positions of Mr. McLANE; briefly enforced the
propriety and necessity of the resolution which
had been adopted, and expressed his hope that
the Convention would not rescind it.
Pending the question, the Convention passed
to the order of the day.
THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE .
On motion of Mr. JENIFER, the Convention
again resolved itself into committee of the
whole, Mr. BLACKISTONE in the chair, and resum-
ed the consideration of the report of the committee
on the Elective Franchise.
The pending question was on the following
amendment offered yesterday by Mr. MCHENRY:
To strike out all from the word "election," in
the third line, to the word "and" in the fifth
line, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
" Shall, unless excluded by other provisions of
this Constitution, be entitled to vote at every
public election in the election district where his
residence may be established for days pre-
ceding such election, and not elsewhere."
Mr. BROWN suggested to the gentleman to
withdraw the amendment. The committee by
three separate votes had refused to fill the
blank with any specific time, and if it was
not filled, of course the whole proposition was
nugatory. He trusted the amendment would be
withdrawn, that the Convention might get rid
of the debate.
Mr. MCHENRY said he was willing to acqui-
esce in the suggestion, not only because the ex-
perienced member from Carroll, (Mr. BROWN,)
had made it, but because upon consultation with
friends he Mr. McH. found that there was not
the least probability of the adoption of the
amendment, therefore he would withdraw it.
He desired to say, however, that he had not in
the slightest degree modified his opinion. He
believed that the amendment, if it had been
adopted, would effect the object he designed to
accomplish; but he would be the last man in this
Convention to procrastinate its action by any
pertinacity of his own.
So the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. SAPPINGTON thereupon withdrew the
amendment which he had heretofore offered.
Mr. PHELPS now moved the following amend-
ment :
Insert after the words " Howard District," the
following: " And thirty days in the election
district or ward of the city of Baltimore."
Mr. DORSEY asked for the yeas and nays which
were ordered, and were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells. Kent,
Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, Merrick, John Dennis,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashlel, Wil-
liams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston,
Phelps, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster. Fooks,
McHenry. Magraw, Davis and Waters—33.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Sellman, Bond,
Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Sherwood, of
Talbot, Colston, Chambers, of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, Bowie, McCubbin, Spencer, Gra- |
son, George Wright., Shriver, Gaither, Biser,
Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Kilgour, Brewer, Ander-
son, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Parke, Shower, Cockey, and Brown,—48.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DIRICKSON stated that he had hitherto vo-
ted with the party which had evinced a dispo-
sition to abolish all distinctions in the exercise
of the right of voting. He had no idea that by
any act of ours we could succeed in making
men more pure, and he was unwilling to impose
restrictions unless where he was satisfied that
they were demanded by the public interest.—
He would not be desirous to restrict even for-
eigners in their exercise of this high privilege.
He had no prejudices against such, as foreign-
ers; and even if he had, his sense of what was
due to justice would not permit him to let
such prejudices influence his actions. The
general government had said that after a residence
of so many years, foreigners should be entitl-
ed to the privileges of other citizens. Whe-
ther it was, ill every view, right or not, he
would not to stop to decide. Older men
and sages had thought so, and he would not
attempt to impugn their decision. He dif-
fered with the gentleman from Charles on this
point, he had heretofore avowed a wish to
see all distinctions broken down. if this was
democratic doctrine, it was the doctrine in
which he had been brought up. He was desi-
rous as any one to purify the ballot bos. Gen-
tlemen all around professed an equal desire to
effect this object, but all seemed to discover a
great difficulty as to the proper mode to be adop-
ted. It seemed to be generally admitted that.
in every part of the State, the ballot box had
been greatly corrupted. He did not believe that
the evil had reached that extent which some
believed, but, to some extent, he could not
but allow that corruption had crept in. His
objection to the coarse of many members was
that, while they admit the existence of the evil,
they reject the means for its removal, after te-
naciously opposing every attempt to introduce a
remedy. Will not the amendment now under
consideration, "work well, and produce good to
the city of Baltimore ?
The gentleman from Baltimore (Mr. GWINN)
had said that if a man desired to commit a fraud
all he had to do was to swear that he had slept
the night before in one of the wards of the city
or county.
Mr. GWINN. I never said so.
Mr. DIRICKSON resumed. Whether it was
that gentleman who said it, or his colleague;
it was an argument against the restriction which
this amendment imposed. It was true that a
man who would swear that he had slept one
night there, might bo more easily detected than
if he perjured himself in reference a long-
er residence. But this rendered the amendment
the more necessary. There are always
persons belonging to the Ward who watch for |
