the word "public" and to insert in its room the words “road, poor, and school", it would meet the object in view, and remove the objectionable feature. He thought such an amendment would put an end to the discussion, and he wished to see it made.

Mr. SCOTT, in reply to the gentleman from Crawford, (Mr. SHELLITO) who had said that he (Mr. SCOTT) was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, remarked that he was born to no such good fortune. He wished the gentleman to understand that his whole life had been one of hard and unremiting labor, no prospect of the termination of which could he now see. He assured the gentleman that it required all the talent and energy which he could exert to support a large family of children, boys and girls both, neither of whom had a silver spoon. He hoped, therefore, the gentleman would consider him as one of the working men.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said when we got through the general principles of the Constitution, a committee composed of the best scholars should be appointed to put the instrument in form. He would, therefore, suggest to the gentleman from Columbia, that he had better not modify his amendment at present. He admited that it was not now in its right place, nor, perhaps, in its proper form; but as a majority appeared to be in favor of its principle, the vote might be taken with a view merely to determine the principle. Hereafter, the form and place of the provision could be fixed. He hoped, if the majority of the committee were determined to restore the tax qualifications, they would extend the principle of evidence a little broader; and this could not be considered as gainsaying any thing that the committee had previously decided upon.

Mr. BIDDLE said-Mr. Chairman: Under the existing provision, every man in this Commonwealth, who pays a State or county tax, is entitled to exercise the right of suffrage. Every man who enjoys property, or is capable of exercising an occupation, is a taxable inhabitant. If, therefore, he be not privileged to vote, it is because he voluntarily withholds that which every good citizen should cheerfully discharge. The amount of the tax is so small, that it is conceded by all that there are none so poor as to make it burdensome. Then who is excluded by the present provision? No one but the citizen, who, partaking of all the blessings so bountifully bestowed on our country, and protected by her admirable Government, with his own consent, neglects to perform his public duties. It is not the man who labors on your public highways: the very act of his working shows him to be an able-bodied man, capable of exercising an employment. Your sympathies are not due to the idle or the vicious, or to those who are delinquents. The words State or county tax, are clear, unambiguous, and embrace every one having property, or using the slightest exertion to support himself. I cannot vote for the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERS said, that the payment of a State or county tax had been requisite as a qualification for voting, for half a century. What was proposed by this amendment? From the remarks which the gentleman had made, it seemed to be his object to include those who paid a road tax; but, one who was liable to a road tax, was also liable to a county tax.The person who is subject to one charge is subject to another, and the charge is upon some property or some occupation, We dont, then, extend the right of suffrage, by giving it to those who have paid a road tax,

tax. The gentleman from Crawford (Mr. SHELLITO) has said, that he has known of cases of great hardship, growing out of the tax qualification, as it now stands. He has told us, that he has known of the case of an intelligent person, who was compelled to sell his last cow to obtain bread for the support of his family, and that he was deprived of voting, because he had not the means to pay his tax. Well, if a man eats the bread of idleness, was that any reason why we should have a Constitutional provision to meet his case, and others like him. If an individual has any property, or any occupation, he is liable to be assessed; and, if he is assessed, and is able to pay a road or poor tax, he is able to pay a county tax, so that he could see no necessity for adopting this amendment. If a man was not subject to a county tax, for want of an occupation, would he be subject to a road tax? He would not; and consequently, would not be embraced even by this amendment. The amendment, too, was objectionable from its want of certainty. The term public tax was, in his opinion, too uncertain to be introduced into the fundamental law of the State.Courts, lawyers, inspectors, and judges, will differ as to what shall constitute a public tax. He would be disposed to consider a borough tax a public tax, because it was a tax common to all within the borough. It was not levied upon any particular portion of the inhabitants, but upon those within certain boundaries. Well, if a borough tax be a public tax, it was an unequal tax, and calculated to make distinctions in an election district. It was a tax which would be levied, in many instances, in one part of a district and not upon another, so that in the same election district, men voting at the same window would have different qualifications. In the county of Franklin we have several boroughs, which are parts of townships, and for general or township purposes they vote together, and put in the tickets at the same window. Here, then, some would be entitled to vote, upon merely furnishing evidence that they have paid a borough tax, while the rest of the township would have to furnish evidence of having paid another tax. Here, then, would be an inequality with regard to the voters in the same township. With respect to the poor, road, or school tax, they did not, in his opinion, extend the right of suffrage, because, it only extended it to those already provided for by the county tax; for, no one was liable to pay poor, road, or school tax, except those who were liable to pay a county tax. Believing then, that it would be introducing a matter of uncertainty in the Constitution, and produce inequalities in the qualications of electors, he should vote against the amendment.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, was in favor of extending the right of suffrage to every one who contributes to the support of the Government; and, he took it, that the principle was settled, that every citizen who so contributed, was entitled to a voice in the administration of the Government. The gentleman from Philadelphia county had enquired, if taxation and representation was to go together, why we would not allow aliens the privilege of voting. In answer to this, he would state, that the reason why aliens were not permited to vote was, that they have not abjured their allegiance to the foreign Government, from which they came, and have not sworn to support this Government; and, the tax they pay is paid for the protection the Government affords them during their sojourn among This was the reason this right was not extended to them, which was

