voters from controling their elections? He thought they would not. He was of opinion that they ought to leave to the Legislature power to grant relief for grievances, as may hereafter be necessary. And, what was the argument of the gentleman from Northampton? Why, he had contended that the amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill of Rights, and that the registry act was unconstitutional and inconsistent, because it was set forth in the Bill of Rights, "that all elections shal! be free and equal". The gentleman might be correct; but he (Mr. D.) would not admit, for a moment, inasmuch as he was not then prepared to decide the question, that either the registry law, or any law, was unconstitutional. By no means. He could not agree with the gentleman, that registering a man's name and residence as a qualified voter, was casting a blemish on his reputation. It was merely the evidence of his having been assessed, and of his right to vote. He (Mr. DARLINGTON) was not able to perceive that the registry law was more inconsistent, than any thing else which the Legislature might see fit to prescribe.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said that he agreed with the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. PORTER) that the language of the Bill of Rights was, "that the elections shall be free and equal", and that the object of that declaration was to prevent the improper exercise of the elective franchise. It sometimes became necessary for the Legislature to pass laws to preserve the freedom and equality of the elections, to carry out the provisions of the Constitution, by guarding the rights guaranteed to the people. Now, the object of passing the registry law was to prevent the repetition of those frauds which had been commited by both political parties in the city and county of Philadelphia, and which rendered the elections of the whole State unequal. To guard the rights of the people, and to make the elections "free and equal", the Legislature passed the registry law-and it was not only a wholesome law, but perfectly Constitutional. The gentleman from Northampton had argued that the rule which would prescribe this registry law as applicable to the city and county of Philadelphia, would make it so to every other part of the State. Now, he (Mr. D.) would ask the gentleman, why, according to that rule, the polls should be kept open a longer time in Philadelphia, than in any other part of the State ¿ The gentleman could not have forgotten that fact. However, it was merely a law to regulate the mode of election. Other laws regulating the manner of elections in the city and elsewhere, had frequently been passed. In the country, the elections commenced at ten o'clock. In the city, the polls opened at eight. Was this regulation unconstitutional? Were any laws unconstitutional, which prescribed different modes and different places and times of receiving votes, unconstitutional because they do not apply to the whole State? He should like to see the thing tested. Let them bring the question before the Supreme Court. They would then find their mistake.

i

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said the delegate from Northampton has told us that the act of 1835-6, is a palpable violation of the Constitution, and this position he attempts to sustain by calling to his aid the fifth section of the Bill of Rights, which declares that "elections shall be free and equal". In taking this position, the delegate seems to be peculiarly unfortunate; there does not seem to be the slightest analogy. This section does

delegate have told us that the Legislature have no right to create a new election district, or to enlarge or decrease the boundaries of an old one. Such legislation would not certainly be said to be unconstitutional. I apprehend that even the microscopic eye of that delegate could not point it out. What does this act provide for? Does it add any new qualification not provided for in the Constitution? Does the act in question superadd the payment of any taxes not enjoined by the Constitution? But what, sir, does the act in question provide for? Not that any elector Constitutionally qualified to vote shall be disfranchised; not that the elector must possess himself of other qualifications not provided for in the Constitution; but simply, sir, that the name of such elector shall appear in a certain register, which is to be made and kept of the voters of the wards, townships, and districts in the county of Philadelphia. Does this, sir, make the elections less free and equal than they were previous to the passage of that act? These registers, by the provisions of that act, are to be published for some time previous to the election, and put up for the inspection of electors in the most public places (in the midst of a dense population) in the several wards and districts, so that the act seems to be one of detail altogether, without conflicting with any Constitutional principle whatever. It keeps no elector from coming to the polls. On the contrary, every man has a much better opportunity of securing his vote than under the old system. By inspecting the registry which stares him in the face at every corner of the public streets in his ward or district, he may be certain that it contains his name; and if it does not, he may rectify the mistake with great convenience to himself.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, said, that the gentleman from Chester had talked about petitions that were sent to the Legislature from the city and county of Philadelphia, for the registry act. He (Mr. E.) denied that they had sent any petitions. The fact of the matter was, that the representatives from the counties of Chester and Lancaster, imposed upon the people of Philadelphia this law. The gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. REIGART) had admited, that if the registry law imposed any qualifications, it was a violation of the Constitution. And, the gentleman from Chester had contended, that the Legislature had a right to require a different mode of proof, but not a different qualification, and that the registry was only proof that the citizen had a right to vote. The Constitutional time for proof was on the day of election. If proof was required at another time, it was a new qualification unknown to the Constitution. Take the case of a seaman, who might sail out of Philadelphia, following his occupation, before the time of the registry. That he should return home from his voyage to New Orleans, Charleston, or Boston, on or near the day of the election. The assessor, about three weeks before the election, puts up the notice, and in ten days thereafter all voters, not included in the notice, must appear before him, and prove their qualifications. And, if they did not do so, the inspectors were prohibited from receiving their votes on the day of the election. The seaman would go to the polls, and not be permited to vote, although qualified according to the very letter of the statute, because he had not proved his qualifications so many days before the election. And, thus this man lost his vote, in conseqnence of the registry act. So a man, who should become qualified, by living in the State two

