by inserting after the words "Howard District,"
the following;
"And five days in the election district or ward
of the city of Baltimore."
Mr. TUCK, was entitled to the floor.
Mr. T. assumed it as indisputable that the pu-
rity of the Elective Franchise lay at the founda-
tion of this and all representative governments,
and he expressed his surprise that where frauds
were admitted to exist, efforts made to remedy
the evil, should be resisted. If but one fraudu-
lent vote had been given, it was sufficient reason
for the adoption of such measures as were calcu-
lated to prevent the extension of the evil. Some
who oppose this restriction have avowed them-
selves in favor of the largest liberty. He was an
advocate for that civil liberty which we enjoy un-
der the restraint of wholesome laws, and without
which, republics cannot exist. Any doctrine of
liberty inconsistent with this will ultimately re-
duce the government from a republic to a mere
representative democracy.
He adverted to the party allusions that had
been made in this debate. One gentleman had
stated that the friends of this restriction were in-
fluenced by political motives, and that this cry
of fraud on the ballot box was only raised when
large majorities in the Baltimore elections were
cast in a particular way. For himself he regretted
the introduction of politics into this debate. He
assailed no man's motives. Conscious of the
rectitude of his own, he left others to judge of
their conduct, and to settle such questions with
their consciences and their constituents. But
when the gentleman assigned this motive, he
must have forgotten that all the questions touch-
ing the Elective Franchise, all the members of
one party (except two) have united, and voted
against the measures designed to protect the bal-
lot box, whereas the other party have never uni-
ted on any one question since the organization of
the Convention. Mr, T. suggested that this fact
might furnish some evidence of party design to
those who were in search of the motives of oth-
ers. Yet he made no such charge himself. Gen-
tlemen had alluded to their democracy, and some
had appealed to their ancestry to show the puri-
ty of their democratic faith. If he were judged
by this test, he might claim to belong in some de-
gree to both sides. His whiggery consisted of a
proper mixture of principles for both the old
parties. He certainly laid no claim to being a
democrat of the present day. But it is not pru-
dent for our democratic friends to trace hack
too far, they may run into a cross that was once
considered quite impure, and is now generally
repudiated. Many of them would find that their
original politics had no better source than the
federalism of 1800. Referring to this subject
the other day, an honorable gentleman from
Queen Anne's had prudently dated his democra-
cy from the Jackson epoch, and disclaimed run-
ning into the Jefferson line.
Mr. T. commended the discretion of that gentleman
to others of his political friends. The
fact is that the times have changed, and men
have changed with them. The least said on this |
subject the better. We are all more or less
party men, and perhaps we show our feeling
at times when we ought not. Where we differ
let us differ as men should, who honestly dis-
agree. Let us agree to disagree, and have no
controversy about it.
It is a mistake to suppose that this amendment
would operate invidiously, as regards Baltimore.
It applies as well to the counties. Mr. T. had
no unfriendly feeling towards that city. We all
have a just pride in her growing wealth and
prosperity. He would be the last to effect her
interests. But the Delegates from Baltimore
must remember that if they enjoy the advantage
of living in the third city of the Union, and have
the honor of representing her here, they must
bear the inconveniences of having among their
constituents a proportion of that species of po-
pulation, that is common to all large cities. Mr.
T. had no doubt that frauds had been committed
on both sides. Proof has been demanded. It is
not a case that admits of strictly legal proof.
But he had heard enough to satisfy his own mind.
He would not exculpate the whigs. Both he be-
lieved to be guilty. Mr. T. could mention some
instances coming to his knowledge, on reliable
information, implicating persons of his own
party, and he had no doubt gentlemen of the
other side could do the same, if they would. In
1847, a whig of Baltimore informed him that be
had received an offer from members of the Em-
pire Club of New York, to carry the election In
Baltimore for the whigs for five thousand dollars,
and that after conferring with some of the Cen-
tral Committee, the offer was declined, but his
informant thought the arrangement ought to have
been made.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked for the
name of the gentleman's informant.
Mr. TUCK declined giving the name.
Mr. PRESSTMAN understood the gentleman
made no charge against the Democratic party.
Mr. TUCK did not charge this against any
parly.
Mr. BRENT wished to know the name because
the gentleman said he was told by a member of
the Central Whig Committee.
Mr. TUCK bad not said so. He had said that
his informant was a whig, and that he had mentioned
it to members of the Central Committee,
and that they would have nothing to do with it
His informant was not a member of that Com-
mittee.
Mr. BRENT. Well—I want to know because
the Empire Club is Democratic.
Mr. BISER. They are Democratic, but vote
for the side that pays best.
Mr. TUCK. The gentleman's democratic friend
from Frederick, (Mr. BISER,) seems to have some
knowledge of that club, and I refer my friend
from Baltimore to him, for further information.
Mr. T. adverted to the pipe laying fraud, that
was attempted some years ago in Baltimore.
There were also convictions in Baltimore a few
years ago, for fraudulent voting, (which the dele-
gates from Baltimore must remember.) The
parties were fined and imprisoned. Whose frauds |
