here two years before he is entitled to vote; and all this is done for the purpose of keeping our elections pure. Now, he should go for this ten days' residence, and he did not think there was any democracy involved in it. He would, at the same time, go for taking away the tax qualification, but he wanted some evidence of residence. We all know that through the country, people move on the first of April, but it might be that in towns and cities, persons may take houses for six months, and move again on the first of October, which would give those persons a residence of ten days from the first of October to the day of election, when twenty days would cut them off. Besides, there were a great many persons engaged on our public works, and young mechanics, who were tra velling from one place to another, who would be cut off by requiring twenty days' residence, instead of ten. He thought, in every point of view in which he could look at the matter, that ten days was the most proper time to adopt.

Mr. DARLINGTON knew of one case in which this amendment would have operated most judiciously, and he had no doubt, there were many such cases throughout the country. The case alluded to occured in his own town, at a recent election. An individual came into town on the day before the election, who might appropriately have been set down as one of the wandering Arabs, alluded to the other day, by the gentleman from Lancaster. He slept in the market house that night, and to all appearances was a drunken vagabond, yet, he presented himself at the polls and claimed the right to vote, and the election officers permited him to vote upon the ground that he could vote no where else, and consequently he must be entitled to vote in our county. If we had had a provision in the Constitution requiring ten days' residence, this person would have been prevented from voting, and certainly he ought to have been prevented.

Mr. AYRES was in favor of a residence of some length of time, but he considered twenty days too long. He had frequently been called upon at elections to give his opinion where objections were raised to a citizen's right to vote, because he had not resided a sufficient length of time in the district, and he had generally found that persons had taken up the idea, that because they were not called upon to do militia duty until they have resided in the State ten days, that they are not entitled to vote until they have resided that length of time. This had been adopted as a kind of equitable rule. The gentleman from Beaver was correct in saying, that militia men were not permited to be called upon to do military duty until they had resided in the district ten days; and in his opinion this was a strong reason why we should adopt the same length of time to entitle to the exercise of the right of suffrage; but twenty or thirty days he took to be too long. Many persons were under the impression that they were not entitled to vote until they are subject to be called upon to do militia duty, and there appeared to be something of an analogy between the two cases, that a man should be entitled to vote at the same time that he would be called upon to perform militia duty. He had merely risen to state, that he was in favor of a residence of some length of time, in the district in which the citizen was to vote, and he thought ten days the most proper time which we could adopt.

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, Presi dent-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. 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

here two years before he is entitled to vote; and all this is done for the purpose of keeping our elections pure. Now, he should go for this ten days' residence, and he did not think there was any democracy involved in it. He would, at the same time, go for taking away the tax qualification, but he wanted some evidence of residence. We all know that through the country, people move on the first of April, but it might be that in towns and cities, persons may take houses for six months, and move again on the first of October, which would give those persons a residence of ten days from the first of October to the day of election, when twenty days would cut them off. Besides, there were a great many persons engaged on our public works, and young mechanics, who were travelling from one place to another, who would be cut off by requiring twenty days' residence, instead of ten. He thought, in every point of view in which he could look at the matter, that ten days was the most proper time to adopt.

Mr. DARLINGTON knew of one case in which this amendment would have operated most judiciously, and he had no doubt, there were many such cases throughout the country. The case alluded to occured in his own town, at a recent election. An individual came into town on the day before the election, who might appropriately have been set down as one of the wandering Arabs, alluded to the other day, by the gentleman from Lancaster. He slept in the market house that night, and to all appearances was a drunken vagabond, yet, he presented himself at the polls and claimed the right to vote, and the election officers permited him to vote upon the ground that he could vote no where else, and consequently he must be entitled to vote in our county. If we had had a provision in the Constitution requiring ten days' residence, this person would have been prevented from voting, and certainly he ought to have been prevented.

Mr. AYRES was in favor of a residence of some length of time, but he considered twenty days too long. He had frequently been called upon at elections to give his opinion where objections were raised to a citizen's right to vote, because he had not resided a sufficient length of time in the district, and he had generally found that persons had taken up the idea, that because they were not called upon to do militia duty until they have resided in the State ten days, that they are not entitled to vote until they have resided that length of time. This had been adopted as a kind of equitable rule. The gentleman from Beaver was correct in saying, that militia men were not permited to be called upon to do military duty until they had resided in the district ten days; and in his opinion this was a strong reason why we should adopt the same length of time to entitle to the exercise of the right of suffrage; but twenty or thirty days he took to be too long. Many persons were under the impression that they were not entitled to vote until they are subject to be called upon to do militia duty, and there appeared to be something of an analogy between the two cases, that a man should be entitled to vote at the same time that he would be called upon to perform militia duty. He had merely risen to state, that he was in favor of a residence of some length of time, in the district in which the citizen was to vote, and he thought ten days the most proper time which we could adopt.

twenty days, and decided in the negative-yeas, 40; nays, 67; as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Agnew, Barndollar, Bayne, Biddle, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crum, Darlington, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Gearhart, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinison, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Thomas, Sergeant, President-40. NAYS.-Messrs. Ayres, Banks, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indlana, Cleavinger, Cox, Crain, Cumming, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hyde, Kennedy, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, Weaver, White, Woodward, Young-67.

So the question wes determined in the negative.

The question then recurred on filling the blank with ten days.

Mr. MANN hoped this motion would not prevail. He was opposed to filling the blank with ten days, or any other number above three, if any time at all was necessary. It v I was most certainly a restriction upon the right of suffrage, and this argument got up, of an analogy between this and the provision, declaring, that no one should be called upon to perform militia duty, until he had resided ten days in the district, was utterly fallacious. There was no analogy between the cases at all. We have a great many young men, day laborers and mechanics, on whom this provision would operate extremely hard. If a young man passes from one district to another within three or four days of the election, although he may be as capable of exercising the right of an elector, and as competent to judge of the candidates as any man in the district, he is deprived of his vote. He hoped this amendment might be rejected, and that no number would be inserted exceeding three days.

Mr. PURVIANCE rose for the purpose of appealing to reformers, and asking them whether it was their intention to impose restrictions on the right of suffrage, instead of enlarging and extending it. It did appear to him that this amendment imposed restrictions, such as had never been called for by the people, and was not desired by them. We have heard from gentlemen here, who appear to know the will of their constituents, that those constituents have made no complaint with regard to this provision in the Constitution. If this was the case, he would ask those gentlemen, whether they were going to impose additional restrictions on the right o suffrage. We have already adopted an amendment by which we require a residence of one year before a person is entitled to vote; and further, we have confined the voters within their own counties, and now gentlemen ask us to go further, and impose a restriction of ten days on voters moving from one election district to another. He, therefore, hoped that the friends of reform would not support any measure tending to place restrictions on the right of suffrage, which have not been called for by the people.

Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, said the effect of the amendment would be to entitle a casual visitor, who may reside in the county or borough ten days, and not intending to remain there a day longer, to a vote. This

voters.

He thought we had better adhere to the old Constitution in this

particular. Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, presumed that the gentleman from Crawford was mistaken. Gentlemen travelling do not gain a residence at all.

Mr. HEISTER, of Lancaster, said that an amendment had already been incorporated in the Constitution, providing that no man shall vote unless he actually resides in the place where the election is held. People in the city of Philadelphia, as was well known, generally remove on the first of October. This restriction, then, of ten days' residence, which he would vote for, would give an opportunity to those who removed into other districts, of becoming known by the third Tuesday in October, when the election takes place. The gentleman from Butler (Mr. PURVIANCE) had said that he did not know that the people required any restriction of this sort. He (Mr. H.) knew that in his own neighborhood, great complaints had been made, and that they desire this restriction; for, in some places, men are allowed to vote who have no residence. He regarded it as very important to fix a definite period for a residence. He, therefore, trusted that the amendment would prevail.

The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas, 59; nays, 48-as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lencaster, Reigart, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Sergeant, President-59.

NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavinger. Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Sellers, Scheetz, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Taggart, Weaver, White, Young-48.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. MERRILL, as amended; which was agreed to.

A division being demanded, there appeared ayes, 61; noes, 41.

The question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. BELL, aş amended:

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved that the committee rise, and afterwards withdrew the motion.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, remarked, that the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. MERRILL) had deprived that of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST) of all its advantages. The amendment of the gentleman from Union would take away more votes than it would give. He would ask for a division of the proposition, so as to take a vote on each branch.

The CHAIR decided, that under the circumstances of the case, the question was not divisible.

Mr. STERIGERE replied, that he had known divisions to be made on amendments, like these, involving different principles. Having asserted