the pure voice of the people, was stifled by the corrupt
practices of men, who had no legal right to
vote.
Mr. JENIFER thought that there was some in-
consistency in the argument of the gentleman
who had just taken his seat, (Mr. MORGAN.) His
objection was that the provision would operate
unequally upon the State. Would not the same
rule apply, according to the argument of the gentleman,
to any law for the prevention of punishment
of crime?' And light not the gentleman,
with equal propriety, say that no petty larcenies
were ever committed in St. Mary's county; and,
therefore, it was unjust and oppressive in the
Legislature, to pass a law to punish petty larcenies
in the State? So far as he, (Mr. J.) could
perceive, the amendment of the gentleman would
do away with any benefit that might be expected
to result from the passage of the law. He wanted
to have such an enactment, not for a part of
the State, but for the whole of it—Charles county,
Baltimore city, and every other section of the
State. Any thing less than that, would fall far
short of his views and wishes.
Mr. MORGAN denied the applicability of the
illustration given by the gentleman from Charles,
(Mr. JENIFER,) to the point under consideration,
Under the proposition of that gentlemen, if
frauds existed in Charles county, and no where
else, the Legislature could not pass a law to
remedy the evil in Charles county without mak-
ing it applicable to the State even though frauds
did not exist, thus making no discrimination between
the innocent and the guilty.
Mr. J. U. DENNIS said, be did not expect that
any thing he could say would influence the opin-
ion of any member. Still as he was in favor of
any proposition which had for its aim, the prevention
of these frauds, be should say a few
wards upon the various propositions belore the
Committee. He could not assent to the propo-
sition of the gentleman from St. Mary's, (Mr.
MORGAN.) He (Mr. D.) was in favor of every
measure not absolutely onerous in itself which
would tend to the purification of the ballot-box.
The Committee had heard from other gentlemen
how frauds were committed in other counties;
but some of them knew nothing of frauds in their
own. To hear the gentleman from St. Mary's
(Mr. MORGAN) and the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. BUCHANAN) speak of their
counties, one would suppose that they inhabited
"A land of pure delight,
When saints immortal reign."
for his own put, he believed that in every sec-
tion of the State, more or less, these frauds prevailed.
It was in the nature of the Government
and in the nature of the human character, that
it should be so.
What was the corrective ? As one means he
was in favor of the amendment, of the gentleman
from Charles, (Mr. JENIFER.) He (Mr. D.)
had voted, and should continue to vote for every
measure held out a reasonable hope of
effecting the object in view. He believed that a
Registry Law, coupled with the amendment of
the gentleman from Kent, would cut up this sys- |
tem of bribery and corruption, root and branch.
He feared, however, that no such proposition
would receive vote of the Convention. Mea-
sure after measure had been met by solid phalanx
arrayed against it, and on Saturday last the gentleman
from Caroline, (Mr. STEWART) had called
for "concert of action." He (Mr. D.) had no
doubt that the requisite numbers would come
with the clansman at the sound of Roderic Dhu's
whistle, said vote against this thing.
Mr. McHENRY. (Interposing.) The gentleman
from Caroline, (Mr. STEWART) is not now
in his seat. But the gentleman over the way.
(Mr. DENNIS,) has misconceived the remark,
The gentleman from Caroline called for concert.
of action on the part of reformers.
Mr. DENNIS. Who are they—may I ask the
gentleman who represents the gentleman from
Caroline ?
Mr. McHenry. Some very good reformers
are among the Whigs.
Mr. DENNIS. I shall present myself as a re-
former at your call—though I am apprehensive
that my claim will be rejected.
Mr. D. concluded by briefly contesting the ar-
gument of Mr. MORGAN as to the unjust operation
of the amendment of Mr. JENIFER, and argued
that there would be much injustice in the amendment
of the gentlemen from St. Mary's, (Mr.
MORGAN.)
Mr. MORGAN said, that the gentleman who had
just taken his seat (Mr. DENNIS) bad misconceived
his amendment. He (Mr. M.) had offered no
amendment, making special reference to coun-
ties—or giving power to the Legislature to make
local laws. His amendment gave to the Legis-
lature the constitutional power to discriminate
between the application of laws to particular
sections and a uniform system. If the Legisla-
ture, knowing the wants of the people and in-
formed of the existence of frauds, deemed it ne-
cessary to pass a uniform Registry Law, (they
were to do so. The power was full and ample
to pass, or not to pass it, as the case might require.
He would be the last man to introduce partial
provisions, because he thought that the operation
of laws should be uniform. If frauds existed,
the Legislature would act; if such frauds were not
made to appear, they would not act. The matter
should be left with the Legislature, who were
the Representatives of the people, and responsi-
ble to them.
Mr. PHELPS thought the proposition before
the committee was so uniform and fair that no
gentleman , could vote against it. Every gentleman
who believed that frauds did exist at
the ballot box, and that the evils were such as
to require & corrective, could not fail to give
it his suction. It merely gave the Legislature
the) right to pass such laws as in its wisdom
they might think necessary and proper to cor-
rect existing evils now or in the future.
Was not every gentleman satisfied that such
frauds did exist in certain sections of the State,
and that they would increase unless this Conven-
tion should adopt some effective means for their
detection and suppression ? It seemed to him
that on a imposition so little liable to the charge |
