Northampton, Russel, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Thomas. Todd, Sergeant, President-52. Mr. MERRILL, of Union, moved to amend the amendment as amended, by adding thereto the words, "and shall have resided there for thirty days immediately preceding the election". On motion of Mr. BELL, the committee rose, and MONDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK. THIRD ARTICLE. The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair. The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. MERRILL, of Union, to amend the amendment as amended, by adding to the end thereof the words following, viz: "And shall have resided there for thirty days immediately preceding the election". 66 Mr. MERRILL rose to modify the amendment, by striking out the word thirty", and leaving it blank. Two or three days ago, he said, he had risen to say a few words on the importance of residence. It was a security against fraudulent voters. He had hoped that some gentleman would have taken an enlarged view of the subject; but, as no one had done so, he would now say a few words in reference to it. The greatest danger to be apprehended is from fraudulent votes. There is nothing that tends so to shake confidence, as the impression that fraudulent votes have been given, and that there has been mismanagement at the elections. It produces the belief that the Government is not so well administered as it ought to be. It is anti-republican. Where the sovereignty resides in the people, it particularly behoves them to be cautious. In monarchies there is caution enough; and the people, who are part owners in the sovereignty, should be equally cautious. It should be believed, that all our institutions are founded in purity; for, if the impression prevail that fraud is triumphant, the contagion of fraud will be felt through the community; for, what can resist fraud, but force? Would the people have it believed that they are governed by those who have no right to govern? It is important, no doubt, that the belief should prevail that a majority of the people govern the country. Some gentlemen would recollect the circumstances of the political contest of 1825. In the election of a President of the United States, by the House of Representatives, the vote of one State was in the hands of a single individual. If it had, at that time been believed, that the vote of Illinois was not in the hands of a representative fairly elected -if it had been believed that his election was fraudulent-that it was brought about by fraud in the election itself-what course would public opinion have taken? It might have led to strife, civil war, bloodshed, and perhaps a dissolution of the Union. There may be great opportunity for the perpetration of fraud, unless the proof of residence is required. As to the length of time required, there may be difference of opinion. He had thought thirty days was not too long. There ought not to be a chance Governor's election, in particular districts. They who have these large sums depending, may bring in voters, and maintain them in the district for a short period, in order to obtain votes enough to enable them to win their money. He knew there were some who said this could not be prevented. Is it so? Do gentlemen. who call themselves republicans, when they say they have the best Government in the world, acknowledge that it cannot be maintained without fraud-without introducing false votes? This charge has been made against us in foreign countries, that our Government is led by demagogues, and ruled by fraudulent voters. He trusted that some remedy could be found for this evil, and that it would be found and applied. Why should any objection be made? But, it is said that some persons may lose their votes. If they should, the number will be very small, and they should not complain if it preserves the elections from fraud. Last fall, one thousand voters in Union did not vote at the general election-they lost their votes in consequence of the inconvenience of leaving their business in seed sowing. They did not complain that they lost their votes, and demand to give their votes on another day. They might have complained, and claimed as a right to have had the polls kept open. Did they ask it? Did any one pretend that it should be done? No one. The polls ought to be open to receive every lawful vote, then if voters do not attend, you cannot compel them. It is not the fault of the institutions, but their own. Must there not be a rule of universal application. No other could be made to suit all districts. Are we to make plans to suit the convenience of individuals? Our business is to make provisions, which will enable all to vote who choose to avail themselves of their right to vote. If they will not, they must remain aloof and submit, as did the forty thousand voters who did not vote on the call of the Convention. It had been asserted that we represent these forty thousand; and, so every man who does not vote must abide by the result.— Frequently, elections have been contested by those who have no right to interfere. Did any gentleman desire that this state of things should continue. Ought we not to secure the interests of the people of Pennsylvania against the encroachments of persons who have no right to interfere? He trusted we should have the power and the disposition to prevent frauds of this character. If no proposition could be introduced to effect that object, he would go for the old Constitution. He would move to fill the blank in the section with the word "thirty". If any gentlemen thought thirty days too long a period, they could submit any other number. did not think it was too long. The time ought to be sufficiently long to prevent persons from keeping votes in pay to influence the polls. It ought to be long enough also for the people to know that an individual is actually a resident. Would thirty days be too long for their purposes? He would leave it to the committee to determine. He had no desire to He shut out any legal voters. He would have the polls open for every man who has a right, and, let those who would not go to the elections abide by the result. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to fill the blank with the words "one day". Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to fill the blank with the word "ten". Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, moved to fill the blank with the word Northampton, Russel, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Thomas. Todd, Sergeant, President-52. Mr. MERRILL, of Union, moved to amend the amendment as amended, by adding thereto the words, "and shall have resided there for thirty days immediately preceding the election". On motion of Mr. BELL, the committee rose, and MONDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK. THIRD ARTICLE. The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair. The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. MERRILL, of Union, to amend the amendment as amended, by adding to the end thereof the words following, viz: "And shall have resided there for thirty days immediately preceding the election". 