Thursday,] QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS.- SCHOULER — WESTON — BOUTWELL-HOOD. porations. I regard all religious societies as private corporations, as they belong to the men who compose the societies. I am opposed to outsiders coming in and voting in parish affairs, as I am opposed to outsiders coming in and voting in our national affairs; but I trust that we shall insert nothing in the Constitution in regard to who shall and shall not vote in parish affairs. I happen to belong to a parish myself, and we support it, and do not wish to have Orthodox and Unitarian people, and Nothingarians come in and control us. A VOICE. You are an Episcopalian ? Mr. SCHOULER. Yes, Sir, I am an Episcopalian. [Laughter.] I have the pleasure of belonging to that respectable denomination. [Laughter.] I think that when we adopt such a proposition as that contained in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Duxbury, we run a good principle into the ground, and I wish to keep it above ground so that every-body can see it; but I do not think that the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsfield goes any further than it ought to go, and that it goes just far enough. I repeat what I said when I arose, that I am in favor of the general principles reported by the Committee, and if I supposed that the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsfield would defeat the proposition before the people, I would vote against it; but believing, as I do, that it will give strength to it, because it imparts consistency and propriety to it, I shall heartily give my vote for it. Mr. WESTON, of Duxbury. Having attained one of the objects I had in view, in moving the amendment, which I did, to the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsfield, and to accommodate the gentleman from Boston on my right, and the gentleman from Boston in front of me, I will now withdraw it. Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. I suppose that the Convention is anxious to take the question, and I have nothing more to say, than that I concur in the amendment which the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Bates,) gave notice that he should move when he had an opportunity. Thinking, however, that the object which the friends of the resolution, as reported by the Committee, desire, may be attained in a more casy and direct way, and having, as I understand, the concurrence of the gentleman from Plymouth, and also the concurrence of the Committee which reported this resolution, I submit an amendment to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pittsfield; and that is, to strike out all after the word "national," and insert the words "or state officers whose election by the people is provided for in this Constitution;" so that the resolution, if amended, will read Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that the payment of a tax shall not be required as a qualification to vote for any national or state officers whose election by the people is provided for in this Constitution. Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. I do not propose to detain this Convention by making any remarks upon the amendment offered by the gentleman for Berlin. I presume there is a desire to have the vote taken. We have discussed this question four days, and in view of the calm manner in which this subject has been treated, it appears to me that gentlemen upon all sides of the Conven tion will feel that the time has come for the question to be taken. In a short time a large number of the members will leave, as our usual time of adjourning is approaching, and if the question is taken now we shall have a larger vote upon it. Mr. CHAPIN, of Worcester. I call for the previous question. Mr. BRIGGS. I desire to inquire, if the previous question is ordered, it will then be in order to call for the yeas and nays? The PRESIDENT. It will be. Mr. PARKER, of Cambridge. I wish to inquire, if the previous question cuts off any of the amendments? The PRESIDENT. It does not, but the question will be taken upon the amendments in their usual order. The previous question was then ordered. Mr. DAWES, of Adams, called for the yeas and nays upon the first question, which were ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. Boutwell to the amendment of Mr. Briggs, and there were, yeas 210, nays 127, as follows: Bradford, William J. A. Gates, Elbridge Gilbert, Washington Ide, Abijah M., Jr. [June 9th. Richardson, Daniel Richardson, Nathan Richardson, Samuel H. Vinton, George A. NAYS. Aldrich, P. Emory Davis, Solomon Gray, John C. Jenkins, John Jenks, Samuel II. Johnson, John Thursday,] Kellogg, Giles C. Morey, George Parker, Adolphus G. Abbott, Alfred A. Bennett, Zephaniah Bumpus Cephas C. Clarke, Stillman Hobbs, Edwin Huntington, Asahel QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. — DANA — WALKER — ALDRICH — MORTON — BISHOP. Putnam, George ABSENT. Huntington, Charles P. Plunkett, William C. Absent and not voting, 83. So the amendment was adopted. The question then recurring upon the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Briggs, as amended, it was put, and decided in the affirmative. The question was then taken upon ordering the first resolve to a second reading, and it was, upon a division-ayes, 206; noes, 53-decided in the affirmative. So the resolve was ordered to a second reading. The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the second resolve. This resolve was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and the Committee reported it back with a recommendation that it do not pass. The question was taken on concurring in the report of the Committee of the Whole, and it was concurred in. The second resolve was therefore rejected. