secure the full enjoyment of the right of suffrage
to those who are entitled to it, not to throw ob-
stacles in its way, A citizen entitled to his vole
intone county, ought not to be deprived of his
suffrage because he has removed his residence
over an imaginary line.
Judge CHAMBERS stated that it was impossible
in the most perfect system of legislation so to
regulate it? operation as to prevent the occur-
rence of cases of individual hardship, in the
application of principles it is necessary to keep
in view the interests, of communities It is ow-
ing to the unavoidable defectiveness of all human
legislation. that no rule can be adopted which
will work with its general equity in every individual
case. He insisted on the necessity of re-
quiring a residence of six months in a county to
entitle the resident to the right of voting in that
county. Without such a provision, what was
there to prevent a portion of the voters of one
county from passing over the line to give their
votes in another county ? He did not mean that
we were purer or better now than we have been.
Frauds were perpetrated, and their was little
difficulty in obtaining witnesses to sustain them,
and to screen the perpetrators. It should be
our aim to adopt every mode in our power to
preserve the purity of the ballot-box. He re-
quested the gentleman from Harford to with-
draw his amendment.
Mr. BROWN said it was admitted that this was a
question of time; and he put it to the experience
of gentlemen, whether the most stringent laws
we could authorize would be sufficent to prevent
the perpetration of frauds. Where you would
shut out one person from the ballot-box to pre-
vent a fraudulent vole, you would exclude two
honest voters, who are entitled to the exercise
of their privilege. The gentleman from Kent
and himself, differed on every principle connected
with this question, and at a proper time he
might offer an amendment to reduce the time,
Mr. Me HENRY asked if he had understood the
gentleman from Kent as requesting him to with-
draw his amendment.
Judge CHAMBERS replied that he had done so
for the purpose of expediting the business by per-
mitting a vote to be now taken.
Mr. McHENRY said he had no objection, if
there was a general understanding to that effect.
Judge DORSEY expressed a desire to make an
amendment.
Mr. McHENRY declined to withdraw his
amendment.
An indistinct and irregular conversation fol-
lowed, which was sustained by a number of
members, as to the phraseology of the amend-
ment of Mr, CHAMBERS, the result of which was
that—
Mr. CHAMBERS read the, amendment in the form
in which he desired it to be submitted to the Convention,
and offered it as a substitute for the
first section of the Report.
The question, therefore, recurred on the
amendment of Mr. MCHENRY (the vote requiring
that a motion to perfect a proposition shall hare
precedence over a motion to strike out.) |
Mr. MCHENRY said. that the Convention had
listened to so long a discussion on this subject,
that he felt no disposition to protract it, especial-
ly as he felt that he could throw no new light
upon it. He explained the object of his amend-
ment to be to substitute a residence in the dis-
trict for a residence in the county. He thought
that it would effectually guard the purity of the
ballot box, by making it impossible for a stranger
to palm himself off as a resident. He was as
anxious to promote the purity of the ballot box
as any man in the Convention, but at the same
time lie was indisposed to place unnecessary re-
strictions upon it.
Mr. DORSEY (interposing.) Does the gentle-
man designate any length of time—any number
of days?
Mr. MCHENRY. I have not done so. I pre-
ferred to leave it to the experience of other mem-
bers of the (convention to specify what a proper
limit would be.
Mr. CHAMBERS would be willing, he said, to
vote with all his heart for the proposition of the
gentleman from Harford (Mr, MCHENRY,) if he
(Mr, C.) could persuade himself that there were
any thing in the proposed modification of the Re-
port of the Committee, calculated to improve the
chances of a pure election. He thought it prob-
able that the suggestion made by the gentleman
might in a certain degree effect such a result.
But why not engraft it on the other? If the
gentleman would superadd his proposition as a
requirement, and the Convention would concur
in it, he (Mr. C.) would gladly go with him. It
need not displace any of the other qualifications.
Mr. McHENRY said he had already disavowed
very distinctly any desire to impose unnecessary
shackles on the exercise of the elective fran-
chise. He referred to the injurious restriction
which it was the object of his amendment to re-
move, and contended that it contemplated the
substitution of something useful for that which
was at present useless—that its adoption would
prevent frauds and would lead to the detection
of men who held themselves out as denizens
when in fact they were strangers.
Mr. M 'LANE asked if the gentleman from
Kent had any distinct purpose in view in desiring
this change from the phraseology of the old Con-
stitution.
Judge CHAMBERS replied that he had none.
Mr. M'LANE. In that case lie would move,
by way of amendment to the proposition of the
gentleman from Kent, to adopt the provision on
tins subject contained in the old Constitution, toti-
dem verbis.
Judge CHAMBERS thought that the language
ought to be rendered a little more explicit, or
there might be some difficulty in ascertaining
what sort of officers would be elected.
Mr. M'LANE did not apprehend any difficulty
as likely to arise on this point by the adoption of
the language of the old Constitution. Unless the
Convention should desire for some distinct pur-
pose a variation of the phraseology from the old
article, he should feel some unwillingness to
make a change. He would confess that he felt |
