rights would it abridge? It diminishes, abridges the right of no one, while it extends the rights of the honest laborer, who has not the means to pay in money, but only by his honest labor. Whom is it to injure? Who is to be found on this floor to oppose a provision, which gives the privilege to that labor and sinew which works on your public highways, and which its possessor would be as willing to bring into the field in time of danger? Who will say such are not qualified? No one. If the payment of taxes be only intended for evidence of qualification, here is such evidence as is not to be disputed. In regard to the terms of the amendment, the gentleman from Beaver took exception to the word public, as a vague and indefinite expression, not sufficiently intelligible. The gentleman from Beaver, he believed, was a lawyer, but all the legal talent of Beaver county could not have supplied a word more significant, or more plain. A public tax, to a lawyer and every one, conveys the idea of a tax imposed by a public law. What is a public law? The gentleman understands the difference between a public and a private law. What relates to the public, is a public law; while, a private law is that which relates to individuals. A tax is a public tax when it relates to the community. All taxes which relate to the community are public taxes.There is not the least ground for the exception taken by the gentleman. No term could have been selected more apt and appropriate. Why should not this amendment prevail. It injures no one, while it extends the rights of suffrage to a most meritorious class-not large, because most men, by means of their industry and economy, have accumulated something-those who cannot spare a pecuniary contribution, but have performed their duties on the soil, and are prepared to fulfil their duties, when required, in the field? Mr. HAYHURST asked for the yeas and nays on his motion to amend, and they were ordered. tance. Mr. COCHRAN, of Lancaster, said that, as the yeas and nays had been called on this question, he wished to make a very few remarks. He had been ranked, as his votes would shew, among those who opposed many amendments to the Constitution, acting, as he believed, in consistency with the views of his constituents. He was well aware that his constituents were not disposed to make any considerable changes in the Constitution. There was a majority of votes cast in his county against a Convention; but in that majority there were many who were willing to amend the Constitution in parts, but they were fearful that too much would be done. He had not considered the amendments hitherto of much imporOne which was peculiarly entertained by his constituents was in reference to the diminution of the patronage of the Executive; but he did not think the amendment made on that point as in any way carrying out their views. They did not wish the responsibility of the Executive divided with any other branch of the Government, but that it should be entirely vested in him. For that amendment, therefore, he had not voted, as his constituents desired the restrictions to be in a different form. As regarded the tax qualification, he had voted in favor of it; and he should also vote in favor of this, as he believed that he was thus carrying out their wishes. The tax qualification was the most honest test which could be desired; and whatever may be said, and whatever arguments used to edging that he who desires a share in the Government must contribute to its support. It is the most honest mode that can be devised; and it would extend the right to every individual who is willing and able to contribute; to every man who comes to reside among us. This amendment embraces the idea completely. He thought the gentleman from Luzerne had not defined the term public taxes so accurately as he might have done. It embraces the borough tax. He was not himself lawyer enough to say how far a borough tax is a public tax: but as it relates to a corporation-to individuals—he should consider it not strictly a borough tax. But whatever there may be in these minor considerations, it can be arranged afterwards. He hoped no one who had voted for the tax qualification (and he was proud to number himself among them,) would go against this proposition. It had gone abroad that this qualification was considered necessary, not on account of the amount of money paid, but as a record evidence of qualification. It ought therefore to be a public tax, as the payment of a borough tax might not at all times be available evidence. But he would not go against the amendment on that account: it was good enough in itself to cover a much greater evil. Some young gentleman of this Convention had called the tax qualification an aristocratical provision, and asked from whence we had derived it? If the gentleman had lived in the twilight dawn of our democratic representative institutions, or had cast even a superficial glance over the history of that period, he would have known that this principle was at the bottom of our Government; that it was the cry through the whole length and breadth of the land: that it was the foundation of our liberties: that it was this principle which called our fathers to the field: and that it was recognized in the Constitution of the United States, as also in the Constitutions of several States of the Union. Can it be called aristocracy, when it forms the ground work of our insti tutions? Strike this feature from the fundamental law, and you knock down one of the pillars of our institutions. In times of reform and improvement like these he might be wrong in uttering these sentiments, but he regarded this as the shortest and safest mode of determining the right to vote. He should think the term aristocracy ought not to be applied to this, the wisest and best provision in our Constitution. Where was the hardship on a man, when paying his mite? Does it not purchase for him the benefit of protection in life, person, property and happiness? They who are so ready to throw a stigma on it, should think more deeply on the subject, should look back to the times that tried men's souls, and participate in the feelings of the men of that day: they would then, he trusted, instead of casting a shade on the bright virtue of their forefathers, endeavour to sustain these institutions which they had constructed, which could not be done by taking away their foundation. He should vote for the amendment, and hoped it would be adopted, and that, on the second reading of the article, it would be arranged into the place to which it was appropriate. Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, remarked on the doubtful interpretation to which the term "public tax" was liable. A doubt had been expressed whether or not it included a borough tax. If it did, how would it operate on what gentlemen suppose to be the true basis of the tax qualification? Any man who pays his borough tax in one borough, may, on moving into If it was intended to include a borough tax, an assessment of any description, for any purpose, made by any borough, however constituted, would be sufficient to give the holder of the receipt a vote; and it was clear that the amendment would break down that principle on which many gentlemen had already voted, who had considered the payment of a tax as important in the light of evidence of general qualification. How could the authenticity of all the countless receipts, which might be exhibited in remote parts of the State, be ascertained by judges of the elections? It would be impossible that they who presided over the polls could decide correctly on all the documents which would be presented to their view as evidence. If public tax included boroughs, as he believed it did, it would include the smallest tax of the smallest borough, and who could learn the limit? Was it not clear that a wide door to fraud would then be opened? And a temptation to deceit, than which it would be better to abandon all restrictions, and at once permit the officers of our Commonwealth to be elected, and her fate and fortunes to be passed upon by strangers to her interests, and aliens to her soil? But he had already stated to the committee, that, in his view, the provision of the existing Constitution did not rest upon the ground of evidence alone, but had probably been intended as a financial provision. He believed it to be the best, the most effectual, and the least oppressive mode of securing to the public the contributions due from the citizens. Under our present system, the exercise of the right of suffrage is connected in the mind of the freeman with the payment of his contributions. The connexion causes that payment to be willingly and cheerfully made: to be regarded as an honorable act, worthy of a freeman, and to be followed by the enjoyment of a high, correspondent privilege. Take away that privilege, and you leave him simply in the position of a man paying a tax. He was unwilling to break down this principle to lessen the force of this association. And, in taking this course, he regarded himself as advocating the best interests of the lowly and the humble. It was to them of deep importance, that the property of the land should freely contribute its aid, and fully to the means of supporting those institutions upon which their peace, their liberty, their personal protection, and their domestic enjoyments rested. How can liberty be supported-how can the fireside of the cottager be protected from oppressionhow all that is dear to man be preserved to him-but by that government to maintain which, pecuniary contributions are necessary, which must be paid by those who are accommodated? These are the best modes of securing those enjoyments. If you break it down, you injure those for whose benefit you propose to pass this amendment. There is no necessity to pass it to secure the effects which are desired. The grounds are, that the labor of the laborer who works on your roads, ought to be available to him in giving him the right of suffrage-to stand in lieu of money. If it be to take the place of money, his labor is worth money, and how is it that he cannot as easily get a certificate of the payment of the value in money? There was nothing to prevent the Legislature from passing a law to regulate this, why then should we take away the great inducement to the payment of taxes, and break down the financial operations of the Government? It was for the advantage of the poor, that those who were more fortunate, should contribute in proportion to their property; an effect which would be destroyed by establishing the rule that the payment of a the same right at the polls, that he now derived from his full and free contributions. Americans had always revolted against direct taxes. The machinery of investigation and collection is averse to their habits-the most profitable taxes, and those most easily collected, have always been duties on imports. The feeling is in both cases the same; they dislike compulsory payment-but associate that duty with the privilege, and make it part and parcel of the freeman's rights; and, instead of being considered a burden, it will hereafter, as it has been heretofore, be deemed dishonorable to neglect that on which the support of the Government, and the enjoyment of their own franchise, alike depend. Substitute for this manly sentiment, the sufficiency of a borough receipt, and as to all the rest, suit and collectors' distresses, and it is easy to see what will be the result― how little advantageous to the real interests of those particular classes of persons for whom gentlemen affect so much anxiety. He believed that if any class of people in this Commonwealth, however humble, were assembled, and the boon was offered to them, that they