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the third resolve, as follows:— Resolved, That, for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a member of any seminary of learning. Mr. DANA, for Manchester. I would like to inquire of the chairman, or of some member of the Committee who reported this resolve, the reason and object of it. It seems to me that if it is a question for legislative action at all it properly belongs to the legislature, and not to this Convention. But even that I regard as extremely doubtful. It is a matter on which I desire some explanation, and I think I am not taking up the time of the Convention unnecessarily by asking for the reason of this resolution. Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. As the gentleman from Manchester may not be aware of the great difficulties which have sometimes arisen in those towns where these institutions of learning exist, I would say to him that, with several members of the Committee which reported this resolution, it appeared to be a matter of great importance that there should be some constitutional provision in regard to the matter. Mr. ALDRICH, of Barre. I was a member of the Committee which reported these resolves, and had the misfortune to differ with several members, in relation to the second one which has been rejected. It strikes me that this third resolve is entirely useless, because it neither adds to nor takes away anything from existing laws upon the subject. In a supplementary note to the fifth volume of Metcalf's Report of Cases argued before, and determined by, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, I find the following: "The mere facts that a student, who has a domicil in one town, resides at a public institution in another town for the sole purpose of obtaining an education, and that he has his means of support from another place, do not constitute a test of his right to vote and his liability to be taxed in the latter town. He obtains this right and incurs this liability only by a change of domicil; and, the question whether he has changed his domicil, is to be decided by all the circumstances of the case." The mere fact of his residing at the university for the purpose of obtaining an education decides nothing. The resolve says:— That, for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a member of any seminary of learning. This resolve only enunciates what is true now and perfectly well understood, and it will not pre [June 9th. | vent a student from voting who is entitled to vote under the existing law; for suppose a student is asked at the poll whether he is there simply for the purpose of obtaining an education, a mere affirmative answer decides nothing. It will not entitle him to vote, nor will it prevent him from voting. It must be decided by "all the circum| stances of the case." If the resolution is adopted, and a student is asked this question, and he anawers that he is there for that and for other purposes, and that he has no other home, then this resolution will not prevent his voting. It alters nothing; and I see no reason why this Convention should make a distinction to the prejudice of students, who are generally among the most intelligent class of voters. I see no reason why they should be excluded rather than others. Why not put a provision in the Constitution to the effect that if a gang of Irishmen have been working upon a railroad for six months, in any particular town, they shall not have the priv ilege of voting in that town? If they were there for that purpose merely and not domiciled there, they would not be allowed to vote. Why make a declaration in regard to students alone which is equally applicable to other eases: The right to vote depends not upon the fact of a man being a student or a laborer, or whether he is in the army or navy, but whether his domicil is in the town in which he offers to vote. If his domicil is there, it matters not whether he is a student or not, he has a right to vote. If it is somewhere else, then he has no right to vote. The resolution, therefore, in my opinion, has no value, but would merely encumber the Constitution with an unnecessary provision. For that reason, I am opposed to it. Mr. MORTON, of Taunton. I do not think that this is a matter of much importance. I agree with the gentleman who last spoke that this provision which it is sought to put into the Constitution, is precisely according to the law as it now stands. There is not a shade of difference; and when it was first proposed I entertained great doubts whether it was of sufficient importance to authorize its being put into the organic law of the State. But I learned that there had been considerable diversity of opinion in different parts of the State upon the subject, and that much difficulty had arisen in different places in regard to students, owing to this diversity of opinion. And although we have a decision of the highest court of the State in regard to this matter, we all know that the reports of these decisions are not in the hands of all the selectmen throughout the Commonwealth. Again, I think it is of the highest importance that everything in regard to the qualifications of voters should not only be made plain and be in the hands of every-body, but should be made so plain in the