Mr. THRUSTON. There are ten times as
many lunatics not under guardianship as are
under guardianship. Yon will find lunatics
in our almshouses who are not under guar-
dianship.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. It is very
well known to all lawyers who have been in the
practice of the law any length of time that
to apply for a writ de lunatico inquirendo re-
quires at good deal of money. The cost is
considerable to summon a jury and go
through all the requirements of the law. Un-
less a party has property, or his friends have
property to apply for him, it has never been
done within my practice. But when there
is no property, and when by common repu-
tation they are regarded as lunatics, they
have never been under guardianship in the
experience I have bad in the practice of the
law, I think, therefore, that this amend-
ment is proper and should be adopted by the
convention.
Mr. STIRLING. I think this should be re-
tained, and that the judges of election should
have no right to decide at all that a person
not under guardianship should be excluded
from voting. This report makes a change
from the language of the present constitution,
as my colleague has just shown. The re-
marks I made just now are applicable to the
report as it stands. The present constitution
allows any man to vote who is not absolutely
under guardianship either as a lunatic, or as
a person non compos mentis. If a man
is able actually to offer his vote, it is suffi-
cient.
Mr. SCOTT. A member of the committee
calls my attention to the fact that this was
reported exactly as in the present constitution,
but that owing to amisprint the "as" is
omitted in the last line, changing it some-
what.
Mr. ECKER. We gave orders to the clerk
to copy out the section exactly as it stands
The PRESIDENT. We are acting upon the
the report as it is printed.
Mr. SANDS, The clerk was directed to copy
the section verbatim.
The PRESIDENT. The written manuscript
is the same as the printed copy; but this
being the statement of the committee, the
President will direct the insertion of the
word "as."
The section was accordingly amended,
Mr. THRUSTON. I hold that a lunatic should
not be allowed to vote, whether under guar
dianship or not. Nine-tenths of them are
not under guardianship, and yet they are no
allowed to vote. I want the law to conform
to the practice.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The practice in
Allegany seems to be different from that in
other parts of the State. The constitution
has been uniformly held, in the section of
the State where I reside, to exclude those
under guardianship; and no judge of elec- |
tions has ever considered himself justified in
inquiring into the sanity or insanity of any
person offering to vote. It was the clear and
manifest purpose of the committee which re-
ported this article to exclude that as a subject
of judicial inquiry, whether a man is insane
or noil compos mentis; because there are two
descriptions of persons.
Mr, THRUSTON. Are acknowledged idiots
allowed to vote?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Yes, sir.
Mr. THRUSTON. And persons found to be
lunatics without being under guardianship ?
Mr, JONES, of Somerset. Yes, sir. The
constitution has only excluded those under
guardianship. there are two classes of
persons only that the constitution proscribes
—those who are lunatics, and those who are
non compos mentis; and they must have been
so adjudged, and placed under guardianship.
All others that are going at large, or are
under the care of their friends, without judi-
cial inquiry, are entitled to vote. I think it
would be a very dangerous power, and
one very difficult properly to execute,
to devolve upon the judges of elections,
to try the question of sanity or insanity,
pending the excitement of the business that
requires all their time on the day of election.
The fact that a man is under guardianship or
not, is a matter of record in the county, and
so notorious as to preclude all question; and
that is the sole purpose that was intended, 1
presume.
Mr, BERRY, of Prince George's. I should
like to ask my friend from Somerset one
question. What is the necessity of having a
guardianship, if the lunatic has no property ?
The object is to take charge of the personal
property, where there is property.
Mr. STIRLING. Any person actually in a
lunatic asylum, is under guardianship,
whether there is a judgment or not.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Certainly; and
1 presume if he is put in the almshouse as a
lunatic, he is under guardianship there. 1
think as a matter of principle that the con-
stitution ought to distinctly describe the
classes of persons who are to vote, and those
who are to be precluded from voting, so that
no question of judicial construction shall be
left open for litigation, and especially before
a tribunal evidently and confessedly incom-
petent practically to decide such a question.
• Mr, THURSTON. The words " under guar-
dianship ' ' used here are technically used
with reference to the act of assembly to mean
under guardianship for the protection of
property. Parties are found to lie lunatics,
without having guardians appointed, and
without going to the asylum. It is manifest
that lunatics and idiots are incapable of de-
termining bow they shall vote, and will only
be made tools of by interested persons. Nor
do I consider this a dangerous power to
vest in the judges of elections. They decide |
