Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION, 1837.

33

:) had drawn a picture of the s in his district, and had said 'nty of Philadelphia because ld tell the gentleman from is district, in the county of housand votes polled in that come on the ground intoxi , then, to the gentleman's far more impure than those

ys, whtch were ordered. it proper place to insert this er place, but he would be

[ocr errors]

stry law was so onerous not adopt it in other parts some gentlemen here have if this amendment is adope country. If this was to

amendment. as onerous upon the city "acter, as he believed, the

effects of it, would no n the city and county, in

voters. He knew this to md county are opposed to g his name posted up on e city and county, when

What would the voters posted up at every public

an imaginary line, were , that the names of any ere to be singled out, and inctions as these should The citizens of the city - peaceable, taken as a

he believed they con the polls, as any other many who had to vote at wegislature. The elecrom five to eight thou

wholesome distinction between them, and the people of other sections of the State, which they did not like. This act of the Legislature had given more dissatisfaction to the people than any other which had been passed. It was an unjust restriction, for the reason, that it was not put in operation elsewhere. The Constitution required, that all laws should be equal throughout the State. This law, then, being unequal, ought to be immediately repealed. At the time it was passed, there was a portion of the people known to be obnoxious to the Legislature, and hence the political majority there passed the law in question, by way of punishment, he (Mr. B.) supposed, for their disobedience, and to throw obstacles in the way of the elective franchise. Political majorities do not always regard justice and right. He trusted that the provision would be inserted.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said that it was far from his wish to impose any such law upon any portion of the people of Pennsylvania, unless they desired it. He did not know at the time the amendment was introduced, but what the people of the district desired it. He did not believe that his constituents wished for such a regulation.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said that, although he approved of the object intended to be reached by the proposed amendment, he thought this was not the proper place to insert it, if the provision were necessary. The existing provision in the Bill of Rights, section 5, is, that all elections shall be free and equal”: and this provision is perhaps as broad as the language now proposed. But the proper place for any provision restraining legislation, was in the bill of rights ; and if, when we reached that part of the Constitution, it would be found, that any thing beyond this fifth section of the bill of rights was necessary, it could be introduced in its proper place. Mr. P. said, I feel it necessary to say this much, because, approving of the principle, I shall be obliged to vote against the amendment in this article. I have no doubt, that attention has been turned to this subject in consequence of the passage of the obnoxious law generally denominated the registry act, by the Legislature of 1835-6, which prescribes a different rule for regulating the right of suffrage in the city of Philadelphia, and in some of the adjoining districts of the county of Philadelphia, from the general law which applies to the rest of that county and the State at large. This act, I believe, is unconstitutional. On this subject I have never had a doubt. I have reflected well, and I give this as the deliberate result of my judgment upon it. The existing Constitutional provision is, that "every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State for two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector”: And a provision follows that the sons of qualified voters, between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, without having paid taxes. A citizen residing in any other part of the State complying with these provisions, is entitled to vote at the election. But if one resides in the city or specified districts, he cannot vote, doing precisely the same act which the other did in the other part of the State. This was a violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution ; and it was part of the doings of that Legislature, which, having obtained by accidental circumstances the ascendency, determined to exercise the little brief authority they possessed, to the utmost extent, well knowing that they would never have another chance.

, and during the whole icated, and he had not men to show him the of the United States, ves in as peaceable a

here was a little con7 to be marked and Cace! He protested was making an un

The gentleman from Franklin (Mr. DUNLOP) had drawn a picture of the drunkenness and outrage commited at the polls in his district, and had said that it must be much worse in the city and county of Philadelphia because the people were not so pure there. He would tell the gentleman from Franklin that he had attended the polls in his district, in the county of Philadelphia, when there were upwards of a thousand votes polled in that one district, and he did not see a single man come on the ground intoxicated, or see a single disturbance. According, then, to the gentleman's own showing, the people of Franklin county are far more impure than those of the city and county of Philadelphia. He concluded by calling for the

yeas and

nays, whtch were ordered. Mr. MARTIN, did not think this was the most proper place to insert this amendment. He should vote for it in its proper place, but he would be compelled to vote against it here.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, thought if this registry law was so onerous upon the citizens of Philadelphia they should not adopt it in other parts of the State. It was now in force there and some gentlemen here have asserted that it must be continued there. Then, if this amendment is adopted, we shall be compelled to have it all over the country. If this was to be the case he thought he should go against the amendment.

Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, said the law was onerous upon the city and county of Philadelphia, and of such a character, as he believed, the people of the whole State, if they had felt the effects of it, would no impose upon Philadelphia. It was forced upon the city and county, in opposition to the will of a large majority of the voters. "He knew this to be the case, that a large majority of the city and county are opposed to the law. What would any man think of having his name posted up on the sign posts, and blacksmith shop doors of the city and county, when the same thing was not required of his neighbor? What would the voters of any

district think, if their names were to be posted up at every public place, while their neighbors, on the other side of an imaginary line, were not subject to this practice? Was this the way, that the names of any particular portion of the citizens of Pennsylvania were to be singled out, and posted up to the gaze of the world? No such distinctions as these should be made in relation to citizens of Pennsylvania. The citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, he believed to be as peaceable, taken as a whole, as any other inhabitants of the State, and, he believed they conducted themselves as quietly and properly at the polls, as any other persons in the Union. To be sure, there were too many who had to vote at one place, and this should be provided for by the Legislature. The eleç. tion districts should be divided; but, he had seen from five to eight thousand persons come on the election ground in one day, and during the whole of that day, had not seen one man come there intoxicated, and he had not seen the least disturbance. He should like gentlemen to show him the same number, collected together in any other part of the United States, to deposite their votes, who would conduct themselves in as peaceable a manner.

And because, forsooth, it had once happened that there was a little confusion in the township, the people were henceforth to be marked and branded-to have their names stuck up all over the place! He protested

[ocr errors]

wholesome distinction between them, and the people of other sections of the State, which they did not like. This act of the Legislature had given more dissatisfaction to the people than any other which had been passed. It was an unjust restriction, for the reason, that it was not put in operation elsewhere. The Constitution required, that all laws should be equal throughout the State. This law, then, being unequal, ought to be immediately repealed. At the time it was passed, there was a portion of the people known to be obnoxious to the Legislature, and hence the political majority there passed the law in question, by way of punishment, he (Mr. B.) supposed, for their disobedience, and to throw obstacles in the way of the elective franchise. Political majorities do not always regard justice and right. He trusted that the provision would be inserted.

Mr. Smyth, of Centre, said that it was far from his wish to impose any such law upon any portion of the people of Pennsylvania, unless they desired it. He did not know at the time the amendment was introduced, but what the people of the district desired it. He did not believe that his constituents wished for such a regulation.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said that, although he approved of the object intended to be reached by the proposed amendment, he thought this was not the proper place to insert it, if the provision were necessary. The existing provision in the Bill of Rights, section 5, is, “ that all elections shall be free and equal”: and this provision is perhaps as broad as the language now proposed. But the proper place for any provision restraining legislation, was in the bill of rights; and if, when we reached that part of the Constitution, it would be found that any thing beyond this fifth section of the bill of rights was necessary, it could be introduced in its proper place. Mr. P. said, I feel it necessary to say this much, because, approving of the principle, I shal} be obliged to vote against the amendment in this article. I have no doubt, that attention has been turned to this subject in consequence of the passage of the obnoxious law generally denominated the registry act, by the Legislature of 1835–6, which prescribes a different rule for regulating the right of suffrage in the city of Philadelphia, and in some of the adjoining districts of the county of Philadelphia, from the general law which applies to the rest of that county and the State at large. This act, I believe, is unconstitutional. On this subject I have never had a doubt. I have reflected well, and I give this as the deliberate result of my judgment upon it. The existing Constitutional provision is, that

every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State for two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector”: And a provision follows that the sons of qualified voters, between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, without having paid taxes. A citizen residing in any other part of the State complying with these provisions, is entitled to vote at the election. But if one resides in the city or specified districts, he cannot vote, doing precisely the same act which the other did in the other part of the State. This was a violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution ; and it was part of the doings of that Legislature, which, having obtained by accidental circumstances the ascendency, determined to exercise the little brief authority they possessed, to the utmost extent, well knowing that they would never have another chance,

