evil. The amendment of the gentleman from
Harford, (Mr. MCHENRY,) with that which he,
(Mr. P.) now proposed added to it, would go far
to meet the case. It would have the effect of
making every one who attempted this fraud
known, and be wholesome in its effect on the
elective franchise. His motion was to add the
words, "and the wards in the City of Balti-
more."
Mr. GWINN thought the security against fraud
would not be increased by this amendment The
Judges had the power to enquire into the fact of
residence. If an individual was not a resident
of a ward, he could only get his vote in by a false
oath, as to his term of residence. He might be
asked if a man would swear falsely, that he had
lived in a ward one day, would not as readily
perjure himself as to a residence of thirty days.
There were several large establishments in Bal-
timore, which employed a great number of hands
There was the Clare Factory, the Canton and
others. The persons employed there generally
reside, while in this employ, in the wards in
which establishments are established, and he
considered it would be very hard upon these per-
sons whenever they were transferred to another
ward.
Mr. PHELPS made a few remarks in reply, in
which he stated that it was his de-ire to give the
largest liberty to the largest number But it
had been charged against the City of Baltimore,
by the gentleman from the county, that frauds
had been perpetrated there by double voting, he
thought the amendment would check that evil.
Mr. BRENT, (in the absence of his colleague,)
expressed regret that his colleague was not in
his seat. The gentleman who had just spoken
had asserted that his colleague had charged on
the City of Baltimore, that frauds were perpe-
trated there by double voting.
Mr. PHELPS said he had so understood him.
Mr. BRENT resumed. The gentleman was
mistaken His colleague did not say so. His
language was that it had been stated to him as
an allegation. He would now take occasion to
say that he was opposed to all attempts to im-
pose restrictions on the elective franchise. It
was a restriction of freedom, and he was opposed
to it. Does a man by a residence in a place for
thirty or sixty days become more enlightened,
than by a residence of one. He who is entitled
to the right of suffrage, is as much entitled to
exercise it in one county as another, and in one
ward as another. Why is it considered neces-
sary that lie should have been a local resident in
a particular district, to entitle him to vote ? He
is as much entitled to vote at a general election,
after a residence of thirty days, as of six months.
By the existing laws a residence in a ward, or a
district, for one day is sufficient. If there was
to be any difference, it ought, in his opinion, to
be in favor of a commercial city, where are so
many laborers who are compelled to sleep where
they are employed. If the Judges do their duty
all this illegal voting may be prevented. He
was ready to impose any penalty to put down il-
legal voting; but he would never be willing to |
restrict the franchise. If there was to be any
distinction, it should be in favor of a large com-
mercial city.
Judge DORSEY expressed his concurrence in
the views of the gentleman from Kent, (Judge
CHAMBERS,) as to the impossibility of so framing
any legislative rule, as it should in no case bear
hardly on an individual. If he could adopt the
views (if the gentleman from Baltimore, who had
just taken his seat, he should be ready to vote
with him throughout. But there were reasons
which operated in his mind strongly in favor of
a six months residence. A residence of that ex-
tent was necessary to make an individual compe-
tent to give an intelligent vote, by making him
familiarly acquainted with the true interests of
the county, 90 that he may be guided to a wise
selection of a candidate. He would have been
ready to vote for the amendment of the gentle-
man from Harford. (Mr. MCHENRY.) if he would
have accepted two amendments, which he had
thought proper to be added to it. One of these
was to insert the wards in the City of Baltimore.
He had understood the gentleman from Balti-
more to say that the persons in the wards ought
to be allowed to vote He agreed wild him. As
he viewed the law no one had any right to prevent
the voters in the City of Baltimore, from voting
in any of the wards. It was sufficient, if he was
a citizen of Baltimore But he objected to the
latitude of construction which would allow the
resident of a State to vote in any county he may
choose. He referred to the period when a num-
ber of persons then called the blue light federalists,
were brought into the City of Annapolis,
for the purpose of defeating a popular candidate.
They were paid so much per month, but they
were treated so badly by the people, and so
thoroughly hooted by the boys, and made so un-
comfortable, that they violated their contract, and
left the city without remaining to effect their ob-
ject. They were not in force enough to carry
the election of their federal representative;
their funds gave out, and the opposition candi-
date was elected, if no residence is to be re-
quired, what will prevent the sending into any
particular county as many men as might be necessary
to turn the election? We ought to se-
cure the purity of the ballot-bos. We ought to
insist that the voters in the counties, and City of
Baltimore, shall be residents of the election dis-
tricts and reside in the wards in which they
vote. Without such restriction the voters may
come out from the large in numbers sufficient to
overwhelm the public aspirants of the small
counties. Without residence, all the small
counties will be made subject to the large
counties, and the voice of the people will be
there annihilated.
These remarks were produced by a suggestion
that the required residence in the counties, and
City of Baltimore should be abolished.
He referred to the practice which prevailed of
raising funds for the purpose of carrying on elections.
If the voters are not required to be resi-
dents of the wards in the City of Baltimore, in
which they vote, what is to prevent them from |
