voting in all the different wards? Why might
not John Smith go and vote in every ward, and
how could he be identified, unless he was a dis-
tinguished person who could not be overlooked.
and in this way political questions of the greatest
importance might bedecided by these fraudulent
voters. If it was true, as stated by the gentle-
man from Baltimore city, that an improper re-
striction is imposed on the citizens of Baltimore,
we ought to remove it at once.
He was opposed to this double voting in the
City of Baltimore, it was productive of great
mischief to the whole State. And in the muni-
cipal elections, where one district may be in favor
of one person, and the next in favor of an-
other, voters from one district can tarn the
scale if residence in the ward be not required
the favorite candidate of the ward maybe de-
cidedly defeated by voters corruptly imported
from some other ward, by moving into the
other. The same may be said of Howard District,
&c., where each elects its own Commis-
sioners,
Mr. GWINN enquired how the action of the
citizens of the City of Baltimore could effect
the frauds perpetrated in the counties. It might
be important in its effect on the elections for
municipal officers, but it could not influence the
election of delegates lor the counties, if the
voters of the City vote only once, how is the
State injured, if the votes be given in this or
that ward?
Judge DORSEY replied, that if the residue of
the State hail no interest in the city of Baltimore
there would be some reason in this view of the
subject. He had been accused with applying
the term "rowdy" to the citizens of Baltimore
when it was well known to the Convention that
he only expressed his apprehension, that a spirit
Of rowdyism might be provoked by the interference
of the citizens of one district with those of
another. Ought not the State interfere when
persons, who are called in the newspapers "row-
dies," go from :poll to poll committing outrageous
acts, and preventing the free exercise of the
elective franchise? He was anxious to keep the
ballot box pure, by holding in check that spirit
of demagogism which was destroying the char-
acter of the city. We must take care that there
is no double voting, that the residents of one
ward shall not go over and give their votes in
another ward also. It is by this double voting
that the wishes of the citizens of one ward may
be overruled by the interference of another, and
that a mayor and municipal authorities not agree-
able to them, may be forced upon them. He
desired to protect Baltimore against herself, to
preserve her from being annihilated by fraudu-
lent voting.
He concluded with an expression of his hope
that the ballot box would be preserved in its pu-
rity, and that the practice, of double voting
would he prevented hereafter. If the principle
of admitting all to the polls without any restric-
tion as to residence is to prevail, our institutions
will not be worth a brass farthing. Yet we are
told we may do what we will with the rest of the |
State, but we must not touch the city of Balti-
more. He did not hold himself as a delegate
merely for Howard District, but for all the
State. And looking at the interest of the whole
State, he thought a. reasonable time ought to be
fixed fur residence, both in the districts through
the State and in the wards of Baltimore city,
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, was of opinion
that a man who moved from one county to an-
other, carried with him the right to vote. It
was said there should be some restriction, and he
would be wilting to agree to thirty or sixty days
in the county and twelve months in the State.
But he Was entirely opposed to any restriction
in the suffrage of those who moved merely
from one election district to another. As the
law now stands one day's residence in a ward is
deemed sufficient. He was satisfied with that;
no man can vote in any ward who has not slept
in it the previous night; and any one can chal-
lenge his vote on shewing where the person did
sleep the last night. He desired no further restriction.
The law prescribing aresidence of one day
cannot be evaded without either fraud or perju-
ry, which can always be detected by the agency
of a challenger. With reference to what had
been said by the gentleman from Anne Arundel
as to the danger of the voters of one county go-
ing over the line to vote in other counties, he
contended that no evil could result from this practice,
as they could only vote once, and if they
voted in another county they could not return to
vote in their own. It was desirable that there
should be the fullest possible expression of the
public sentiment. He was opposed to any re-
striction which would have the effect of preven-
ting this. If the people themselves will perpe-
trate frauds, it is impossible to prevent them by
any restrictions we may impose. Whether we
fix a residence of thirty days or of six months,
the restriction will be rendered of no effect so
long as there is a spirit among the people which
prompts to its evasion. He was, therefore, in
favor of giving the largest privilege.
He concluded with stating that he did not un-
derstand his friend from Harford (Mr. MCHEN-
RY) as intending by his amendment to do any
thing more than to limit the term of residence.
In any remarks he had made, he desired it to be
understood that he had no intention that they
should be applied to that gentleman, who, he
was entirely satisfied by his vote on Saturday,
was in favor of the largest, liberty. His remarks
were only intended for those who voted in the
minority on Saturday.
On motion of Mr. PHELPS,
The Committee then rose and reported pro-
gress; and
The Convention adjourned until 10 o'clock to-
morrow morning.
TUESDAY, January 14th, 1851.
The Convention, in pursuance of its order
heretofore adopted, met at 10 o'clock.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. GRAUFF.
The Roll of the members was called. |