I think this law unconstitutional, as it is partial and unequal, and I think it inexpedient and calculated to breed jealousy, and lead to alienation between the city and country, a result to be deprecated. I trust that an intimate union both of feeling and interest will ever subsist between the city and the country. I prize Philadelphia: It was there I set out on the great theatre of life. was there the fostering hand of encouragement was held out to me, and I should be wanting indeed, could I cease to cherish for. that city and its inhabitants the warmest feelings of gratitude and affection. There were found the friends of my youth and my manhood, from the bonds of friendship, with whom. I trust, I shall never de disengaged, however we may differ in opinion on any subject.

Is it then to be tolerated that a man who shall have performed all the Constitutional requisitions, and lived respected and beloved, shouldered his musket to meet the invaders of his country, and bled in her cause shall in the city or county of Philadelphia be debared of the right of suffrage the dearest attribute of a freeman, when, if he lived in any other part of the State, he would be entitled to it? This inequality of the enjoy. ment of the right was objectionable as repugnant to the Constitution, and as inexpedient. And yet the person suffering under it was remediless, because if he sued the inspector for damages for refusing his vote, he could only recover on proving malice. And the officer pleading the act in his defence, would be acquited of the malicious intent, although the act itself was unconstitutional.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, said that the argument of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) would be more appropriate in the Legislature, on a bill for the repeal of some grievous and obnoxious law, affecting any particular portion of the State, than in a Convention to amend the Constitution. He would say, then, that he regarded the remarks of the gentleman as sadly out of place. He apprehended that an attentive daily observer of the proceedings of this body, could not have failed to perceive that if there was any one error into which we were more likely to run than another, it was that of introducing our own local grievances here, and asking a change of a fundamental law, in order to meet the particular case. Now, he would ask if that was not the fact? And was not this precisely the course which was pursued in the Legislature ? Any one who had bestowed the slightest attention on their proceedings, must have seen that they were continually passing laws, having for their object the remedying of certain local grievances. Let not, then, this Convention fall into the same error, and insert in the Constitution of Pennsylvania a provision which would not be applicable to the whole State, when intended only to meet particular grievances in a certain portion of it. Now, if a law had been passed, applicable only to the city and county of Philadelphia, and which, in the course of time, was discovered to be unsalutary in its effects, what, he asked, was the proper course to pursue ? Why, to go the Legislature, not to bring it here, for it was a subject of local legislation alone. The Legislature possessed the power to repeal it, at any time when it was the desire of the city and county, and not inconsistent with the general welfare. He would ask gentlemen, if they would be willing to insert a provision in the Constitution that would tic up the Legislature, and prevent it from complying with the wish of the

means.

voters from controling their elections? He thought they would not. was of opinion that they ought to leave to the Legislature power to relief for grievances, as may hereafter be necessary. And, what the argument of the gentleman from Northampton ? Why, he hac tended that the amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill of Rights that the registry act was unconstitutional and inconsistent, because i set forth in the Bill of Rights, " that all elections shall be free and eq The gentleman might be correct; but he (Mr. D.) would not admit, moment, inasmuch as he was not then prepared to decide the que that either the registry law, or any law, was unconstitutional. В.

He could not agree with the gentleman, that registering a r name and residence as a qualified voter, was casting a blemish o reputation. It was merely the evidence of his having been assessed of his right to vote. He (Mr. DARLINGTON) was not able to perceive the registry law was more inconsistent, than any thing else whic Legislature might see fit to prescribe.

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

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said the delegate from Northampton told us that the act of 1835-6, is a palpable violation of the Constitut and this position he attempts to sustain by calling to his aid the fifth tion of the Bill of Rights, which declares that “elections shall be free equal". In taking this position, the delegate seems to be peculiarly ur tunate; there does not seem to be the slightest analogy. This section not shed a single ray of light on the act in question. As well might

« ZurückWeiter »