for eleven-twelfths of the years, and never discloses itself or is seen or heard of, but upon the eve of a warmly contested election. In the purity or sincerity of a benevolence so novel and extraordinary, he must confess that he reposed no confidence. zens, was extending itself into the counties o.which prompted them, that he wanted faith in this State, and was not, as he had heretofore sup-that kind of charity and benevolence, which is posed it to be, confined to the city of Baltimore. barren of all fruits, is hermetically sealed up His informant stating that again, again, and again, he had seen persons thus in the possession of naturalization papers, as they are called, standing at the polls of an election district of the county of his residence, awaiting the arrival of the new made citizens, who received their certificate of naturalization from the person who gave them at Mr. BUCHANAN said he had been under the the same time a ticket to vote, which the person impression that this very discursive debate had giving it, he saw deposited in the ballot-box. terminated on Saturday, and that he had regardThat the day before the last election in this State, ed the able, patriotic, and liberal speech of the a friend of the informant called upon him and gentleman from Calvert, (Mr SOLLERS) as enshowed him the naturalization papers of a foreign-tirely conclusive on the subject. It seemed, er, for which he had paid the clerk; and that in however, from the remarks which had been consideration thereof, this new born citizen was, made this morning, that the debate was not yet by agreement, to meet him the next day at the to be brought to a close, and hence the necespolls, and vote the ticket that was to be given sity of a few observations from him (Mr. Buhim, upon the receipt of his papers thus paid for. CHANAN). My informant then observed to his friend-"But His object was to say a few words to his friend how do you know that he will not cheat you in from Kent (Mr. CHAMBERS). The proposition bevoting the ticket given him?" The reply was, fore the Convention was to engraft upon our poli"I am to see the ticket deposited in the ballot-tical system a provision wholly unknown to it box, and if he does not do so, he shall not have before-unjust-invidious-oppresssive, and in his papers at all.” derogation of the spirit of the age. Before any This, he was credibly informed, and verily such provision, emanating from so distinguished believes, was but an ordinary transaction, occur- a quarter, should be incorporated in our Constiring on every election day at the polls of the differ-lation, the Convention was entitled to hear ent wards in the city of Baltimore. If this Con- some satisfactory reasons for the change. He vention under such circumstances will do nothing submitted whether his friend from Kent had not to put a check upon such abuses of the elective failed to make out such a case as ought to be safranchise, such foul corruptions of the ballot-box; tisfactory to the Convention-whether, in fact, then indeed there is no hope of the permanency of he had not expected gentlemen who advocated our free political institutions; which can only exist a different system to give their reasons for the or be preserved whilst the purity of the ballot-box faith that was in them, rather than assign any is protected against fraud and corruption. In all sufficient reasons for his own. The gentleman fairness he would state that the particular instance presumed that frauds existed, and on the strength of misconduct in a county of this State, to which of that presumption, he boldly made the charge he had alluded, was the act of a whig, not of what of their existence. Now, his friend well knew in this body has been called progressive demo- that no principle was better settled, than that cracy, nor had he ever intimated a belief that the where a charge of fraud was made, it was not to similar conduct, which he had described as pre-rest purely upon presumption, but the gentleman vailing in the city of Baltimore, was imputable to one of the political parties only. He had always regarded the odium as justly attributable to both parties. But as to what I shall say or do in this Convention, I disclaim all party ties or obligations; I belong to no party, my sole object being, in the matters now under consideration, to purge and protect the ballot-box from all impurities, and to frame such a Constitution as will give equal security and protection to every portion of the State of Maryland, and promote its tranquility and prosperity for ages yet to come. had given the Convention nothing more than the vaguest suspicion of its existence. If frauds did actually exist, and if the mode proposed by the gentleman from Kent would remedy the evil, he (Mr. B.) was quite willing that the gentleman should have his own way; but if fraud did not actually exist, then the whole basis of the complaint was taken away. Upon what did the gentleman rest his charge of fraud? Why, upon the ground that, a short time before an election came on, when the excitement was great, when the judgments were He was free to confess that he was not so re- lulled, or their cupidity awakened, frauds were plete with the milk of human kindness and tole- not only more easily committed, but were in fact ration, as the distinguished member from Queen committed upon the ballot-box. The argument Anne, who sees nothing in the acts of those pa- was not valid. Every man having any knowledge tronizers of naturalization, which he had endea-of the mode of conducting elections in the State vored to portray; but instances of the purest and of Maryland, (especially in that part of the State most praiseworthy charity and benevolence. to which the mind of his friend from Kent was