Mr. RIDGELY submitted that the last paragraph
was superfluous, and moved, therefore, to strike
out the following words:
" And no law of a public nature shall take ef-
fect until the same shall be published."
The question was first taken on the amendment
of Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent.
And the amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. RIDGELY.
Mr. RIDGELY withdrew his motion.
And the question recurring on the adoption of
the section, as amended,
On a suggestion by
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, the words " or af-
ter " be stricken out.
Mr. PRESSTMAN explained that the insertion of
the words " or after," was a mere typographical
error.
And then the article, as amended, was adopted.
The thirty-third section of the report was read,
as follows:
Sec. 33rd. The General Assembly shall have
full power to exclude from the privilege of vot-
ing at elections or of being elected to either
House, or of being elected or appointed to any
civil or military office in this State, any person
convicted of perjury, bribery, or other infamous
crime,
Mr. PRESSTMAN referred to a discussion in the
earlier part of the session, when the report on
the elective franchise was pending, when some-
thing was said about the effect of constitutional
disfranchisements upon the commission of of-
fences, and whether in case of pardon by the ex-
ecutive, or fulfilment of the punishment allotted,
would restore a party to his civil rights.
The gentleman from Calvert, (Mr. Sollers,)
seemed to have some doubt upon this point and
at his suggestion, qualifying terms had been em-
ployed. He had instanced at the time the offence
of duelling among other violations of the law, and
thought that the pardoning power might not be
sufficient to restore the rights of the party.
He, [Mr. P.,] had thought that every offence
was purged by pardon or the actual fulfilment
of the sentence of punishment. It was of impor-
tance enough to have the matter well understood
and if he was wrong in his view, or if there was
any uncertainty, the section had better be amend-
ed. He did not favor in any manner, a perpet-
ual disfranchisement for any offence.
Mr. SOLLERS explained, that his idea was, that
the provision should be amended, so that after a
person convicted of an infamous crime had been
pardoned by the executive, the disqualification
should be removed. There might be cases
where it would be the duty of the executive to
exercise the prerogative of pardon. An inno- |
cent person may have been convicted, and proof
of his innocence may have subsequently come
to light. The Governor should in such case par-
don the convicted; and yet, as the clause stands,
he may be deprived of the right of voting.
Mr. SOLLERS moved to amend said section by
adding at the end thereof, these words, "unless
such person shall have been pardoned by the ex-
ecutive."
The question was then taken, and
The amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurring on the adoption
of the section, as amended,
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, moved further to
amend said section by striking out in the second
line, these words, "the privilege of voting at
elections, or of,"
He, (Mr S.) objected to the amendment, be-
cause it was already included in the report on
the elective franchise, in nearly the same terms.
It cannot produce any effect even if we insert it
here. How can the legislature prevent the peo-
ple from electing any person they may think
proper to represent them. All they would have
the power to do, would be to prevent him from
being qualified.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved to amend said
section by striking out in the second and third
lines, these words, "being elected to either House
or of being elected or appointed to," and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "holding."
Mr. C. explained to the gentleman from Caro-
line, (Mr. Stewart,) that the report of the com-
mittee on the elective franchise was an absolute
and unconditional constitutional provision. This
left the matter to the discretion of the legisla-
ture. It would be better, he thought, not to dis-
turb the language of the section in this partic-
ular.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved to strike out the
section, believing, he said, that the provision in
the report on the elective franchise to be suffi-
cient,
The amendment was not now in order.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, asked the gentle-
man from Kent, whether if this amendment were
adopted, it would not require that the legislature
should pass a special act for each particular
case?
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, replied that the legis-
lature have the power, and can exercise it at
their discretion; and the legislature will still
have the power whether this provision shall be
in the Constitution or not.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, said he was oppos-
ed to the proposition. He did not think it right
to place any restriction on the people, as to the
person they should elect as their representative.
Mr. WEEMS said, he had not that perfect un-
derstanding of the import of the section, which
he wished to have before be gave his vote. He
was now asking for information of those who
were more skilled in legal matters, what was
meant by infamous crime? Now, he might con-
sider it infamous, if a gentleman were to spit in
his face. And if he were to knock down the
person who committed the outrage, that might |
