Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

right of voting cease? The Legislature might pass laws exempting certain kinds of property from taxation-such, for instance, as sheep, when thousands of dollars worth were owned by men of wealth, as was now the case in the county of Washington. Should such an exemption deprive a man, whose whole property consisted in sheep, from voting? Trades and occupations might be exempted, and then no man could vote who had not in his possession taxable property. He hoped the ameudment would prevail, and, in his opinion, it was not only right, but consistent with the report of the committee as amended.

After two or three words from Mr. DUNLOP, in relation to the different character of the amendments which had been offered, as to the right of suffrage,

The question was taken on the amendment, to the amendment, as amended, and decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Banks, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cummin, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings. Hayhurst, Hyde, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Shellito, Smyth, Swetland, Taggart, White, Woodward--42.

NAYS.--Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle Brown, of Lancaster, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Dunlop, Fry, Gearhart, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson. Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, Mann, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton. Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Scheetz, Serrill, Sill, Smith, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Thomas, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-71.

Mr. HIESTER moved to amend the amendment, as amended, by adding thereto the following, viz: "But no person shall vote, excepting in the election district where he shall have his actual residence, for at least eight days previous to the time of his offering to vote."

The merits of this proposition, Mr. H. said, were evident upon its face, and it was unnecessary to enter into an argument in its support.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. WOODWARD moved to amend the amendment, as amended, by adding to the end thereof, the words following, viz: "Provided, That free male citizens, qualified by age and residence as aforesaid, who shall, within two years next before the elections, have paid any road, poor, school or municipal corpora ion tax, assessed by virtue of any law of this Commonwealth, shall also be entitled to exercise the right of an elector."

Mr. WOODWARD said, this was the same amendment which was yester day agreed to in the committee of the whole. He was anxious that the tax qualification, as the committee had determined to retain it, should be Bo extended as to embrace as many of our fellow citizens as possible.

Mr. BELL said this was the amendment which was unfortunately agreed to in the committee yesterday, by a very small majority-fifty-five to fiftythree. He said unfortunately, because he believed it was that amendment which broke down the whole work which we were for a week en gaged upon. Now, he asked, whether gentlemen wished to pursue the same course, and go on putting rider upon rider, piling Pelion on Ossa, till they break down the whole. Shall we go on, like the blind horse in

the mill, travelling around and around, and finally leaving off where we began. He hoped the gentleman from Luzerne would not press this motion, and, if he did, he should vote against it.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, voted for the amendment yesterday, he said, and should now vote against it, for the reason which the gentleman from Chester had indicated. We had, with great pains, built up a structure, which yesterday fell to the ground; and he hoped we should now build something that could stand. He would vote against this the more willingly, as the proposition requiring a district residence, which was a part of the amendment rejected yesterday, had been excluded from this. The amendment was then negatived.

Mr. AGNEW moved to amend, by providing that the period of residence be confined to one year, or six months, next before the election. The want of this restriction, he said, was evidently an omission. As the section now read, residence at any period of the voter's life, would entitle him to suffrage, although he might have been absent from the State for years. Mr. STEVENS said, it was evidently an omission, but it had better stand in this way till the second reading.

Mr. AGNEW withdrew the motion for the present.

The question being on the amendment of Mr. PORTER, as amended.

Mr. FULLER said, there was a great error in the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, where he made the provision that young men between twenty-one and twenty-two, should be entitled to vote. It might be ex tremely difficult to decide with accuracy who were thus entitled; and as he saw no necessity for this part of the amendment, he hoped the gentleman would strike it out.

Mr. PURVIANCE asked the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. READ asked the Chair to decide whether, if the amendment and the report of the committee should be negatived, it would be in order to move an amendment to the original section of the Constitution?

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative.

Mr. READ: Then, sir, I hope the committee will negative the amendment, and the report of the standing committee also, if they please, and then amend the section according to a motion I shall offer.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said it must be apparent now to every one, that the committee would not, at this time, dispense with the tax qualifi cation, nor agree to a shorter residence than one year, unless for those who had previously been citizens. Under these impressions, he considered the proposition now before us, as perfect as it could be made, and more so than that reported yesterday. Being otherwise unrestricted, he hoped the friends of reform would sustain it.

The question was then taken and determined as follows:-yeas, 85: nays, 27.

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chimbers. Chandler, of Ches ter, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Doran, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fry, Gearhart, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Ma clay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Riter, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz,

Shellito, Sill, Snively, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland. Taggart, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-85.

NAYS-Messrs. Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger Cummin, Dickey, Dillinger, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Fuller, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Houpt, Hyde, Keim, Krebs, McCahen, Miller, Overfield, Read, Rogers, Smith, Swyth-27.

So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. READ moved to amend the first section by striking out in the second line, "two", and inserting "one"; striking out all after "elections", in the third line, to the word "election" inclusive, in the fourth line, and in serting after the word "elector", in the fifth line, the words, "in the district in which he shall reside", and striking out the proviso to the end of the section.

The CHAIR stated that the question being on the section as amended, the motion was not then in order. If the question shall be decided in the negative the motion would be in order.

Mr. EARLE asked the yeas and nays on the question, and they were ordered.

Mr. DICKEY now called upon all, he said, who were opposed to the tax qualification to stand by and reject this report as amended. If it was adopted, there could be no further amendment to it.

Mr. MEREDITH said he understood the question entirely different from this. The amendment as amended has just been agreed to, and the question now is between the report of the committee and the section in the old Constitution.

The CHAIR: The question now is on the report of the committee as amended.

Mr. MEREDITH: Yes that is the question, but it is in fact deciding whether we will have the report of the committee, or go back to the section in the old Constitution.

Mr. DUNLOP enquired if this question was negatived whether the report of the committee would then come up.

