not object to the spirit of the amendment at
all.
Mr. SCOTT. I will read the section reported
in the minority report, which strikes me as
a great deal better than that in the majority
report. It is substantially the form agreed
upon 'in full committee, but afterwards
changed in my absence, I know not why.—
It is on page 416 of the journal :
"Section 5. No person who is a lunatic,
non compos mentis, or under guardianship,
shall be allowed to vote; nor shall any one
convicted of bribery, or other infamous crime
that consigns him to the penitentiary, until
two years after he shall have paid the penalty
of his offence, unless pardoned by the gover-
nor."
This is a sort of compromise which requires
a man to wait two years after being released
from the penitentiary before be can vote, and
does not consign him to infamy eternally.
Mr, SANDS. I wish to correct any friend in
a matter of fact. This was never agreed up-
on in committee. It was talked about but
never agreed upon.
Mr. SCOTT. I understood it to be.
Mr. BANDS. I did not so understand it.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I should
like to inquire of the chairman of the commit-
tee why the words "under guardianship"
are used in this section? There are a great
many lunatics and persons nun compos mentis
in the State who have no guardians, and that
would allow them to vote. A guardian is
only appointed under a writ de lunatice inqui-
rendo, where the person has personal proper-
ty, to take possession of that personal pro-
perty.
Mr. SANDS. I will explain the matter, I
agree with you entirely. We had some talk
over this matter in committee, but it was not
decided. The clerk was simply ordered to
copy the section as it stands in the present
constitution.
Mr. STIRLING submitted the following amend-
ment to the section:
Insert after the word "executive" the
words:
''Or unless he shall be, on account of refor-
mation, restored to the right of franchise by
an act of the general assembly passed by a
vote of two thirds of the members elected to
each house,"
Mr. STIRLING said: I do not want to pre-
vent a man from becoming a good citizen;
but let him prove it and have him restored.
Mr. PUGH. That amendment is worse than
it was before, because it requires the poor
fellow to come and parade his infamy before
the legislature.
Mr. SCOTT. My objection to the whole
thing is that there are agreat many men who
have never been consigned to the penitentiary
that have been cheating that institution all
their lives; and I do not see why we should
'disfranchised the Man who has served in the |
penitentiary, and not the man who as richly
deserved to go to the penitentiary as he. A
man who has stolen a pair of chickens not
worth fifty cents is sent to the penitentiary
and disfranchised, while the wholesale thieves
and defaulters to the amount of thousands of
dollars have the right of franchise.
And you not only deprive this poor devil
of the privilege of voting, but you stamp the
infamy of his crime upon his offspring. His
boy says to him, " Pa, why can't you vote?
1 see other men voting." Then he must
either tell him a lie or confess that he has been
in the penitentiary. It is a perfect outrage;
and I shall vote against the whole section if
that thing is put into it.
Mr. STIRLING, Yon cannot disqualify an
unconvicted thief.
Mr. SCOTT. There are other crimes besides
thieving. A man gets into a fight and takes
the life of a fellow in defending himself, and
yet be may be sent to the penitentiary.
Mr. STIRLING. The law does not punish a
man for defending his own life. Manslaugh-
ter is not an infamous crime known lo the
common law and has not been so held. It is
a felony at common law, and made a peniten-
tiary offence; but never been considered
as what is technically known as an infamous
offence. An infamous offence is that kind of
felony which characterizes the party with entire
turpitude. If a man is convicted and
sent to the penitentiary he ought not to be
allowed to associate at the ballot-box with
those people who have not been legally con-
victed. I think the door ought to be held
open to every such man to reform; but if he
does reform let there be an act of equal solem-
nity with that which seat him to the peniten-
tiary, to restore him.
The reason why I require a two-thirds vote
is because I do not wish to leave it to any
temporary majority which might restore men
to vote who happened to be on their side for
the purpose of aiding themselves at the ballot-
box by restoring a certain class of persons to
the right of suffrage. I think no main could
go before the legislature, humane as that body
usually is, and fail to get restored if be proved
that be lived a peaceable and quiet life.
The gentleman has cited the effect upon the
children of the man. if that father is still an
unreformed main, his children should be pro-
tected. if the father of a family is not a fit
man to have the custody of children, they
can be taken away from him. The law will
take away the children of a convicted thief
who has never reformed. He has no right to
have the custody of children; and if anybody
asked that they be taken away, the court
would take them away from him.
Mr. CUSHING. I consider the amendment as
equivalent to declaring that under no circum-
stances shall a man convicted of felony ever
be restored. I do not think such a man
would ever find those enough interested in |
