of understanding this rule, hereafter, and of giving it the most liberal construction, he would go with the gentleman from Susquehanna, and against the decision of the CHAIR.

Mr. HASTINGS enquired, whether, if the amendment to the amendment should be rejected, we should not be back exactly where we started two days ago.

The CHAIR answered in the affirmative.

Mr. HASTINGS then enquired, if the amendment was sustained, whether there would not then have to be another question taken upon it.

The CHAIR said this had, heretofore, been the course pursued.

Mr. HASTINGS said he should then vote to sustain the decision of the CHAIR.

Mr. READ: If this amendment which I have proposed, cannot be moved now, when will it be in order?

The CHAIR said he had no feeling on this question, and should content himself by merely stating the question to the committee. The motion was not decided out of order, because it was proposed as an amendment to the amendment as adopted, but because it went to destroy a part of the amendment adopted by the committee. The gentleinan from Susquehanna had moved to strike out a part of the amendment adopted by the committee yesterday and insert the proposition which had been read by the Clerk. The CHAIR had decided this to be out of order, and from this decision an appeal had been taken. The question, then, would be, shall the decision of the CHAIR stand as the judgment of the House?

The question was then taken, and the decision of the Chair affirmedyeas, 72; nays, 45-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Biddle, Brown of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Donagan, Fry, Gamble, Gearhart, Harris, Hastings, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Mann, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Scheetz, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, White, Young, Sergeant, President-72.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Darrah,Dickey, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gilmore, Grenell, Hamlin, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Krebs, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Weaver-45.

Mr. STERIGERE then submited the following, to come in at the end of the proposition before the Chair: "And provided, that neither paupers, nor persons who have been convicted of any infamous crime, nor persons who have been found by inquest, non compos mentis, or habitual drunkards, shall be permited to vote at any election. The election laws shall be equal throughout the State, and no greater or other restrictions shall be imposed on the electors, in any city, county, or district, than are imposed

Mr. MARTIN moved to amend the amendment by inserting, after the word "paupers", the words "colored persons".

The CHAIR said, this amendment would not now be in order.

Mr. MARTIN said, he was then precisely in the same situation which he was in on yesterday. It was too soon to amend now, and it would be too late after the amendment to the amendment was adopted.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM said he was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, for the simple reason that it prevented the Legislature from passing laws in relation to elections, which were to operate on but one or two districts. He considered that it was necessary that the regulations of elections in the city and county of Philadelphia, should be different from what they were in the less populous districts, and it was proper that the Legislature should have the power of making such regulations as might be desired by the citizens of those districts.

Mr. STERIGERE then called for a division of the question, to end with the word"election".

Mr. BROWN said his colleague (Mr. MARTIN) had on yesterday evening offered his amendment either to be inserted in the body of the amendment, or to come in at the end, and if the committee was disposed to entertain any amendment he thought that of his colleague should take precedence of all others.

The CHAIR said the motion of the gentleman's colleague was, to insert in the very first line, the word "white".

Mr. BROWN: There, or at the end of the amendment.

Mr. MARTIN said this was what he had said at the time he submited his amendment.

The CHAIR said he had not so understood the gentleman, or he would have entertained the motion at the end of the amendment.

Mr. DARLINGTON thought the gentleman from Montgomery had introduced his amendment at the wrong place. The object could better be attained, he thought, by having a general Constitutional provision on the subject, and allow the Legislature to determine in relation to the persons to be excluded. He also objected to that part of it which provides that no law in relation to elections, shall be different in one place from another. He thought, that in the city and county of Philadelphia there had been frequently applications for the passage of laws, different from those which governed other election districts. It was known to every one from that city that there they have two inspectors, which is not the case in other districts, and the law allowing them to have these additional inspectors, were passed on their own application. It might also be necessary for the Legislature, hereafter to provide for them other and different laws from the other districts, on their own application, and if this amendment is adopted, it will prevent the passage of such laws. He thought, therefore, it ought not to be adopted.

Mr. McCAHEN said, as at present advised, he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. Perhaps on future deliberation he might change his mind, as he was not now prepared to say what course he should take in future with regard to this matter. At present a person who was suffering the penalties of a conviction for crime in your penitentiaries or jails cannot participate in the election; but was that

expiated his crime and become a good citizen of the State, and of the United States? This was a question for the serious consideration of the committee. Sometimes, too, a conviction might be brought upon an honest and innocent man, and was it just that he, after having suffered the penalties of the law without having commited any crime, should undergo the additional hardship of being deprived of citizenship? He should, therefore, for the present, vote against this amendment.

Mr. STERIGERE said above all other matters he should raise his voice against giving to the Legislature the power to say what should be the qualifications of an elector. He would not authorize the Legislature to say who should and who should not vote. Whatever the qualifications of electors should be, they should be settled here and not left to any other body to determine.

Mr. AGNEW wished to know whether, if habitual drunkards became reformed, there was any provision which would entitle them to the privileges of an elector?

Mr. READ said by the provision, as he understood it, a man would be declared a habitual drunkard so long as he continued in that habit; and would, consequently, so long be deprived of his right to vote, but the moment he reformed he was no longer a habitual drunkard, and would no longer be excluded from the polls.

Mr. AGNEW understood the provision to apply to all persons who had once been found to be habitual drunkards.

Mr. BROWN said there were some persons who were in the habit of getting drunk on the fourth of July, and he should like to know if they would be declared habitual drunkards by this provision. It was cer

tainly a habit with them to get drunk at that time.

The first branch of the amendment was then disagreed to, without a division.

The question then recured on the second branch of the proposition.