66 Mr. MERRILL rose to modify the amendment, by striking out the word thirty", and leaving it blank. Two or three days ago, he said, he had risen to say a few words on the importance of residence. It was a security against fraudulent voters. He had hoped that some gentleman would have taken an enlarged view of the subject; but, as no one had done so, he would now say a few words in reference to it. The greatest danger to be apprehended is from fraudulent votes. There is nothing that tends so to shake confidence, as the impression that fraudulent votes have been given, and that there has been mismanagement at the elections. It produces the belief that the Government is not so well administered as it ought to be. It is anti-republican. Where the sovereignty resides in the people, it particularly behoves them to be cautious. In monarchies there is caution enough; and the people, who are part owners in the sovereignty, should be equally cautious. It should be believed, that all our institutions are founded in purity; for, if the impression prevail that fraud is triumphant, the contagion of fraud will be felt through the community; for, what can resist fraud, but force? Would the people have it believed that they are governed by those who have no right to govern? It is important, no doubt, that the belief should prevail that a majority of the people govern the country. Some gentlemen would recollect the circumstances of the political contest of 1825. In the election of a President of the United States, by the House of Representatives, the vote of one State was in the hands of a single individual. If it had, at that time been believed, that the vote of Illinois was not in the hands of a representative fairly elected -if it had been believed that his election was fraudulent-that it was brought about by fraud in the election itself-what course would public opinion have taken? It might have led to strife, civil war, bloodshed, and perhaps a dissolution of the Union. There may be great opportunity for the perpetration of fraud, unless the proof of residence is required. As to the length of time required, there may be difference of opinion. He had thought thirty days was not too long. There ought not to be a chance Governor's election, in particular districts. They who have these large sums depending, may bring in voters, and maintain them in the district for a short period, in order to obtain votes enough to enable them to win their money. He knew there were some who said this could not be prevented. Is it so? Do gentlemen. who call themselves republicans, when they say they have the best Government in the world, acknowledge that it cannot be maintained without fraud-without introducing false votes? This charge has been made against us in foreign countries, that our Government is led by demagogues, and ruled by fraudulent voters. He trusted that some remedy could be found for this evil, and that it would be found and applied. Why should any objection be made? But, it is said that some persons may lose their votes. If they should, the number will be very small, and they should not complain if it preserves the elections from fraud. Last fall, one thousand voters in Union did not vote at the general election-they lost their votes in consequence of the inconvenience of leaving their business in seed sowing. They did not complain that they lost their votes, and demand to give their votes on another day. They might have complained, and claimed as a right to have had the polls kept open. Did they ask it? Did any one pretend that it should be done? No one. The polls ought to be open to receive every lawful vote, then if voters do not attend, you cannot compel them. It is not the fault of the institutions, but their own. Must there not be a rule of universal application. No other could be made to suit all districts. Are we to make plans to suit the convenience of individuals? Our business is to make provisions, which will enable all to vote who choose to avail themselves of their right to vote. If they will not, they must remain aloof and submit, as did the forty thousand voters who did not vote on the call of the Convention. It had been asserted that we represent these forty thousand; and, so every man who does not vote must abide by the result.— Frequently, elections have been contested by those who have no right to interfere. Did any gentleman desire that this state of things should continue. Ought we not to secure the interests of the people of Pennsylvania against the encroachments of persons who have no right to interfere? He trusted we should have the power and the disposition to prevent frauds of this character. If no proposition could be introduced to effect that object, he would go for the old Constitution. He would move to fill the blank in the section with the word "thirty". If any gentlemen thought thirty days too long a period, they could submit any other number. did not think it was too long. The time ought to be sufficiently long to prevent persons from keeping votes in pay to influence the polls. It ought to be long enough also for the people to know that an individual is actually a resident. Would thirty days be too long for their purposes? He would leave it to the committee to determine. He had no desire to He shut out any legal voters. He would have the polls open for every man who has a right, and, let those who would not go to the elections abide by the result. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to fill the blank with the words "one day". Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to fill the blank with the word "ten". Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, moved to fill the blank with the word Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to fill the blank with the word "sixty". Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved to fill the blank with the word "twenty". The question being put on filling the blank with the word "sixty", it was decided in the negative. Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, asked for the yeas and nays on the question, to fill the blank with the word " thirty", and they were ordered accordingly. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, wished some further protection, so that if a voter was preparing to move out of the district, he might still be entitled to vote somewhere. Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, was in favor of some length of time. He thought thirty days too long, and had moved ten. If as high as thirty should be fixed, it would exclude many who were entitled. Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, remarked, that he was in favor of the longest time. The greatest inconvenience from fraudulent voters was not felt in Indiana county, where the gentleman resided, but in Chester and Lancaster, and Philadelphia, where other than legal voters were usually brought in. As his motion had been rejected, he would vote for thirty davs. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, wished for a reasonable time, but he thought thirty days was too long. He thought twenty days a reasonable time, sufficient for the residence of the voter to be known. It would have the effect of preventing challenges. He would prefer, however, to avoid all those difficulties, by substituting the registry, which was the most safe and certain mode. Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said, that when the question on the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST) was taken, he voted in the affirmative, being well disposed to favor a more extended right of suffrage. Having gone thus far, he was on the point of offering an amendment, when the gentleman from Union (Mr. MERRILL) interposed his proposition. That gentleman was actuated by the same motive as himself, to prevent the perpetration of frauds. What had he proposed ? Was there any thing unreasonable in requiring a certain residence in the district? He cared not if it was twenty days, or sixty. Any one who desired to enjoy the inestimable privilege of the right of suffrage, ought to have been long enough in the district to become known, and to have it known that he is a resident. The business of importing voters from Delaware, New York, and New Jersey, might, at this moment, be going on in Philadelphia county. It had been carried on to a great extent; and, in saying this, he made no charge against any particular party. This was an important provision, and it would do more to cure the frauds than any thing else we have done since we have been here. It completely reaches the case and protects the honest voter. He hoped the time would be fixed at thirty days, although he was willing to go for twenty or thirty. He was most desirous to retain the principle. If this was not done-if the principle was not preserved, he would go against the amendment as amended, and against the report of the committee, and vote to preserve the old Constitution. |