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 prac tices 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

right to vote somewhere. Take the case of a citizen of Philadelphia who resides on the north side of Chesnut street. Six months before the election, suppose he moves across the street into another ward. Then, according to the amendment, he could not vote, although he would be eligible as a representative. There was nothing like carrying out these things, in order to show their operation. A man may be a citizen of Philadelphia, and have lived there all his life, and yet lose his vote by removing out of his ward. Could that be right? Every citizen was entitled to vote, and yet, by an arbitrary provision of this kind, you may prevent a man who moves across a county line from voting. Suppose a man, residing in the Northern Liberties, removes before the election across the street to the Spring Garden district, is he to be disfranchised for removing sixty feet? This provision would do injustice to hundreds of respectable citizens. He would go as far as any one in preventing frauds, when it would be done without conflicting with the rights of any But he thought that, to all useful purposes, the existing provisions for the prevention of fraud were sufficient.

one.

Mr. DICKEY would go, he said, for suppressing these frauds which were alleged to be commited. It had been made a subject of complaint, that young men, in Philadelphia, were in the habit of changing their residence from one district or ward to another, before the election, with a view to carry the vote, and then moving back. It was stated, the other day, that the result of the election in the third congressional district, depended on the number of voters which each party might import. He would not, knowingly, give a vote which would countenance an abuse of the elective franchise; and, he had no idea of encouraging the practice of importing voters, or of changing a residence for forty-eight hours for the purpose of voting. Therefore, to guard against the very case put by the gentleman from Northampton, he would vote in favor of this amendment; and, afterwards, he would vote against the proposition as amended, because he was opposed to any tax qualification.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, was sorry, he said, that the city and county of Philadelphia were brought into every debate here, and, generally, for the purpose of charging upon them some fraud. As to all the frauds that the gentleman from Beaver had talked about, they were the creations of some idle brain. Come from whom they might, there was no foundation for them. But, suppose all these allegations were true, would the provision of thirty days' residence prevent the inspectors from taking any fraudulent votes? The amendment would prevent no frauds, if they existed. After all, you must depend upon the inspector of the election.If he be honest, he will take no fraudulent votes; if not, he will only ask, "will this man vote on our side"? The amendment would serve no purpose but to restrict the right of suffrage, and he hoped it would not be agreed to.

Mr. HIESTER was in favor of some restriction as to residence, but thirty days was too long. It might operate to the prejudice of young mechanics who frequently changed their place of residence. He could not agree with the gentleman from the county, that this amendment would impose any restriction on the right of suffrage. It guarded it from abuse. He would, as far as possible, accommodate the great number of persons who change

faith, and for employment; but, no general law could be made which might not operate against some individuals. The cases alluded to by the gentleman from Northampton were undoubtedly very hard. Ten days, he thought, would serve as a sufficient guard against spurious votes, and would produce little inconvenience.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, that, as the amendment of the gentleman from Columbia had been agreed to, which allowed any man to vote, who had paid a borough, school, poor, or township tax, a door would be open to great fraud, unless some residence was required in the district. It might be in the power of any corporation to assess a tax at one cent, on the eve of an important election, in order te control it by fraudulent votes. By such a movement the tax qualification can be avoided. We might extend the right of suffrage as much as we pleased, still we must have some restrictions, and some certain residence. He was not able to see any inconvenience arising from this restriction, and he did see much from fraudulent voting.

Mr. CUMMIN said, "the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion". He was not afraid of any fraudulent votes. If a man, who has lived in New Jersey, came into Pennsylvania with an intention to reside here, he ought to have the right to vote in one day, because he is an inhabitant of the United States. He hoped that gentlemen would not be afraid to let any freeman vote, and he was surprised that they should apprehend any ill consequences from an exercise of the right of suffrage, in this State, by citizens from other States. How happened it that, from freemen of the same stock with ourselves, we should apprehend so much? A citizen of one State was a citizen of all the States, and had a right, under the Constitution, to exercise the rights of citizenship in all the States. No such fears could arise in any mind, unless from a consciousness of having made some exertions at the poils, which were neither honest nor honorable. He was sorry to be obliged to make these remarks. Let us now take the vote, and see who are opposed to the just and equal rights of all the people, and are afraid to trust the people. There should be no exceptions in granting this right of suffrage. Every white and naturalized citizen ought to vote. Why should we talk about alien voters, when no alien can be naturalized in less than five years.

Mr. FORWARD said, those opposed to this qualification ought to carry out their principle, and say that every man from Jersey, or elsewhere, any citizen of the United States, ought to have the right of voting here the very first day he comes into the State. He was perfectly willing that gentlemen should have all the advantage of this position, and it was a perfectly fair one. All those who think that persons should have a vote the first day they enter the State, will, of course, oppose this amendment.He did not wish any one who had a vote to lose it; every citizen of the State ought to have a vote somewhere. He would not object to a provision, allowing every citizen to vote in the district of which he may have been a resident before the election. His only object was to guard against spurious and illegal votes. He wished to see the fountains of power preserved pure. There was a suspicion among the people that the right of suffrage was not sufficiently guarded from abuse, and it was asserted and admited here, that the elections had been carried by fraud. If we would

source of all power from corruption, and place the elections above any suspicion of fraud. There should be some way of detecting spurious votes. Some residence, twenty or thirty days, ought to be insisted upon, and he would not agree, for the accommodation of an individual, to hazard the interests of the Commonwealth. The rights and interests of the public were always to be prefered to individual convenience. Though in favor of this amendment, he was perfectly willing that every citizen should have the right of voting in the district from which he may have removed previous to the election.

The yeas and nays having been required by Mr. FORWARD, and nineteen others, the question was taken on filling the blank with "thirty days", and decided in the negative-yeas, 23; nays, 83-as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Biddle, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crum, Darlington, Dickerson, Forward, Gearhart, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Miller, Reigart, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sergeant, President-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks. Barndollar, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia. Butler, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Coates, Cox, Crain. Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dil'inger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gam le, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, 'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, S II, Smyth, Snively. Sterigere, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, White, Woodward, Young-83, The question then recured on the motion to fill the blank with twenty days.

Mr. MEREDITH called for the yeas and nays on this motion, which were ordered.

Mr. DICKEY said, no man under the militia law was called upon to do military duty, until he had resided in the district ten days. Then, if a man was not called upon to perform one of the most important duties required by him of his country, until he has resided in the district ten days, he thought a citizen ought to be required to reside in a district twenty days before he should give his vote at our elections. As the gentleman from Crawford had gone for a long residence in a district on a former occasion, he hoped he would now go with him for this twenty days' principle.

Mr. SHELLITO said, that at the time he had gone for a long residence, there was bo tax qualification asked for, which made a material difference with him.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, considered twenty days too long a time to reside in a district before an election. The Legislature had passed a law by which a man could not be called upon to do military duty, until he had resided in the district ten days, and he thought this a sufficient time to require a citizen to reside in a district before an election. Gentlemen had said a great deal about democracy, and all that sort of thing, but he thought it had little to do with this matter. He would go for the broadest principle he could get, but at the same time, he was for guarding our elections against fraud. The Government of the United States requires a foreigner to reside here for five years before he can become a citizen, and