questions of age, residence, and a great many
other nice questions, far more difficult than this
will be. Unless persons are admitted to be lu-
natic's by general reputation, they are never
excluded from voting. I want the law to con-
form to the practice. I want those persons
excluded who are not fit to vote, and who
would only be made use of as the instrument
of others. It was for these reasons that I
proposed my amendment.
Mr. EDELEN. In addition to the remarks
of my friend from Allegany (Mr. Thruston,)
I will say in reply to the gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Jones,) that by this very sec-
tion, already adopted, you have made and
constituted your judges of election the judges
of the term "infamous crime." if this
question shall arise in any way the judges of
election will have to determine that very diffi-
cult legal proposition—a proposition upon
which legal gentlemen have differed here this
morning. They determine two questions of
residence, sometimes very intricate, arising
from the question whether a party has left
his former residence animo revertendi, or not,
and others enumerated by my friend from
Allegany. I wish to ask of my friend from
Somerset this question, whether in the case of
a man who is notoriously non compos mentis
or insane, about whom there is no doubt, who
is harmless and inoffensive, so that there is
no reason why he should be confined in a hos-
pital, about whom a writ de lunatico inquir-
endo never will be taken out, and who will
never be put under guardianship, he is will-
ing to extend the elective franchise to such a
man? Surely if we do not accept the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr.
Thruston,) and if we adopt the constitution
as it at present stands, that will be the effect
of it. This is certainly a no more difficult
question than the judges of election are fre-
quently called upon to determine. Whether
they are qualified to do so or not is a different
question. Sometimes they are, and some-
times they may not be.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. In reply to the
first objection that the term " infamous
crime" is vague and indeterminate—that I
admit, and I think it ought to be definite. I
think it ought not to be so left, but ought to
be obviated by some specific description of
classes of persons or offences which it is in-
tended to exclude. It is left now altogether
too vague.
With reference to the other question, I be-
lieve that persons notoriously insane very
rarely approach the polls. But if they do
come and offer to vote, not being under
guardianship, they are supposed to have
sense enough to vote. It is not necessary
that a man should have any particular
amount of sense to give him the right of suf-
frage. You cannot gauge the quantity of in-
tellect necessary to exercise the right of suf-
frage. My objection cannot be removed by |
the suggestions of my friend from Charles
(Mr, Edelen.) because it is much more safe
to let the description in the constitution
stand, referring to de. finite classes, than to
give jurisdiction of such' a character to the
judges of election. I think it is safer for
those who are entitled to vote and less liable
to abuse. I think, therefore, upon principle
that it is far better to leave the section in the
terms, of the present constitution.
Mr. BOND. I think it is far better that
those who are under guardianship should be
excluded, and that the whole class of men,
from the man of intemperate habits down to
the gibbering idiot, should be allowed to vote
rather than that the judges of election should
he allowed to decide upon the right to vote.
We all know that in every county and every
place there is some poor fellow who wants
mind enough to conduct the ordinary affairs
of life properly—with hardly sense enough
to answer a civil question—who is regarded
as to some degree idiotic. These men have
always been allowed to vote. I think that
only those who are so far gone in lunacy or
insanity as to be under guardianship should
be excluded. I should like to understand
the effect of the amendment of the gentle-
man from Allegany (Mr. Thruston.)
Mr. THRUSTON. Unless they are under
guardianship, no matter how far gone they
they may be in lunacy they are now permit-
ted to vote under this section, and if you
vote against my amendment it will be a vote
to allow this class the elective franchise. It
is well known in every community, by com-
mon reputation, that such persons are idiots
and lunatics, and it is not often that they
offer to vote. When they do it is always at
the instigation of interested persons, and 1
want to exclude them. I know it has been
the practice of judges of election to exclude
those commonly known and recognized
among their neighbors as idiots and lunatics,
who are notoriously such, as persons who
ought not to be allowed the right of suf-
frage, I therefore press my amendment.
Mr, SCOTT. It is well known that there
are different degrees of lunacy or insanity.
This matter was considered in the committee.
But the difficulty was how to fix a rule to
exclude the insane or lunatics from voting.
It occurred to the committee that the only
rule that they could safely lay down, was
contained in the words of the present consti-
tution, to exclude only those persons who
were actually under guardianship; for any
other course would be to throw the whole
matter before the judges of election. One
man would argue that a certain person was
incapable of voting, because he was a lunatic,
while others would insist that the person
was sane. It would be an endless question.
The old constitution wisely decided to ex-
clude from voting only those who were under
guardianship. |
