appear as attorney, counsel, solicitor or proctor,
in any court of this State."
On the question being propounded,
Will the Convention postpone said report?—it
was
Determined in the negative.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the report of the committee on the elec-
tive franchise.
The second section of said report was then
read
Mr. DORSET moved to amend the section by
adding at the end thereof, the following:
"And the person to whom such bribe, present,
reward, promise or security may have been offered
or given, shall be a competent, witness to
prove the offence, and may be compelled to testi-
fy as such, and if so testifying, should he have
received the same, he shall be exempt from all
punishment therefor; and the person by whom
such bribe, present, reward, promise or security
may have been offered or given, shall be a com-
petent witness, and may, as such, be compelled
to testify; and if so testifying, he shall beexempt
from all prosecution or punishment for the of-
fence by him committed; provided always, that
such exemption from prosecution and punish-
ment shall only be extended to that party who
shall first appear before the grand jury to testi-
fy as aforesaid; and that neither parly shall be
compelled to give testimony unless protected
from punishment by the exemption hereinbefore
provided."
Mr MITCHELL said:
He hoped the Convention would pause before
they adopted a section of this kind. No one
present was more opposed to bribery than he was,
and he desired to see it put a slop to. He would
repeat what he had once before said, that it was
a most common offence in that quarter of the
State from which he came. There was a large
number of paupers there dependant upon the
bounty of their neighbors for every thing they
had in the world. He contended that if this sec-
tion was to become a part of the Constitution, and
any gentleman, in the kindness of his heart, were
lo furnish any of those poor families with the
means of support, to enable them to live through
the winter, when those men who earned their
livehood on the water, had no employment, they
would turn round upon their benefactor, when an
opportunity occurred, and for malicious reasons,
go into court and swear so and so had bribed
them to vote in such manner as they desired.
He repeated that he trusted the Convention would
not adopt the section, as it would do away with
any thing like charity in future. Although he
had no political aspirations, the very moment
this amendment should be adopted—if it was to
be adopted—his heart would be closed against
the sympathies of his neighbors.
Mr. DORSEY explained his amendment, and
expressed his regret that the gentleman, (Mr.
Mitchell,) had taken the view of it he had done,
as it was, in his (Mr, D's) opinion, an erroneous
one. |
Mr. SPENCER was opposed to the amendment,
but not for the same reasons assigned by the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Mitchell.) He en-
tertained no fear that a grand jury would be
found in Maryland, who would punish him for
his charity; but he had an objection to incor-
porting a provision that a man who was guilty of
receiving a bribe, should be taken and held as a
witness to prosecute a man. This was the most
infamous of all crimes, but he (Mr. S.) could
never give his consent to make a Constitutional
provision on the subject. Now, it was one of
the first principles of law, that a man guilty of an
infamous offence, should not be a witness. He
would, for those reasons, vote against the amend-
ment.
Mr. DORSEY contended that the argument of
the gentleman (Mr. Spencer,) could not possibly
apply to this case—for the party, afterwards
charged with the infamous offence, had not been
convicted when he became a witness. He went
forward and gave his testimony before he was
charged with the crime, in any shape or form.
Mr. CHAMBERS would suggest that the case of
a party charged with an infamous crime before
conviction could scarcely be considered a fair
analogy. Such a person was allowed to testify,
not because the law assumed that a party guilty
of such crime, would tell the truth, but upon the
ground that until conviction, he was presumed to
be innocent.
But here was the case of an admitted profligate.
No other would receive a bribe, and if he were
capable of this violation of moral principle, was
it safe to trust him with the means of destroying
the reputation of another, or his liberty? it
might well happen that such a person should be
detected in his vile offence; that prosecution
should be threatened, and the only means of es-
cape be to charge some other as a particepi.
In such a case, it was no violent presumption
that such a man would screen his guilty friend,
and assail some other individual.
If indeed, the Legislature-should be authorized
to make an experiment on this subject, it would
present a different case; and if his friend from
Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) would put in a
provision to that effect, he might perhaps go with
him. But this tying one up for ten or twelve
years, hopeless of change, is rather too strong.
He. therefore, could not support the proposition.
The question being taken, it. was determined
in the negative.
Mr. JOHNSON moved the previous question, and
being seconded,
The question was taken on the adoption of
second section; and
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays,
which were not ordered.
Mr. DORSEY then moved to amend the report
by adding at the end thereof, as additional sec-
tions, the following:
"Article 1. No person who is a candidate, or
has been nominated, and is to be voted for to fill
any office or appointment under the Constitution
or laws of this State, of the ordinances or au- |
