of the expenses of prosecutors against a State or legislative official for bribery in office.

We have also enacted an oath for public officers as a guard against bribery at election.

These fourteen articles embrace all the provisions agreed upon in the Convention, and compose an entire constitution for the State. The discussion and conclusions of the Convention have not resulted in many or great changes in the theory of a State government, but have come principally to the amending of modes, the alteration of details, the putting stops upon abuses, and the well working of the whole by easing friction. in the parts.

The Convention has conceived that as its amendments are numerous, affecting every article of the present Constitution, often dependent one upon the other, and together making a constitution, in the judgment of the Convention, complete and harmonious, it is not judicious or practicable to take part from the others to be passed upon by the people separately.

After the proposed constitution had gone through its final reading, the constitution was signed by the delegates present and was delivered by President Wheeler to the Hon. Homer A. Nelson, Secretary of State. President Wheeler in a brief but dignified address, the spirit of which was the hope "that our labors have not been altogether fruitless", adjourned the convention sine die."

Proceedings and Debates, vol. v, p. 3950.

'This convention sat nine months, including adjournments. The convention of 1776-7 sat a short time, only six weeks being devoted to the actual work of making a constitution. The present convention sat close to four, times as long as the convention of 1821, and was twice as long as that of 1846. The convention of 1894 sat four months and three weeks.

SUBMISSION

An attempt was made by the assembly of 1868 to pass a bill for the submission of the constitution at the November

election for that year. This was blocked in the senate. However, in May the legislature passed an act which ratified the proceedings of the convention held beyond the time fixed for the submission of its acts to the people.1 The weight of opinion seems to hold that this ratification was unnecessary. Mr. Charles Z. Lincoln states: "I think it is very clear that the legislature had no power to limit the deliberations of a constitutional convention; such a convention may make or unmake the legislature itself." "

Mr. Folger, continuing his senatorial activity in behalf of the convention's plan of submission, introduced a bill, early in 1869, to submit the proposed constitution at a special election on Tuesday, April 4, 1869. He incorporated the convention's plan for the submission of the constitution as a whole and the question of property qualifications for colored voters. Mr. Murphy of the senate judiciary committee, to which the bill had been referred, made a minority report and accompanied it with a bill which proposed the submission at the November election in 1869, also, that the article on the judiciary should be submitted separately. Before the bill became a law it was amended so as to provide for the submission of the constitution in four parts: first, the complete constitution with the judiciary article; second, the article on the judiciary; third, the pro

'Laws of 1868, ch. 538, May 2, 1868.

Lincoln, Constitutional History of New York, vol. ii, p. 414. The legislature of 1894 used a potent means to limit the length of the convention. It stated a definite period for which compensation would be due to members of the convention. This did not stop the convention of 1894 from continuing its labors over the time set.

vision relating to taxes; and lastly, the qualifications for colored voters.1

The question naturally arises, what right did the legislature have to control the method of constitutional submission? While it is not within our province to discuss a question of constitutional ethics, it appeals to the author as another instance of the usurpation of power by the legislature. If, as appears clear, in the case of a constitutional convention, the legislature has no previous power to determine the method of a constitution's submission in part or whole, why should it have that power after the constitution had been formed? The New York State constitution provides for but two ways of constitutional amendment." First, the legislature is authorized to submit amendments, which require previous action by two legislatures. A constitutional convention, independent of the legislature, is the second mode of amendment. Where the latter mode of procedure has been decided upon by the people, why should the legislature have power to step in and dissect the work of the convention on the question of submission? If such a method is good law, wherein have the people power to control the legislature? 3

1 The recommendation of the convention for a separate submission was ignored by the legislature. This attitude on the part of the legislature might have been anticipated from the Act of May 2, 1868 (Chap. 538) "Nothing herein contained shall be held or construed to affirm or ratify any form or mode of submission to the people of the Constitution by said Convention proposed."

'New York Constitution, art. xiv, secs. 1-3.

3 The New York State constitution as acted upon by the convention of 1894 says: "Any proposed constitution or constitutional amendment which shall have been adopted by such convention, shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the State at the time and in the manner provided by such convention, at an election which shall be held not less than six weeks after the adjournment of such convention." Article xiv, sec. 2.

As prescribed by statute, the people voted upon the constitution at the regular election November 2, 1869. The judiciary article was approved by a vote of 247,240 to 240,442,1 but the people rejected the constitution by a vote of 223,935 to 290,456.2 The constitutional amendment providing for equal assessment and taxation was lost by a majority of 89,448, as was equal negro suffrage by a vote of 249,802 to 282,403.* There can be no question of the chagrin to many members of the convention due to the large failure of their work. Still the fact that many of the most important reforms proposed by the convention were recommended by the commission of 1872 must have been a solace. The fact that the people in 1874 and 1876 chose many of the reforms suggested by the convention of 1867 gives evidence that their arrows were not aimed at the constitution as a whole.

POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE CONVENTION

Politically, the constitutional convention and the proposed constitution exerted but slight influence upon conditions, in comparison with the political power brought to bear upon the convention. Its members were more "sinned against than sinning". The convention was theoretically a constitutional non-political body. Practically, however, it was a most decided political organization. This could hardly be otherwise in the nature of the case. As we have stated before, the political complexion of the convention

1 Tribune Almanac, 1870, p. 51.

Ibid. For, 183,812; against, 273,260.

2 Ibid.

Ibid., p. 53. In 1860 the same proposition received the following vote: total vote, 535,487; for negro suffrage, 197,503, against negro suffrage, 337,984. In 1846 the vote on the same question was: total vote, 309,742; for negro suffrage, 85,406, against negro suffrage, 224,336. Annual Cyc., 1869, p. 490.

was Republican, ninety-seven of the one hundred-sixty delegates being Republican. However, there was a silent minority, which to the opposing leaders meant danger. Mr. Sanford E. Church was the Democratic leader most feared. In speaking upon the question of submission, Mr. M. I. Townsend said of him: "It is equally true that if matters shall stand as they now do, a breath from the great war-horse of the Democratic party, my friend from Orleans. . . might be sufficient to array his whole party against the other articles whether the submission be in June or in the fall." Mr. Townsend then continues:

2

1

The other articles are doomed to defeat, hopelessly doomed. What do our Democratic friends mean here? What signifies this silence? I do not hesitate to look at political distinctions; I want that we, as Republicans, should not be beguiled and led into traps in regard to this matter. If our friends upon the Democratic side of the house want this Constitution adopted, they can say so; and when they say so, all question of conflict is past.3

1 All besides the judiciary article.

2 New York Tribune, August 7, 1867. Mr. Greeley warned the Republican on this point. "It is no credit to the Republican majority that the minority have virtually ruled the Convention thus far. [By their absence.] Shall it be so to the end?

3 Albany Argus, Feb. 27, 1868, after summing up the work of the Convention to date rather disagreed with the above: "The vast scheme of centralization and usurpation cannot be successful, if the people in the coming election wrest the power from the hands of the party who expect to profit by it. Place the Democracy in power by your votes, and these conspirators will hasten to undo their work. They will build up no lawless patronage, no vast schemes of expenditure . . . pile up no arbitrary powers in the hands of central officials or State boards. They will hasten to undo their work, I will rather abandon it and leave it a monument of their baffled ambition, than permit it to exist as a means of strength to their adversaries." Under the title "A Copperhead Hiss," Harper's Weekly derived much amusement from the fury of the Albany Argus, the