should enjoy the right of suffrage, without contributing according to their means, that boon would be rejected with scorn. His countrymen did not require this at the hands of this Convention. They were a proud and a sturdy race of men. They loved the Government which they supported, and they felt that they had a property in it, because they rendered that support. It was a free and a manly sentiment, and went far to uphold the principle of equality of rights. It was a sentiment which he was unwilling to weaken-it was honorable to the American character, and should be upheld-not broken down, as in some degree he believed it would be, by the adoption of the amendment. He did not believe that they would feel honored or pleased by this amend ment. The extreme cases stated in argument, were all within the power and legitimate scope of legislative action. So, too, was it in the power of the Legislature, if they deemed it proper, to render a township certificate of work done on the roads, receivable in payment of county taxes, if that work should overrun the township duty. It was unnecessary to point out the modes of relief—they did exist and could be applied. Instead of which, we were now proposing to break up the whole system, and put afloat the whole doctrine of evidence, of finance, and of voluntary contribution. Borough receipts might hereafter become of cheap and easy purchase, and in the course of time-for we are not framing laws for a day or a year, but for a century-struggling parties at the extremity of a State, might find it a profitable speculation to contribute to the necessities of some new-fledged borough, wherever it could be found, and purchase at the cheapest possible rates, tickets of admission to the polls of freemen. It is our duty to guard the Commonwealth against the dangers of corruption. If men were always pure and good, the labor of legislation would be light, indeed. For these reasons, as one whose feelings are friendly to that class of citizens for whose benefit this amendment was intended, and feeling at heart their equality of rights, and as a detester of every thing at war with that feeling, he was constrained to give his preference to the old Constitution. Mr. WOODWARD said, the Constitution, as it now stands, requires the payment of a State or county tax. He wished to know, if working on the road would pay a State or county tax? Would working on the road be laid, and the counties have no roads. The roads belong to the townships. What mode could be devised, of giving to the laborers, on the township roads, the right of suffrage, but some such mode as this? The gentleman granted the whole question, when he admited that they should be entitled to vote. The gentleman from Philadelphia thought the people would reject, with scorn, any attempt to give them the right to vote as a favor. He believed that, and also that every man ought to contribute, even if he is not willing to do so. But, he is called on to contribute, before the Government is formed, and he has received any benefit from it? The right of snffrage is very different from the right of protection, after the Government is formed. No man should be taxed for exercising the right of suffrage. It is a right which ought to be confered on every man who resides on the soil, who is ready to fulfil the duties of the citizen, and to fight the battles of the country. After the Government is formed, there exists a reason for demanding a contribution for protection. Therefore, he believed, that the people would reject the offer of the right to vote as a favor, but that they would say to you-we claim the right of suffrage as freemen-we claim the right to choose our rulers-we will afterwards contribute, because we would desire to enjoy the benefits to arise from the protection of the Government. This was the just distinction to be taken. In regard to the material question, he did not think the argument of the gentleman from Philadelphia had, in any degree, shaken its validity. Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said, he was opposed to all tax qualification as the ground work of the right of suffrage. He had seen a great deal too much contention at elections. Young men came forward to offer their votes, and were rejected; yet, they were good citizens, and had as good right to vote as any. According to his views, no citizen ought to be deprived of his vote, because of the neglect of an assessor or a collector.Every man should be permited to vote without the incumbrance of a tax. It was not the duty of the voter to follow the officer; but, it was the duty of the assessor or collector to follow him. He would not give a vote for any measure calculated to deprive a citizen of his vote. He had himself been deprived of his vote by an arbitrary exercise of power during the reign of terror. That reign lasted but a short time.— If it had been perpetuated by the re-election of the federal candidate, this Convention would never have been assembled. Sir, (said Mr. C.) we should, at this moment, have been under a monarchical Government. The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that the question was on the amend ment. Mr. CUMMIN said, he was speaking on the right of suffrage, and he had a right to show how it had been taken away under former laws, and to show that it was our duty now to build it on a rock where it would stand firmly forever. He thought he might be permited to give a history of the reign of terror, and of the naturalization law. The truth ought to be heard and known; and it was true, he said, that if GOD, in his providence, had not so ordered it, that the window tax, which was imposed, had incensed the Germans of the eastern counties, our republican institutions would no longer be in existence. The naturalization act was passed in 1798. No person was permitted to avail himself of the act and become naturalized, |