Could he view their acts in the light that he does, more particularly directed, that was to say, the he should be one of the last persons in the com- City of Baltimore, where the greatest amount of munity to complain of them. To ask him to do no, was a heavier tax upon his credulity than it is able to bear. He had so long been in the habit of judging of the actions of men by the motives the foreign population resided,) knew that the time antecedent to an election, when great excitement prevailed, and when corresponding care and vigilance were exercised, was precisely the believe that these monstrous frauds existed because they were charged, he knew not where it would lead them. There was then no proof to show the existence of these frauds. time when such frauds could not be committed. I were about to throw their arms around the whole The excitement itself prevented their perpetra-press, and say that the Convention were bound to tion; because there were so many increased means for its detection. He insisted, therefore, that his friends on the other side were mistaken in asserting, that frauds were committed to an enormous extent in the City of Baltimore. What might be the case in the counties he did not know-but so far as Baltimore was concerned, the difficulty was not to prevent frauds, but to commit them. Mr. BUCHANAN then examined the position which had been taken, that a suspicion of fraud existed because men delayed application for their naturalization papers, in the expectation that other parties would contribute to their payment. Suppose this to be the case. He, for one would plead guilty to the charge, and would hold himself responsible for that high offence. Suppose it to be true, that a man did contribute out of his own pocket a portion of the means to enable an individual entitled to naturalization, to procure his papers. Was that wrong? Was it not in accordance with the very spirit of our institutions? Had we not invited the people of other lands to emulate our career, and take a light from the lamp of freedom which was burning here? What had we done in the case of the Greeks, and the Poles, and, more recently, in the cause of Hungary? Had we not held out to them the light of our example, and told them that they were not only entitled to be free-but entitled to the glorious liberty which we ourselves enjoyed? And had we not substantially said to them, come and cast your lot with us, and we will show you how free we are? Suppose then, that a son of Erin should make an appeal to him (and he took one of that race of men as an illustration, because in the hour of trial and of dark adversity he had ever found them true)-suppose such an individual should make an application to him (Mr. B.) He should examine into the matter and see whether he was entitled to his naturalization papers. Suppose he found him to be so-but that he was unable without aid to obtain his naturalization papers; or, at all events, that for reasons satisfactory to himself, he should call his (Mr. B.'s) aid, and he should grant it. Was this fraud? Was there any thing wrong in it? If the man was entitled to his papers, and he (Mr. B.) should choose, of his own volition, or upon the appeal of the individual himself, to aid him in obtaining his papers, was there any thing more in the transaction than any good freeman, or any generous mind, might properly and rightfully do? Mr. B. then alluded to the general nature of the testimony on which these allegations of fraud rested-that of the Newspaper press-as being unsatisfactory and insufficient. Disclaiming any charge of corrupt motive, he submitted that newspapers did sometimes say very extraordinary things in regard to the course and characters assumed, moral and political. The Convention itself had in the course of its debates, had some experience on that point. And, in high party times especially, one newspaper might be got to advocate any one doctrine, and another to advocate another-each devoutly believing in the orthodoxy of his own doctrine. And if gentlemen But his friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. DORSEY,) had adverted to the reports which were abroad, in Baltimore City, that these frauds were committed from time to time, and to an alarming extent. Surely no such hearsay evidence could be depended upon. Before no tribunal-and least of all before such a high tribunal as this -was any such testimony to be received. He challenged his friend from Kent to show the fact upon which, as a lawyer or as a Judge, he could pronounce that fraud did exist. But the gentlemen from Anne Arundel came to the relief of the gentleman from Kent, and said "Oh! it makes no difference, the provision only affects a few; it has no retrospective influence." Suppose that a few persons only were to be affected. Was that any reason for the adoption of such a provision? Were the feelings of a whole class of honest men to be wounded, or were they to be disfranchised because a few might be guilty of these frauds? If there were only a few, it was more facile to discover who they were, and to punish them. But he denied that the operation of this provision will be perspective alone, and not retrospective. Even if it were only perspective it would be a flagrant act of injustice on the part of the Convention. But it was retrospective also, and Mr. B. proceeded to sustain this position; and expressed his belief that the system of buying votes was carried on to a greater extent upon the Eastern Shore than in any other part of the State of Maryland. At the same moment he paid a passing compliment to the incorruptible integrity of the people of Baltimore County, and remarked that a man might as well attempt to run away with the Washington Monument, as to approach one