resided at least six months next preceding the
election in the Levy Court district in which he
may offer to vote, shall in such Levy Court dis-
trict, be entitled to vote," &c.
And on reference to the journal of the House,
he found in addition to the gentlemen already
named, that Mr. BOWIE of Prince Georges, was
then a member; and it nowhere appeared that
he had raised his voice against the oppression,
wrong, and injustice done to the people of Fred-
erick county by this restriction which he now
thought would be the result of the smallest re-
striction imposed.
Mr. BOWIE interposed. It was for Frederick
county only.
Mr, DAVIS presumed his friend would as soon
raise his voice against oppression in Frederick.
county, as in Prince George's county. He com-
mended this wholesome example of the Reform-
ers of Frederick county to the grave attention
of this Convention.
Mr. SPENCER said Governor GRASON had just
been elected Governor, and this was the action
of the Whigs to deprive him of the patronage.
Mr. DAVIS said it was well known as a matter
of history, that the politics of Frederick county
have vacillated with the returning season of al-
most every year. And although it may then have
been a Whig measure, the Democrats since had
had the power to change it. But so satisfactory
was its operation, that it was still to be found
on the Statute Book.
Mr. BISER said, the gentleman from Montgom-
ery had held up Frederick as the great Reform
county. He thanked him for the compliment,
which he properly appreciated. He was sorry
it was not Montgomery. He had himself intro-
duced a bill in the House of Delegates to make
the election by general ticket. It was rejected
in the House. In 1838, when the gentleman
from Queen Ann's was Governor, he was not in
the House. A gentleman from Washington
county introduced a bill, the effect of which
would have been to strangle the strength of the
county. The vacillation of Frederick was in con-
sequence of the policy adopted by the Whigs.
Loud cries for the "question."
Mr. JENIFER (to whom the floor had been
awarded,) said that he had not risen to make a
speech, but to give notice of his intention to ef-
fect the very object which gentlemen who called
for the "question" were so anxious to attain.
He notified the Convention that he should to-
morrow morning move a resolution, providing
that the vote be taken on the amendments to this
article at two o'clock.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, made a
brief explanation. It had been said that he had
justified what is called the colonization of voters.
He had nut done so. He had said that in general
elections, the voter might cast his vote wherever
he chose, in the election district, so that he gave
but one vote, as the result would be the same.
He thought in the election of County Commis-
sioners, the general ticket system the fairest,
and therefore the bona fide removal of voters
from one election district to another, should be unrestricted,
except that they should only vote once |
at the same election. He preferred that every
candidate should represent numbers rather than
territory. Baltimore city formed two Congres-
sional districts, and a voter could remove from
one district to the other, and vote in his new
residence without the limitation of six months
residence, which is required in removals from one
Congressional district consisting of counties, to
another consisting of counties. So the county,
of Anne Arundel is divided into two Congres-
sional districts, and a voter could remove from
Anne Arundel proper, into Howard district of
the county, and vote there without previous re-
sidence.
Mr, DORSEY said it had always been held that
voters so removing could not vote immediately,
and they had been always excluded.
Mr. BRENT, resuming, said he could not see
how that was unless by the terms of the special
act separating Howard district from Anne Arun-
del county, for judicial and municipal purposes.
Neither the Constitution nor the election laws.
would justify such exclusion, if we adopt these
isolated cases as a rule of action, rather than the
general condition of things, then we must carry
out the principle whereon the distinction is
found. But if a resident of Baltimore is to for-
feit his right to vote, because lie has changed his
warn two or three times before an election, or
a citizen of a county because he has removed
from one election district to another, it is dis-
franchisement of a legal voter, for no other rea-
son than that his admission to vote may open the
way for colonization of voters from district to
district, or ward to ward, for election purposes
only. What right have we to do this ?
He then referred to the roving character of a
portion of the population of Baltimore, living by
daily labor, where they could obtain it, from
Fell's Point to the Western limits of the city,
working and living in one ward to-day, and an-
other to-morrow. They are citizens of Balti-
more, and if they come to vote in the ward in
which they are employed, it would be gross in-
justice to disfranchise them.
He then replied to some of the remarks of the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr. CHAMBERS) as to
the effect on party candidates, which might be
produced by voters changing their Congressional
district, and voting without the required resi-
dence, a ground on which the action of this Con-
vention ought not to be based. But even adopt-
ing this view, no harm could result from obtaining
a full expression of public opinion among the
legal voters. The gentleman from Kent said
that this restriction, as to residence ill wards and
districts, was not in the old Constitution, because
colonization was then unknown. Mr. B. said be
was not old enough to speak of those times, but
he had heard old men say that party spirit was
fiercer then than now, and frauds were every
where practised.
If the argument of the gentleman from Kent
was good, what is to become of Dorchester
county, one of whose delegates (Mr. HICKS)
stated that when he was about to challenge an
illegal voter, a friend whispered " let him alone, |
