In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

14 The Senate and the Suffrage The recently retired United States Senator, Nathan Sanford, presented the report of the committee on the suffrage on September 19. Sanford, then forty-two, had had a brilliant career in the Republican r anks for two decades; and in 1823 he would succeed James Kent as chancellor. Kent made the most famous speech of the entire convention in support of Ambrose Spencer’s motion to maintain a freehold qualification for senatorial electors. It was a forthright statement of conservative doctrine. This greatly learned jurist, the virtual creator of equity jurisdiction in American law, had been chancellor for seven years and might have continued for many more had the convention seen fit to lift the constitution’s mandatory retirement age of sixty.The radicals were determined to cut down this “branching oak, whose roots penetrated the union,” and Kent’s role in the convention, “stationed at the straits of Thermopylae” against the onrushing Jacobin horde, as Platt described it, merely strengthened their purpose. The best answer to Kent’s speech came from a little-known delegate, David Buel, Jr., a young lawyer representing Rensselaer County, just east of Albany. But Van Buren’s speech, on the third day of debate, made the strongest impression on the delegates. Although advocating a taxpaying qualification for the franchise, he could discover no basis in reason or in fact for perpetuating New York’s dual electorate. Two speakers followed him, summing-up for each side; the delegates then conquered this last depleted outpost of aristocracy. Mr. N. Sa nfo r d took the floor. The question before us is the r ight of suffrage—who shall,or who shall not,have the right to vote.The committee From Reports, pp. 178–80,219–2 2,240–43,257 –61. 170 The New York Convention have presented the scheme they thought best; to abolish all existing distinctions and make the right of voting uniform. Is this not right? Where did these distinctions arise? They arose from British precedents. In England , they have their three estates, which must always have their separate interests represented. Here there is but one estate—the people . To me, the only qualifications seem to be, the virtue and morality of the people; and if they may be safely entrusted to vote for one class of our rulers, why not for all? In my opinion, these distinctions are fallacious. We have the experience of almost all the other states against them.The principle of the scheme now proposed, is, that those who bear the bur thens of the state, should choose those that r ule it. There is no pr ivilege given to property, as such; but those who contr ibute to the public suppor t, we consider as entitled to a share in the election of r ulers. The burthens are annual, and the elections are annual, and this appears proper. To me, and the majority of the committee, it appeared the only reasonable scheme that those who are to be affected by the acts of gov ernment, should be annually entitled to vote for those who administer it.Our taxes are of two sorts, on real and personal property. The payment of a tax on either , we thought, equally entitled a man to a vote, and thus we intended to destroy the odious distinctions of property which now exist. But we have considered personal service, in some cases, equivalent to a tax on personal property, as in work on the high roads. This is a burthen, and should entitle those subject to it to equivalent privileges. The road duty is equal to a poll tax on every male citizen, of 21 years, of 62½ cents per annum, which is about the value of each individual’s work on the r oad. This work is a bur then imposed by the legislature—a duty required by rulers, and which should entitle those subject to it, to a choice of those rulers. Then, sir, the militia next presents itself; the idea of personal ser vice, as applic able to the r oad duty, is, in like manner, applicable here; and this criterion has been adopted in other states. In Mississippi, mere enrolment gives a vote. In Connecticut, as is proposed here, actual service, and that without the right of commutation, is required. The duty in the militia is obligator y and onerous. The militia man must find his arms and...

Share