pathies for the victims of crime, we were prone
to forget the great object of punishment, it was
a fault in our nature, though a fault which "leans
to virtue's side." Men exercising the high func-
tions for which this Convention had assembled
should not yield to such impressions. The great
object of punishment was its example upon soci-
ety—its effect in purifying and elevating the
moral lone of that society. All punishments
should be so framed as to have the greatest ef-
fect upon that moral tone; to preserve it pure, if
it could be so, and to punish with a heavy hand
all those who would attempt to pollute it. Indi-
vidual sympathies should not be listened to, when
the public good required that punishments should
be inflicted. Vengeance, it was true, did not be-
long to man—but in the spirit of justice, and not
of vengeance, he would act. He referred to the
many cases in which every appeal which human
sympathy could make had addressed itself to the
hearts of some of the best and purest men that
had ever lived, and yet where justice had been
sternly executed. And he instanced particular-
ly the case of Major Andre. Mr, M, called upon
the Convention to imitate the example of the
Father of his Country in that case.
Here was a crime which struck at the vital
principle of all republican governments; and although
gentlemen of good hearts might feel reluctant
to inflict exemplary punishment upon
those who committed it, yet, if the public good
required it, that punishment should not only be
severe, but should be inexorably meted out.
He referred to the condition of public opinion
as evidence of the light estimate in which this
crime of fraud upon the ballot box had heretofore
been held, and the necessity of infusing a new
and more healthy tone into the public mind by
proper and adequate provisions. Let the present
and rising generation be taught that this was
not the light and trivial offence which it had
hitherto been deemed, but that it was in fact a
great and heinous crime. The beneficial results
of such a policy would soon be made apparent.
Mr. DORSEY said, he did not precisely under-
stand what the amendment was, and he would
be glad that it should be read.
The state of the question became the subject
of some conversation between Messrs. MERRICK,
PHELPS and TUCK; after which the amendment
was again read.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, said, that he felt some-
what embarrassed by this proposition which had
bean offered in his absence. Undoubtedly the
amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr.
RICAUD) was better than BO provision at all. But
he (Mr. C.) hoped that the Convention would not
now falter in the disposition which it had hither-
to manifested, to adopt the most stringent pro-
visions against corrupt voting. He said the
immediate, the avowed object—that which bore
directly upon the question—had reference to cor-
rupt proceedings at elections. On that point, he
had supposed that there was no difficulty in the
Convention.
He called the attention of gentlemen to the
erroneous consequences which must result, if
12 |
this mischief was permitted to increase and mul-
tiply, as the Convention had been told from vari-
ous quarters it had increased and multiplied for
some years past—and as it would continue to do
if it was regarded with the least toleration. He
believed that the most imminent peril to the con-
tinuation of our institutions was to be apprehend-
ed from this very source. He forbore to paint—he
had not command of language to paint even
the beginning of the terrible scenes which would
follow, when the people should come to lean) that
those who had been elevated to the high places
of the land, did not occupy them by the voice of
legal votes. Whatever might be the reception,
or the fate, of other portions of that Constitution
which the Convention might present to the peo-
ple,. he had no doubt that any provision which
might be placed in it for the purification of the
ballot-box, would meet with a cordial and uni-
form response from one extremity of the State
to the other. He should be gratified if his col-
league, (Mr. RICAUD ) would withdraw, his
amendment until a vote should have been taken
on the question as it stood.
Some conversation followed
Mr. RICAUD remarked, that he was willing to
take any plan which the Convention might sug-
gest, if it would meet the point. And if that object
could be accomplished by the withdrawal of
his amendment, he would withdraw it.
But, after some conversation with Mr. MER-
RICK—
Mr. R. adhered to his amendment.
Mr. TUCK said, all must agree that something
should be done to prevent the evils complained
of. But in all penal laws there was a principle
of this character, that you might make the pun-
ishment so great that no jury would enforce it.
Such, he thought, was the nature of the proposi-
tion befora the Committee, If the argument of
the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. CHAMBERS,) had
been made in favor of the punishment for the
term of five years, it would have been a power-
ful one. The limitation of five years was suffi-
cient for the purpose, and he was glad that the
gentleman from Kent, [Mr. RICAUD] had per-
sisted in his amendment. He [Mr. T.] should vote
fur it. If that was voted down, then be should
vote for the proposition as it came from the Committee.
Mr. MERRICK argued that there was no fear
that the laws would not be enforced by
one or the other party—by that party against
which the votes might be cast. The preserva-
tion of the purity of the elective franchise—the
preservation of Government itself, required that
we should hold up to public scorn, as a terror to
others, all those who might be disposed to com-
mit a similar crime.
Mr. TUCK suggested that this law was not to be
enforced at the polls, but upon conviction in
courts of justice. It was the sympathy of juries,
to which he had referred. His idea was that if
the punishment was made too severe, convictions
could not he obtained.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, correcting a misap-
prehension into which, he said, his friend from
Prince George's [Mr. TUCK,] had fallen, in rela- |
