speak in the first person, of a civil relation, it is as a citizen of the commonwealth of New-York. I beg your attention to the following observations.

I. The Commonwealth of New-York is a free, sovereign, and independent state.

Sovereignty and independence are claimed by every state of the Union; and, in the constitutions of many of them, expressly asserted. Massachusetts asserts these attributes, in her bill of rights, as belonging to her. The people of NewHampshire, after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, solemnly declared themselves "a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state." Such is the style in which the New States speak, it may be presumed, for the purpose of affirming their equality with the elder commonwealths. The term State, in this application, is of the same general import with nation. It indicates the civil community or body politic. Authorities to establish this import of the term need not be quoted, as it is believed every jurist and statesman admits it; and men of high name in several states of the Union, employ state and nation as convertible terms.

New-York before and since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, has occupied as high a ground as any of her sister states, in asserting her independent sovereignty. Within herself, this state possessed all the first, comprehensive and essential elements of government; and in delegating a portion of her power to the confederation, she acted, and continues to act, as a sovereign with the other sovereigns of the league. She had and still has her own constitution of government, her own legislature, her own judiciary, her own executive, and her own affairs, with which the confederation may not interfere; and which embrace all that is immediately most interesting to the citizen. How few, comparatively, are the points delegated? How seldom does the citizen, of any state, come in contact with the Federal power? And how few of the citizens in their affairs,—if we except the post office establishment-ever touch it at all? Not so, however, with their own state governments. They are seen and felt wherever they go, and at all times. Thus finely, as well as judiciously, writes one of our distinguished jurists-Chancellor Kent-who will not be suspected, from political partialities, of giving too strict

.....

an interpretation to our federal bond. He truly says: "The vast field of the law of property, the very extensive head of equity jurisdiction, and the principal rights and duties which flow from our civil and domestic relations, fall within the control, and we might almost say, the exclusive cognizance of the state governments. We look essentially to the state courts for protection to all these momentous interests. They touch, in their operation, every cord of human sympathy, and control our best destinies. It is their province to reward and to punish. Their blessings and their terrors will accompany us to the fire-side, and be in constant activity before the public eye. The true interests and the permanent freedom of this country require, that the jurisprudence of the individual states should be cultivated, cherished, and exalted, and the dignity and reputation of the state authorities sustained with becoming pride."* The state felt herself free and independent when she entered into the confederacy; and she exercised her sovereignty in fixing her terms. Had she refused to enter into the compact, no power on earth could of right have compelled her; in such an event, no compulsion would have been attempted. Like those states which did hold back for a time, she would have found herself treated by the confederated commonwealths, in their commercial and political relations, as a foreign state. The doctrine of state sovereignty has an important bearing upon the moral aspect of the general subject before us. I beg it to be attended to, when I return to its fuller consideration in a more proper place.

II. The government of this State is founded, fairly and directly upon the common will, expressed in peace, expressed fully and repeatedly, and in the absence of all fear, compulsion, or tumult.

Since the Revolution three conventions, at distant periods from each other, have been called, to frame or amend the constitution of government. The year 1821, will long be gratefully remembered, by the friends of human right in the state of New-York. Defects were found in her constitution of government, to the rectifying of which the power of ordinary legislation was deemed inadequate. It was recommended to the citizens to express their pleasure upon the measure of

*Kent i. 418.

calling a convention, to do that which their legislature could not constitutionally effect. The public mind was decidedly favourable to the measure. The time of choosing delegates to the proposed convention was fixed. The citizens of every condition, in the utmost quietness and most exemplary order, assembled in their respective towns, wards, or districts. The choice of delegates was fairly made, and they convened in the capitol; into their hands was placed the whole frame of the government of a great state; they sat for months; deliberated, debated, and decided upon those provisions of government, which were deemed best for the public weal. Their doors were open, their halls crowded, their debates published; no guards were required to insure safety, no police officers were put in requisition to preserve the peace. There was neither danger nor tumult. When the convention had done their best, they committed the result of their counsels and toils to the people, in their primary assemblies, to be accepted or rejected by them at their pleasure. After due examination the people expressed their unbiassed judgment, and adopted the Ideed as their own. That was a proud season for the friends of self-government; and many such seasons have been enjoyed in the western world. Upon this subject, the twenty-four Republics of confederated America, furnish materials for a splendid page in the history of man. Such a condition of society, much less than a century since, was thought of in the closet, but deemed visionary in practice. Government here rests where alone it can be permanent-upon the consent of the public mind, guided in its actings by light, and influenced by a sense of moral order.