us.

ever a tax was laid on persons of a general character, to carry out the system of Government which we have adopted for ourselves, it ought to qualify for voting, and therefore, he supposed that State and county taxes were the legitimate and proper qualifications for a voter. He thought also, that the payment of a road tax ought to qualify a citizen to vote, because it was for the support of the highways of the Commonwealth, and went to carry out our system of Government. The payment of a poor tax too, if it was to be considered as a general matter, ought to qualify to vote; but, if it was to be considered a mere local matter, it ought not to extend the qualification further than for persons to carry out those particular laws. So with borough taxes, they ought to be a qualification to vote for borough officers, but he could not consent that they should qualify a citizen to vote for State or county officers. He thought, however, that the road and poor tax ought to be a qualification for a voter, as he considered them to be public taxes, and they were based upon the county tax, and if they were not introduced, it might happen that the citizens of some particular county might be entirely disfranchised. We all know that we have had but very little of the State tax since the adoption of the Constitution; and, in some counties, they do not lay a county tax more than once in two years. In one county of the State, he believed, they had not had a county tax for four years, yet they had a road tax, and a State tax, and the citizens contributed in this way to the benefit of the public and the support of the Government. But, if it had not been for the mere circumstance of having a State tax at that time, the citizens of the county of Pike would have been disfranchised, under the present Constitution. He would then, for the purpose of avoiding a difficulty of this kind, extend it to the road tax and poor tax, but not to the borough tax. The doctrine of taxation and representation was a republican doctrine. The people were sovereign, but no man ought to exercise any right in a community he did not assist to maintain. Every citizen, however, who contributed to the support of the community, ought to be entitled to vote. If then, the amendment included merely road and poor tax, he would vote for it cheerfully; but he disliked it, because it was liable to be construed differently by different persons. He did not like the term public tax, because, in one part of the State it might have one construction placed upon it, and in another part another construction, and his doctrine was, that the elections should be free and equal. There was no great hardship in the matter of a person having to pay a tax to get a vote. These taxes are generally from ten to fifteen, and perhaps twenty-five cents, and he did not think there were any persons who could not raise twenty-five cents once in two years; therefore, none were excluded in consequence of the tax qualification. It was in vain to say that the tax qualification excluded any persons who had a disposition to exercise the right of suffrage, It was the basis of all our institutions, that taxation and representation should go together. He who enjoyed the benefits of Government should contribute to its support, and he who contributes to its support, is entitled to the right of suffrage, if he is a citizen. This was the only doctrine upon which we could stand, because it was the only doctrine, in his opinion, founded upon principle.

Mr. BAYNE thought he should be in favor of the object the gentle

thought it entirely too doubtful. There were in the State various taxes, and among others, there were taxes paid for the support of theological institutions. There were several corporations in the State of this description, and they were, strictly speaking, of a public character, and these corporations pay a yearly tax for their support. Now, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the mover of this proposition to connect church and State, which had been so much deprecated, or was it his intention not to declare these institutions public institutions.