election, such a man would lose his vote unconstitutionally. A man, too, who should neglect to pay his taxes, until within a week of the election, and no man is, in order to vote, by the Constitution, to pay them sooner, loses his vote. The operation of the law is unjust and unconstitutional.

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, said it was not his intention to detain the committee, at this time, by any argument; but, as a citizen of Philadelphia, he felt himself bound to state that, from an extensive knowledge of the views and opinions of the inhabitants of that city, on the subject, he believed that the registry law was very popular with a large majority of them. His opinion was, that its practical operation had been, not to exclude voters from the polls, but to facilitate voting, and promote tranquility at elections. The two or three elections, preceding the passage of the registry law, were disgraced by tumult and violence, and by the exclusion of peaceful voters, and those since held, had been as much distinguished for quietness and order.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said, that the adoption of the amendment would introduce no new principle into the Constitution. The same principle was contained now in the Bill of Rights, and in the case which had been mentioned, that principle had, in no respect, been violated. Some gentlemen here seemed to take great delight in attacking the Legislature for having passed certain acts, when they happened to be in a minority at the time, and thus travel out of the record to transcend the powers of this body. He would maintain, that there was no soundness in the doctrine contended for, that the registry act was unconstitutional. He denied that it, or any other which they had passed, was of that character. What, he enquired, was the registry act? It was an act, which simply pointed out the mode of ascertaining who were entitled to the elective franchise, within a particular district, and the manner in which the election should be held.It added nothing to the qualification of voters--it took away no man's right. The gentleman from Beaver had well said, that several laws had, from time to time, been passed, regulating the elections in that city, and passed, too, in the hey-day of the power of the exclusive friends of free dom. Before this registry law was passed, although gentlemen now seemed to be ignorant of the fact, disturbances, outrages, turbulence, violence, and bloodshed, pervaded the city on the day of election. Men were shot, and murder was perpetrated in the streets. Every one knows the fact-the newspapers of all parties gave the sickening details at the time. For the purpose of preventing such disgraceful scenes, and to give the honest voters a chance to record their votes, and to prevent those who had no right to vote, the registry law was passed. It happened to be passed by a Legislature opposed to them in politics, and this was the only reason why they objected to it. That was enough to stamp it with infamy in their opinion. It was sufficient cause for their opposition that it was not passed by themselves.

There might be many reasons adduced why a registry law should be in operation in Philadelphia, which would not apply to the county of Adams. Now, he would ask, what was the practical operation of that law in the State of Massachusetts? Why, registry was passed for the city of Boston, while it was not used in the country. There was nothing wrong in it. The people in cities required different regulations from those

And what, he would enquire, was done by the New York Convention ? In the Convention which assembled in the State of New York, a few years since, to revise the Constitution, a proposition was submited to insert a clause in the new Constitution, giving the Legislature power to pass a registry act.

Dared

Was it done by those who were not Democrats? Mr. VAN Buren, who was a member of that Convention, as will be seen by the Register of Debates, said that "there was no reason for inserting such a clause, because a registry of votes was NO PART OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A VOTER". Now, what would these gentlemen say? they? Would they impugn the sentiments of Mr. VAN BUREN? They dared not do it! They might as well be hanged. Mr. VAN BUREN had settled the question about the Constitutionalty, and we should hear no more about it. "No part of the qualification of an elector", says Mr. VAN BUREN. This, then, was high authority, andsettled this question. His supporters dare not call his opinion in question.

