him particularly to bring the matter before
the general assembly and so press it as to se-
cure a vote of two-thirds of that body.
Nor do I think my colleague (Mr, Stirling
meets the objection of the gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott, ) because certainly a breach of
trust ought to be an infamous thing, and yet
it is not a crime for which men are sent to the
penitentiary. A man may steal from money
confided to him thousands of dollars, and the
community may know it; and yet he may
vote. He is not put into the penitentiary, and
consequently he escapes all the constitutional
penalty. But a man who is poor and has
stolen a loaf of bread for the sake of his suf-
fering family, is to be disfranchised all his
life, after he has served out the fall penalty
the law prescribes. Yet if a man who is a
thief gets off, from a technical error in the
indictment, he escapes from this penalty,
however disgraceful may have been the
offence.
Mr. THRUSTON. As the gentleman from
Prince George's (Mr. Berry) considers this
section defective with regard to persons under
guardianship, I shall move at the proper
time to amend the latter clause so as to read :
No lunatic or person non compos mentis,
shall he entitled to vote." I think the objec-
tion of the gentleman is well founded, and
that this will meet it
With regard to the question directly before
us, we all know how imperfect the law is;
that we cannot always convict and punish
criminals. Persons convicted of theft or
other infamous offences certainly are not entitled
to vote. Men convicted of crime and
sent to the penitentiary rarely reform, I
think it is better therefore to obviate all dan-
ger of such persons being allowed to vote,
than to leave the door open to the few who
may be disposed to reform. I shall therefore
oppose the amendment upon that ground.
Mr. PUGH, is it not a maxim of law that
there are two objects to be attained—the pre-
vention of crime, and the reformation of the
criminal? It seems to me that I remember
some such maxim as that. If that is the
case, I stand upon the ground that we can-
not act upon that part of the maxim of law
relating to reformation, unless we leave some
door open for the man who hag served out
his time, and contemplates reformation, to
return to society and to demand of society
the privileges of a reformed man. In that
way only, it seems to me, is society properly
carrying out the principle both of prevent-
ing crime and reforming the criminal, the
two objects sought to be attained by all law,
Mr. THOMAS. I am in favor of the amend-
ment of my colleague (Mr. Cushing) to strike
out the first part of this section. I support
this amendment upon a view that I think
should carry conviction to every mind in
this convention. The law fixes the penalty
for larceny; and it says that a man who |
steals shall go to the penitentiary for such a
length of time. He goes there and serves
out his time, away from his fellow-men, de-
prived of citizenship. He comes out, pro-
posing in the secret recesses of his soul, to re-
form. But as soon as he comes out of the
doors of the penitentiary, he is met in his
very teeth with another stigma flung in his
face, saying to him, you are still a felon. 1
say that that in itself is enough to crush the
exertions, and energies, and good intentions
of any man. Cases have come within my
own knowledge of men being consigned to
the penitentiary for criminal offences, and
organ izations have been formed to get them
out of the penitentiary through an executive
pardon, for political influence. Men, on the
very eve of election, have induced the execu-
tive to sign the pardon of notorious crimin-
als in the penitentiary for the purpose of
making political capital, to manufacture
votes. If this is stricken out of the constitu-
tion, it will do away with this practice.
1 knew of one particular case that occurred
in 1861, when a man was let out of the peni-
tentiary in the evening, and went up and
voted the next morning I say these things
can be done and will be done; and I say
they ought to be stopped. I do not see that
there is any moral effect to be attained by it.
On the contrary, its moral effect is bad, and
its legal effect is worse.
Mr. SANDS. I had intended myself to al-
lude to the fact alluded to by the gentleman
who has just taken his seat. I think the
records of all by-gone times will show that a
little before election day men in squads have
been sent out of the penitentiary for the pur-
pose of voting. Look at the injustice of
that. A man is convicted and sentenced for
three years, and his neighbor ditto. The
governor pardons one of them, and lets him
out at the end of two years, and be is quali-
fied to vote. Yet the poor fellow who hag
served out his full time, is deprived of the
privilege of voting. Where is the justice of
such a provision as that? There is no justice
in it.
It was proposed in committee to amend the
section so as to read :
" Sec. 6. No person above the age of 21
years convicted of larceny or other infamous
crime, shall thereafter be entitled to vote at
any election in this State, unless he shall
produce to the judges of the election at which
he shall offer to vote, a certificate signed by
six or more lawful voters, that since his dis-
charge from the penitentiary, he has de-
meaned himself as a sober, honest, and law-
abiding citizen; and no lunatic or person
non compos mentis shall be entitled to vote."
1 will offer this at the proper time as a sub-
stitute for the section.
This is a matter of more importance than it
looks at the first view. To reform one man-—
is it not worth an effort? Suppose that by |
