to effect this object. He would not have now
risen to take any part in the debate, but for the
remark made by the gentleman from Dorchester,
(Mr. HICKS,) which appeared to be sustained by
the gentleman from Kent, that this is to be re-
garded as a test question, and that they who vote
against this restriction are disposed to throw
away all the guards of the purity of the elective
franchise. Now, he begged it to be understood
that he would vote against this amendment, and
his objection to it is, that it was not an adequate
and appropriate remedy. He would concur in any
measure which, while it would prevent frauds,
would, in no degree, impair the elective fran-
chise in the hands of those who are entitled to it.
But he could not vote for a proposition, which,
while it aimed at the prevention of frauds, would
also have the effect of restricting the right of vo-
ters legally.
He deeply regretted the state of things that had
been represented as existing in this common-
wealth : because, wherever his earlier lot was
cast, he regarded his destiny for the future as fix-
ed in this State. Until he came to this Conven-
tion. and heard the statements made by other
gentlemen, he, had formed no idea of the alleged
extent to which fraud and corruption have been
carried. This evil, it would appear, from these
allegations, is, by no means confined to the city
of Baltimore, which has been stigmatized as the
sink of political iniquity, but has extended to all
the counties of the State. The facts of double
voting, giving money to purchase votes, giving
money to obtain naturalization papers, in which
men of character and standing, wealthy individ-
uals, and even official dignitaries are alleged to
have taken part, appear to be common occurren-
ces. Who could have been prepared for such a
state of things'? He was not, and could not cred-
it it to that extent. Where is the law ? Is there
no power to check these outrages ?
He then went on to shew that bribery had been
apprehended in the earlier periods of our histo-
ry, as was evident from the clause in the Con-
stitution which relates to that crime. It was
feared it might reach high places; and the pro-
vision in the Constitution was a wise one. The
gentleman from Kent was therefore mistaken
when he said that corruption was not known to
our fathers, and that they had not provided
against it. The provisions inserted in our Con-
stitution shew that it was necessary to provide
against its introduction in our Judiciary and Ex-
ecutive officers, as well as in the elections. And
while these provisions attest the apprehension
that it might be practised, they also prove in
what abhorence it was held by the framers of
the Constitution. And now we are told publicly
that bribery prevails at every election, that it
pervades every district in the State. If this be
true, it is indeed time that we had a Convention.
There is nothing like this in England, where we
have been accustomed to believe that corruption
stalks abroad in open day. There is nothing
like it in the history of Rome, until she had
reached the zenith of her glory, and then it ap-
peared and hastened her decline. And so it pre-
cipitated the other republics of antiquity to their |
ruin. And they all stand, among the wrecks of
time, as beacon lights to warn those who shall
come after them. If the statements made here
are true, then our State is corrupt to the core.
There has been nothing like it, if true. He did
not say that it was true and does not believe it.
But if it is true in any indirect part, it calls for a
speedy and vigorous remedy; it is too dangerous
to be cured by homoepathic treatment. If the
disease has taken such hold in the State; if the
cancer has made such progress over the body pol-
itic, it becomes our duty to take the knife and
cut deep to the root, or our career will be short,
and the time is not far off when we shall be
stricken down by the iron hand of despotism.
And what is the remedy for this diseased con-
dition of the State ? He scarcely knew where
to go for an adequate remedy—those proposed
were not so. The gentleman from Anne Arundel
would provide a remedy by keeping back from
the poor foreigner his naturalization papers, or
preventing him from receiving from others the
expense of procuring them, so that he may be
prevented from giving a fraudulent vote. This
is certainly homoepathic and unjust treatment.
While excluding two or three foreigners, we shall
shut out twenty who have an indisputable right
to vote. Other remedies have been proposed,
all similar in their want of power to effect a
cure. In all the suggestions which have been
made there is a greater possibility of punishing
the innocent than deterring the guilty. He would
rather permit foreigners to go into our Courts,
and be naturalized gratuitously. That was his
remedy. Now the foreigner becomes the tool of
the person who pays for his papers, and is used
by him to further his purposes. Let him have
his papers without cost, and he walks forth free
and independent.
Another remedy looks to the question of resi-
dence. At present it is necessary that the voter
shall have resided twelve months in the State,
and six months in the county. The gentleman
from Kent says this provision may be evaded.
We have already the State residence, and the
County residence. And now the district resi-
dence is wanted. These districts were established
merely for the convenience of the people, and not
for the better security of the ballot box. His reme-
dy was to abolish the district elections for Com-
missioners, and let the whole County vote for
them. This would not convert the district sys-
tem, intended for the convenience of the people,
into an injury,
The gentleman from Kent says, a man who has
a right to his vote, is deprived of his right when
an illegal vote is received; and to this he (Mr.
McL.) agreed. But what remedy does he pro-
pose ? He takes away from a voter who moves
from one district into another, the right to vote,
because there is a knave standing by him, who
will be admitted to vote, if the honest voter is.
All the remedies proposed, like this, would un-
necessarily shackle the right of suffrage, and be
ineffectual to cure the disease.
He objected to the proposition laid down by
the gentleman from Kent, that every right that
must necessarily be abused ought to bequalified, |
