go and no further". He did not believe that gentlemen were ready to carry out the principle, and deny to freemen the right to vote for State officers, unless they have paid a State tax; for county officers, unless they have paid a county tax; and for township officers, unless they have paid a township tax. As it was admited that the payment of a tax was only evidence of citizenship, should a man, who paid a corporation or any other tax in Philadelphia, and produced his certificate, be debared from voting if he should remove to the county of Erie? The fathers of the revolution, when they contended that taxation and representation should go together, never meant to exclude representation, if there was no taxation. They only determined not to be taxed, unless they should be represented. They never meant to exclude freemen from the exercise of personal rights, unless they were first taxed. Shall, then, those who have strong arms, sound heads, and warm hearts-who are ready to defend the country when invaded, be excluded from the polls on any pretence? He would not vote to deprive any man of his right of suffrage, because he might not possess any thing to be taxed. All taxes might be abolished by the Legislature; the necessity for them may cease to exist. Will you say to those who have fought the battles of the country-who have exposed their life in the defence of freedom-who have suffered privations, and bled for the preservation of our institutions-you shall have no voice in the Government, because you have no property to be taxed? It is a monstrous doctrine in a free State. But the committee seemed to favor some sort of a tax qualification, and if he could not get rid of the odious principle entirely, he would go as far as he could. On this ground he should vote for the amendment, and support it as a choice of evils. Taxation of every sort had, in all ages and in all countries, been considered unequal and odious, and peculiarly so, when entirely personal. From the taxing in the time of AUGUSTUs, at the commencement of the Christian era, to the present, complaints have been made, and reasonably. It drove the people te resistance in the time of WILLIAM TELL, of Switzerland, and in the time of the stamp taxes and the tea tax of the revolution. It was an odious basis for the right of suffrage. One gentleman remarked the other day, on this foor, that the payment of a tax was an evidence of character". If it is an evidence of character, then a man's character must be good or bad, in proportion to the amount of his tax. The man who pays one hundred dollars tax, would have more character than a member of this Convention, or any other person, whose tax might be only a few, say six cents! Heaven preserve us all from such an evidence of character-from all such evidences of character as have money or property for their basis Another gentleman has said. that an upright man who had paid his tax, would be degraded by voting at the polls with the poor man who has paid no tax! Can this be possible? Can it be, that the man who does not own vessels at sea, iron works, a farm, or bank and other stocks, but who is willing to labor on the highways-who has no money, but is willing to spare a portion of his time, which is required to support a large familyis he to be debarel from voting, because he is poor? If a man contributes his proportion to the support or comfort of the poor, does works of necessity and mercy, perhaps more than the man of property, is he not as much entitled to vote, as if he owned thousands? Certainly:-is the res

happen to become poor in the vicissitudes of fortune, and appear on the election ground without having paid taxes within two years, what would be his feelings if he should be told that he could not vote, because he had not contributed to the public taxes? He had not so learned democracy. He said that he had boen instructed to cut off no man's vote, who was honest and faithful to the Constitution, and he would not vote to exclude any man from the ballot boxes, who was qualified in mind and body for an elector, and possessing the requisites indicated and mentioned. The principle contended against them is taxation, as giving the right to vote at elections by free men, and he was opposed, both to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. The gentleman from Beaver (Mr. DICKEY) has taken the true ground-that is to go for the amendment or proposition, which extends the right of suffrage on tax basis, as the choice of evils, reserving the right of correcting it afterwards. He (Mr. B.) would therefore vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Columbia, (Mr. HAYHURST) and if it should carry, then vote against the amendment as amended, or for it, as he might think most advisable for carrying out the views indicated and expressed by him. In conclusion, he wished not to be understood as desiring, that persons should be exempted from the payment of taxes in proportion to the estates or property which they possessed; but he objected to any, and all propositions which would, in any event, cause the honest and honorable poor man to lose his right to vote at elections, and for no other reason than "because he had not paid taxes". His motto was,

"Where liberty dwells, there is my country".