Constitution, that I could not be mistaken by the legislature. Seeing that a similar provision has been incorporated in many of the recently revised constitutions, I thought that perhaps it might be wise and proper to make this provision one of the permanent and fundamental laws of the Commonwealth. Mr. BISHOP, of Lenox. I am in favor of ingrafting this provision upon our Constitution. In regard to this matter there is a term used in our present Constitution, which, though perhaps not of doubtful in port, is yet of very doubtful application, and has caused great perplexity to the selectmen in this respect. What I allude to is the meaning of the word "inhabitant." To remove all doubt as to the meaning of the word I would define it as I find it defined in the present Constitution, thus: "Every person shall be considered an inhabitant,' for the purpose of electing and being elected to any office or place within this State, in that town, district or plantation where he dwelleth or hath his home." Now it depends upon the intention. If a man removed to a place with the intention of making that place his home there could be little difficulty about it. In relation to students, they attend seminaries of learning merely for temporary purposes-the purpose of equipping themselves for that particular profession which they design to follow, or of acquiring such information as is imparted in those institutions to which they go. They are there for a specific purpose-not for the purpose of becoming residents of the places where these institutions happen to be located, but for an entirely different purpose. True, there may be some solitary exceptions to this rule, but such is the rule notwithstanding; and in order to remove all doubts on the subject I think it would be proper to insert this provision in the Constitution. Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I am in favor of the resolution of the Committee as it stands, so far as it goes. I believe that no man should become a voter by compulsion, and that no man should gain a legal citizenship by compulsion. I believe that with regard to two classes mentioned in this resolution-the army and navy-much difficulty has arisen and will continue to arise. It is well known that they are subject to the orders of the government of the United States, and may be sent to any portion of the Union. So also with students. They are subject generally to the orders of their parents; and are generally minors when they enter a seminary, and for this reason it seems to me that a person, or class of persons, who come into this Commonwealth or into any town of the Commonwealth, for a special purpose, and a limited period, not being supposed, from the manner in which they come, to be liable to engage in any of the pursuits of the inhabitants of that town, nor to be interested in its welfare, or to have anything in common with that town-such persons should not sustain legal rights in this respect. I cannot but think that even upon the doctrine of state rights, the doctrine of self-defence, and the doctrine of the independent sovereignty of a state, this resolution should be adopted by us. The question is whether, in times of trouble, we will allow the president of the United States, or other United States authorities, to quarter a citizen soldiery-or a portion of the army or navy of the United States, educated in a different portion of the Union, and it may be entertaining feelings and principles opposed to our particular interests and institutions-upon us, for the purpose, as it were, of becoming citizens by compulsion. Shall we allow foreign governments to send here an immense population for a temporary, though it may be for the time being a necessary, purpose, and thus endow them with the privileges of citizenship in our State with whose interests they have nothing in common? Are our interests and institutions to be thus influenced, and perhaps endangered, by the votes of strangers? I hope not, Sir. So far as the members of the army or the navy are concerned it seems to me that this resolution is not, what was stated so broadly by the gentleman from Boston yesterday, "next to nothing." But I rose, Mr. President, for another purpose. It is perhaps peculiarly appropriate for me to move the amendment which I shall propose. The second resolution was stricken out by the Committee upon my motion. There were reasons, which have been stated by the gentleman from Taunton, why many members of the Convention should desire that a three months' residence in a town or city should be sufficient to entitle a party to citizenship. It would be convenient, in many cities and towns of the Commonwealth, that a person should acquire the right to vote after a three months' residence, but there were other reasons, which, I believe, were apparent to the good sense of the Committee, and which will be apparent to the good sense of the members of the Convention, why it would be unwise to reduce the term of residence to three months. It will be seen, that by so reducing it, any person might acquire a residence in four towns or cities in a single year, and in that way, in large towns or cities, where parties are nicely balanced, by a transfer of this class of voters, one large city or one large district might populate another large city or district; and one city or district might revolutionize another in the course of three months. I believe it would be dangerous to insert such a provision in our Constitution. It seems to me, however, we should take care, so far as we are