In his opinion, a residence of six months did not furnish sufficient evidence of the intention of a person to remain in the State, not as sojourners, but as permanent residents. It was well known that many persons come into this State in April, and remain till October, and then return to New York, Maryland, or any other State. They come not here with the intention of remaining. Now, those who came from other States. and were engaged on the public works of Pennsylvania, and remained here a couple of years, might fairly be presumed to have taken up their residence with us, and they would be entitled to vote. Their agreeing to pay a tax would also be further evidence that they considered themselves citizens of the Commonwealth; and were willing to contribute to the support of the Government. He prefered the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, to that of the gentleman from the ccounty of Philadelphia, because the latter required too short a term of residence, notwithstanding it was accompanied by a tax.

With regard to foreigners, the laws of the United States required other qualifications than those of the State. They had to be a period of years in the United States, and must also be naturalized. In addition to those requirements, the State of Pennsylvania required residence within her borders of a year. One year was a sufficient time, and, coupled with the exhibition of a disposition to contribute to the public burthens, by the payment of a tax, should entitle any one to participate with us in all the rights of citizenship.

In some of the States, the qualifications necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise were very different from what they are here. So, also, was the policy of many of the States. In New England, emigration is not to the States, but from the States. People were going to the West. And the object of the Western States being to obtain population, their laws were framed accordingly. What, he inquired, had been done in the State of New York? Why, they had required a residence of one year in the city, as well as six months in the country, besides the payment of a tax in New York. The requirements under the Constitution of the State of New York, are greater than was now proposed to be imposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton. In Ohio and Delaware, the payment of a tax was required among other things. So far, then, as we had the opinions of framers of State Constitutions of a similar character to our own, they were decidedly in favor of a residence and tax.

Residence and the payment of a tax, as he had already observed, were evidence of a man's right to participate in the Government. The payment of a tax, answered the purpose of a registry. He thought that a registry should be kept, but not for the sake of keeping one. When a man paid a tax towards the purposes of Government, it did not look as if he did it as an act of mere form, and upon the registry we had his name. Entertaining these views, he felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, and against that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that it was personally gratifying to him to know, that after a discussion of more than a week, a large majority of the committee had, at last, brought themselves to the determination of supporting his proposition, if he might be allowed to call it so, or rather that of the

bantling a proposition of his (Mr. BELL'S.) He, however, had not risen to take charge of it-for he knew that it was, at present, in much better hands than it was originally; and he was sure that the gentleman would secure for it many other votes. He had risen to reply to some of the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. CHAMBERS). That gentleman had refered to the qualification of voters in other States in order to show that in most of them more than six months' residence is required, and taxation. And, he had argued, that the only reason why a residence was demanded, was, that it was an evidence of a man's intention to become a citizen of this State. Now, he (Mr. B.) would ask, if it was at all probable that any one would come from another State, leave his home and his fireside, merely for the purpose of voting at our elections? And, not only that, but also to pay a tax? If these, then, were the only reasons which could be assigned for the necessity of making the term of residence of a voter so long, than there was an end of the matter. He would state, that when Pennsylvania amended her penal code in 1794, by making its provisions more wild and insecure, objections were urged against modifying, or diminishing the punishment in many violations of the law, on the ground that the punishment was equally as severe in a vast number of the States. Pennsylvania, and it did her high honor, took the lead in revising and moderating the severity of her criminal laws. He hoped, that with respect to her elective franchise, she would, instead of restricting, do every thing to extend that invaluable privilege to her citizens. He trusted that we should soon see the day, when every State in the Union would adopt the policy of admitting their fellow-citizens of their sister States to a full participation in the rights of citizenship upon very short residence.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he was opposed to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, because they retained the tax qualifi cation. He entertained the opinion that the time of residence contained no principle; and the requirement of a tax qualification in order to give the right to vote, was contrary to the spirit and genius of the Government. He trusted that the proposition would be voted down. He was indifferent as to the shape of the section so that the tax qualification was abolished. Identity of residence was all that was sought for by a majori ty; and he would be willing to require a residence of ten days' in the district, doing away with the tax qualification. That would be as great an extension of the right of suffrage as any one could desire. A year's residence had been objected to on the ground that it threw an impediment in the way of emigration to the State. He considered a year's residence in the State necessary. He thought a year's residence would be a sufficient time to enable a 'person to become acquainted with our policy. But six months' residence was too short a time to identify the interests of an individual with those of this Commonwealth, and to enable him to possess himself of that degree of local information, which was necessary to the intelligent discharge of the duties of a voter. The great inducement held out for emigration to the new States was, that there was no tax qualification, and more especially of a six months' residence. But, then, it was to be recollected that the new States were very differently situated from the old, in many respects, and that they were desirous of improving their territory and obtaining a population. Pennsylvania expected but little in

