mited, because it would prevent them. The registry law was a contested party matter, and so certain as parties changed, it would be repealed.— Then if gentlemen's sole object was to have justice and fairness in the elections, they ought to have some Constitutional provision to secure that justice and fairness, and he conceived that this proposition was the most proper mode of securing that desirable object. It has been said in the debates in this Convention, that difficulties have arisen at elections, owing to the partialities of inspectors and election officers. Now, this partiality was a weakness of human nature, from which it was at times almost impossible for the most honest men to divest themselves. We all know, when a vote is presented, that an election officer knows to be on his own side, which can generally be told by the artifice of colored tickets, and other means resorted to for that purpose, he does not scrutinize it so close as he would that of an opponent, and thus the vote of his political friend is received when he is not entitled to a vote, while that of his opponent may be rejected when he is clearly entitled to the right of voting. This provision then, will secure to the minority in almost every case, one inspector and one clerk. These inspectors and clerks of the minority party would have the opportunity of objecting to receiving the votes of voters who are not qualified, and persons, who it was supposed, had not resided in the district long enough, could be put upon oath, which would generally prevent such persons from voting; as he believed, the reason why most of the votes of persons who voted when they had not resided long enough in the district, were given without their being required to take an oath. Another object to be attained by this amendment, was, that it secured fairness and justice in the counting of the votes, as both parties would have the opportunity of counting them. Upon every principle of equity and justice, he considered this to be proper and correct. When one citizen sells an article of produce to another, both parties are always admited to see the article measured or weighed. Then when two parties come together to try their strength, was it fair or just that one of those parties should have the sole privilege of counting the votes given, and of saying who was the strongest? Why, according to every principle of justice and common sense, it must be admited, that both parties should have a voice in the counting and deciding upon this question. It was not only desirable that this should be the course pursued to preserve purity in our elections, but also to make oth parties content with the result. It would be a very desirable object that the votes in the county of Philadelphia, and every other county, should be fairly taken; and when fairly taken, it was desirable to make the citizens content and satisfied that they were fairly taken and counted, and if a provision of this kind was introduced into the Constitution, the votes will be fairly taken, and the people will be content. It appeared to him, that if the party to which he belonged were in the majority, and should be unwilling to permit the party in the minority to witness the counting of the votes at an election, they would, by that act, be saying that they desired to commit a fraud; so with the other party, if they should be the strongest, they in effect would be saying, by refusing the minority to witness a count of the votes, that they desired to commit a fraud. But, he trusted neither party desired this as a general rule, although frauds might be commited by particular persons, on particular occasions, by both

might be necessary to have three, while in others, one would be necessary, but the Legislature could provide for their appointment hereafter. in such manner as they deemed best, and provide for the appointment of the appropriate number in the different counties. Where there is but one judge to be appointed, the Legislature may give the appointment to the inspector having the highest number of votes, and then the strongest party would have three election officers, and the other party two; where there are two to be uppointed, they could give the appointment of one judge to each inspector, which would generally give the parties an equal division of officers: and where three judges were to be appointed, the appointment of two of them might be given to the inspector having the highest number of votes, and one to the inspector having the next highest number, which would give the party in the majority four election officers, and the other party three. He had heard a good deal said in private conversation, as well as on this floor, against going into legislation upon the Constitution. Why, your, whole Constitution is legislation, and nothing but legislation. It was legislation upon the mode of organizing your Government, and it was legislation as to the manuer of conducting your elections; and he considered it proper legislation here, where it went to guard against infringements upon the rights of the people. Wherever the matter related to the general organization of the Government, it was proper to insert it in the Constitution, and whenever it was intended to guard against evils to be apprehended from the Legislature, or from the improper discharge of the duties of an officer elected by the people, it was proper to insert it in the Constitution. He thought, this objection might as well apply to every other matter in the Constitution as to this. The simple question then ought to be, will this amendment prevent the evils which we have heard so much complained about here. He had no doubt it would; and he believed if an amendment of this kind was not adopted, there would be a continual contest between the friends of the registry law, and those opposed to it. One party will adopt it one year, and on the next it will be repealed if parties change. The gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. FORWARD) the other day, had observed, that a few illegal votes in a county might turn the scale, not only of officers for that county, but also for Governor. This being the case, the people of the county must feel a great interest in the elections being conducted in a legal and proper manner, and this proposition would have the effect to preserve the purity of the elections. He could see no objections to this amendment, but if gentlemen had any, and would state them, he would argue the question with them.

Mr. DARLINGTON then moved to fill the blank in the amendment with "the fourth of July", which motion was disagreed to.

Mr. EARLE then moved to fill the blank with "the third Friday in March", which was agreed to.

The yeas and nays were then ordered on the motion to amend, on the call of Mr. EARLE.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayne, Bigelow, Brown of Philadelphia, Butler, Coates, Cummin, Earle, Foulkrod, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hiester, Konigmacher, Martin, M'Cahon, M'Dowell, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Read, Smith, Stickel, Thomas, Young-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle,

Clark of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crum, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson of Allegheny, Henderson of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Ke'm, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Myers, Pollock, Porter of Lancaster, Porter of Northamp ton, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Royer, Russell. Saeger, Scott. Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, 8mvth, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, White, Woodward, Seargeant, President-78.

The report of the committee, recommending that no amendment be made, to the second and third sections, was agreed to.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, wished to amend the report, by adding thereto the following new section, viz:

SECTION 4. Laws may be passed, excluding from the right of suffrage persons who may have been, or may be convicted of infamous crimes. Laws shall be made for ascertaining by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage, hereby established; and the Legislature shall provide, by law, that a register of all citizens entitled to the right of suffrage in every election district, or ward, shall be made at least ten days before any election, and shall provide, that no person shall vote, at any election who shall not be registered as a citizen qualified to vote at such election.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, asked for a division of the question, as he wished the question on the first paragraph, separately taken.

