al; so that we have one gentleman in the Con-
vention who holds that opinion.
Mr. BOWIE said his remark did not apply to a
Registry Law uniform in Its operations through-
out the State.
Mr. MORGAN stated that his amendment grant-
ed to the Legislature the power to pass such
laws as in their wisdom may be deemed necessa-
ry to ascertain the legal and qualified voters of
the State and to protect the elective franchise
from all frauds.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. MORGAN, and the vote stood yeas
37—nays 17.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question recurred on the amendment of
Mr JENNIFER.
Mr. JENNIFER asked the yeas and nays.
The CHAIRMAN said the yeas and nays could
not now be taken in committee.
The question was then taken and the vote stood
yeas 25—nays 21.
So the amendment was rejected.
There being no other amendment to the first
section, the second section was read as follows :
" Sec. 2. That if any person shall give any
bribe, present or reward, or any promise or any
security for the payment or delivery of any mon-
ey or any other thing, to obtain or procure a vote
for any candidate or person proposed or voted
for, is elector of President and Vice President or
the United States, or Representatives in Con-
gress, or for any office of profit or trust now cre-
ated or hereafter to be created by the Constitu-
tion or Laws of this State, the person giving and
the person receiving the same, shall, on convic-
tion in a court of law, in addition to the penal-
ties now or hereafter to be imposed by law, be
forever disqualified to hold any office of profit or
trust, or to vote at any election thereafter."
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend said report by
inserting after the word " give," in the first line,
the following " by himself or by any other per-
son, or by any means direct or " indirect."
Mr. SCHLEY offered, as a substitute for said
motion, to insert after the word " give," in the
first line, the words " directly or indirectly."
Mr. SPENCER thought these words would not
answer the purpose. Those of his own amend-
ment, he suggested, prevented all evasions or
equivocations.
Mr. SCHLEY dissented from this view, and con-
tended that the application of other words except
those contemplated in his amendment, was a
mere unnecessary accumulation of language. In
forming an organic law, the words used should
be as few and as pithy as could be used to ex-
press the object of the provision.
Some discussion, chiefly in the nature of ver-
bal criticism, followed.
The substitute amendment of Mr. SCHLEY,
by ayes 37—noes 10, was agreed to.
And the amendment as thus amended was
agreed to.
Mr. MERRICK said, the Convention had provi-
ded for the positive evil of bribery; and he prepo-
sed now to provide for a negative mode just as |
culpable as the other of accomplishing the same
object. He offered the following amendment:
Insert in the third line of the second section,
after the word "thing," the words "to induce any
voter to refrain from casting his vote, or (forci-
bly) to prevent him in any way from voting or."
Mr. RANDALL suggested the introduction of
the word "forcible"—to meet the evil of "coop-
ing."
Mr. MERRICK accepted the modification.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, suggested that
the words "with intent " should be inserted.
It was the intent, he said, that should be pun-
ished.
And aftersome conversation, the question was
taken, and the amendment as modified was agreed:
to.
Mr. SPENCER offered an amendment; to insert
after the word "for," in the third line, the words
"himself or for." Rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved the fol-
lowing amendment:
Strike out in the last line the words "or to
vote at any election thereafter."
Mr. BRENT, of the city of Baltimore, assigned
as his reason for submitting this amendment, his
unwillingness, by so severe a punishment as the
original amendment prescribed, to shut out for-
ever from so high a privilege, the person who
may be guilty of the offence, and thus to render
it impossible for reformation to restore him.
to his forfeited rights as a freeman. It inflicts
disfranchisement forever, and cuts him off from
every hope of being allowed again to exercise
this valuable franchise. It makes him an unforgivable
offender. Believing such punishment to
be loo severe for the offence, he moved to strike
out the words.
Mr. MERRICK expressed his opinion that any
one who would prostitute this sacred right, ought
forever afterwards to be deprived of it.
Mr. BRENT suggested the case of a young and
inexperienced voter who had recently become
possessed of the right, and, who in a moment of
thoughtlessness, and under strong temptation,
had been drawn for a moment from the path of
rectitude. Would you inflict on him, perhaps a
minor, a punishment so severe, that, when at a
later period of life, he may have repented of the
act, changed his course, and become a useful
citizen, he shall find himself under the ban of
this perpetual disfranchisement ? However peni-
tent, he must never again be permitted to vote.
Now, he was not in favor of going to the whole
extent of perpetual disfranchisement, because
the offender had in early youth violated the law
in this respect. He was perfectly willing that
any punishment of a less revere character should
be inflicted, but he thought that which was now
proposed was altogether too severe.
Mr. MERRICK was of opinion that the very case
cited by the gentleman from Baltimore would be
one which ought to be marked out for an exam-
ple to others. It would, he admitted, be hard on
the individual himself, but it would on that ac-
count, have a more salutary efficacy in checking
the growth of the crime.
Mr. RIDGELY moved a substitute for the pro- |