In his opinion, a residence of six months did not furnish sufficient evidence of the intention of a person to remain in the State, not as sojourners, but as permanent residents. It was well known that many persons come into this State in April, and remain till October, and then return to New York, Maryland, or any other State. They come not here with the intention of remaining. Now, those who came from other States, and were engaged on the public works of Pennsylvania, and remained here a couple of years, might fairly be presumed to have taken up their residence with us, and they would be entitled to vote. Their agreeing to pay a tax would also be further evidence that they considered themselves citizens of the Commonwealth; and were willing to contribute to the support of the Government. He prefered the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, to that of the gentleman from the ccounty of Philadelphia, because the latter required too short a term of residence, notwithstanding it was accompanied by a tax.

With regard to foreigners, the laws of the United States required other qualifications than those of the State. They had to be a period of years in the United States, and must also be naturalized. In addition to those requirements, the State of Pennsylvania required residence within her borders of a year. One year was a sufficient time, and, coupled with the exhibition of a disposition to contribute to the public burthens, by the payment of a tax, should entitle any one to participate with us in all the rights of citizenship.

In some of the States, the qualifications necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise were very different from what they are here. So, also, was the policy of many of the States. In New England, emigration is not to the States, but from the States. People were going to the West. And the object of the Western States being to obtain population, their laws were framed accordingly. What, he inquired, had been done in the State of New York? Why, they had required a residence of one year in the city, as well as six months in the country, besides the payment of a tax in New York. The requirements under the Constitution of the State of New York, are greater than was now proposed to be imposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton. In Ohio and Delaware, the payment of a tax was required among other things. So far, then, as we had the opinions of framers of State Constitutions of a similar character to our own, they were decidedly in favor of a residence and tax.

Residence and the payment of a tax, as he had already observed, were evidence of a man's right to participate in the Government. The payment of a tax, answered the purpose of a registry. He thought that a registry should be kept, but not for the sake of keeping one. When a man paid a tax towards the purposes of Government, it did not look as if he did it as an act of mere form, and upon the registry we had his name. Entertaining these views, he felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, and against that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that it was personally gratifying to him to know, that after a discussion of more than a week, a large majority of the committee had, at last, brought themselves to the determination of supporting his proposition, if he might be allowed to call it so, or rather that of the

bantling-a proposition of his (Mr. BELL'S.) He, however, had not risen to take charge of it-for he knew that it was, at present, in much better hands than it was originally; and he was sure that the gentleman would secure for it many other votes. He had risen to reply to some of the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. CHAMBERS). That gentleman had refered to the qualification of voters in other States in order to show that in most of them more than six months' residence is required, and taxation. And, he had argued, that the only reason why a residence was demanded, was, that it was an evidence of a man's intention to become a citizen of this State. Now, he (Mr. B.) would ask, if it was at all probable that any one would come from another State, leave his home and his fireside, merely for the purpose of voting at our elections? And, not only that, but also to pay a tax? If these, then, were the only reasons which could be assigned for the necessity of making the term of residence of a voter so long, than there was an end of the matter. He would state, that when Pennsylvania amended her penal code in 1794, by making its provisions more wild and insecure, objections were urged against modifying, or diminishing the punishment in many violations of the law, on the ground that the punishment was equally as severe in a vast number of the States. Pennsylvania, and it did her high honor, took the lead in revising and moderating the severity of her criminal laws. He hoped, that with respect to her elective franchise, she would, instead of restricting, do every thing to extend that invaluable privilege to her citizens. He trusted that we should soon see the day, when every State in the Union would adopt the policy of admitting their fellow-citizens of their sister States to a full participation in the rights of citizenship upon very

