors, under fuch regulations as the legiflature may- 
 adopt J and laftly. That their returns, made in puifuanc* 
 «f law, be final and conclufive. 
 
 3d. By the letter of the charter, no man is permitted to 
 purfue the occupations of life, under a certain and continu- 
 al penalty, without firft receiving the freedom of the city. 
 This privilege refls entirely in the difcretion of a mayor 
 and four aldermen ; whenever they engage on different fides 
 of politics, it generally happens that it cannot be obtained ; 
 of courfe, the citizen is reduced to the necefuty of fufpend- 
 iilg his bufmefs, or of incurring repeated and inceilimt pe- 
 aailt4e« j if it ig advlfeable to rctaiu this branch of our iHfti- 
 
tutions, either as a fource of revenue ©r for any other pur« 
 pofe, juftice would dictate that it fhould be legally defined 
 who are entitled to the privilege ; and that means fhould bs 
 adopted to fecure its being granted to the individuals who* 
 are thus entitled to it. 
 
 • Such only are tlie remedies proportioned' to the extent 
 and nature of the mifchiefs. Subordinate meafures would 
 be trifling with the rights and intercfts of the public. If we 
 arc entitled to relief, let it be effectual. Let it be calculated 
 to enfure a ftate of permanent freedom, order and tranquil-^ 
 ity. Before I conclude the prefent effay, permit mc to con- 
 Cder the leading objections to a reformation, which arc 
 ufually advanced. 
 
 I. The first great argument which is invariably re- 
 forted to, and indilcriminately appHed, refls upon the per- 
 ils and uncertainty which are faid to be apprehended from 
 every change. It has long been a fafliionable pra(2:ice to 
 inveigh againfl innovations. Old manners and ancient hab- 
 its, are the perpetual theme of blind and undiftinguifhing 
 adulation. The unfledged politician and the flippant youngf- 
 ter, who can neither boafl the years, nor the maturity of 
 inanhood, are taught with the rcadinefs of parrots, and 
 with equal difcretion, to pronounce the cabaliftical name 
 of antiquity, in fupport of the greateft abufes and abfurd- 
 ities. The eye of argument is diverted from glancing 
 upon the genuine merit of fubjects, as if errors were con- 
 fecratedby the revolutions of time — or outrage, impofture 
 and impofition, fand:ioned or concealed by the accumula- 
 ted rufl of ages ! 
 
 " If the age of inftitutions is the moral or political flandard' 
 gf their utility, let us travel to the rcmoteft periods. We 
 fflould derive our habits and oiir ni'anners from the earliefl 
 ti;iies. We fhould ftudy the laws and maxims of the ante- 
 
*19 
 
 6iluvian8— record their facrecl apopHthcgms of wlfdom-^ 
 treafure every precious veftige and rclie of tlieir pradliccs, ■ 
 and render the men, for whofc wickednefs the world was " 
 deluged, the univerfal legiilators of mankind. 
 
 Let us inquire of thefe idolizers of antiquity, the precife 
 fenfe in which they confider innovation ? Shall we refufe to 
 heal a wound, becaufe its pain has been long endured ? 
 Mud error or opprefilon be confecrated, becaufe they have 
 obtained an afcendency for a length of days ? Are the 
 fciences and the arts, and all the inditutions of life to re- 
 main for ever ftationary ? Shall they not vary with the 
 increafe of knowledge, and purfue the progrefs of fociety ? 
 The merits of an inditution depend not upon its age or its 
 novelty, but the beneficial effects by which it is accompa- 
 nied, andito adaptation to the fituation and circumftances 
 of a community. Eftablirnments founded in wifdom, will 
 generally remain valuable. Experience will never fail to. 
 furnifh the evidences of their utility ; but Experience, on 
 the contrary, will equally bear witncfs againft error, and 
 dire61; us to purfue the path of judicious reformation. 
 Every important truth, every valuable acquifition to the 
 general bank of fcieiice, may be confidered as innovations ; 
 and, if innovations were to have been prohibited, mankind 
 would have continued enveloped for ever in the darknefs 
 of ignorance and barbarifm. Galileo ;vas an innovator in 
 aflronomy — Boerhave and Hunter, in medicine — ^the dif-- 
 coveries o( Newton were innovations in philofophy — the 
 American Revolution an innovation in politics. 
 