Mr. PORTER here gave way for a motion to adjourn, and

On motion of Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster,

The Convention adjourned till 4 o'clock.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, 4 O'CLOCK.

The committee 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 second division of the amendment of Mr. STERIGERE to the amendment.

Mr. PORTER resumed "There was, in one of the Latin authors which he read at school, a sentiment-"Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri"-which he had adopted and practised on through life. The idea conveyed by this sentiment might be expressed in English in the familiar phrase " I never pin my faith on any man's sleeve "; and this would be a sufficient reason why I should not adopt the sentiment ascribed by the gentleman from Adams to the distinguished citizen now at the head of our national affairs, unless it met my own approbation. But there really must be some hopes of reformation for that delegate, since he begins to quote from so good a source. It is to be hoped that all the acts of the gentleman quoted will equally meet the approbation of the delegate from Adams. I do not, however, understand that individual to have asserted, that even if the Legislature had the power to prescribe the registration of voters, they would have a right, under such a Constitutional provision as we have, to declare that such registry should be the only and conclusive evidence of the right or want of right of the citizens to vote. I have, however, in my professional advocations, been so much in the habit of consulting the opinions of the aged, the learned, and the experienced, that I seldom come to a conclusion on any subject without examination, consultation, and reflection; and this course I have pursued in relation to the matter now before the committee.

I understand the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY) as well as the

prescribed no new qualification to the voters of the city and district it merely regulated the evidence by which the right under the Const is to be established: and the former gentleman has asked whether which directs the elections in the city of Philadelphia to be opened earlier hour in the day, than is provided for the rest of the State, unconstitutional? I answer him that it is not; because it places triction in the way of the voter exercising his right; it merely give a little more time, that the right may be freely and fully exercised it conflicts with no provision of the Constitution: it is an analogou vision to those which create convenient election districts.

The latter gentleman (Mr. REIGART) says, that nothing in the v argument has been adduced to show the unconstitutionality of the question-nothing but bare assertion. I have no desire to go into t tails of this act: I had not intended to do so: but as the gentleman Lancaster is an old friend of mine, and one who will, no doubt, feel gratified in being convinced on this subject, I will, even unwilling about the work for his edification. [Mr. PORTER here went into an ination of the several sections, from section eighteen to section five, of the act passed, June 16, 1836, showing the restrictions it im and how different they were from the provisions of the general el law, and how much more onerous].

Mr. PORTER said this act was entitled "An act for the regulation of tion districts, and for OTHER purposes". These cabalistic words, other purposes", like charity, covered a multitude of sins, ar where more than in this act. It was one of the log-rolling acts wh late years had grown into fashion in legislation, and which it was time to put a stop to. This act commenced with establishing some tion districts, and changing the houses at which certain elections held. It then proceeded with the registering provisions, and provi for paying for property destroyed by mobs-next treated of city and c loans, and the drawing of orders on the treasury-then it created con sioners of a certain sinking fund-directed the election of city and c treasurer-then erects another election district-then directs the con sioners of Indiana county to execute a certain deed-then treats of bo elections in the borough of Indiana, and the settlement of the boroug counts; and after a repealing clause of all conflicting laws, winds up a provision, no doubt introduced by the gentleman from Somerset, Cox) for changing the route of a State road in his county. In thi podrida are found the unconstitutional provisions of which I comp The effect of this law is to restrain and restrict the right of suffrage. not to be disguised, for the fact is unquestionable, that one of the le characteristics of distinction between the two great and leading po parties of this country, when we had parties formed on principle, wa fact that the federal party was for restraining the right of suffrage restricting the rights of the people; while the democratic party w giving the largest extent to the exercise of the right of suffrage, an greatest latitude to the rights of the people. This act was, in my ment, passed to carry out the sentiments of those who do not wis right of suffrage extended to all. Such, I am satisfied, was the obj its author. It was got up for political purposes, to produce politic