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 62   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
62
putable, hereafter, to contribute for such a pur-
post.
He had risen merely to vindicate himself from
the suspicion that he could have presumed to be-
lieve, that such a state of things as was repre-
sented to him, really existed. It was not for
him, at this time, to bring forward any proposi-
tion on the subject, until that now under con-
sideration is disposed of. He repeated that he
made no charges against the State. If she had
been libelled, it was by her own children.
Mr. SOLLERS said it was not his wish or in-
tention to make the slightest attack on the per-
sonal character of the gentleman from Cecil.
But he appealed to those around him, whether
the effect of the speech of that gentleman, was
not to impress a conviction on the public mind,
that there was great corruption in the State. It
was true he had said he did not believe it. But
the gentleman drew a picture of existing frauds,
calculated to strike with dismay every man in
the State. If the gentleman from Cecil did not
endorse these frauds, why this lengthened argu-
ment, and the reference to the fate of Greece and
Rome. He must have supposed there was some
truth in them; for he would scarcely have
erected so magnificent a superstructure from
materials furnished by fancy.
Mr. BRENT, of Charles, remarked that the
principle involved in the question now before
the committee was regarded as one of very high
importance. It had already been very ably and
eloquently discussed (as he had learned upon
his return to Annapolis yesterday,) and the sub-
ject was perhaps at this advanced stage of the
debate, worn somewhat "thread-bare." He wish-
ed, however, to assign in as concise a manner as
possible, some of the reasons which would influ-
ence his vote, and asked the indulgence of the
committee to enable him to do so.
The right of suffrage, as had been truly said,
was a right dear to the freeman. It was a jewel
of great value, and the greater its value the
more careful we should be in properly guarding
and protecting it by wholesome restrictions.
Our power to restrict the right, it seemed to
him with due deference to others, was clear and
undoubted. He referred to the Constitutions of
the several States to show this power had been
exercised and admitted from the period of the
Revolution up to the present time. The first re-
strictions upon this right in Maryland were im-
posed under the Proprietary Government in
1681, and these were continued in the Constitu-
tion of 1776. In 1803 the restriction of property
qualification was very properly abolished. The
prohibition upon the exercise of the right of
voting until the voter shall have attained the
age of twenty-one years, shall have resided in
the State twelve months, and in the county or
city, where he may offer to vote, six months, is
undoubtedly a restriction. It has been a part of
the Constitution of the State since 1810, and has
been engrafted already, by a large majority,
upon the one, which this Convention has now in
charge. The power, therefore, to restrict this
right of suffrage must be conceded.
Possessing then the power to restrict) the
question becomes one solely of expediency. In
the formation of an organic law the rights of the
citizen should be carefully guarded ana protect-
ed. To guard the right of suffrage against
fraud and protect it in its purity, is One of out
first duties—for the channel through which the
sovereign will of the people is uttered, should be
pure and unpolluted.
It is true there is no specified period of residence
in an election district required under the
present Constitution of the State. A residence.
there in good faith, no matterhow recent, entitles
the person claiming it to vote, if he has resided in
the State and county or city for the length of
time designated in the provision adopted in 1810.
Prior to 1841 no reason existed for such apro-
vision. Until 1799 all elections were held at
the county towns. The election district system
was then established for the "better convenience
of the people." Still there was no division of
counties for separate elections—except in one or
two instances for local officers—until after the
census of 1840—when in laying off Congressional
districts upon the basis of representation in Con-
gress then adopted, it became necessary and
proper for the Legislature of the State to divide
Baltimore city and Anne Arundel county. By
the division thus made, parts of that county and
city were attached to different congressional dis-
tricts. Here then, in this division by ideal lines
in the same county and city exists the temptation
to fraud upon the Elective Franchise by double
voting, and the system of "colonizing," of which
so much has been said in the course of this dis-
cussion. In the progress of time, as the basis of
representation in Congress is again changed, di-
visions of other counties in the State may also
become necessary and proper. A new feature
in the division of the State has thus sprung up.
Different election districts in the same county
are called upon to vote for and elect different
members to Congress—and hence the importance
of now requiring a fixed period of residence in
each particular election district. The amend-
ment proposes five days residence, and he desired
to see it adopted.
He proceeded to refer to the remarks made
by the gentleman from Queen Anne, (Mr, SPEN-
CER) yesterday, in which lie understood him as
intimating that the restriction proposed would be
oppressive only to the man in poor and humble
life.
Mr. SPENCER explained. He admitted that
the Convention had the right to impose restric-
tions, and that the only question was one of ex-
pediency. He had said that the restriction would
be particularly hard on the humble. He disa-
vowed any intention of charging such a motive
on any one.
Mr. BRENT resumed. He had not understood
the gentleman as denying the power of the Con-
vention to impose restrictions, He had, however.
misunderstood him in reference to the effect of
the proposition under discussion. He now un-
derstands him as having said that this measure
would operate with peculiar hardship on the
humble. He (Mr. B.) did not think so. It was
a measure designed for the wise purpose of


 
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 62   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives