Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

was to extend the right of suffrage, and to do this, many gentlemen whom he was surprised to see so voting, voted to sustain the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST.) He had the misfortune to differ from these gentlemen: he thought the amendment was going too far, and he voted against it. And what was now proposed by a gentleman who voted for opening the door to such a liberal extent ? We have the hardest proposition, a restriction which will operate with the greatest severity, more severely than any proposition which had ever been offered, and more so than the old Constitution, and why? Because, as we are told, the agents to carry out the election laws are unfaithful, and fraudulent votes are received. There was no other reason offered. If a party take a false oath, it is to the common law that recourse should be had.But whence are these frauds in the importation of voters? Whence do they come? It was not in Chester that such things occured. There the inspectors and judges did their duty. We had been told here of places where, if you go to the polls, a very slight examination suffices. With us there is a severe examination, and if a doubt exists, the voter is confronted with the oldest citizens. The judges do not rely on the oath of the party, but, as they ought to do, go properly to the officers; and, if they find perjury has been committed, it is not unlikely that the perjured individual is sent to the penitentiary, at Easton, as had been the case with one man who falsely swore that he had paid his taxes. If the inspectors and judges perform their duty, and carry the provisions of the law into effect, it is sufficient to prevent frauds. Would any one tell him it was the practice any where to import voters, and that these voters will meet the judges in the face of truth and light, and swear that they are residents, when they are not? He had been told by a gentleman from one of the largest counties in the State, that he knew no instance of any such frauds, and that he had heard of no instance where the punishment did not immediately follow. If any frauds had been commited, they were so few, and produced so little inconvenience, and were always followed by such speedy detection and punishment, that they were scarcely worth being refered to here.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said, that for twenty-eight years, with the exception of seven or eight, he had been an active politician. For five years, or more, he had resided in the city of Philadelphia, and was as regularly set to watch one of the windows as election day came. Afterwards, he acted as a judge of elections, and might have served in that capacity some ten or twelve years, and he could safely say he had never known an instance in which a vote was fraudulently given. Sometimes, there might have been mistaken judgments in reference to the law and the facts, but frauds he had known none. He believed these fraudulent practices existed more in imagination than in fact. He would speak of facts. We (said Mr. P.) were five or six thousand inhabitants in that part of the city near New Jersey, where we were as liable as any to importations from Jersey. But he had never seen an instance of such. He had seen no single instance, therefore, his own experience would not justify him in saying there were fraudulent practices.

His own experience, he said, did not justify the assertion, that there was fraud in carrying on the elections in Pennsylvania, or that they were

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

days.

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 froin 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.

was to extend the right of suffrage, and to do this, many gentlemen whom he was surprised to see so voting, voted to sustain the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST.) He had the misfortune to differ from these gentlemen: he thought the amendment was going too far, and he voted against it. And what was now proposed by a gentleman who voted for opening the door to such a liberal extent ? We have the hardest proposition, a restriction which will operate with the greatest severity, more severely than any proposition which had ever been offered, and more so than the old Constitution, and why? Because, as we are told, the agents to carry out the election laws are unfaithful, and fraudulent votes are received. There was no other reason offered. If a party take a false oath, it is to the common law that recourse should be had.But whence are these frauds in the importation of voters? Whence do they come? It was not in Chester that such things occured. There the inspectors and judges did their duty. We had been told here of places where, if you go to the polls, a very slight examination suffices. With us there is a severe examination, and if a doubt exists, the voter is confronted with the oldest citizens. The judges do not rely on the oath of the party, but, as they ought to do, go properly to the officers; and, if they find perjury has been committed, it is not unlikely that the perjured individual is sent to the penitentiary, at Easton, as had been the case with one man who falsely swore that he had paid his taxes. If the inspectors and judges perform their duty, and carry the provisions of the law into effect, it is sufficient to prevent frauds. Would any one tell him it was the practice any where to import voters, and that these voters will meet the judges in the face of truth and light, and swear that they are residents, when they are not? He had been told by a gentleman from one of the largest counties in the State, that he knew no instance of any such frauds, and that he had heard of no instance where the punishment did not immediately follow. If any frauds had been commited, they were so few, and produced so little inconvenience, and were always followed by such speedy detection and punishment, that they were scarcely worth being refered to here.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said, that for twenty-eight years, with the exception of seven or eight, he had been an active politician. For five years, or more, he had resided in the city of Philadelphia, and was as regularly set to watch one of the windows as election day came. Afterwards, he acted as a judge of elections, and might have served in that capacity some ten or twelve years, and he could safely say he had never known an instance in which a vote was fraudulently given. Sometimes, there might have been mistaken judgments in reference to the law and the facts, but frauds he had known none. He believed these fraudulent practices existed more in imagination than in fact. He would speak of facts. We (said Mr. P.) were five or six thousand inhabitants in that part of the city near New Jersey, where we were as liable as any to importations from Jersey. But he had never seen an instance of such. He had seen no single instance, therefore, his own experience would not justify him in saying there were fraudulent practices.

His own experience, he said, did not justify the assertion, that there was fraud in carrying on the elections in Pennsylvania, or that they were

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to fill the blank with the word 66 "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

days.

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.

was to extend the right of suffrage, and to do this, many gentlemen whom he was surprised to see so voting, voted to sustain the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST.) He had the misfortune to differ from these gentlemen: he thought the amendment was going too far, and he voted against it. And what was now proposed by a gentleman who voted for opening the door to such a liberal extent ? We have the hardest proposition, a restriction which will operate with the greatest severity, more severely than any proposition which had ever been offered, and more so than the old Constitution, and why? Because, as we are told, the agents to carry out the election laws are unfaithful, and fraudulent votes are received. There was no other reason offered. If a party take a false oath, it is to the common law that recourse should be had.But whence are these frauds in the importation of voters? Whence do they come? It was not in Chester that such things occured. There the inspectors and judges did their duty. We had been told here of places where, if you go to the polls, a very slight examination suffices. With us there is a severe examination, and if a doubt exists, the voter is confronted with the oldest citizens. The judges do not rely on the oath of the party, but, as they ought to do, go properly to the officers; and, if they find perjury has been committed, it is not unlikely that the perjured individual is sent to the penitentiary, at Easton, as had been the case with one man who falsely swore that he had paid his taxes. If the inspectors and judges perform their duty, and carry the provisions of the law into effect, it is sufficient to prevent frauds. Would any one tell him it was the practice any where to import voters, and that these voters will meet the judges in the face of truth and light, and swear that they are residents, when they are not? He had been told by a gentleman from one of the largest counties in the State, that he knew no instance of any such frauds, and that he had heard of no instance where the punishment did not immediately follow. If any frauds had been commited, they were so few, and produced so little inconvenience, and were always followed by such speedy detection and punishment, that they were scarcely worth being refered to here.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said, that for twenty-eight years, with the exception of seven or eight, he had been an active politician. For five years, or more, he had resided in the city of Philadelphia, and was as regularly set to watch one of the windows as election day came. Afterwards, he acted as a judge of elections, and might have served in that capacity some ten or twelve years, and he could safely say he had never known an instance in which a vote was fraudulently given. Sometimes, there might have been mistaken judgments in reference to the law and the facts, but frauds he had known none. He believed these fraudulent practices existed more in imagination than in fact. He would speak of facts. We (said Mr. P.) were five or six thousand inhabitants in that part of the city near New Jersey, where we were as liable as any to importations from Jersey. But he had never seen an instance of such. He had seen no single instance, therefore, his own experience would not justify him in saying there were fraudulent practices.

His own experience, he said, did not justify the assertion, that there was fraud in carrying on the elections in Pennsylvania, or that they were

« ZurückWeiter »