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said, that the gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. BANKS) and himself, would not be found to differ much when they understood each other. He (Mr. P.) had said, that he disliked the property qualification as much as the gentleman did. And, the injustice of it was never better illustrated than by Dr. FRANKLIN's story of the citizen and the Jackass, a man who had property in a Jackass, valued at 15, being entitled to vote, went to the polls and gave his vote accordingly.But, before the next election the ass died, and the man presented himself at the hustings, intending to give his vote. It was, however, refused.— He asked for what reason? The reply was, because at the last election he had an ass, and now he had not. The man then enquired, which had

the right of voting-he, or the animal?

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas, 55; nays, 52-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cox, Crain, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Kennedy, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Mar. tin, M'Cahen, Merill, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Swetland, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward, Young-55.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cope, Craig, Crun, Cummin, Darlington, Dickerson, Dillinger, Forward, Fry, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of

residence to entitle a citizen to vote; yet, where the individual claims to vote upon the ground of having served in the militia, or worked upon the roads, it is required of him that he shall have resided three years in the State, and six months in the county, in which he offers to vote. If gentlemen would go this far their amendment might be more acceptable, but if they are not willing to do so, then they are more radical than even the radical representatives of the State of New York. There was no reason why distinctions should be made between citizens of the same county; but, if you adopt this amendment, you do make distinctions.— Some citizens would be entitled to vote upon the payment of one kind of tax, while others would have to pay a different tax to entitle them to this right. There are in every county those who will be compelled to pay a county tax, and if others are not compelled to pay this tax, there will be a distinction, which will destroy all equality. There had already been an amendment adopted, calculated to make distinctions between voters, which he would endeavor to get rid of at a proper time. But, here we are going one step further to create anarchy and confusion. This last amendment proposed contemplates making every one an elector who has paid a tax of almost any description-a township tax, a poor tax, a municipal borough tax, &c. Now, can equality of rights exist where the re are so many taxes, the payment of which shall qualify to vote. In some parts of the Commonwealth they have a great variety of taxes, while in other parts they have but few. In the city of Philadelphia they have a corporation, a poor tax, a water tax, and he did not know how many more taxes of this character, and in addition to these they have a county tax. Well, in that city one man will have a right to vote on paying a water tax, another will be entitled to vote because he had paid his corporation tax, and another would have the right to vote because he had paid a township tax. One would be entitled to vote because he has paid one kind, and another will be entitled to vote because he has paid another kind of tax. In some boroughs taxes may be laid for some special purposes, and under this provision, all those who pay a tax of this kind will be entitled to the exercise of the right of suffrage. Now, all this he considered as operating unequally and unjustly upon the citizens of the Commonwealth; and, he was opposed to the extension of the right of suffrage in the manner proposed by this amendment. It would be recollected by the committee, that he had introduced an amendment of a general character, requiring but six months residence to entitle a citizen to exercise the right of suffrage, which had been voted down, and when a proper time arrived he should renew that motion, but he could not now go for this proposition.

If the terms were reduced, as required, then certainly we ought not t6 fritter away town residences. The paltry sum of two cents ought not to induce us to insert in the Constitution a new principle-the principle of inequality.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, begged to notice what had fallen from the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST.) The gentleman had argued that it would operate unequally. Now, his argument against the amendment might have more weight, if all the taxes were not excessively une

eral Government, in the shape of duties on the necessaries of life, and yet be deprived from voting for the officers of the General Government, while the man who paid a tax of twenty-five cents to an assessor, is allowed to vote. This tax qualification, in every respect, was unequal. The gentleman from Chester ought to carry out his principle, if it was a just one, and permit a man, who has paid a State tax, to vote only for State officers, and one who has paid a county tax, only for county officers. He should vote for the amendment as the most liberal, although he was opposed to any tax qualification.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphta, said, that he would simply remind the committee of a great leading principle which had been frequently avowed on this floor. This principle was a determination to make no alteration in the Constitution, without good and substantial reasons. He wished to

remind gentlemen of this principle in reference to the amendment pending. The gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST) submited a proposition, and after it had been discussed all the morning, had given it up, and submited another. Now, unless it could be shown that this was better than the other, it ought not to be entertained. He (Mr. H.) did not believe it to be better. He had freqenily heard it said, on other subjects, that the people require this and require that. But, with regard to the subject of the gentlemans' proposition, he had not heard the same remark. He hoped that, unless gentlemen had such reasons as would induce them to change their opinions, they would adhere to their declaration to support no amendment not absolutely called for by public opinion.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, remarked, that he was opposed to the tax qualification altogether. He considered that every man had the right to vote who was a citizen of the State, and what delegate here would say that a citizen shall not vote? He would vote for this amendment, not because he liked it, but because it was more liberal than the State and county tax qualification, and extended the right of suffrage. Under the State and county tax qualification, unless trades and occupations were taxed, a large number of citizens would be excluded from the right of suffrage. Some future Legislature might so alter the tax laws as to take away the qualification. This amendment would put it out of the power of after times to legislate men out of their votes. The State tax was repealed, and there was no State tax. He trusted that the day was not far distant when the income of the Public Works, or some other income, might be so great as to render county rates and levies unnecessary. Where then, he would enquire, was the right to vote? It was lost, and the whole people of the Commonwealth were excluded. The fact was, the payment of a tax should not be the test at the polls. The right of suffrage was a personal right.A man should vote because he was a freeman. He (Mr. D.) would vote for this amendment, because it was better than the proposition of the gentleman from Chester, without it. It extended the right of suffrage, and he should therefore vote for it.

Mr. M'DOWELL; Is it intended to limit this privilege to the county in which the road, poor, and school tax, is paid?

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, remarked, that he did not agree with the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) that this amedment went too far. For his part, he could not set bounds to the right of suffrage, and do justice to his

go and no further". He did not believe that gentlemen were ready to carry out the principle, and deny to freemen the right to vote for State officers, unless they have paid a State tax; for county officers, unless they have paid a county tax; and for township officers, unless they have paid a township tax. As it was admited that the payment of a tax was only evidence of citizenship, should a man, who paid a corporation or any other tax in Philadelphia, and produced his certificate, be debared from voting if he should remove to the county of Erie? The fathers of the revolution, when they contended that taxation and representation should go together, never meant to exclude representation, if there was no taxation. They only determined not to be taxed, unless they should be represented. They never meant to exclude freemen from the exercise of personal rights, unless they were first taxed. Shall, then, those who have strong arms, sound heads, and warm hearts-who are ready to defend the country when invaded, be excluded from the polls on any pretence? He would not vote to deprive any man of his right of suffrage, because he might not possess any thing to be taxed. All taxes might be abolished by the Legislature; the necessity for them may cease to exist. Will you say to those who have fought the battles of the country-who have exposed their life in the defence of freedom-who have suffered privations, and bled for the preservation of our institutions-you shall have no voice in the Government, because you have no property to be taxed? It is a monstrous doctrine in a free State. But the committee seemed to favor some sort of a tax qualification, and if he could not get rid of the odious principle entirely, he would go as far as he could. On this ground he should vote for the amendment, and support it as a choice of evils. Taxation of every sort had, in all ages and in all countries, been considered unequal and odious, and peculiarly so, when entirely personal. From the taxing in the time of AUGUSTUS, at the commencement of the Christian era. to the present, complaints have been made, and reasonably. It drove the people te resistance in the time of WILLIAM TELL, of Switzerland, and in the time of the stamp taxes and the tea tax of the revolution. It was an odious basis for the right of suffrage. One gentleman remarked the other day, on this foor, that the payment of a tax was an evidence of character". If it is an evidence of character, then a man's character must be good or bad, in proportion to the amount of his tax. The man who pays one hundred dollars tax, would have more character than a member of this Convention, or any other person, whose tax might be only a few, say six cents! Heaven preserve us all from such an evidence of character-from all such evidences of character as have money or property for their basis Another gentleman has said. that an upright man who had paid his tax, would be degraded by voting at the polls with the poor man who has paid no tax! Can this be possible? Can it be, that the man who does not own vessels at sea, iron works, a farm, or bank and other stocks, but who is willing to labor on the highways-who has no money, but is willing to spare a portion of his time, which is required to support a large familyis he to be debarel from voting, because he is poor? If a man contributes his proportion to the support or comfort of the poor, does works of necessity and mercy, perhaps more than the man of property, is he not as much entitled to vote, as if he owned thousands? Certainly:-is the res