The CHAIR said it would not. The question now was upon agreeing to the report of the committee.

Mr. DICKEY said the question now was upon adopting the report of the committee, but if that should be negatived, then the section in the Constitution would come up, and gentlemen would have the opportunity of amending it.

Mr. BANKS then remarked, that if he understood the matter correctly, the state of the question was this: that if the report of the committee was agreed to, it would take the place of the section in the old Constitution, and would be the final vote in committee so far as this section was concerned.

The CHAIR remarked that this would be the effect of the vote.

The question was then taken on the report of the committee as amended-yeas, 99; nays, 14: as follows

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres,Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin. Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cunningham. Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of

Dauphin, Hiester, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Königmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, M'Dowell, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Nor thampton, Purviance. Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas. Todd, White, Woodward, Young-99.

NATS-Messrs. Baldwin, Biddle, Bigelow, Chauncey, Cleavinger, Cope, Cummin, Fleming, Hopkinson, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Scott, Sergeant, President-14. So the question was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. EARLE then submitted the following amendment, to be called section two:

"SECT. 2. The citizens of each ward and township in this Commonwealth, shall on the in each year, elect two persons to serve as Inspectors, and two to serve as Clerks of elections, for one year next ensuing their election: and in such election each qualified voter may vote for not more than one citizen for Inspector, and for not more than one citizen for Clerk; and the two citizens having the highest number of votes for Inspectors, and the two having the highest number for Clerks shall be chosen.

The Legislature may by law provide for the appointment of such judges of elections to assist the Inspectors if any, as it may deem necessary; and also, for deciding the election of Inspectors and Clerks in cases of an equal number of votes for two or more candidates for the same office, as well as for the filling of vacancies which may occur".

Mr. BROWN said, the gentleman from Adams the other day had told us that on all solemn occasions we ought to have an adjournment; and had cited the case of the House of Lords adjourning immediately after having passed to a second reading, a bill of pains and penalties against the QUEEN. He thought now, as we had inflicted such a deep and fatal wound upon this venerable Constitution, which the gentleman from Adams and other gentlemen held so dear, that it was an occasion of sufficient solemnity to have an adjournment. He would, therefore, move that the committee now rise.

The motion that the committee rise was decided in the negative.

Mr. EARLE said the amendment he had just submited had several objects in view. In the first place, it contemplated the doing away altogether with the inspectors' election two weeks before the general election, and thus it diminishes the number of elections in the Commonwealth, which was a very desirable object to the people, inasmuch as it was a great sav ing of time and expense, and prevented a continued excitement. He would have these elections for inspectors and judges take place at the time of elections for constables and township officers in the spring, and he would have them serve during the whole year at all elections which were held by the people. This would do away with the practice of standing out for judges at some of the elections, which had been complained of here as leading to disturbances. Another object was, to prevent those frauds of which we have heard so mu h, such as the carrying off of the ballot boxes and changing the tickets, and the election officers throwing away handfuls of votes, as some gentlemen have asserted has been done. He had no doubt but frauds did exist to some extent, but nothing like that which some gentlemen had supposed, and he was opposed to the registry law because it did not prevent them; and in favor of the proposition he had just sub

mited, because it would prevent them. The registry law was a contested party matter, and so certain as parties changed, it would be repealed.→ Then if gentlemen's sole object was to have justice and fairness in the elec tions, they ought to have some Constitutional provision to secure that justice and fairness, and he conceived that this proposition was the most proper mode of securing that desirable object. It has been said in the debates in this Convention, that difficulties have arisen at elections, owing to the partialities of inspectors and election officers. Now, this partiality was a weakness of human nature, from which it was at times almost impossible for the most honest men to divest themselves. We all know, when a vote is presented, that an election officer knows to be on his own side, which can generally be told by the artifice of colored tickets, and other means resorted to for that purpose, he does not scrutinize it so close as he would that of an opponent, and thus the vote of his political friend is received when he is not entitled to a vote, while that of his opponent may be rejected when he is clearly entitled to the right of voting. This provision then, will secure to the minority in almost every case, one inspector and one clerk. These inspectors and clerks of the minority party would have the opportunity of objecting to receiving the votes of voters who are not qualified, and persons, who it was supposed, had not resided in the district long enough, could be put upon oath, which would generally prevent such persons from voting; as he believed, the reason why most of the votes of persons who voted when they had not resided long enough in the district, were given without their being required to take an oath. Another object to be attained by this amendinent, was, that it secured fair ness and justice in the counting of the votes, as both parties would have the opportunity of counting them. Upon every principle of equity and justice, he considered this to be proper and correct. When one citizen sells an article of produce to another, both parties are always admited to see the article measured or weighed. Then when two parties come together to try their strength, was it fair or just that one of those parties should have the sole privilege of counting the votes given, and of saying who was the strongest? Why, according to every principle of justice and common sense, it must be admited, that both parties should have a voice in the counting and deciding upon this question. It was not only desirable that this should be the course pursued to preserve purity in our elections, but also to make oth parties content with the result. It would be a very desirable object that the votes in the county of Philadelphia, and every other county, should be fairly taken; and when fairly taken, it was desirable to make the citizens content and satisfied that they were fairly taken and counted, and if a provision of this kind was introduced into the Constitution, the votes will be fairly taken, and the people will be content. It appeared to him, that if the party to which he belonged were in the majority, and should be unwilling to permit the party in the minority to witness the counting of the votes at an election, they would, by that act, be saying that they desired to commit a fraud; so with the other party, if they should be the strongest, they in effect would be saying, by refusing the minority to witness a count of the votes, that they desired to commit a fraud. But, he trusted neither party desired this as a general rule, although frauds might be commited by particular persons, on particular occasions, by both parties. There was no provision for judges, because, in some districts it

« AnteriorContinuar »