 Every new law is an innovation — all legiflatures who 
 perform their duties arc innovators. In examining the 
 ^ruc merits of a moral or political propofition, the true 
 ^uieftion to be difcuffcd is, not whether it is antieut, oc 
 
to 
 
 -whether it is n^w ; but, will it be produftive oF gc«eri^ 
 -utility ? — is it calculated to promote the liberties, the happi- 
 nefs and the profperlty of a people ? It is one of the firft: 
 duties of life to profit by the lelTons of experience. When- 
 ever it is found that political fyftems no longer anfwer the 
 purpofes of their inflitution — whenever it is difcovered 
 from practice that exifting eftablifhments are inimical to 
 the interefts of a community, it becomes the right of the 
 people, and the duty of the patriot, to introduce fuch pro- 
 yiCons as are efTential to the general welfare. 
 
 It has invariably happened in the hiftorypf every focle- 
 ty, that the grcatefl: abufes have poflefled ftrenuous fup- 
 porters, and powerful advocates. There is always a clafs 
 of men who derive private emolument from public injuries 
 — the lofs of the community is their gain. It is, therer- 
 fore, to be expe£led fo long as interefl: is an incentive pre- 
 dominant over patriotifm., that thofe who are benefitted by 
 the continuance of abufes will purfue every artifice, and 
 exert their utmoft influence, to deter the people from the 
 purfuit of falutary meafures. 
 
 Unblest by virtue, ;:joverimierit a. l«ague 
 Becomes, a circlinj juiito of the great, 
 To rob by law." * 
 
 From this fource originates the oppofition which pcrpc-^ 
 dually incumbers the path and impedes the footfteps of 
 Reformation. Antiquity is interpofed as the powerful 
 Shield for the protecSlion of evils ; Time is the ufual talif- 
 jnan for affording perpetuity to Error and impunity to 
 <juilt; the moft valuable improvements' are fligmatized 
 ■with the name of innovations. Truth is confidered as the 
 .offspring of impofture, and he who nobly dares to cherifh 
 ^ithe interefts of his country is proclaimed enthufiaft, dc* 
 
rlclcd as a madman, or branded with the odious appellation 
 of an incendiary. 
 
 Neither penonal confiderations nor timorous reflections 
 fliould divert us from the calm, fteady, and confcientious 
 purfuit of reditude — combining penetration wltli fortitude^ 
 oppofing reafon and perfeverance to the refiftance of the 
 corrupt and the clamours of the interefted. Public intcrefl: 
 fhould conftitute the polar (tar, for the regulation of our 
 conduct. Inflexibly adhering to the dictates of principle, 
 it is the firft duty to enquire what meafures are moft extcn- 
 Cvely beneficial. It is the next with firmnefs to purfue them. 
 
 II. Another (landing objccStlon againft reform, is de- 
 rived from the fuppofed inviolability of charters. This ar- 
 gument is poflcflcd of fome fpecioufnefs, and is therefore 
 entitled to an anfwer. 
 
 Charters (faid Burke, in the days of his political integri- 
 ty) are kept, when their purpofes are maintained. They arc 
 violated, when the privilege is fupported againit its end and 
 its objedl." Whatever fandity we may a-ttribute to charters, 
 ftill there are other rights entitled to fuperior confideration. 
 What is a charter but a grant of certain rights, privileges 
 and powers to a particular body of men ^ You tell me the 
 moment the grant is made, it is entitled to ftri6l obferv- 
 ance — admitted as a general rule. I afk you whether it is 
 not attended with exceptions ? Suppofe a charter fliould 
 become injurious and deftrudive, flill it is the privilege 
 of the corporators." And will you fet up the privileges of 
 the corporators againfl the rights of the whole community ? 
 Suppofe again, that, from a change of circumftances or any- 
 other reafon, tlie provifions of a charter fhould defeat the 
 very purpofes of its inftitution. — Will you tell me that the 
 privileges of the corporators are violated by a guardian at- 
 tiention to their intercfts ? What is a corporation — it is. 
 a body poUtic, pofl'einng an artificial exiftcncc. It is tjjt 
 
tlvAA and crefiture of the ftate. The power by which It ik 
 created^ can always controul, amend or dillblve it. We 
 ihould ftcadily look to the end in view, and conlider a charter 
 as the inflrument for the attainment of that end. If fuch 
 inftrument is found to be inefre^Lual for the accumplifh^ 
 ment of the purpofe intended, it becomes neceiTary that 
 fuch alterations fhould be mads as will render it confift- 
 cnt with the views for which it was efl;abii{lied. 
 
