taking effect January 1, 1875. After the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment on March 30, 1870,' the operation of the discrimination in New York State was nominal.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The convention of 1867 was no exception to the tendency to consider the principles upon which the constitution was founded. In consequence the Bill of Rights received certain modifications. Mr. Merwin suggested an amendment, when the jury section was under consideration, to the effect that "except in justices' courts provision may be made by law for trial by jury of less than twelve men." This was adopted by the convention. His aim, undoubtedly, was to remove any question concerning the right of the legislature to increase the civil jurisdiction of justices' courts. In 1856 the Court of Appeals had decided that a provision in the excise law of 1855, which gave courts of special sessions jurisdiction over persons charged with its violation, was unconstitutional on the ground that they had a right to a common law jury of twelve men. Mr. Merwin's amendment was designed to avoid that question."

1 Art. xv, sec. 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Proceedings and Debates, vol. v, p. 3239. 'Wynehamer Case, 13 N. Y. 378.

Proceedings and Debates, op. cit., p. 3229.

In 1868 it was decided in Dawson v. Horan, 51 Barb. 459, that a statute which increased the civil jurisdiction of justices' courts was not unconstitutional in view of the fact that it required a jury of six instead of twelve men. This decision was followed and approved in Knight v. Campbell, 62 Barb. 16 (1872).

THE LEGISLATURE

The conservatism of the convention was again strikingly shown when the structure of the legislature was discussed. It was unanimously proposed by the committee upon legislative organization to divide the State into eight districts, as established in 1821 but abandoned in 1846. However, the geographical arrangement of the districts was new. Under this plan the districts were practically coterminous with the judicial districts, provision being made for an additional senator in New York County.' Further, this plan provided that one senator was to be elected each year for four years. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Edwin A. Merritt, gave the opinion of the committee when he said that in his belief the large district plan would “invite into the legislature the ablest minds of the State". A practical turn from a political angle was given the debate by Mr. Solomon C. Young,' who pointed out that, based on the election returns of 1866, the first and second districts would send five and four respectively, as representatives of a 56,000 Democratic majority in the two districts. On the other hand, from the remaining six districts the Republicans would elect twenty-four in all, representing a majority of about 92,000. Horace Greeley, in keeping with his minority representation, suggested fifteen districts, each district to elect three upon the cumulative plan.' Among the various other plans suggested, Mr. Marius Schoonmaker proposed ten senatorial districts with four

New York Convention Documents (1867), vol. i, no. 30, p. 1. 'New York County had special arrangements for the fifth.

Proceedings and Debates, vol. i, p. 648.

'Tribune Almanac, 1867, p. 51.

Ibid., 1867, p. 51.

1 Proceedings and Debates, op. cit., p. 787.

4 Ibid., p. 688.

senators from each. The convention at length substituted for the eight-senate-district plan of the committee the single-district system then in force. Minor changes, however, were made: four years was made the length of office, two classes of senators were made by dividing the odd and even numbered districts, one class was to be elected every two years.3

The same conservative plan was followed in the committee report when it touched on the assembly. It suggested an increase of eleven in the assembly, making the total 139, and abandoning at the same time the method of the single-district system. There appeared to be a united opinion in favor of an increase in the number of assemblymen but the suggestions varied from an increase of 128 to 168.5 The committee's assembly plan did not encounter much opposition, except the change from the single districts to election by counties. The latter, however, was sustained by the vote of 64 to 43. The convention adopted the proposition that all electors should be eligible to either house of the legislature. The legislator's salary was fixed at $1,000 and mileage. Typical of Horace Greeley was the suggestion that the senators should receive no compen

7

6

1 Proceedings and Debates, op. cit., p. 661.

Ibid., vol. v, pp. 3959-61.

By a vote of 79-35.

Ibid., pp. 3960-1.

The latter was only defeated by a small margin, 52 to 62. Other proposals were for 141, 142, 143, 145.

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 876. The vote upon Mr. Milton H. Merwin's amendment which raised the question whether members were to be elected from single assembly districts, or counties.

Ibid., p. 869; vol. v, p. 3959.

8 The speaker of the assembly was given, in addition, an emolument equal to a member's salary. New York Convention Documents, vol. i, no. 30, p. 3.

sation other than the consciousness of honorable usefulness and the resulting gratitude of their fellow citizens.1

THE EXECUTIVE

Reports on the executive department were received from three committees. The regular committee on the Governor and lieutenant-governor made the main report. The committee on the pardoning power considered that section alone, while the committee on legislative powers and duties returned a section on the legislative power at extraordinary sessions, in addition to the regular section relating to the Governor's action on bills. The compensation of the Governor and lieutenant-governor was to be fixed by the legislature, though the terms of office were left unaltered. In his message of 1867,2 Governor Fenton had suggested

1 Proceedings and Debates, vol. ii, p. 866. Among the large number of provisions suggested by the committee on the powers and duties of the legislature, which were already in the constitution, the following were in addition especially recommended: Biennial sessions of the legislature; special sessions, with power to consider subjects specified only by the Governor. No member was to be expelled from either house without a majority vote of its members, nor could one be expelled twice for the same offense. Further, there was to be no money or property appropriated without a legislative act. The legislature was authorized to create a Court of Claims. It also was forbidden to grant any extra compensation to a public officer or contractor after the service had been entered upon. This was passed after but little discussion. (Proceedings, vol. iv, p. 2777.) Railroads were forced to get the consent of the town or city officials before construction in cities or in incorporated villages, also the consent of property-owners of at least one-half the real estate value upon the line of the proposed railroad. All local or private bills were required to publish notices in the State paper at least twenty days previous to the commencement of the session at which the application was to be made. Such bills had to be introduced during the first sixty days of the session. Also the legislature was not to pass local or special laws in certain cases.

2 Messages from the Governors, vol. v, p. 758. He gave his reason that the increase in population with the resulting increase in crime,

that a stringent limitation should be made on the executive's power to pardon. The committee interviewed ex-Governors Fish, Morgan and Seymour, as well as Governor Fenton.1 The advice of all except ex-Governor Fish was against an executive council and the section on the pardoning power remained unaltered.

A practice established by the Governors and sanctioned by the Court of Appeals, whereby the Governor had an indefinite length of time within which to act upon a bill after the adjournment of the legislature, was discussed by the convention. The leading suggestion offered upon this power came from Mr. Cornelius L. Allen. Governor Fenton, it appeared, had suggested that the time for signing bills be limited to thirty days after adjournment. The proposition for a ten days limitation suggested by Mr. Alvord, was rejected but the convention took no definite stand on the thirty-day rule.3

2

made the Governor unjustly over-burdened with the consideration of reprieves. He suggested no constructive plan. Horace Greeley suggested a plan in point, viz. "the surviving ex-Governors of this State still residing within her limits shall constitute a council of pardons and shall meet steadily at the capitol . . . ." Proceedings and Debates, vol. ii, p. 1183.

In its original report the committee did not incorporate this, but as the report was discussed, the provision was incorporated in a section of the executive article as reported by the committee on revision. Proceedings and Debates, vol. ii, p. 1172, vol. v, p. 3962.

'Proceedings and Debates, vol. ii, pp. 1128, 1131. Mr. Joshua M. Van Cott proposed as a substitute to Mr. Alvord's amendment that "No bill shall become a law unless it shall have been presented to the Governor at least ten days (Sundays excepted) before the adjournment. . . or signed by him before the adjournment, or unless it shall have been passed over his objection." This also was lost.

3 Governor Fenton's thirty-day limit was adopted by the commission of 1872. An amendment was submitted and ratified by the people in 1874.