"Or some other uniform provision whereby the
legal and qualified electors may be fully and
truly ascertained, and the elective franchise protected
from all fraud."
Mr. J. U. DENNIS gave notice of his intention
to move, when in order, to amend the amendment
of Mr. JENIFER, by striking out the word
"may," and inserting the word "shall"— (so as
to make the provision imperative en the Legisla-
ture.)
Mr. JENIFER turning to Mr. D., and therefore
scarcely heard at the Reporter's desk, was un-
derstood to express his preference for the lan-
guage of the original amendment, which had
been inserted, he said, after due reflection and
upon consultation with friends.
Mr. DENNIS said that if we were to have a
Registry law at all, it seemed to him that it
would be best to make it imperative. If such a
law was to exist, it should be made incumbent
upon the Legislature to pass it, and should not
be left to the alterations of party in every successive
Legislature; as it had been suggested par-
ties alternated every two years on the oyster law.
MR. RICAUD stated his object, (in his second
amendment,) to be to empower the Legislature,
by Constitutional provision to pass such a
law if they deemed it necessary, and thus
take away the objection that the Legislature
transcended its Constitutional power, if they
should think this the best mode of protecting the
elective franchise. If a Registry law should
not be the best mode to accomplish the object,
then the Legislature would have it in their pow-
er to pass such other laws as they might think
proper.
Mr. SPENCER. The reason which will induce
me to vote against the whole proposition is this;
if it is proper that any other restrictions should
be imposed upon the voters of the State, beyond
those which now exist, let it be done here. I
am unwilling to leave the matter to the changes
and vacillations which must attend it, if it is re-
ferred to the discretion of the Legislature. If it
is proper the thing should be done, let us do it.
If it is not proper, let it go by the board.
The question was then taken, and by ayes 37,
noes 17, the amendment was rejected.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment heretofore offered by Mr. KILGOUR,
(which prohibits the Legislature from passing
such a law.)
Some desultory conversation followed, as to
the fact whether Mr. KILGOUR'S amendment was
or was not pending before the Committee.
Mr. DAVIS expressed the hope that the final
vote on that amendment, would not be taken in
the absence of Mr. KILGOUR, as that gentlemen
desired to present his views.
After some further conversation,
Mr. J. U. DENNIS offered the amendment indi-
cated by him, (making it imperative on the Legis-
lature to pass a Registry law.)
Mr. MCMASTER called for the yeas and nays.
The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that, under
the late change of the rules, the yeas and nays
could not be taken in Committee.
Mr. MORGAN moved to amend the amendment |
of Mr. JENIFER, by striking out all after the
words, "the Legislature," and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
"Ought from time to time to pass such laws as
in their wisdom may be deemed necessary to ascertain
the legal and qualified voters of the State,
and to protect the elective franchise from «U
fraud."
Mr. MORGAN said, he was opposed to the passage
of any law for a uniform system of registration.
He was opposed to it: First, because be
could see no reason why such law should be
passed, where it could have no proper application.
He could see no reason why the Convention
should incorporate in the Constitution a pro-
vision declaring that the voters in his county,
where, so far as his knowledge extended, there
was no fraud, should be required, simply be-
cause frauds were committed elsewhere, to go
and register their names in the county town or
election district of the State. It had been alleged.
and in part, it was a matter of notoriety,
that in other sections of the State, frauds had
been committed; and wherever they were committed,
he desired that the Legislature should
have the power to apply the corrective, Hence
it was, that he was opposed to the amendment
of the gentleman from Charles) (Mr. JENIFER,)
because he saw that it would operate unjustly,
His (Mr. M's,) amendment, would cover the
whole ground, and would give to the representatives
of the people, who were supposed to know
their wants, a sufficient grant of power to protect
the ballot box from fraud, wherever it
might exist. If it existed in any of the coon-
ties or cities of the State, let them pass laws
applicable to those counties or cities; but let
them not have the power to pass laws which
would act injuriously, and in his opinion wrongfully,
upon those portions of the State when no
such outrages were committed.
He declared his belief that the opposition to
the Registry Law formerly passed with reference
to the city of Baltimore, arose from the
fact, that it did not operate uniformly; that re-
strictions upon the elective franchise should ope-
rate alike upon all citizens of the State) whether
in the city or county, and that therefore, the law
itself was unconstitutional, in as much as it imposed
upon the citizens of Baltimore, burthens
in the exercise of their rights, which were not
imposed upon the citizens of the counties. He
could see the force of this objection, and he contended
it was equally appropriate here, because
it was proposed to make the rule apply to a peo-
ple, in respect to whom the reason of the rules
had no force.
He had heard different gentlemen give their
testimony in regard to the illegal votes in (their
counties. He repeated, he had no such experience
as to his own. He had no knowledge of a
single illegal vote having ever been given there,
which, at the time was known to be illegal. He
knew that there wen other counties of the State
that were similarly situated. He could see very
great reason way a general grant of power should
be given, leaving it to the Legislature in its wisdom,
to apply it where frauds existed, and where |