 But it is fald to be dangerous to admit of legiflative in- 
 terference, with regard to charters. This is a fingular ar^ 
 gument, and implies a want of confidence in the fupremc 
 powers of a Itate. If confidence cannot be repofcd in the 
 Mafdom and integrity of the legiflature, then the principle 
 mull be entirely banifhed from fociety. A community 
 mud always remain competent to the fuperintendance of its 
 concerns. Thofe general powers of fuperintendance muft 
 be entrufted fomewhere. They can be no where more 
 fafely depofited than with the legiflature. Subject to the 
 conftitution, all the rights and privileges of the citizen are 
 intrufted with them — why not charter rights as well as o- 
 thers ? You object " there is danger in the precedent.^ 
 How does that appear ? Has not the Englifh legiflature 
 altered charters whenever it appeared proper or necefl!ary 
 for the benefit of the corporation, or for the general good ? 
 Has any inconvenience, or any mifchief refulted from fuch 
 interpofition ? Has it rendered charters lefs folemn, per- 
 manent and fecure ? I admit that flight and tranfient rea- 
 fons will not juftify an interference, but I contend that 
 public and weighty reafons demand it. 
 
 Why will you dwell upon the privileges of a charter ?— 
 In the cafe of a city, to whom do thofe privileges belong ? 
 Are they not the general property of the inhabitants, intend- 
 ed for the purpofo of univerfal protedlion and fecurity? 
 Suppofe the charter ihou-ld be defe^^ive in every particular. 
 
83 
 
 tcquifitc for the attainment of that end. Shall it not re- 
 ceive inflant and efFe£lual reformation ? 
 
 You tell me that charters arc folemn iiifllMitlons — 
 they arc not to be violated or infringed — feated upon an 
 adamantine bafis — they rife fiipcrior to every emergency, 
 conftitiiting property and creating privileges, the faitli 
 and honor of the legiflature are pledged for their fupport/' 
 This is wild and chimerical doctrine. Charters indeed, are 
 privileged inftitutions ; yet they mufl fometimes give place 
 to fuperlor confiderations. But in the prefent cafe, I afic 
 mot the violation of property, but its protedlion. I rcqueft 
 not the deflruclion of privileges, but therr nrefervation. 
 What is more facred than public liberty ? What conftitu- 
 tlon, and what ordinance, is more folcmn than the rights 
 and happinefs of a community ? Where is the confummate 
 logician who can perfuade me that tlie great principles of 
 focial juftice, eternal and univerfal in their nature, avail 
 not when oppofed by the wax and parchment of a charter ? 
 
 But it has been laid that our charter is of more than or- 
 dinary folemnity. It has been imagined by fome, that it is 
 even fuperior to the authority of tiie legiflature. The foun- 
 dation of this extraordinary doclrine, has been occafioned 
 by a hafty mifconception of a claufe in our conRitutlon, 
 which has not the mofl trivial relation to the fubje£l:. The 
 only operation of the palTagc in queflion is to prevent a 
 forfeiture of the inflrument, on account of any mifconducl: 
 committed within a given interval of time. The moft c::- 
 tenfive wildncfsof conftru^lion cannot extend its operation 
 farther. It cannot interpret the fentencc into language of 
 general confirmation. 
 
 I readily admit a din:in£tion between public and private 
 charters-, that the former embrace the general, and the latter 
 individwal intereft. Private charters convey, with fuficient 
 
accuracy, all the ideas incident to property. Wlien they arc 
 granted for the purpofes of banking, or to unite a fuffici- 
 ent capital for the beneficial purfuit of any branch of trade^ 
 in thefe cafes, their obje£l is, the private emolument of the 
 corporation. Whatever intereft the pubHc is fuppofed to 
 derive from thofe eftablifhments, is remote and indiredfco 
 The obje(^l of the legiflature in confenting to thofe grants 
 is, to facilitate and encourage private iiiduftry and enter- 
 prize ; fuch grants may, therefore, be viewed in the na^* 
 ture of private property, and, within a certain limitation, 
 the faith of government may be confidered as pledged for 
 their fupport. 
 
