whether original proposition ought to be
modified in the manner proposed or not.
Mr. BUCHANAN. So do I.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Concurring as he did with the
gentleman from Queen Anne's, who had started
thus objection in his general views, thought it
would be better to discuss this subject now, and
it could be taken up again at some future stage of
our proceedings if the Convention deemed it pro-
per to do so. It could be again considered when
the Convention comes to revise the Constitution
as agreed on, and to appropriate the various pow-
ers among the several departments. If we were
to adopt the suggestion of the gentleman from
Queen Anne's, the effect would be to bring up
again this whole discussion when the report on
the executive shall be called up for consideration.
Mr. GRASON said we had been discussing
the subject of the elective franchise four or five
weeks. And now a proposition is introduced
which brings up the question of the pardoning
power. It is a new question and must lead to a
new discussion. He intended to take a part in
that discussion, but he would not do it at this
time, and on this report. There may be other
crimes in reference to which we may think it
wise to restrict the pardoning power in the
hands of the Executive, and we can then em-
brace the whole subject in one discussion. It
appealed to him that this would be a much bet-
ter course than to have all these propositions,
connected as they are in their character, separated
in different reports.
Mr. NEILL stated that, as the limitation of the
disfranchisement to five years had been rejected
by the Convention, he should feel himself con-
strained to vote against the original proposition,
although he was in favor of inflicting some punishment
for bribery. All human tribunals are
liable to error; by an unjust verdict an innocent
man might he convicted; and if this provision
should be inserted in the Constitution, the pun-
ishment would be irrevocable. He mult there-
fore vote against it. The innocent may make
their innocence clear after the conviction and pun-
ishment may have taken place, yet it would be
impossible to revoke the sentence, and the inno-
cent would be disfranchised forever.
Mr. JOHN DENNIS said that he had voted
throughout, from Alpha to Omega, for every
measure calculated to throw guards round the
ballot box, to preserve it in its purity. In favor.
of every proposition of that character he had
voted, and he had been assailed by those around
him, and told of the dire and certain responsi-
bility which awaited him at the bar of public
opinion. All this, however, he regarded as the
idle wind which passeth by. Because he had
voted that a naturalized foreigner in the State of
Maryland, should reside in the State twelve
months after naturalization before he could be
entitled to vote, he had been charged with being
an oppressor, a restrictionist, a usurper, &c. He-
looked into his conduct to discover what, if there
could be any, analogy between his course and
that of Oliver Cromwell. From the gentlemen |
from Baltimore county and Queen Anne's, charg-
es of oppression and usurpation had been thundered
against him. Against such charges he
would always be prepared to defend himself,
while he would carefully abstain from assailing
others. Regarding the elective franchise as of
inestimable value, he would watch over it and
protect it as he would virgin chastity. All his
votes had been given with that view. He had
no aspirations after public station, and whet) he
was called from his private pursuits to become a
member of this body, he obeyed with reluctance.
He intimated that the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. BUCHANAN,) after vouching the
purity of his own county, had spoken of the
frauds on the Eastern Shore. He did a wrong to
thin part of the State which was as pure as the in-
firmities of human nature would permit; and bad
always stood high in its reputation for hospitali-
ty. He did not wish to disturb the self-complacency
of his friend, but was ready to compare
constituents at any moment. In reference to
the Irish character, he slated, that he would not
yield even to that gentleman in his admiration of
the noble traits which had given to her heroes the
love and sympathy of all lovers of freedom, and
his estimation of the valuable services which the
Irish people, who have settled among us, have
rendered to our country. No one could admire
more than he did the greatness of that oppressed
country. He felt gratitude and admiration also
for the good and generous Lafayette. But, with
all these feelings, he could not conscientiously
vote to admit a naturalized foreigner to the right
of suffrage until he completed a subsequent resi-
dence of twelve months in the State—while the
citizens of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia,
and all the other States of the Union must sub-
mit to that restriction. The foreigner is not compelled
to bear arms, or to contribute to the de-
fence of the country, while our own citizen must
take his share of the danger. He was for even-
handed justice and would put all on an equality
Mr. DORSEY said, he would move to amend the
amendment as follows:
"But it shall at all times be competent for the
court before which such conviction may have
been had, upon being satisfied by testimony, offered
for the purpose, of its being malicious and
unfounded in fact, to set aside the judgment
rendered on the verdict of the jury, and nolle
prosequi."
Mr. SPENCER said he was inclined to adopt
the suggestion of his colleague, (Mr. GRASON,)
and not proceed further in the discussion of this
object now. Had it occurred to him earlier, he
would not have proposed the amendments at this
time. He would prefer wailing the action of
the Committee on the executive department. He
intended no disrepect to the courts of justice.
But judges were men, and as likely to be influenced
by party as well as jurors. The amend-
ment of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, pro-
posed to conter a power on the courts, which they
have already their hands. He hoped, there-
fore, that the Convention would not agree to the
amendment, but would adopt the suggestion of |
