consequences to the Commonwealth might be ruinous in the extreme. was then the solemn duty of the Convention to provide sufficient guards against these frauds. It was his opinion, that a register would be the most practicable mode of obtaining an evidence of residence; but say some gentlemen, a man may forget to register his name, or it may be troublesome for him to do so. How is it that the right of suffrage is so sacred on this floor, and out of doors it is worth nothing? At the elections there are hundreds in every county whose right to vote is undoubted, who do not go to the election at all; and, at the Presidential elections, one half of our citizens remain at home, and decline exercising this precious right which is above all price here. If the right of suffrage be, what it is said to be, and if all that was said about it here be not mere words, then it is worth a little trouble to secure it. If it was of any value at all, was it too much to say to a man, go and register your name, and you will be entitled to the benefit of it? Here you merge all distinction between poor and rich; the poor man would attend to it. Are we to refrain from taking precautions against fraud, from securing our elections from corruption, and from securing the highest offices in our government from usurpation, because it may put some voters to a little inconvenience? He would not desist from taking these precautionary steps because some man might by his own neglect lose a vote by it. If he does lose his vote, it is his own fault, and not the fault of the law. If the right of suffrage was worth any thing, it was worth paying this much attention to it, to receive it. He would not agree to a subversion of the government, because of the inconvenience which it might subject a few persons to in registering their names. We should come at once to the registry to secure the government and the country, from fraud, corruption, and usurpation. A contested election in this country for an Executive, is an occurence much to be dreaded. Suppose a contested election of this kind, when both parties were very nearly balanced, who could say what would be the result? Suppose the election of a President of the United States to be contested, and a party in power unwilling to give up the reins of government, with all the power and patronage which is at the command of that Executive. Congress would be assailed, and members might be coerced to vote in a certain way by the executive authority. No man could be willing to have a Constitutional provision subjecting our elections to such frauds and corruptions. You must shut out fraud and corruption, so that the people of the country may be guarded against imposition, or the government will perish. You cannot prevent fraud by the tax qualification, and as is proposed, here, the more you open the door the more danger you let in. He should then go against all these provisions containing the tax qualification, with a hope that we might yet obtain a system of registry, which he considered a much better safeguard against fraud.

Mr. HAYHURST then modified his amendment to read as follows;"And free male citizens, qualified by age and residence aforesaid, who shall, within two years next before the elections, have paid any road, poor, school, or municipal corporation tax, assessed by virtue of any law of this Commonwealth, shall also be entitled to exercise the right of an elector".

Mr. BaLL said, his objection was to the principle contained in this amendment. It had been said by gentlemen on this floor, that the right

of suffrage was an inestimable right, and so it is felt to be by the citizens of Pennsylvania-not only by the rich, but by the poor also. The poor man wears it in his heart's core-yea, in his heart of hearts; and he feels, that dispensing with the tax qualification altogether, in tead of increasing the value of this right, is degrading it, and making it of less value to him, The tax qualification, instead of being felt by the poor man as a burthen, is held in high estimation by him, because it gives him the means, at least once a year of meeting his wealthy opponent, and saying to him, "I am your equal". This tax qualification, which has been denounced as odious, is the very corner stone of a representative democracy. He viewed it not as an evidence of residence, or an evidence of citizenship, but as an evidence that the individual feels interested in the welfare of the community, and has contributed to discharge the burthens of society. What were Governments formed for? Where was the necessity of a man's yielding up a portion of his natural rights? Why, that the weak and the timid might be protected against the strong and the nefarious. If all were equally strong and equally cunning, there would be no necessity for this. But, this not being the case, Governments are formed for the protection of all, and all who are entitled to protection, are under obligations to contribute to the support of the Government, and those who contribute should be entitled to a voice in that Government. Thus, all those who contribute to the support of a community, should be entitled to a voice in the regulation of the affairs of that community; and, he should enjoy it exactly in proportion to the extent of the tax he has paid. We have established the tax qualification as necessary to entitle a citizen to vote, but he conceived that it was not intended that a person, who paid a tax to a municipal corporation, should be entitled to vote for State or county officers. It was right, that the person who paid a county tax should enjoy the right of voting for county officers, and it was equally right, that the person who paid a borough or township tax should be entitled to vote for borough or township officers, as the case might be. But, that the individual who paid a township tax should vote for an officer who was to represent the whole county, he held to be a violation of the principle on which the right of suffrage was based. If you adopt this principle what becomes of your equality. He did not now speak of the amount of the tax which any individual paid. Every one was on an equality in that respect, for every one paid in proportion to his means. But if you establish this principle you at once destroy every thing like equality. Some persons would be compelled to pay county or State taxes to entitle them to vote, while others would be entitled to vote upon merely paying a township or borough tax. The ground upon which he placed this matter was thisthat the right of voting should be commensurate with the character of the tax paid. He would allow those who paid a township tax to vote for township officers, and he who paid a county tax he would allow to vote for county officers; but, he would not permit the person who paid a township tax to vote for county cfficers. There appeared to be a morbid feeling in the Convention on this subject, and an ardent desire to throw aside every thing like restraint upon the right of suffrage. Now, he wished to see some principle adopted, which would give us a qualification common to all, and easily to be understood. Upon refering to the Constitution of New York, he found that although they generally exacted but one year's

