as well, or seen its enormity as clearly the
Legislature had. It seemed to him that these
acts, if they were evidence of any thing, were
evidence sufficient to satisfy this Convention
that there must have been a progressive vice of
fraud and corruption upon the ballot-box, which
required correction and punishment. And he
insisted upon the necessity of restrictive provisions,
irrespective of party acts in the past or
party consideration in the future.
No member taking the floor, the Chairman
stated the question.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved that there
be a call of the Convention.
The CHAIRMAN said that the motion was not in
order. The committee had no right to a call.
But the gentleman could move that the commit-
tee rise, in order to make the motion in Conven-
tion.
Messrs. SHRIVER and BUCHANAN asked the yeas
and nays on the pending amendment of Mr.
PHELPS; which, after some conversation, were
taken and resulted as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell. Donaldson, Dorsey, Randall,
Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Brent of Chas.,
Merrick, Jenifer, John Dennis, James V. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hodson Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Tuck, Sprigg, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Annan,
McHenry, Davis, Kilgour, and Smith—39.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Buchanan, Chandler,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood of Talbot, Chamb-
ers of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Bowie, McCubbin,
Spencer, Grason, George, Wright, Shriver,
Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, Magraw, McHenry,
Carter, Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Schley, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Anderson. Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, alower, Cockey and Brown—43.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JENIFER expressed his gratification that
the committee had at least progressed so far In
its action to-day. And be sent up to the Secre-
tary's table an amendment which he desired to
offer, (providing for a Registry Law.)
Mr. DORSEY indicated his desire to offer an
amendment.
Mr. JENIFER said, if it would not give rise to
debate, be would waive his motion in favor of the
gentleman (Mr. DORSEY.)
Mr. DORSEY said, he desired only to say a few
words.
Mr. JENIFER withdrew his proposition for the
moment.
Mr. DORSEY then moved to amend the amendment
— by striking out in the first line, the words
"this State," and inserting in lien thereof, the
words "the United States."
Mr. DORSEY briefly gave his reasons for moving
the amendment, which was intended to make
clear what might otherwise be regarded, as a
gutter of doubt, as it was contended by some
that naturalization merely gave civil rights within
10 |
the State of the citizen 'a residence, whilst others
insisted that it conferred political, as well as
civil rights,
Mr. GWINN here raised the question that this
amendment had been disposed of a few days ago.
But it appeared on reference to the journal, that
the proposition was adopted by Mr. WEEMS as a
modification of an amendment offered by him
and rejected, without a distinct vote being taken
on this amendment, it wag again entertained.
Mr. DORSEY said he regarded it as the settled
opinion of this Convention, that it has the right
to preclude naturalized citizens from the exer-
cise of the elective franchise within the State,
because, by the act of naturalization, no politi-
cal, but civil rights only are given. If the act of
Congress, passed pursuant to the Constitution of
the United States, conferred political rights, we
have no power to restrict these rights. If the
naturalized citizen possesses the right to vote) we
cannot limit his eligibility to fill any office ,in
the State; and by assuming the right to restrict
him, we concede to him civil rights only acquir-
ed by naturalization. His object now was to
remove all existing doubts on the subject. His
object was not to deprive him of any right, civil
or political, which he before possessed, but to
secure to him the elective franchise of a native
born citizen.
Mr. RIDGELY said the amendment proposed by
the honorable gentleman from Anne Arundel,
takes, in his judgment, a proper distinction, and
he hoped will be adopted. A man may be a.
citizen of the State, and yet not a citizen of the
United States. The act of naturalization con-
fers only civil rights—political rights arise out
of the compact of State government and its
legislation. An alien may, by State legislation,
be authorised to exercise citizenship for State
purposes, or within the limits of the State, and
yet not being naturalized is not a citizen of the
United States, entitled to the immunities of citi-
zens of other States. The State may relieve
a foreigner from the disabilities, which its laws
impose, but cannot make him a citizen of the
United States. The amendment, therefore, i«
broad and comprehensive; covers the whole
ground; inasmuch as if the person be a citizen
of the United States, and has the residence and
other qualifications prescribed in the section, he
is citizen necessarily of the State.
Mr. BOWIE said no foreigner could be aciti-
zen of Maryland who had not been naturalized.
No foreigner can vote here. He may, by an act
of the Legislature, be permitted to hold real
estate in Maryland. But this does not make him
a citizen. He cannot be a citizen of the State
until he has been naturalized; when he is natur-
alised he then becomes a citizen of the State in
which be has been naturalized, and also a citi-
zen of the United States. We are engaged in
making an organic law, not so much for citizens
of the United States as for citizens of our own
State. A man might be a citizen of the United
States, and yet not a citizen of this State not-
withstanding his residence of twelve months
within the State. He might in fact reaide here |
