"That the principle of decision in the case of Rutgers _vs_.
Waddington is dangerous to the freedom of our government, and that a
perseverance in that principle would leave our legislature nothing but
a name, and render their sessions nothing more than an expensive form
of government, the preceding remarks must evidence.

"Permit us, on this occasion, earnestly to entreat you to join us in
watchfulness against every attempt that may be used, either violently
and suddenly, or _gently_ and _imperceptibly, to effect a revolution_
in the _spirit_ and _genius_ of our government; and _should there be
among us characters to whom the simplicity of it is offensive_, let
our attention and perseverance be such as to _preclude the hopes of a
change_."

Here again the party lines of 1777 are distinctly marked. Melancton
Smith, Jonathan Lawrence, &c., were of the Clinton party, while Mr.
Duane and Mr. Varick were attached to the Schuyler interest.

In October, 1784, the case of Rutgers _vs_. Waddington was brought
before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the assembly

_Resolved_, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good
order; because, if a court instituted for the _benefit and government
of a corporation_ may take upon themselves to dispense with a law of
the state, all other courts may do the like: therefore,

_Resolved_, That it be recommended to the honourable the Council of
Appointment, at their next session, to appoint such persons to be
mayor and recorder of the city of New-York as will govern themselves