Mr. EARLE would enquire of those gentlemen, in this Convention, who opposed this amendment, if they would, in case they were inspectors at an election, decide that any individual was entitled to a vote, in consequence of having paid something to a theological institution, or a turnpike corporation. We all understand, unless it is those who raised their objections to this amendment, that it is a matter of no doubt or difficulty. But, he had risen for the purpose of saying a word in favor of the corporation in which he resided, hoping that they might be granted some of the same privileges proposed to be confered on other parts of the State. Gentlemen have said that road taxes are public taxes, because roads are public, and persons may travel over them from all parts of the State. Well, corporation taxes were equally laid for public purposes, because they were for the purpose of keeping the streets in order, so that the gentleman from Northampton, and all other gentlemen, may ride over them in their gigs or carriages, without being subject to have their necks broken. He was anxious to have this amendment adopted, because, the collectors of county taxes were, in many cases, very negligent, and persons were, by this means, deprived of a vote. He had known of many cases, where the county taxes were not all collected for two years; and, he had also known of cases, where persons had paid their corporation tax, and laid away their receipts, with the expectation that it would entitle them to a vote; but, when they came forward to the polls with their receipt they found out their mistake. Now, he considered that persons, who had paid their corporation tax, ought to be entitled to vote, and he hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. FORWARD regreted that his friend from Indiana, (Mr. CLARKE) had urged the mover of this proposition not to permit any modification of it to be made, inasmuch as it involved a principle which, he considered, ought to be adopted. Now the difficulty, which he (Mr. F.) had in relation to it, was that it involved a principle which was, to him, unintelligible. He was not at all particular as to the words, but it was the principle, which was unintelligible to him, and to many members of this Convention. In his opinion, the language of the amendment was most indefinite, and might be tortured to mean many things. Let gentlemen, it they wish to adopt a principle, name the taxes they desire to qualify to vote, and then the principle will be intelligible. If there was no modification of this sort, then he hoped that those who were in search of a principle which would be intelligible, would vote it down. If, however, gentlemen would state the principle they wish to introduce, and put it in explicit terms, then we can say whether we will adopt it or not. He regarded this tax qualification as perfectly useless, unless it is to prevent frauds at elections. What was five or ten cents as a qualification for a voter? It was a mere

dered originally, and whatever views the framers of the constitution took of it, it is now admitted to be nothing more than a preventive to fraud and inconvenience, and a mere evidence of residence. He approved of resi dence being made a qualification; that is the only qualification he would require, and that was the only virtue in this whole provision, that it is a test of residence. This principle of taxation is of no use, further than it answers to prevent fraud at elections. It is a mere precaution, used to ascertain who is to vote, and who is not; and to ascertain who is a pauper, or a vagrant, or a non-resident. No man pretended to say that it had any particular use beside this; and it was in this view that this test was valuable. He conceived that there were reasons unanswerable, why vagrants, paupers, and convicts should not vote. Then, you must have a test, to ascertain who is really entitled to vote under the constitution. As there is a class, which most persons admit ought not to vote, the question is, what is the best test to adopt, so that you may not be imposed on at your elections? Will any reasonable man say this is not right? Will any man say some means ought not to be adopted, by which a discrimination can be made at the polls, between the qualified voters and the vagrants, paupers and foreigners. You are liable to imposition at the polls every day now, and are you going to cast open the door wider? He would ask the friends of this amendment, if they were presiding at an election, what they would take as evidence that a man has paid his corporation tax, or his road tax? He shows no receipt, has no dommentary evidence, and no man can prove the fact, as he may be unknown to any person present. Well, the question then would be, will he swear he has paid this tax? Swearing is the only test; and if he swears he is qualified, then if he is a vagrant, or a villain, he will swear to any thing. A mere tool of a party may be led up to the polls, half drunk, by some partizans, and he cares nothing about an oath, and by this means obtain a vote, when many conscientious, honest men, would not take an oath on so trifling an occasion, and would thereby be deprived of their vote though they may have paid their tax. Then you are opening the door, to vagrants and villains, while you are placing restrictions on the honest voters. The only mode he knew of by which the purity of the government was to be maintained, was by a registry of the voters. This was the best protection for the pure and free exercise of the right of suffrage. It might be possible that in some instances it would be avoided, and fraud would creep into our elections; but he conceived it to be the best safeguard against corruption which we could have. We have heard, frequently, of fraudulent votes being given in some districts, and he presumed it was not to be doubted that fraud was practiced to some extent. Suppose then, that a Governor was to be elected by one hundred majority, and one thousand of these fraudulent votes, on that side, would not the sovereignty of the state be insulted by such a proceeding. In a warmly contested election where most fraudulent votes would be given, a Governor may be elected by fraudulent votes, and the Senate may have a majority of one, and the House of Representatives a majority of one on the same side with the Governor, and the ma

jorities in both Houses elected by fraudulent voters. He would put it to any man, whether such an event might not happen in Pennsylvania. Here, then, would be the whole government of the state in the hands of