 I fay within a certain limitation, becaufe I never fhall 
 admit that, even in the cafe of a private charter, the pledge 
 of government is abfolute and unconditional. That fuch 
 a charter is forfeitable by mifufer, is a pofition which has 
 never been queftioned. That every legiiiature mufl re- 
 tain its general powers of fuperintendance, with regard to 
 the elTential interefts of a community, is another pofition 
 equally incontrovertible. Every private eftablifnment mufl 
 give place to the great confiderations of public policy or 
 juflice. Whenever it is difcovered that a private charter 
 is materially and manifeflly repugnant to the general inter- 
 efls of a flate, it is the right — it is the duty of government 
 to interpofe its fovereign jurifdidlon. Such right of re- 
 peal mufl be confidered as incident to all charters. In Eng- 
 land the power of parliament, upon the occaiion, has nev- 
 er been denied. The king, by his fole prerogative, may 
 create a corporation ; but it requires the power of the 
 legiflature to difTolve it. There is a tacit and implied con- 
 dition annexed to all charters. That their diiTolution mufl 
 enfue, whenever the important interefts of ft^e require 
 fuch event. But on the other hand, I equally maintain^ 
 that legifiatures fhould proceed witTi the utmoft delicacy 
 
85 
 
 and caution, v/ith rcfpc^fc to private charters : nor fhould 
 they interfere with fiich rights, unlefs demanded by the 
 ^ofl: peremptory neceflity, orrequelted by the application 
 of the corporation itfelf. 
 
 With refpedt to applications on the part of corporations, 
 let me indulge a fingle obfervation. It frequently happens 
 . that differences arife between the governors and the mem- 
 bers of thofc inftitutions, that is between thofe who arc ap- 
 pointed to manage their conterns, and thofc in whom the 
 fubftantial intereft is vefted. In cafes then of manifeft 
 abufc, fliall it be maintained, that the members of an infti- 
 tution are deftitute of remedy. I ft ate that emendatory 
 provifions are eirential to the fecurity or to the very exift- 
 cnce of the inftitution. The members at large complain 
 of the injuftice of their agents. They wifh to itatc the 
 mifconducl of their truftees — they cannot petition formal- 
 ly, that is, they cannot produce a writing, folemnifed under 
 their common fcal. Thofe agents or truftees refufe to af^ 
 nx tlie fighet to a paper adverfe to their intercfts. Shall 
 there be a defe6^ of jufticc, becaufe no application is made 
 by the very individuals, whofe fraud and peculation is ren- 
 dered the fubject of complaint ? Imagine the cafe of a 
 "bank, the mofl inviolable of all corporate eflablilhments. 
 Would the legiflature be deaf to the reprefentations of a 
 numerous majority of ftockholders ? 
 
 But however delicate our ideas may be, with refpe£l 
 to the inviolability of prirate corporations, it would be im- 
 proper to extend that extreme delicacy towards public char- 
 ters. Thofe cafes (land upon a footing efTcntially different. 
 Our nice and fcrupulous attention to private charters, pro- 
 ceeds from the vigilant and jealous folicitude with which 
 we guard the rights of property. But on the contrary^ 
 inftitutions, ftrictly public, fuch as the charter of a city^ 
 
to 
 
 Isear not the moi^ diftant relation to propTcr'ty, They -ar-e 
 cnthely eftabUlhments of government and police. In rea- 
 foning and in legiflating upon the fubjecl, we are ftriclly 
 to confider them as luch. We are fteadily to adhere to the 
 end in view. That end is ibiely to promote the profperity 
 t)f the city. No alteration of the charter interferes with 
 the enjoyment of private property. If the exifting provifions 
 of the inftrument, are inadequate or repugnant to the at- 
 tainment of its object, no imaginable inconvenience can 
 refult from its amendment. 
 
