Democracy, Liberty, and Property: The State Constitutional Conventions of the 1820s

13. The Appointive Power

13 The Appointive Power On October 1,after the suffrage debate, the delegates unanimously abolished the Council of Appointment and took up the rep ort of Van Buren’s committee. The Bucktail leader explained its pro visions with great care. Nathan Williams, a Clintonian from Oneida County in the west, moved to strike the provision for local election of justices of the peace and, instead, include these petty magistrates under the new general appointive power, that is, the governor with the advice and consent ofthe senate. His motion never came to a vote. Chancellor Kent spoke briefly and cogently in fav or of the committee’s resolution. Other conservatives took the same p osition, as did suc h moderates as Rufus King and Ogden Edwards . Van Buren then presented his solution.He was answered by an old political enemy,the Columbia County Federalist,Jacob R.Van Rensselaer.Neither Van Buren’s scheme nor local election could command a major ity vote. On October 9 the delegates adopted the compromise offered by John Duer. . . . M r . Va n Bur en . . . . The first question which presented itself for the consideration of the committee , was the pr opriety of abolishing the Council of Appointment. On this subject there was no difficulty; the same unanimity prevailed among the members of the select committee in this respect, as in the vote which had just passed in the committee of the whole , for the abolition of this pow er; and in this, they had only acted in accordance with public opinion,by which this feature of the old constitution had been condemned. He would not, he said, detain the committee b y giving From Reports, pp. 297–300,307–9, 319,331–32. 158 The New York Convention any reasons for this part of the report; after the unanimous vote just given, this would be a wanton waste of time. The next and more important enquiry, was, with respect to what should be substituted in its stead; and here, as was to be expected, a diversity of sentiment prevailed, and many diffi culties presented themselves. For the purpose, however, of lessening, as far as was practicable, the objections that would necessarily exist to any general appointing pow er, wherever placed, or however constituted, they had felt the propriety of reducing the patronage attached to it; and they had, with that view, separated from it the great mass of the offi cers of the state . Many of them, they had sent to be appointed , or elected, in the se veral counties or towns, and others they had left to the disposition of the legislature, to provide for their appointment or election, as experience might prove to be most advisable. Of the 8287 military officers, they had recommended that all except 73, consisting of major generals, brigadier generals, and the adjutant general, should be elected by the privates and officers of the militia. Ofthe 6663civil officers,now appointed by the Council of Appointment, they recommended that 3643should be appointed or elected as the legislature should direct—these were auctioneers, masters in chancery, public notaries , inspectors of turnpike r oads, commissioners to acknowledge deeds, examiners in chancery, inspectors for commercial purposes, and some other officers.They also recommended that the clerks of counties,and district attorneys , should be appointed by the courts of common pleas, in the several counties. And that the mayors and clerks, of all the cities except New-York, should be appointed by the common council of the respective cities. Thus far, no great diversity of sentiment had existed among the members of the committee, and there had been a general concurrence of opinion, on all the parts of the report already noticed. This, together with the justices of the peace , which a major ity of the committee had recommended to be elected, left only 453 offi cers for whose appointment, or election, it was necessary to provide. In addition to the curtailment of the appointing power, to be retained at the seat of government; the committee, under a full conviction that m uch of the complaint against the existing Council of Appointment, had arisen f rom the cir cumstance of the concentration of power in one body , had The Appointive Power 159 thought it wise even here to distribute them; by giving the appointment of the heads of the different departments of this state...