John Jay Papers

From John Jay to the Independent Electors of the City of New-York, [28 April 1788]

To the Independent Electors of the City of New-York

[New-York, April 28, 1788]

There was a time when a majority of the citizens of New-York were so opposed to lawyers as members of the legislature, that a single gentleman of that profession, though confessedly a man of abilities, and in other respects, of unimpeachable character, could not obtain a majority of suffrages, principally owing to the circumstance of his being of that profession.

But the times are changed, and we are changed with them. We now find a list of candidates proposed for convention, SEVEN of whom are either lawyers or law characters, and no less than THREE are named as members of the legislature.1

No prejudice ought to be entertained against the profession of the law, confined to its proper sphre; but there are cogent reasons to be offered against admitting too large a number in the legislature. Every man will be inclined to promote his own trade. The more dubious and obscure the laws are, the more will the business of the profession be increased. It will therefore be for the interest of the lawyers to frame the laws in such a manner as to be equivocal and hard to to be understood.

There are also good reasons against electing many lawyers in the convention.—We are for adopting the constitution; but still we wish that they, who compose the convention, may propose amendments, after the manner of Massachusetts.—In this opinion, so far as we are able to collect it, are a large majority of our fellow citizens. If the new constitution needs amendment, it wants in no part more than in that which relates to the judicial department—the courts of law, as they are to be formed under the constitution, will prove oppressive and expensive, and will introduce very great confusion by their interference with the state judiciaries; and it is wished that the convention may recommend alterations in this and some other articles after its adoption. But the lawyers will be under a strong bias to oppose the necessary amendments to this part of the plan. The increase of lawsuits, and of the expences of carrying them on, though it will be oppressive to the people in general, will be to the advantage of the profession of the law—It will therefore be more for the public good, to chuse a less number of lawyers—give them a full share in the representation, and elect two. There are other gentlemen who are not lawyers—characters firmly attached to the adoption of the system in the form in which it has been adopted by Massachusetts.

MANY FEDERALISTS2

JOHN JAY, GULIAN VERPLANCK,
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, DANIEL PHOENIX,
ISAAC ROSEVELT, WILLIAM NEILSON,
ALEXANDER McCOMB, WILLIAM MAXWELL.
R.C. LIVINGSTON,

Broadside. Printed: New York, 1788 (Early Am. Imprints, description begins Early American Imprints, series 1: Evans, 1639–1800 [microform; digital collection], edited by American Antiquarian Society, published by Readex, a division of Newsbank, Inc. Accessed: Columbia University, New York, N.Y., 2006–13, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/ description ends no. 21501).

1The Federalist slate of candidates included lawyers James Duane, Alexander Hamilton, Richard Harison, John Sloss Hobart, JJ, Robert R. Livingston, and Richard Morris, and merchants Nicholas Low (1739–1826), also a prominent land developer, and Isaac Roosevelt (1726–94), a sugar refiner who served in the Provincial Congress, Committee of One Hundred, the state senate, and the New York ratifying convention, and was a founding member of the New York Chamber of Commerce and a cofounder and second president of the Bank of New York. Lawyers Ezra L’Hommedieu and Paul Micheau were nominated for the state senate and Henry Brockholst Livingston, Richard Harison, and John Watts for the state assembly. See “The Federal Ticket,” Independent Journal (New York), 9 Apr. 1788. Paul Micheau of Staten Island, was county clerk, 1761–80, member of New York Provincial Congress, 1775–76, and member of state senate, 1788–92.

The alleged signatories of this text not previously identified included: Robert Cambridge Livingston (1742–94), son of Robert Livingston (1708–90), third Lord of the manor, and brother and former partner of Walter Livingston; Daniel Phoenix (1742–1812), merchant, city chamberlain, and member of the Chamber of Commerce; William Neilson (c. 1737–1820), a merchant and later a director of the New York Insurance Company, and second husband of Catherine Alexander Duer; and William Maxwell (1733–96), a tobacco dealer, and founding member and vice president of the Bank of New York.

2On the inauthenticity of this text, see “One and All,” 29 Apr. 1788, Broadside, Early Am. Imprints, description begins Early American Imprints, series 1: Evans, 1639–1800 [microform; digital collection], edited by American Antiquarian Society, published by Readex, a division of Newsbank, Inc. Accessed: Columbia University, New York, N.Y., 2006–13, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/ description ends no. 21500; DHRC, description begins John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber, and Margaret A. Hogan, eds., Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (Madison, Wis., 1976–) description ends 21: 1511–13.

Index Entries