 It has alfo been maintained, that the legiflature cannot, 
 or fnould not, interfere \yith the city charter, unlefs upon 
 the application of the Common Council, fanctioned by 
 the magic influence of the public feall Of all abfurdities 
 which ever entered a bewildered brain, this doctrine is the 
 mod palpably abfurd. What! my countrymem when we 
 complain of the mifconduct,when we experience the oppref- 
 fion of a public body, are we feriouily told, that the doors of 
 Tcdrcfs are fhut upon us, that we are not to approach the 
 guardians of liberty and law, becaufe that very body from 
 'vhom we fuftain the injury will not unite in the petition 
 Suppofe a patriotic majority in that board fhould be with- 
 held from us, is it to be fuppofed, that the men wlio live 
 and flourifli by the public wrongs Vv-ill apply for their fup- 
 preflion ? The queftion is between the city and the ma- 
 jority of the Common Council. It is a complaint of the 
 people againft the ufurpation'of their magiflrates. Arc 
 the violators of public rights to become the petitioners for 
 public juftice ? Defpoilers and yet protectors of their 
 Country's liberties ! Strange inconfiftency ! Moft mar- 
 vellous contrad;6tion ! Feeble, alas ! would be the hopes 
 -W'hich were founded in their interpolition. Our only re- 
 fuge is in the independence of the people and the patriot- 
 ifm of the legHlature. The police of the city is the general 
 
concern of all its inhabitants. The council:^ of the ftats 
 will lillcn with attention to their united rcprefcntations. 
 
 It is eflcntial to the intcrefts of the people that the elec-^ 
 tive privilege fhould be fecured by permanent legal provi- 
 fions. The rage of party, like the malignant influence of 
 Sirius, is ever deftru6\ive to human happinefs. The evils 
 M'hich have been inflidlcd at one bsafon may again be ex- 
 perienced at another. Juitice demands, that the rights of 
 the community fhould be vigilantly guarded againft a repe- 
 tition of abufes. If the freemen of the city fliould be ref- 
 tored by a prefent adminiflration, what ii to prevent a to- 
 tal annihilation by their fucceflbrs There is no fafcty iu 
 government, while the rights of the conftituent remain de- 
 pendent upon the will of his reprefentative. There is no 
 {lability in the privileges of the city, while the exiflenc: 
 of a conftltuent branch of its incorporation is fubjedl to tlic 
 pleafure of the Common Council. If our fyftem of repre- 
 fentation is juft, let it be extended to the comicils of the 
 city. Are the duties of an alderman more important thaii 
 thofc of the Legiflature Are the deliberations of the city 
 council more material to the public happinefs, than thofv^ 
 of our aflembly, or the Houfe of Reprefentatives of thj 
 Union? What fubftantial reafon can be afTigned,. why th j 
 citizen who is entitled to reprefentation in the natii-wia^ 
 councils, fliould remain unheard and unreprefented in the 
 fubordinate councils of the city ? What folid arguments 
 fliall eflablifli the propriety of the pofition — that the fuf- 
 frages of a majority of the inhabitants fliould depend upoa 
 the arbitrary pleafure of a few of the magifl:rates ? 
 
 We ftiould be faithlefs to ourfclves and to poflcrity, if 
 we trifled with the fubjecl, if we confented to any modifi- 
 cation of an authority radically unjult, or accepted of any 
 terms inferior to a total and falutary reformatiwi. Ihi 
 
88 
 
 rights of the people cannot be made the fubje<J!t of barter 
 or compromife. The duties we ewe to our country are 
 folemn and impreflive. Upon the right of reprefentation 
 the whole fyftem of our liberties depends. It is the living 
 foul which animates and ftrengthens the body of our free« 
 dom. 
 
 A court of juflice may fettle the rights of difputing can- 
 didates. The legiflature alone can prevent a repetition of 
 the evils we have experienced, or heal the wounds of 2 
 violated charter. Left without a government, deftitutc 
 of a regular police — "We have no means of appointing in- 
 fpedlors for the enfuing eledion. There is very little pro- 
 bability of a timely decifion of the rights of the candi- 
 dates. Unlefs the legiflature interfere, the city will inevit« 
 ably lofe its reprefentation. We are this day called upon, 
 by a voice too powerful to be refifled, to fupport a right 
 which is eflential to the prefervatjon of our liberties, laws, 
 and conftitutions. Our moft eflential inftitutions are fuf-. 
 Dcnded. Every focial tie, every important privilege, is at 
 ftake. Let us haften to the legifiature, as the guardians 
 of the public fafety. With the union, perfeverance, and 
 alacrity which (hould ever diftinguifh freemen, let us,, 
 faithfully and honeftly, perform our duties to our coun- 
 
 LYSANDER.