residence to entitle a citizen to vote; yet, where the individual claims to vote upon the ground of having served in the militia, or worked upon the roads, it is required of him that he shall have resided three years in the State, and six months in the county, in which he offers to vote. If gentlemen would go this far their amendment might be more acceptable, but if they are not willing to do so, then they are more radical than even the radical representatives of the State of New York. There was no reason why distinctions should be made between citizens of the same county; but, if you adopt this amendment, you do make distinctions.Some citizens would be entitled to vote upon the payment of one kind of tax, while others would have to pay a different tax to entitle them to this right. There are in every county those who will be compelled to pay a county tax, and if others are not compelled to pay this tax, there will be a distinction, which will destroy all equality. There had already been an amendment adopted, calculated to make distinctions between voters, which he would endeavor to get rid of at a proper time. But, here we are going one step further to create anarchy and confusion. This last amendment proposed contemplates making every one an elector who has paid a tax of almost any description-a township tax, a poor tax, a municipal borough tax, &c. Now, can equality of rights exist where there are so many taxes, the payment of which shall qualify to vote. In some parts of the Commonwealth they have a great variety of taxes, while in other parts they have but few. In the city of Philadelphia they have a corporation, a poor tax, a water tax, and he did not know how many more taxes of this character, and in addition to these they have a county tax. Well, in that city one man will have a right to vote on paying a water tax, another will be entitled to vote because he had paid his corporation tax, and another would have the right to vote because he had paid a township tax. One would be entitled to vote because he has paid one kind, and another will be entitled to vote because he has paid another kind of tax. In some boroughs taxes may be laid for some special purposes, and under this provision, all those who pay a tax of this kind will be entitled to the exercise of the right of suffrage. Now, all this he considered as operating unequally and unjustly upon the citizens of the Commonwealth; and, he was opposed to the extension of the right of suffrage in the manner proposed by this amendment. It would be recollected by the committee, that he had introduced an amendment of a general character, requiring but six months residence to entitle a citizen to exercise the right of suffrage, which had been voted down, and when a proper time arrived he should renew that motion, but he could not now go for this proposition.

If the terms were reduced, as required, then certainly we ought not tổ fritter away town residences. The paltry sum of two cents ought not to induce us to insert in the Constitution a new principle-the principle of inequality.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, begged to notice what had fallen from the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST.) The gentleman had argued that it would operate unequally. Now, his argument against the amendment might have more weight, if all the taxes were not excessively unequal. A man who is poor, may pay a great amount of taxes to the Gen