able, that the citizens of the State, in removing from one town or city to another, within the State, should not lose the right to vote in national elections, or in elections for general officers of the State government, and for this purpose I propose to offer an amendment to this effect: I propose to add to the third resolution the following : And no person removing his domicil from any town or city to another within this Commonwealth, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence for the purpose aforesaid, until six months after his removal. I believe no good reason can be given by any member of this Convention, why, by removing from Roxbury to Boston, or from Boston to Roxbury, a man should lose his right to vote for governor, lieutenant-governor, or for any officers of the State or national government. No good reason, I believe, can be suggested. It seems to me that the right of citizenship, or any of the privileges which have been and are connected with that right, should not be lost by reason of any removal from one town or city to another within the limits of the Commonwealth. In this age, increased facilities of intercourse, the advance in intelligence, and the ever changing domicils of many of our most intelligent and active citizens, obviate the objections which formerly existed to the provision I now recommend. I therefore hope that the Convention will not only see the propricty of this amendment, but that they will vote to incorporate it into the resolution. it is similar to a provision which has been incorporated into the Constitution of several other States; but whether they adopt it, or reject, or modify it, I hope that it may be done without much debate. The question was then taken upon the adop [June 9th. tion of the amendment, and upon a divisionayes, 138; noes, 53-it was decided in the affirmative. So the amendment was adopted. Mr. DANA, for Manchester. I desire that the resolution shall be read as it is now amended. It was read as follows: 3. Resolved, That for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a student in any seminary of learning. And no person removing his domicil from any town or city to another within the Commonwealth, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence for the purpose aforesaid until six months after his removal. Mr. DANA. I sincerely hope, Sir, that the whole thing will be rejected. It is a good deal worse than it was when it came from the Committee-if I may be allowed to speak disrespectfully of the action of the Convention, as the resolution is now open to be voted upon. In the first place, I see clearly, that the Convention are in a humor for doing business to-night, and I dislike very n uch on that account, to trouble them with remarks, but if we could afford to spend four or five days in passing half a resolution, we can surely afford to spend a few minutes in discussing this provision, which embodies two resolutions. The resolve, as reported by the Committee, provides that "no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence, while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a student in any seminary of learning." Now, I believe it is conceded in all parts of the Convention that that resolution lays down no new principle of law, nor is it pretended that it explains what is now doubtful law. Nor am I aware that this has been one of those great amendments, which the people have looked for, and for which this Convention was called. I do not pretend to say that a provision something like this, may not be very well in the legislature, but I submit it to the judgment of every member of the Convention, whether the mere reading of the resolution does not show that it is a matter for legislation, and not a principle of constitutional law. Is it a question upon which any doubt has ever arisen in the legislature? Has there ever been any conflict of legislation upon the subject? I admit that upon important subjects, where there has been conflicting legislation, the Constitution might step in and settle it; or, if there is any danger of conflicting legislation in future, upon the subject, it would be very well for the Constitution to settle the matter. But I ask any gentleman to show me when there has ever been any conflicting legislation upon this subject, or where there is any danger of it. It strikes me, with all due deference to the Committee who reported this resolution, that probably there are some towns where there are colleges, and where the people have thought that persons have voted who ought not to have voted, and for that reason, have come forward and asked the Convention to make such a provision. The law is perfectly plain upon this subject. It is laid down in the 5th volume of Metcalf's Reports, and is very Thursday,j like this provision, only, if I may be allowed the opinion, it is expressed a little more clearly. It is said by the learned gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) that this is already a matter of law, but it would be well enough to put it into the Constitution because it will be a little more easy for the selectmen to find; that the selectmen of every town are not supposed to be acquainted with our law reports, and it is better, therefore, to place it where they can readily find it. It Now, Mr. President, that is a new reason. is entirely a novel reason to me for making a Constitution. The law is all right and always has been all right. There have been no conflicting decisions, there has been no conflicting legislation, but inasmuch as