550 



NEW YORK. 



rightful authority to and the independence of the 

 Executive and Judiciary, and the subordination of 

 the military to the civil power. 



7. Equal rights and protection for naturalized and 

 native-born citizens at home and abroad, and the 

 assertion of American nationality which shall com- 

 mand the respect of foreign powers and furnish an. 

 example and encouragement to people struggling for 

 national integrity and constitutional liberty. 



8. That the thanks of a grateful people are ever due 

 to the soldiers and sailors who perilled their lives in 

 defence of the Eepublic, and that their claims upon 

 the Government and the people shall be held sacred 

 and inviolable. 



9. That the nation is under deep and lasting obli- 

 gation to President Andrew Johnson, who, deserted 

 by a party which proved faithless to the principles 

 and pledges upon which it came into power, has re- 

 spected his oath to maintain and defend the Consti- 

 tution, and who will be honored in history as one of 

 the most determined defenders of American liberty ; 

 and that Chief-Justice Chase, who, in the trial insti- 

 tuted to depose the Executive as an obstacle to par- 

 tisan and revolutionary purposes, proved faithful to 

 his high trusts, and restored the Judiciary to its 

 ancient renown, is entitled to the gratitude not only 

 of the Democracy of this State and nation, but of all 

 friends of civil government. 



In relation to State affairs the following was 

 adopted : 



Resolved, That all registration and excise laws 

 should be uniform in their operation throughout the 

 State ; and that the execution of excise laws and the 

 collection of fees under them should be made through 

 the local authorities in the several counties. 



The election took place on the first Tuesday 

 of November, and resulted in favor of the 

 Democratic candidates both for State officers 

 and Presidential electors. The whole vote for 

 Governor was 850,656, of which Hoffman 

 received 439,301 and Griswold 411,355, giving 

 the former a majority of 27,946. The entire 

 vote cast for Presidential electors was 849,766, 

 of which 429,883 were for electors pledged 

 to vote for Seymour, and 419,883 were in 

 favor of the election of Grant. Seymour's 

 majority in the State was just 10,000. Thirty- 

 one members of Congress were chosen, of 

 whom thirteen are Democrats, and eighteen 

 Republicans. The Legislature of 1869 has 17 

 Republicans, and 15 Democrats in the Senate, 

 and 76 Republicans and 52 Democrats in the 

 Assembly. In the City of New York there 

 were 173,683 voters registered, 165,894 votes 

 were cast for Governor, of which 112,522, or a 

 majority of 69,150 were given for Mr. Hoff- 

 man. The full vote for Mayor in December 

 was 95,944, of which A. Oakey Hall received 

 75,109, or a majority of 54,274 over Fred. 

 A. Conkling, the Republican candidate. 



The Court of Appeals pronounced a decision 

 against the legality of political test oaths at 

 the November term. The case arose under 

 the act of 1867, providing for a conven- 

 tion to revise and amend the Constitution of 

 the State, which excluded from the privilege 

 of voting all persons who refused to take a 

 prescribed oath. Judge Miller held the opinion 

 that this was inconsistent with the. clause of 

 the Federal Constitution which declares that 

 "no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post 



facto law, or law impairing the obligation of 

 contracts." His language on this point is : 



This act declares that no person shall vote at the 

 election for delegates to said convention who will 

 not, if duly challenged, take and subscribe an oath 

 that he has not done certain acts mentioned therein, 

 and inflicts the penalty of political disfranchisement, 

 without any preliminary examination or trial, for a 

 refusal to take said oath. Thus the citizen is de- 

 prived, upon declining, of a right guaranteed by the 

 Constitution and the laws, and one of the most ines- 

 timable privileges of a free government. There can 

 be no doubt, I think, that to deprive a citizen of the 

 privilege of exercising the elective franchise for any 

 conduct which he has previously been guilty of, is to 

 inflict a punishment for the act done. It imposes 

 upon him a severe penalty, one which by the laws of 

 the State is a part of the punishment inflicted after 

 conviction for felony. It arbitrarily and summarily, 

 and without any of the forms of law, punishes for an 

 offence created 'by the law itself. 



When the act in question was passed by the Legis- 

 lature, there was no law in this State which con- 

 demned or characterized the conduct which is pun- 

 ished in this act, by depriving the citizen of the right 

 of suifrage. This law created a new crime, and makes 

 an offence which did not previously exist. It pun- 

 ishes for an act which was not a crime when commit- 

 ted. Besides, the statute in question, in violation of 

 the rules of the common law, pronounces judgment 

 of condemnation without evidence, without any op- 

 portunity to defend against the charge, and without 

 any trial. It makes the party the accuser of himself, 

 and his refusal to acquit nimself, his own condemna- 

 tion. It punishes for an ofi'ence, before an accusation 

 is made and a trial had judicially, according to the 

 constitution and the laws of the land. It compels 

 him, in a direct violation of the Constitution of the 

 United States : to be a witness against himself. His 

 refusal to testify that he is innocent operates to pro- 

 duce his conviction, and seals his guilt. The object 

 of the fifth amendment was to prevent the party from 

 being called upon as a witness of his own guilt. To 

 compel him to testify would violate this provision ; 

 and indirectly to make his refusal to testify a cause 

 for punishment effects the same purpose. It is only 

 an evasion of the provision cited. 



The act prescribing this oath is also declared 

 to be contrary to the provisions of the consti- 

 tution of the State. The Judge says : 



I am also of the opinion that the statute in ques- 

 tion violates the constitution of the State of New 

 York. 



The first section of the second article of the con- 

 stitution prescribes the qualifications of electors, who 

 shall be entitled to vote ''for all officers that now or 

 hereafter may be elected by the people." 



The second section^ of the nineteenth article pro- 

 vides for the submission of the question, whether a 

 convention shall be called, " to the electors qualified 

 to vote for members of the Legislature, and in case a 

 majority of the electors so qualified voting at such 

 election shall decide in favor of such convention for 

 such a purpose, the Legislature shall provide for the 

 election of delegates to such convention." This 

 clause does not confer upon the Legislature any 

 power to create disabilities not existing at the time 

 under the Constitution, or to restrict the right of 

 suffrage which the Constitution has established. It 

 would be extraordinary if the Legislature had the 

 right to determine who were entitled to the privilege 

 of voting, and thus, in the exercise of an unlimited 

 discretion, be able to disfranchise any class of citi- 

 zens, when the right is already clearly established. 



The statute also violates section o^e of article one 

 of the constitution of this State, which declares that 

 " no member of this State shall be disfranchised or 

 deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to 