eral Government, in the shape of duties on the necessaries of life, and yet be deprived from voting for the officers of the General Government, while the man who paid a tax of twenty-five cents to an assessor, is allowed to vote. This tax qualification, in every respect, was unequal. The gentleman from Chester ought to carry out his principle, if it was a just one, and permit a man, who has paid a State tax, to vote only for State officers, and one who has paid a county tax, only for county officers. He should vote for the amendment as the most liberal, although he was opposed to any tax qualification.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphta, said, that he would simply remind the committee of a great leading principle which had been frequently avowed on this floor. This principle was a determination to make no alteration in the Constitution, without good and substantial reasons. He wished to remind gentlemen of this principle in reference to the amendment pending. The gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST) submited a proposition, and after it had been discussed all the morning, had given it up, and submited another. Now, unless it could be shown that this was better than the other, it ought not to be entertained. He (Mr. H.) did not believe it to be better. He had freqenily heard it said, on other subjects, that the people require this and require that. But, with regard to the subject of the gentlemans' proposition, he had not heard the same remark. He hoped that, unless gentlemen had such reasons as would induce them to change their opinions, they would adhere to their declaration to support no amendment not absolutely called for by public opinion.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, remarked, that he was opposed to the tax qualification altogether. He considered that every man had the right to vote who was a citizen of the State, and what delegate here would say that a citizen shall not vote? He would vote for this amendment, not because he liked it, but because it was more liberal than the State and county tax qualification, and extended the right of suffrage. Under the State and county tax qualification, unless trades and occupations were taxed, a large number of citizens would be excluded from the right of suffrage. Some future Legislature might so alter the tax laws as to take away the qualification. This amendment would put it out of the power of after times to legislate men out of their votes. The State tax was repealed, and there was no State tax. He trusted that the day was not far distant when the income of the Public Works, or some other income, might be so great as to render county rates and levies unnecessary. Where then, he would enquire, was the right to vote? It was lost, and the whole people of the Commonwealth were excluded. The fact was, the payment of a tax should not be the test at the polls. The right of suffrage was a personal right.A man should vote because he was a freeman. He (Mr. D.) would vote for this amendment, because it was better than the proposition of the gentleman from Chester, without it. It extended the right of suffrage, and he should therefore vote for it.

Mr. M'DowELL; Is it intended to limit this privilege to the county in which the road, poor, and school tax, is paid?

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, remarked, that he did not agree with the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) that this amedment went too far. For his part, he could not set bounds to the right of suffrage, and do justice to his feelings. He could not say, in relation to this right, "thus far thou shal

go and no further". He did not believe that gentlemen were ready to carry out the principle, and deny to freemen the right to vote for State officers, unless they have paid a State tax; for county officers, unless they have paid a county tax; and for township officers, unless they have paid a township tax. As it was admited that the payment of a tax was only evidence of citizenship, should a man, who paid a corporation or any other tax in Philadelphia, and produced his certificate, be debared from voting if he should remove to the county of Erie? The fathers of the revolution, when they contended that taxation and representation should go together, never meant to exclude representation, if there was no taxation. They only determined not to be taxed, unless they should be represented. They never meant to exclude freemen from the exercise of personal rights, unless they were first taxed. Shall, then, those who have strong arms, sound heads, and warm hearts-who are ready to defend the country when invaded, be excluded from the polls on any pretence? He would not vote to deprive any man of his right of suffrage, because he might not possess any thing to be taxed. All taxes might be abolished by the Legislature; the necessity for them may cease to exist. Will you say to those who have fought the battles of the country-who have exposed their life in the defence of freedom-who have suffered privations, and bled for the preservation of our institutions—you shall have no voice in the Government, because you have no property to be taxed? It is a monstrous doctrine in a free State. But the committee seemed to favor some sort of a tax qualification, and if he could not get rid of the odious principle entirely, he would go as far as he could. On this ground he should vote for the amendment, and support it as a choice of evils. Taxation of every sort had, in all ages and in all countries, been considered unequal and odious, and peculiarly so, when entirely personal. From the taxing in the time of AUGUSTUS, at the commencement of the Christian era. to the present, complaints have been made, and reasonably. It drove the people te resistance in the time of WILLIAM TELL, of Switzerland, and in the time of the stamp taxes and the tea tax of the revolution. It was an odious basis for the right of suffrage. One gentleman remarked the other day, on this floor, that the payment of a tax was an evidence of character". If it is an evidence of character, then a man's character must be good or bal, in proportion to the amount of his tax. The man who pays one hundred dollars tax, would have more character than a member of this Convention, or any other person, whose tax might be only a few, say six cents! Heaven preserve us all from such an evidence of character-from all such evidences of character as have money or property for their basis Another gentleman has said, that an upright man who had paid his tax, would be degraded by voting at the polls with the poor man who has paid no tax! Can this be possible? Can it be, that the man who des not own vessels at sea, iron works, a farm, or bank and other stocks, but who is willing to labor on the highways-who has no money, but is willing to spare a portion of his time, which is required to support a large familyis he to be debare from voting, because he is poor? If a man contributes his proportion to the support or comfort of the poor, does works of necessity and mercy, perhaps more than the man of property, is he not as much entitled to vote, as if he owned thousands? Certainly:-is the response of every manly bosom. If every man in the Convention should