short residence.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he was opposed to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, because they retained the tax qualifi cation. He entertained the opinion that the time of residence contained no principle; and the requirement of a tax qualification in order to give the right to vote, was contrary to the spirit and genius of the Government. He trusted that the proposition would be voted down. He was indifferent as to the shape of the section so that the tax qualification was abolished. Identity of residence was all that was sought for by a majority; and he would be willing to require a residence of ten days' in the district, doing away with the tax qualification. That would be as great an extension of the right of suffrage as any one could desire. A year's residence had been objected to on the ground that it threw an impediment in way of emigration to the State. He considered a year's residence in the State necessary. He thought a year's residence would be a sufficient time to enable a 'person to become acquainted with our policy. But six months' residence was too short a time to identify the interests of an individual with those of this Commonwealth, and to enable him to possess himself of that degree of local information, which was necessary to the intelligent discharge of the duties of a voter. The great inducement held out for emigration to the new States was, that there was no tax qualification, and more especially of a six months' residence. But, then, it was to be recollected that the new States were very differently situated from the old, in many respects, and that they were desirous of improving their territory and obtaining a population. Pennsylvania expected but little in

the

In his opinion, a residence of six months did not furnish sufficient evidence of the intention of a person to remain in the State, not as sojourners, but as permanent residents. It was well known that many persons come into this State in April, and remain till October, and then return to New York, Maryland, or any other State. They come not here with the intention of remaining. Now, those who came from other States. and were engaged on the public works of Pennsylvania, and remained here a couple of years, might fairly be presumed to have taken up their residence with us, and they would be entitled to vote. Their agreeing to pay a tax would also be further evidence that they considered themselves citizens of the Commonwealth; and were willing to contribute to the support of the Government. He prefered the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, to that of the gentleman from the ccounty of Philadelphia, because the latter required too short a term of residence, notwithstanding it was accompanied by a tax.

With regard to foreigners, the laws of the United States required other qualifications than those of the State. They had to be a period of years in the United States, and must also be naturalized. In addition to those requirements, the State of Pennsylvania required residence within her borders of a year. One year was a sufficient time, and, coupled with the exhibition of a disposition to contribute to the public burthens, by the payment of a tax, should entitle any one to participate with us in all the rights of citizenship.

In some of the States, the qualifications necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise were very different from what they are here. So, also, was the policy of many of the States. In New England, emigration is not to the States, but from the States. People were going to the West. And the object of the Western States being to obtain population, their laws were framed accordingly. What, he inquired, had been done in the State of New York? Why, they had required a residence of one year in the city, as well as six months in the country, besides the payment of a tax in New York. The requirements under the Constitution of the State of New York, are greater than was now proposed to be imposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton. In Ohio and Delaware, the payment of a tax was required among other things. So far, then, as we had the opinions of framers of State Constitutions of a similar character to our own, they were decidedly in favor of a residence and tax.

Residence and the payment of a tax, as he had already observed, were evidence of a man's right to participate in the Government. The payment of a tax, answered the purpose of a registry. He thought that a registry should be kept, but not for the sake of keeping one. When a

man paid a tax towards the purposes of Government, it did not look as if he did it as an act of mere form, and upon the registry we had his name. Entertaining these views, he felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, and against that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that it was personally gratifying to him to know, that after a discussion of more than a week, a large majority of the committee had, at last, brought themselves to the determination of supporting his proposition, if he might be allowed to call it so, or rather that of the