this is a better place for the selectmen to find it, let us put it in the Constitution. If that principle is to be adopted, in the choice of subjects which are to be made constitutional law, I can furnish enough for the Convention to do from now through the hot weather, and until pretty well into the autumn. The only difficulty will be that if we have too many of these things in the Constitution, it may be as difficult for the selectmen to find it in the Constitution as it is in the Reports. The difficulty is not in being a le to find the law or of not knowing what it is, but it is in applying the law to the facts of the case. A question was asked of the supreme court by the legislature whether a person who had resided several years as a student in a university, but who had his means of support elsewhere, could be allowed to vote in the town or city in which the university was located. The court said that was not a question which could be answered by itself. It would depend altogether upon whether he was domiciled in that town; if he was domiciled in that town, he had the right to vote there, but if he was not, he had no such right. The mere fact of his being there as a student did not create a domicil. Now, I am afraid the impression may prevail in the Convention, that the mere fact of a person residing in a certain place as a student in a seminary of learning gives him a domicil in that place. But such is not the fact. The law is well settled upon this point. The fact of a student's attending a seminary of learning for a number of years does not make him lose his domicil in the place where he has before lived; and the mere fact that he is a student there does not give him a domicil in that place. I submit it to the better judgment of the Convention. I submit it to the judgment of the chairman of this Committee, (Mr. Walker,) whose attention I would Eke to gain, if this is not so. The mere fact that a person is a student, neither gives a domicil nor takes it away. The case is different with different students. For instance, here is a student who is under age; his father lives at Springfield, and his home is there; he comes to Williamstown College, but he derives his means of support from his father, and goes home during the vacations. He makes that his regular home, and puts his name in the catalogue as from Springfield. All these are facts which go to fix his domicil at the place where his father lives. But take another case: a man has no parents whatever; he has no means of support except his own labor; but he goes to Williamstown, enters college, and is supporting himself by his own labor, or his property there. He puts his name QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. - DANA. down against Williamstown in the cat dogue. He ! I must say that if you wish to confound and ed to have gained a residence by reason of his (June 9th. I should like to put the question to gentlemen of this Convention whether they are all agreed upon the construction of that clause: It strikes me that the domicil is a question of fact, not depending, as gentlemen may suppose, upon the one fact of residence, but a great variety of facts. I appeal to the judgment of every professional man whether it is not settled law that domicil depends upon a great variety of facts, each of which are entitled to its weight. Take the well known case of these gentlemen who remove from Boston int › the country before the first of May, keeping a house in each place. What determines the domicil there? A jury must go into the most minute inquiry to ascertain which of the two houses is the domicil of the citizen, where he has his family, his servants, table and bed linen, &c., on the first of May, and which house had most of the attributes of a domicil. They are very nice questions. The two louses are both furnished and kept open, but which is his domicil? And so these nice questions come up in the case of students at our seminaries of learning. Some are under twenty-one years of age, and some are over that age. Some have parents, and some have not. Some derive the means of support from home, while others do not. So there is every variety of case, from that of the student whose domicil is clearly at his father's house, to that of the student whose domicil is clearly at the seminary of learning. Then you step in and attach to this fact a decisive character by constitutional law. These cases must be decided by the selectmen, each on its circumstances. Their decision may be appealed from. There may be an action brought, and then the case goes to a court and jury. I was very much struck and pleased with the remarks made by a gentleman, who I do not now see in his scat, (Mr. Boutwell,) this morning, as to our duties here in the matter of making a Constitution. It strikes me that if a case can be made out which goes beyond the line he drew for us, and which he drew so well, this is one. It is a matter of nice detail,-and a matter of doubtful meaning at that. I suppose that persons smarting under some difficulty, and heated in a controversy, thought, that since there was to be a great Constitutional Convention which was to operate as a panacea for all evils, the best thing they could do was to get us to cure the evil for them. I respectfully submit that this is a difficulty which it is not in our province to cure. Now comes an additional amendment, moved and carried without any discussion in the Convention. I understand it to provide that a person who leaves a town or city for another shall not lose his