ing for advancing millions. We are assuming to act for generations to come. We represent, not the mere party which nominated, not the mere voters who elected us, but the whole people of New York, of each sex and of every age and con dition. — aye, and the succeeding millions, whose constitutional rights we are now asserting, around whom we are erecting in advance constitutional barriers and entrenchments for the security of their liberties. Was Magna Charta extorted at Runnymede by the iron-handed barons of Normandy for themselves alone? No; but for every freeman and serf within the limits of England — for every child of English lineage that has since been born — yea, and for every colony that has been planted in the wilderness by the descendants, and which has burst in its growth their bonds of colonial vas salage. Even in the Declaration of our own Inde pendence are contained those doctrines of human rights which were first conceded by power to the spirit of liberty in the Magna Charta of England. When, therefore, we convene as the representatives of a free people, to discuss elementary principles of constitutional law, let us discard the spirit of the demagogue and invoke that other spirit of expansive patriotism — of manly independence un der a just sense of responsibility — of devotion to the great and permanent interests of the people. It devolves upon us to perpetuate the privileges of our citizens, and to guard our institutions from danger in the distance, whether menaced by legis lative corruption, by popular excitement, by par tisan frenzy, or by the encroachments of power. I trust this question will be met as one of prin ciple; that gentlemen will prove by their votes that love of the people which they profess in their speeches. Rely upon it, the electors will prefer the substance to the shadow." "Mr. Worden : It is absurd to suppose that two millions of men will make an absurd compact, and therefore they are to be trusted to select just such a candidate for their suffrages as they please. "Mr. Porter : Absurd as it is, two millions of men have made precisely such a compact, and it has stood in your constitution for twenty-five years. Whether the compact is altogether absurd is a question between the gentleman and the conven tion of '21, between the gentleman and the people of the State of New York. But if the contract was absurd, it was their right to make it. It is
their right to renew it. The gentleman from On tario pronounces it absurd. The people of New York have not discovered its absurdity. We are here to enter into a compact to examine the an cient landmarks, and if needful to erect new monu ments to define the boundaries of executive, of legislative, aye, and of electoral power. Such a compact is our bill of rights. If we go behind the social compact and the doctrine of restric tions, it is my natural right to hunt in every forest, to dig in every valley, to reap on every hillside. But by that compact we agree to respect the vested rights of property and to recognize the exclusive dominion of the landholder. The peo ple have the power to elect a king to rule over them and make his eldest son successor to the throne. If gentlemen deny that, they deny the doctrine for which they contend, the unlimited power of the people. By this compact we surren der that power, and declare, for us and our de scendants, that we will have a Governor, but no King. He shall wear no crown. Two years shall be the limit of his dynasty. He shall not be elected for life, even by the voice of the people. The gentleman from Ontario and the gentleman from Seneca insist that the question is involved, whether we will not entrust power to the people. Not so, Mr. Chairman, but that other question is involved, whether we, standing in the place of the whole people, will leave unlimited power in the hands of the electoral body. The question is involved, whether a plurality of 200,000 shall exercise absolute dominion over two millions of citizens." A part of the plan which Mr. Porter op posed was the removal of the restriction which required candidates for the office of Governor to be thirty years of age at the time of election. The result of Judge Por ter's speech was to induce Charles O'Connor, who was opposed to the restriction, to say that — "The gentleman from Saratoga in his own per son furnishes the best evidence of the claims of early youth to honorable distinction." In politics Judge Porter began life as a Whig, and at twenty-five years of age he made a speech before the Baltimore Conven
