way. They not only had the right to prescribe
who should vote, but he distinctly affirmed they
had exercised that right in the most emphatic
terms. They had done so by reference to the
qualifications required by the laws of this State
for voters of members of the House of delegates.
Why can the same persons, who vote for dele-
gates, vote for members of Congress? For the
sole reason that the Constitution of the United
States has so declared, when the State authority
defines the qualification of a voter for the House
of Delegates, forthwith the article in the Constitu-
tion of the United States takes up the definition,
and by reference to its terms, adopts it as completely
as if it repeated those terms without a
reference to the definition given by the State.
The State most certainly defines the qualifica-
tion, but it does so, exactly because the United
States delegates to the State the authority to do
it. This delegated authority gives ample power
to the State, and having no limitation, we assuredly
cannot violate it by acting in exact pursu-
ance to it. What, he asked, has South Carolina
or her proceedings to do with the matter? We
are not proposing secession—nor are we oppo-
sing, resisting, or even complaining of any enact-
ment of the United States, in the Constitution or
in the laws of Congress. We were on the con-
trary, exercising a power in acknowledged obe-
dience to its authority. The great leading dis-
tinction, he would repeat is this, that while the
Constitution of the United States has in the
broadest terms, delegated to the States, the au-
thority to define the qualification of those who
are to vote, it has no where given any authority
to prescribe qualifications to those who were to
be voted for. This was reserved to itself and
the elates could not add to or take from such
qualifications.
He had before had occasion to advert to this
doctrine, and desired to be perfectly understood
in regard to it. He insisted, that prescribing
the age of a voter, was defining a qualification;
prescribing a residence of six months in a par-
ticular portion of the State was a qualification.
If this theory is to be adopted, that the State has
no delegated power to define in every respect,
the qualification of a voter, let us not exercise
it in any respect. Blot out, you must, every
restriction; consistency will necessarily require
yon to dispense with age, residence, and every
thing else. He repeated, therefore, that there
was no ground for exception to the plan pro-
posed, and he deemed it essential to secure,
what he had heard so much talked of, "equality
of rights."
Mr. BROWN wanted to present a practical
view of this question. The Constitution said
every free white male citizen, who had resided
this State twelve months, and in a county six
months preceding an election, should have a
right to vote for delegates." That was what
body would controvert. The constitution of
United States gave every man, who was en-
d to a vote, a right to vote for delegates to
General Assembly, as well as for members
Congress. No man could deny that. Well, |
in laying off Congressional districts, you run
through Carroll county, and also his farm, and
thus; that county was made a portion of two
Congressional districts. Then, he (Mr. B.)
moved on to another farm on the other side of
the line, and no sooner had be done that, than
up sprung the gentleman's plan, which compell-
ed him to live there within the district line, a.
certain period of time, or he could not vote.—
Now, he (Mr. Brown,) had never gone out of
his county, where he possessed all the requisite
qualifications to vote for members of the House
of Delegates. But, then, in came the gentleman
with a constitutional provision, which was to,
deprive him of that right, which was guarantied.
to him by the Constitution of the United States.
He could not comprehend how it wag that the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) could.
not see the distinction between the two cases.
He (Mr. B.) was opposed to the adoption of any
such unjust proposition.
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend the section by
striking out in the 10th line these words, "sen-
ator, delegate, or other officer or officers."
Mr. PHELPS moved the previous question, and
being seconded.
On motion of Mr. SPENCER.
The convention was called and the doorkeeper
sent for the absent members.
On motion of Mr. SPENCER,
The convention resolved to proceed with the
ordinary business of the session during the ab-
sence of the doorkeeper.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.
On motion of Mr. SPENCER,
The convention took up for consideration the
report submitted by him from the committee on
printing, on the 10th instant.
Mr. SPENCER with the consent of the conven-
tion withdrew the report and substituted in lieu
of it, the following:
Whereas, there will necessarily he sundry
accounts against this convention, growing out of
the printing and binding of the Register of De-
bates, and the Journal of the Convention, and
the printing and circulating of the constitution
and for other matters,
And whereas, it would be attended with great
expense for this convention to remain in session
until these matters are closed,
Resolved, That the committee on printing he
discharged; that Messrs. Randall, Ware and Ma-
graw, be appointed on the printing committee,
with all the powers of the present committee,
and of the powers vested in the committee on
accounts, and which powers shall continue in full
force after the adjournment of this convention,
and as long as they find it necessary, and that
Samuel Peacock, one of the committee clerks of
this body, be continued as said clerk, as long as
it may be required for the public service, in the
opinion of the said committee, and that the Pres-
ident be authorised to draw on the treasury on
the certificates of the said committee as of the
12th of May, 1851, such sums as may become |