right to vote in the former town or city for six months. The provision is, that a man who has left a town, determined never to see it again, may still go back upon election day and vote taxes upon the people which he will not be obliged to pay, and vote men into office whom he means never to be governed by. I do not know what will be the effect of this provision in another respect, because I do not know whether we are going to adopt this distinction, that men are to be voters for offices and not to be elected for offices. I submit to the judgment of this Convention, whether it is not a little extraordinary to provide that a class of persons shall be voters in a place, their residence being one hundred and fifty miles off, and that they shall not hold office there too. If the amendment is adopted you will have the anomaly presented of a person of twenty-one years of age leaving the old homestead in Brookfield, going to sea, making his home in Provincetown and going up to Brookfield and voting, because, by virtue of this part of the amendment, he is not to lose anything by navigating the high seas, whether in the United States or British India. He votes in Brookfield, but his residence is in Provincetown, and after he has been chasing whales in the Eastern Ocean, he comes back and votes taxes upon the people of Brookfield. I do not doubt that this all comes from tenderness for the rights of voters. I sympathize with that feeling myself, but then we must recollect that we may, by indulging our extreme tenderness for the rights of voters, introduce a dangerous principle, and in our kindness to voters we may not be so kind to those persons who are to be affected by the votes cast. It has been said in this Convention, and sustained by a decided majority here, that persons ought not to vote in town affairs, though they were born in the town, reside there, and mean to die there, unless they pay seventy-five cents, or thereabouts, for fear that they might vote taxes upon people which they themselves did not mean to pay. And it was stated that a person who lived in a town and did not pay his fifty or seventy-five cents, ought not to vote for town officers, because those officers might have the power to do something to the citizens of the town which would not affect him, though that man has at stake there all he has in the world, his life, his peace, his liberty, the peace of his family, though he is obliged to perform military duty and though he has children to be sent to school, simply because he is not supposed to have that interest which gives him the right to vote away other men's money. But you propose to say that any person leaving that town, never intending to see it again and going to the farthest part of the Commonwealth may still go back to that town and vote taxes upon other persons which he never means to pay, and elect persons to office who are not to govern him. I should like to see gentlemen put those two propositions together and show me why they sustain the one and do not sustain the other. I recollect once losing my right to vote. I moved my residence from the city of Boston to the town of Cambridge, and when I went to the voting list there, I found that my name was not recorded. I dare say some gentleman will say that there was a great wrong done, that I was injured, and they would have gone right off to a Constitutional Convention, if one had been sitting, and had a resolve brought in to remedy the injury done me. But it did not operate so with me. I can honestly say that I never felt more gratification in my life and greater pride in the old Commonwealth than when the selectmen of the town of Cambridge said, "Sir, you cannot vote here," because I felt that the same law which prohibited me from voting, saved the purity of the ballot-box in the Commonwealth in all times of peril. I am willing to submit to restrictions, and if I choose to change my residence from town to town I am willing to lose my vote by it for a few months. I am perfectly willing to submit to this, in order to save the purity of the ballot-box. submit that these provisions are necessary for the protection of the ballot-box. I most respectfully ask the Convention to re-examine this matter be I fore they pass to a second reading the resolutions as they now stand with the amendment just adopted, and ask themselves whether they mean to say that a man shall vote under any such circumstances, and then to say whether it is worth while to go into these details. Let gentlemen, after considering the matter, ask themselves whether these things should not be left to legislation; but if the Convention are of the opinion that we must dive into these details, let us have a resolution which will not be misunderstood by the selectmen, for whose better information only, I am informed, it is to be introduced. Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I think we should understand ourselves distinctly, upon every point of amendment to the Constitution which affects the legal rights of the voter. I respect, very much, the legal opinions of my friend for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) but I must think that he is not aware of the true state of the case in regard to a man's losing his vote, by passing over the line of one town into another, just before an election. He has put extreme cases. Let us consider cases of towns adjoining, or nearly so. Now the rule of law as to residence, in the cases in Metcalf's Reports, to which he has referred, is, that a man never loses his domicil, and that he has at all times a domicil somewhere. In order to carry out that principle in the Constitution, it should be provided, that a man shall have his voting right somewhere, and shall not lose it, no more than he shall lose, under the law, one domicil until he has acquired another. If the man moves over the line from Boston into Roxbury, just before election day, he does not lose his residence, say the courts, for he acquires one immediately in Roxbury, but they say that he does lose his right to vote, until he has been there six months. The question is, shall he be induced to deal honestly or dishonestly with the public? Shall he secure his vote by falsehood, which he can do by falsely denying that he goes to Roxbury to live there, or shall he lose it by telling the truth? That is the proposition, because the removal depends upon the intention, and that rests mainly upon declarations. If he goes to Roxbury one week or one day before the election, and there honestly proclaims the truth, and says, 66 I have come here to reside with you," and the next day goes back to Boston, he cannot vote in either place; but if he removes from Boston with a lic in his mouth, and says, I want you to understand that I have not removed, and that I am coming back to Boston," when he does not mean to do so, then he can go back to Boston and vote. So that it depends upon this, a man loses his residence and his vote in Boston if he tells the honest truth, and keeps his right to vote if he lies. I do not consent to hold out any such inducements to men to deal dishonestly. No fraud can be perpetrated by his retaining his right to vote in his place of domicil, until he has acquired it in another. The name of the voter is upon the voting list of the town of his legal residence. He is there a permanent, recorded voter. There is no uncertainty about it. If he comes to the polls and assumes that he is a voter, his name will be found upon that check list, for it cannot be removed until he has lost his residence there; and if he has gone out of town within a period of six months, he cannot have acquired a residence anywhere else, and therefore he cannot possibly vote at that election anywhere, unless it be in [June 9th. the town where he had his legal residence. If he goes away five months or five days before the election, why deprive him of the right of voting at all? Is there any danger that he will go back and do anything wrong or unjust? The gentleman for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) said one thing, which I must think he had not well considered, for a gentleman of his legal learning. He says that, in his own case, after having removed from Boston to Cambridge, a short time before an election, he went and asked the selectmen of Cambridge to allow him the privilege of voting, and they would not allow him to vote because he had not resided there six months. They told him that he had lost his vote, and he looks upon it as a most remarkable evidence of the purity of the ballot-box, that his vote was refused. The gentleman was at the wrong end of the argument. He should have gone back to Boston, walked into the room of the ward from which he moved, found his name recorded upon the ward list and deposited his vote there. That is what I contend he should have had the right to do. I say, therefore, let the principle which governs domicil be carried out correctly as to voting. Your courts have decided differently. They have decided that a man cannot lose his domicil in one place until he has acquired residence in another, but they have decided, if he goes out of one town into another to reside there, though it be only one day before election, that he has lost his right to vote anywhere. Now I would make the Constitution parallel in this rule, as it regards residence, so that residence and voting shall go together, and then you have it certain. Upon that point, and also upon the other point of residence embraced in these propositions, gentlemen say that it is not dignified to put a plain definition with reference to them, in the Constitution. I stand upon dignity in constitutional language as much as any one, and I thought I did even more so than my friend for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) but I think, as I have said before, that the principle which should govern us in this matter, is to have the Constitution as plain as possible. The gentleman complains that this proposition, about removal affecting residence, and the one concerning persons employed in the army and navy of the United States, or who are attending seminaries of learning, are not of sufficient dignity to be incorporated into the Constitution, but I do not find that those who framed the Constitution held that opinion. When they provided, in the Constitution of 1780, that every male inhabitant who owned a freehold estate of three pounds income per annum, or personal estate worth sixty pounds, should have a right to vote, they went on to make it still plainer, by saying: "And to remove all doubts concerning the meaning of the word inhabitant,' in this Constitution, every person shall be considered as an inhabitant for the purpose of electing and being elected into any office, in that town, district, or plantation where he dwelleth or hath his home." Is there anything more undignified in that than in saying "that, by reason of his absence, or presence, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State or of the United States, or while a member of any seminary of learning.” |