Mr. EARLE said this part of the subject was one of very great importance, and he trusted they would have the yeas and nays upon it. It was no less a question than granting to the Legislature the authority to deprive citizens of the right of suffrage. The question was, whether the Constitution should regulate the right of suffrage, or whether the Legislature should have the authority to regulate it by law. The Legislature had undertaken to regulate it by law in the city and county of Philadelphia, and they have undertaken it in more than one instance. At one time they undertook to prescribe a qualification for voting for corporation officers different from those for voting for State officers; but that law was in a short time repealed. They have now undertaken to say that no one shall vote in that city and county, except those who are registered, which was a different system from that practised in any other county in the State, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was a violation of the Constitution of the State. Gentlemen were under a mistake when they said it was necessary that there should be a registry to prevent disturbance and give the old and the infirm an opportunity of getting to the polls. If they would only divide the city and county into small wards and provide that the election officers should be selected from both parties, they would be conducted as orderly as in any other part of the State, and there would be as

Mr. MARTIN moved to amend the amendment by inserting, after the word "paupers", the words "colored persons".

The CHAIR said, this amendment would not now be in order.

Mr. MARTIN said, he was then precisely in the same situation which he was in on yesterday. It was too soon to amend now, and it would be too late after the amendment to the amendment was adopted.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM said he was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, for the simple reason that it prevented the Legislature from passing laws in relation to elections, which were to operate on but one or two districts. He considered that it was necessary that the regulations of elections in the city and county of Philadelphia, should be different from what they were in the less populous districts, and it was proper that the Legislature should have the power of making such regulations as might be desired by the citizens of those districts.

Mr. STERIGERE then called for a division of the question, to end with the word "election".

Mr. BROWN said his colleague (Mr. MARTIN) had on yesterday evening offered his amendment either to be inserted in the body of the amendment, or to come in at the end, and if the committee was disposed to entertain any amendment he thought that of his colleague should take precedence of all others.

The CHAIR said the motion of the gentleman's colleague was, to insert in the very first line, the word "white".

Mr. BROWN: There, or at the end of the amendment.

Mr. MARTIN said this was what he had said at the time he submited his amendment.

The CHAIR said he had not so understood the gentleman, or he would have entertained the motion at the end of the amendment.

Mr. DARLINGTON thought the gentleman from Montgomery had introduced his amendment at the wrong place. The object could better be attained, he thought, by having a general Constitutional provision on the subject, and allow the Legislature to determine in relation to the persons to be excluded. He also objected to that part of it which provides that no law in relation to elections, shall be different in one place from another. He thought, that in the city and county of Philadelphia there had been frequently applications for the passage of laws, different from those which governed other election districts. It was known to every one from that city that there they have two inspectors, which is not the case in other districts, and the law allowing them to have these additional inspectors, were passed on their own application. It might also be necessary for the Legislature, hereafter to provide for them other and different laws from the other districts, on their own application, and if this amendment is adopted, it will prevent the passage of such laws. He thought, therefore, it ought not to be adopted.

Mr. McCAHEN said, as at present advised, he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. Perhaps on future deliberation he might change his mind, as he was not now prepared to say what course he should take in future with regard to this matter. At present a person who was suffering the penalties of a conviction for crime in your penitentiaries or jails cannot participate in the election; but was that

1

expiated his crime and become a good citizen of the State, and of the ted States? This was a question for the serious consideration of the mittee. Sometimes, too, a conviction might be brought upon an h and innocent man, and was it just that he, after having suffered the p ties of the law without having commited any crime, should underg additional hardship of being deprived of citizenship? He should, there for the present, vote against this amendment.

Mr. STERIGERE said above all other matters he should raise his against giving to the Legislature the power to say what should be qualifications of an elector. He would not authorize the Legislature to who should and who should not vote. Whatever the qualifications of tors should be, they should be settled here and not left to any other to determine.

Mr. AGNEW wished to know whether, if habitual drunkards be reformed, there was any provision which would entitle them to the I leges of an elector?

Mr. READ said by the provision, as he understood it, a man woul declared a habitual drunkard so long as he continued in that habit ; would, consequently, so long be deprived of his right to vote, but the ment he reformed he was no longer a habitual drunkard, and would longer be excluded from the polls.

Mr. AGNEW understood the provision to apply to all persons who once been found to be habitual drunkards.

Mr. BROWN said there were some persons who were in the hab getting drunk on the fourth of July, and he should like to know if would be declared habitual drunkards by this provision. It was tainly a habit with them to get drunk at that time.

The first branch of the amendment was then disagreed to, without a sion.

The question then recured on the second branch of the proposition Mr. EARLE said this part of the subject was one of very great im tance, and he trusted they would have the yeas and nays upon it. It no less a question than granting to the Legislature the authority to dep citizens of the right of suffrage. The question was, whether the Co tution should regulate the right of suffrage, or whether the Legisla should have the authority to regulate it by law. The Legislature had dertaken to regulate it by law in the city and county of Philadelphia, they have undertaken it in more than one instance. At one time they dertook to prescribe a qualification for voting for corporation officers di ent from those for voting for State officers; but that law was in a s time repealed. They have now undertaken to say that no one shall in that city and county, except those who are registered, which was a ferent system from that practised in any other county in the State, an had no hesitation in saying that it was a violation of the Constitutio the State. Gentlemen were under a mistake when they said it was ne sary that there should be a registry to prevent disturbance and give old and the infirm an opportunity of getting to the polls. If they w only divide the city and county into small wards and provide that election officers should be selected from both parties, they would be ducted as orderly as in any other part of the State, and there would b