Mr. DICKEY briefly stated his reasons for pressing this amendment. The two first paragraphs, were from the New York Constitution, putting it in the power of the Legislature, to disqualify convicts for infamous crimes, and to ascertain the character of the proof of qualification. Believing it all-important, to secure the purity of elections, he had provided, in the amendment, that all persons should be registered, ten days before any election. The amendment agreed to, was not quite so extensive, as he wished it to be. By the enactment of a registry law, it would be made the duty of proper officers, to take every name, so that no one could be deprived of his vote, if he desired to exercise his right. He did not desire that the benefit of this mode should be confined to the city and county of Philadelphia. He would make it the duty of the Legislature to establish it as a general principle.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the amendment, by inserting, after the word "crimes", the words "and black, and colored people."

Mr. M. said, he hoped the gentleman from Beaver, would not desire him, (Mr. M.) to be registered in company with blacks.

The question being taken on Mr. MARTIN's amendment, it was rejected. Mr. HEISTER, of Lancaster, moved to amend the amendment, by inserting after the word "crimes," the words "and persons declared non com putes mentis, lunatics, or habitual drunkards, so long, as they shall be under the guardianship, that is, or may be provided for by law, in such

cases.

ment.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, doubted the propriety of adopting the amendHe thought the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY) went far enough, and he had no objection to it, at all, in excluding from the right of suffrage, those who have, or may be, convicted of

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Beaver, and also that offered by the delegate from Lancaster, were very important, and should not be disposed of, without full, and deliberate consideration. He would therefore, move, that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative.

A division being demanded, there appeared-Ayes, 52-Noes, 35. The committee then rose and reported progress; and the Convention then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1837.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial from the citizens of the city of Philadelphia, praying for a Constitutional interdict against the passage of any laws creating lotteries, which was laid on the table.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, submited the following resolution, which was laid on the table:

Resolved, That the Convention do adjourn on Saturday, the first of July next, to meet again on Thursday, the twenty-seventh of July.

Mr. SILL submitted the following resolution, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the use of this Hall be granted to-morrow evening, for the purpose of hearing a Lecture from Mr. HOLBROOK, on the best means of supplying the Schools in Pennsylvania, with qualified instructors.

Mr. MEREDITH submited the following resolution, which was laid on the table:

Resolved, That the resolution passed on the 12th instant, rescinding so much of the twenty-third rule, as forbids the previous question in committee of the whole, be rescinded.

Mr. COPE presented a report from the committee of accounts, which was read twice, and agreed to.

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. HEISTER, to amend the amendment of Mr. MARTIN, by inserting after the word "crimes", the words and persons declared non compotes mentis, lunatics, or habitual drunkards, so long as they shall be under the guardianship, that is, or may be, provided by law in such cases".

Mr. HIESTER modified his motion, so as to read as follows, viz:

"And also, persons declared to be non compotes mentis, lunatics, or habitual drunkards".

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he had hesitated before he had offered his amendment, for he knew the committee were weary. But he was satisfied that something like a registry was necessary to ensure the purity of elections, and prevent frauds. That consideration induced him, yesterday,

Clark of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crum, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson of Allegheny, Henderson of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Myers, Pollock, Porter of Lancaster, Porter of Northamp ton, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Royer, Russell. Saeger, Scott. Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, 8mvth, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, White, Woodward, Seargeant, President—78.

The report of the committee, recommending that no amendment be made, to the second and third sections, was agreed to.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, wished to amend the report, by adding thereto the following new section, viz:

SECTION 4. Laws may be passed, excluding from the right of suffrage persons who may have been, or may be convicted of infamous crimes. Laws shall be made for ascertaining by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage, hereby established; and the Legislature shall provide, by law, that a register of all citizens entitled to the right of suffrage in every election district, or ward, shall be made at least ten days before any election, and shall provide, that no person shall vote, at any election who shall not be registered as a citizen qualified to vote at such election.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, asked for a division of the question, as he wished the question on the first paragraph, separately taken.

Mr. DICKEY briefly stated his reasons for pressing this amendment. The two first paragraphs, were from the New York Constitution, putting it in the power of the Legislature, to disqualify convicts for infamous crimes, and to ascertain the character of the proof of qualification. Believing it all-important, to secure the purity of elections, he had provided, in the amendment, that all persons should be registered, ten days before any election. The amendment agreed to, was not quite so extensive, as he wished it to be. By the enactment of a registry law, it would be made the duty of proper officers, to take every name, so that no one could be deprived of his vote, if he desired to exercise his right. He did not desire that the benefit of this mode should be confined to the city and county of Philadelphia. He would make it the duty of the Legislature to establish it as a general principle.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the amendment, by inserting, after the word "crimes", the words "and black, and colored people."

Mr. M. said, he hoped the gentleman from Beaver, would not desire him, (Mr. M.) to be registered in company with blacks.

The question being taken on Mr. MARTIN'S amendment, it was rejected. Mr. HEISTER, of Lancaster, moved to amend the amendment, by inserting after the word "crimes," the words "and persons declared non computes mentis, lunatics, or habitual drunkards, so long, as they shall be under the guardianship, that is, or may be provided for by law, in such

cases.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, doubted the propriety of adopting the amend ment. He thought the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY) went far enough, and he had no objection to it, at all, in excluding from the right of suffrage, those who have, or may be, convicted of