lation to his [Mr. C.'s] remarks, as to the character
of the men by whom there frauds were per-
petrated, proceeded to reply to the position that
juries would not execute the law, if the crime
was punished too severely. His, [Mr. C.'s] hope
lay in this: we were taking a new start—we
were about to have anew Constitution—old things
and old measures were passing away. There
was to be a line chalked between the time pre-
sent and the time passed. He was disposed to
hope, and he believed, that the honest, respecta-
ble, intelligent portion of the people, [which
was the immense mass of the community,] was
so satiated, so gorged with the miserable state of
things which existed, and for which all former
remedies had proved inefficient, that they would
readily avail themselves of the means to get rid
of it. He did not think that the mitigation of the
punishment contemplated by the amendment, was
calculated to accomplish the end sought to be
attained.
Mr. SELLMAN deaired as much as any man, he
said, to prevent bribery and corruption. He did
not, however, believe that these crimes existed
to the extent stated. For upwards of twenty
years, be bad represented a constituency com-
prising more than three thousand voters. Nine-
months of them, he believed were pure, and no
man dare approach one of them with an impro-
per motive.
He read the provision of the old Constitution
on this subject, and asked gentlemen to state of
what good it had ever been productive. Had
any convictions taken place or any indictments
been preferred under it? He would like his col-
league, (Mr. DORSEY,) to give his experience on
that point.
He thought the punishment here proposed was
too great. Still, if gentlemen would show him
its necessity, he would vote for it. He believed
that all punishments should be so proportioned
to the offence committed, that there could be no
difficulty in enforcing the law.
He suggested the good results which would
follow, by the constant presentation of this sub-
ject of bribery and corruption to the consideration
of grand juries. He did not think that any gen-
eral provision in the Constitution would reach
the evil. He desired to see it put down, and
thought that moderate means would be the
most effectual. He preferred the amendment
limiting the punishment to five years, but would
vote for the other proposition if that could not be
passed.
Mr. SPENCER briefly recapitulated the ground
he had taken yesterday on this question, and
proceeded to say that he concurred in the views
that had been expressed by the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. CHAMBERS.) He [Mr. S.] would go
with that gentleman to the utmost extent in
crushing this evil and would vote for the clause
as it now stood.
If, as had been intimated, there bad been no
convictions, it was not the law which prevented
it, but it was the morbid sentiment that prevail-
ed among men of position, which had led to that
result. Replying to the argument as to the pro- |
priety of charging grand juries on the subject,
he said that some of the most eloquent and pro-
bing charges he had ever heard from the bench,
were addressed to this very evil. It was a mis-
take to suppose that there bad been no prose-
cutions and conviction; but the great misfortune
had been, that when courts and juries had done
their duty, the Executive in high party times, had
interfered to arrest the legitimate results. Carry
out the principle which he had laid down upon
that point, in his amendment—infuse by the ac-
tion of this Convention a high moral sentiment in
the public mind, the the object to long desired
would at length be accomplished.
Mr. JENIFER felt, he said, that he could not
give a silent vote on this question, but would de-
tain the Convention only with & very few words.
The object which all gentlemen had in view was
to prevent corrupt voting. But it seemed to him
that the proposition before the committee was calculated
more than any other to defeat that object.
He believed that the amendment limiting the
term of condemnation would hive a beneficial
effect. Under that amendment be believed that
a conviction would be obtained as soon as the
case might present itself. The penalty, without
the amendment, was too rigorous—so much so
as, in his judgment, to prevent persons being
prosecuted. Under the limited punishment, the
first conviction would go far to arrest the evil.
But make the punishment perpetual, and the
clause would remain, as that in the existing Con-
stitution had done, a dead letter.
Mr. J. V. DENNIS thought that the heaviest
brand of condemnation should be stamped upon
that man who would prostitute the elective
franchise. But he had risen mainly to say a
word in reply to the gentleman who addressed
the committee a short time since (Mr. SELLMAN.)
Mr. D. then took up the statement which had
been made by Mr SELLMAN as to the incorrupti-
bility of nine-tenths of his constituents; and entered
upon a mathematical calculation to show
that, upon the principle that one-tenth could be
corrupted, there were five hundred and thirty
nine of his constituents that might he approach-
ed in that way.
Mr. SELLMAN explained that he did not intend
to say that there were not more than nine-tenths
that were incorruptible. He believed that there
were.
Some conversation followed between Messrs.
SELLMAN and DENNIS.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, stated that he
should vote for the amendment disqualifying the
party convicted, from voting or holding office for
five years, but should afterwards rely on a sub-
stitute referring this whole subject to the Legis-
lature and making it obligatory to past full and
suitable laws for the prevention of these offences.
It seemed to him that gentleman had been so
much stunned and confused by reports of elec-
tion frauds all over the State, that they were running
wild on the subject. One gentleman has
said that the bribing of a voter was worse than
murder. Mr. BRENT, would not for one moment
justify such an act, but if it is worse than mur-
der, why not make it & capital offence at once, |
