HISTORY OF NEW YORK

been undone. Decentralization was carried to an extreme. The
wisdom of departing from county representation in the assem¬
bly and of establishing smaller assembly districts has more than
once been impeached. Whether important State officers should
be elected by the people or appointed in accordance with the plan
of the Federal government, by the executive, has often since been
discussed. The convention itself was not a unit respecting its
treatment of the judicial system, and changes since made show
that it had not reached the ideal. Its hybrid Court of Appeals
was a mistake and its creation of an elective judiciary holding
for brief terms was an error partly repaired after twenty
years' experience. Although longer terms have since been in¬
augurated, an elective judiciary seems to be a permanency. Even
the constitutional enunciations forced by the anti-Rent sentiment
have been declared unnecessary and in some instances unwise.
The convention contributed almost nothing to the solution of
municipal problems. The subject of municipal government was
superficially treated in the final hours of its sessions—as Gov¬
ernor Tilden pointed out in his municipal reform message in
1875. Henry C Murphy pleaded in vain for provisions for the
incorporation of cities under general laws. And in less than a
decade the carefully formulated canal policy was to undergo
radical change.

In 1851, upon the recommendation of Governor Washington
Hunt, a bill was passed to anticipate the revenues of the canals
by the issue of certificates amounting to $9,000,000 for the imme¬
diate enlargement of the Erie canal and the completion of the
Genesee valley and Black river canals. The constitutionality of
this measure was upheld not only by Attorney General John C.
Spencer, who had been one of the members of the statutory re¬
vision commission of 1830, but also by Daniel Webster and Rufus
159