clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 42   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
43
on the right of suffrage, but to qualify it by
such wholesome provisions as the public safety
might require. He held that every man of twenty-one
years of age had an inalienable right to
vote, and it could not be restrained unless de-
manded by the public safety. He would not
vote for this restriction of five days' residence,
because it would fall on a large class of poor
citizens, who had no permanent home, but were
constantly moving from district to district. The
amendment would deprive '.hem of the right
of suffrage. Because we have the power, it
" would be wrong to diminish the rights of this
class. Public safety demands no such act at our
hands. Something ought to be done, but the
Legislature could increase the rigor of the
penal laws. He was willing to increase the
rigor of the penal laws if public opinion demand-
ed it, but, (said he,) "So help me God, I will
never consent to strike down the free right it-
self."
Mr. CHAMBERS was unwilling to remain silent
and hear different gentleman again and again im-
pute to him and those with whom he had been
acting, motives and reasons utterly at variance
with those which governed them. No one here
was disposed to violate the fundamental princi-
ples of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution—
to shackle the right of freemen to vote. He believed
all desired the same object—the purity of
elections. Opinions differed as to the mode of
securing it. Each should adopt this charitable
opinion of the intention of others. The right of
voting is undoubtedly of vast importance to free-
men; and why is it so? Because it enables them
to select for themselves their political rulers and
agents. Hence your Constitution and laws guar-
antee that the majority of legal voters in a par-
ticular election shall have those elected for whom
they cast their votes. If persons not entitled to
vote interpose and nullify the effect of legal
votes, this pledge is forfeited, and your Govern-
ors, Congressmen and others, are not the persons
chosen by a majority of the legal voters, but are
put upon them by others not entitled to have a
voice in their selection. Every false vote defeats
and disfranchises a legal voter.
It is not true as has been suggested that if a
man has a right to vote in one place, he may as
well vote in any place. Where the right of
electing an officer is given to the legal voters of
a particular district, it is a violation of this right
to permit any other than a legal voter to inter-
fere. it is objected that the remedy will in
some cases deprive persons of the right, who
ought to vote. Every general rule must produce
particular instances of hardship. It was the re-
sult of human imperfection. Yet general rules
must exist. His rule of political morality was,
that where an abstract right existed, but awing
to particular conditions and circumstances of a
community, could not be exercised without necessarily
producing greater evil than the good
resulting from the exercise of the right would
compensate, then the right must be restrained,
The greatest good for the greatest number, was
the proper aim and end of our labors, if one
citizen, under particular circumstances, cannot
exercise the right of voting without necessarily
depriving two others or more of all benefit of
their right, he must not be permitted to vote; and
then others are denied all effect, and of course
all benefit of their votes, when each of their
votes shall be neutralized by the opposite votes
of persons not legally entitled. He invited all to
engage in the work of arresting illegal voting,
It is a question of expediency of means. There
should be no harsh denunciation, where all have
a common and a laudable purpose.
Those were mistaken who said this was con-
tradicting the principles of the old constitutional
doctrines. Circumstances had changed and those
very principles made it necessary to change our
legislation. Besides, in the good old times and
amongst the pure men of the days of the Consti-
tution, corruption in elections was unknown—
These practices, now it seems, admitted so gen-
erally to exist, were of later introduction. We
are told to enact penal laws. Well, it has been
done and the practice is said to increase. And
now, sir, said Mr. C., allow me to say, that if not
restrained here and elsewhere, the most fearful
consequences may be apprehended. It was his
deliberate opinion that the greatest danger to be
apprehended to the perpetuity of this glorious
Union was from this quarter. If ever an indi-
vidual shall be pat upon the people as President
of these United States, who they shall be thorough-
ly satisfied owes his elevation to fraud in the
election, what disastrous results may we not ex-
pect from the outbreak of every passion which a
sense of insult and outrage can generate in minds
already excited to the highest degree by political
partizanship ? Let us do all we can to correct
even a tendency to such an issue. It is asked,
why not vote as well one side of a geographical
line as another ? Why, because it will defect the
voice of the bona fide residents and voters to
whom you give the light of election. If a geo-
graphical line divides two counties in the same
congressional district, a man must cross that line
as a resident, six months before an election, to
enable him to vote; but if the geographical line
which divides two congressional districts runs
through a county or city, then six hours resi-
dence is to entitle him. Is this agreeable to rea-
son, consistency or equality?
To make such facilities for fraud is to invite
its perpetration. He admitted, the House by re-
fusing to fill the blank with a longer time, had
diluted the proposition, which in its present form,
could do but little good. Still it was a step,
though a short step, in the right road and he
would support this and every other proposition
tending to the great result of purifying the bal-
lot-box.
Mr. JENIFER, after stating that he had for ten
days voted against all amendments fixing a term
of residence, advised his friend from Dorchester
to withdraw his amendment, and let the sub-
ject come up hereafter.
On motion of Mr. MCHENRY, the Committee
rose and reported progress,
And the Convention adjourned.


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 42   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives