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-Mess. 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, Martin, 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

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-Mess's. 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, Merrill, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Swetland, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward, Young-55.

NAY-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

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 floor, 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-Mess's. 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, Merrill, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Purvi ince, 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,