In looking back to the period of the reformation, in the British Isles, the heart is pained at the results of the mighty struggles of patriots and saints. Principles, indeed, were exhibited and shed a light upon man which shall never be extinguished; but the fabric of civil reformation tumbled down, and in its ruins buried many of its friends. It could not be otherwise. The foundation was unsound, The government, in all its parts was an usurpation upon the prostrated rights of of humanity. Who authorized the house of Stuart with its feudal lords, to dictate laws and force them upon those realms? The principles of the Reformation werè, as they still are, liberal and holy; but they could not sanctify usurpation. The

Saviour who came to redeem and raise from debasement our injured nature, however he might approve of the motives of individuals as in the case of David in his well meant proposal to build the temple-and whatever the amount, personally, of their moral worth-refused to accept, in rearing the civil edifice of those nations, the labours of men, while in their public character they were clad in the spoils of plundered man. This fundamental cause of failure in the British reformation of the seventeenth century, calls for the attention of reformers in the nineteenth. Let those of that empire who are the friends of moral reformation look, while their statesmen are beginning to tear away the rubbish, for a firmer basis upon which to lay their excellent material, than was found in the days of their fathers.

*

From this digression, if such you should be inclined to think it, I return, and shall, mean while, only assert that such a basis of government, as the British reformers wanted, the state of New-York possesses; the public will fully and without compulsion expressed. The mode of building must, too, be somewhat modified. The man who fixes his eye upon the measures and modes of two hundred years ago, determined to pursue them without accommodation to circumstances, will effect little for the public weal. Principles are permanent, but circumstances control their application.

.

III. The instrument of which I now speak, the constitution of New-York, is not blotted by a single immoral principle.

The provisions of this document are, so far as they go, in accordance with the eternal rule of righteousness. God is acknowledged by it as presiding over the destinies of the state, and the confession of his grace and benificence, as manifested in allowing the people to choose their form of government, is inscribed upon its front. Might not then the question be asked: Supposing that in this deed there were no recognition of any principle peculiar to the supernatural system

*Plundered man.-The above remarks refer to the political system of Great Britain, rather than to individual men. The feudal character of that system was, in the period noticed, more strongly marked than at present.The revolution of 1688, gained something for the people which they had not before. The American who admires the political constitution of Britain, in its radical principles, during any part of the 17th century, and prefers it to the civil institutions of his own country at this day, must be somewhat of a singular being.

of grace, might it not, nevertheless, according to the fundamental positions of my last letter, be acknowledged as the ordinance of God, for good to men? Formed by a free and deliberate expression of the public will, containing many moral provisions, and none that is immoral; the people under it advancing in knowledge, enjoying every right, and in possession of prosperity and happiness in an unexampled degree; would you place your signature to the declaration, that would proclaim it the device of Satan, originating in his dark abode, and posting thither again! You would not. No man who regards, or should be regarded in public opinion, would either conceive such a thought or utter such a declaration. Upon this ground, did I proceed no farther, would I not be safe in affirming the government of New-York to be a moral institution, worthy the support of upright men? It seems to me the assertion should subject no man to reproach. But I go farther, and affirm,

IV. That it is not only a moral system, but also a christian government, in actual and voluntary subjection to Messiah.

I do not affirm that it does all in respect of morals and religion, which ought to be done. Try any man or any church, by the test of doing all that ought to be done, and what must the decision be? That there is, in the civil and political system of New-York, both a laudable moral character and a substantial confession of Messiah, is the affirmation made. It is sustained by the following considerations :

1. The constitution confesses God and his gracious providence.

2. While it secures liberty of worship, it declares against licentiousness.

3. It prohibits the granting of lottery laws and other games of chance.

4. Slavery is abolished in the state, and can never again be authorized.

5. Tens of thousands of the state treasury are devoted, annually, to the promotion of useful knowledge, in the support of primary schools and higher institutions of literature.

6. The christian Sabbath is acknowledged in the code of public law, and provision is made to guard its sanctity.

7. The infidel is rejected by her courts as incompetent to give testimony.