of them with a bribe. He took it that that county preserved within her own borders purifying influences enough to save the whole State. [Laughter.] It behooved the Convention, whilst attempting to guard against frauds on the part of naturalized citizens, to be careful that it did not break the good faith of the State with them. The policy of the country, from its earliest days, had been to encourage immigration. In the stormy days of the Revolution, when France came to our rescue, the policy of the country was, not to repudiate and insult those of her sons who tendered their services and their lives in our cause, but to lean upon them--to put them in the van of our armies and to entrust them with the charge of our dearest and most sacred rights. He referred to the services which had been rendered to the country, previous to the adoption of the constitution, by the foreign population, and cited especially the cases of La Fayette, De Kalb, Steuben and Pulaski. In relation to Steuben, so gratified was the United States at his emigration to this country that, as was well known, Congress passed a vote of thanks to him for coming and offer ing himself as a private soldier in the ranks and fighting our battles-and soon afterwards he took command of the detachment and distinguished himself throughout the war. Such had been the policy not only of the Federal Government, but of the Government of the State of Maryland. The most liberal and enlarged privileges had been allowed to the freemen of that day; and that policy had been continued until the adoption of the constitution of '76. It was true, indeed, that for a time the policy of the General Government had been changed, and a restrictive policy substituted. But the latter in its turn had been repealed, and been followed by a new and most liberal system. It taught the people of foreign countries, that our policy was to admit these persons upon more liberal terms than had been held out under former laws. It would be bad faith now to turn our backs upon them, and enact odious provisions against them calculated to depi ve them not only of their rights, but of their bacter. Mr B. referred to the services which ha D rendered by the foreign population, d th, debt which was due to them-ins ci cially the services rendered by them after t destruction of the capitol, in the defence of Balimoe. In all our civic and military strug gle these individuais had stood manfully up, and now we were to turn upon them and insuit them. Not only had they fought our battles. but they had been among the foremost in the promotion of the charities of the land. He alluded to the school-houses they had built in Baltimore, and especially to an institution in Baltimore county, which had been built by the munificence of an Irishman, and which was known as "the Orphans' Home" He also referred to the late case of the McDonough bequest, in illustration of his point. And he concluded by expr ssing the hope that the Convention would not only act up to the vote it had given on Saturday last but that it would reject the proposition before it, so as to indicate to the people of the State that although they were willing to entertain it as a matter of caution and respect to those who advocated it, yet that, as a body, the Convention was utterly opposed to its adop tion. [Mr. B. spoke about 35 minutes. The above is a mere outline of his points, but is considerably longer than the limit prescribed by the contract.] Mr. SOLLERS stated that the gentleman from Anne Arundel had characterized some remarks which he had made on Saturday, as wild, extravagant and not worthy of notice. He felt himself called on to refer to the fact this morning, especially as "A chiel's amang us takin' notes." Mr. DORSEY explained that he did not use the phrase imputed to him, "not worthy of notice," but that he did not fee! himself called on to notice the remarks. Mr. SOLLERS resumed. That may be true, but the gentleman from Anne Arundel stated that the remarks were extravagant. As to his political and party tendencies, whatever they may be, or whether his father was a whig or a democrat, was a matter of little import It was not necessary to trace his lineage. But he felt called on to resist the assumption of an authority to compel the junior members of this body to sit still and sa nothing. He desired to say that he had uttered not a single sentiment which had not emanated from his heart. The gentleman from Kent, the gentleman from Anne Arundel and the gentleman from Queen Anne had all introduced politics in their speeches, and in a style in comparison of which he had said nothing extravagant. He had thought it right to make this explanation, and to add that while he had no desire to assail the gentleman from Anne Arundel, he could not consent to sit silent when he himself was assailed. The quest on was then stated to be on the amendment of Mr. Chambers. Mr Biser asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and being taken resulted as follows: Affirmative-Messrs. Dent, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Bond, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson Goldsborough, helps, Sprigg, McCubbin, McMaster and Hearn-21. Negative-Messrs. Chapman, I resident, Morgan Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Dalrymple, Sollers, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Welch. Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil, Meullough, Miller, McLane Bowie, Grayson, George, Dirickson, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan. Sappington, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcasle, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Kilgour. Brewer, Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, hower, Cockey and Brown-53. So the amendment was rejected. Mr BROWN indicated his intention to offer an amendment. The Chair requested that the gentlemen would reduce it to writing. Mr. CHAMBERS interposed, and desired the opportunity to state what his amendment was Mr. BRENT yielded the floor for the purpose. Mr. CHAMBERS then declared his amendment to be in the following words: States, of 21 years of age and upwards, who "Every tree white male citizen of the United shall have resided in this State," &c. Mr. BROWN referred to a case in which the amendment would operate unfairly. Supp se a man, living near the county line, acquired by and in the adjoming county, and transfer his repurchase or bequest an estate lying over the line sidence to the newly acquired property, is he. to be compelled to remain six months at his new residence befor: he is permitted to vote in that county? Whue we ought to do all that we can to prevent persons from coming into a county for a brief residence, merely for the pupose of voting, we ought to be careful not to abridge the rights of honest citizens, whose right to vote is not questioned. The object of the constitution is to secure the full enjoyment of the right of suffrage to those who are entitled to it. not to throw obstacles in its way. A citizen entitled to his vote in one county, ought not to be deprived of his suffrage because he has removed his residence over an imaginary line. Judge CHAMBERS stated that it was impossible in the most perfect system of 1gislation so to regulate its operation as to prevent the occurrence of cases of individual hardship. In the applicatio of principles it is necessary to keep in view the interests of communities It is owing to the unavoidable defectiveness of all human legislation, that no rule can be adopted which will work with its general equity in every indi vidual case. He i sisted on the necessity of requiring a residence of six months in a county to entitle the resident to the right of voting in that county. Without such a provision, what was there to prevent a portion of the voters of one county from passing over the line to give their votes in another county? He did not mean that we were purer or better now than we have been. Frands were perpetrated, and their was little difficulty in obtaining witnes-es to ustain them, and to screen the per e rators. It should be our aim to adopt every mode in our power to preserve the purity of the ballot-box. He requested the gentleman from Harford to withdraw his amendment. Mr. BROWN said it was admitted that this was a question of time; and he put it to the experience of gentlemen. whether the most stringent laws we could authorize would be sufficent to prevent the perpetration of frauds. Where you would shut out one person from the ballot-box to prevent a fra dulent vote, you would exclude two hon st voters, who are entitled to the exercise of their privilege. The gentleman from Kent and himself, differed on every principle connected with this question, and at a proper time' he might off r an amendment to reduce the time. Mr. MCHENRY asked if he had understood the gentleman from Kent as requesting him to withdraw his amendment. Judge CHAMBERS replied that he had done so for the purpose of expediting the business by permitting a vore to be now taken. Mr. MCHENRY said he had no objection, if there was a general understanding to that effect. Judge DORSEY expressed a desire to make an amendment. Mr. MCHENRY declined to withdraw his amendment. An indistinct and irregular conversation followe, which was sustained by a number of members, as to the phraseology of the amendment of Mr. CHAMBERS, the result of which was that Mr. CHAMBERS read the amendment in the form in which he desired it to be submitted to the Convention, and offered it as a substitute for the first section of the Report. The question, therefore, recurred on the amendment of Mr. MCHENRY (the vote requiring that a motion to perfect a proposition shall have precedence over a motion to strike out.) Mr. MCHENRY said, that the Convention had listened to so long a discussion on this subject, that he felt no disposition to protract it, especially as he felt that he could throw no new light upon it. He explained the object of his amendment to be to substitute a residence in the district for a residence in the county. He thought that it would effectually guard the purity of the ballot box, by making it impossible for a stranger to palm himself off as a resident. He was as anxious to promote the purity of the ballot box as any man in the Convention, but at the same time he was indisposed to place unnecessary restrictions upon it. Mr. DORSEY (interposing.) Does the gentleman designate any length of time-any number of days? Mr. MCHENRY. I have not done so. I preferred to leave it to the experience of other members of the Convention to specify what a proper limit would be. Mr. CHAMBERS would be willing, he said, to vote with all his heart for the proposition of the gentleman from Harford (Mr. MCHENRY,) if he (Mr. C.) could persuade himself that there were any thing in the proposed modification of the Report of the Committee, calculated to improve the chances of a pure election. He thought it probable that the suggestion made by the gentleman, might in a certain degree effect such a result. But why not engraft it on the other? If the gentleman would superadd his proposition as a requirement, and the Convention would concur in it, he (Mr. C.) would gladly go with him. It need not displace any of the other qualifications. Mr. MCHENRY said he had already disavowed very distinctly any desire to impose unnecessary shackles on the exercise of the elective franchise. He referred to the injurious restriction which it was the object of his amendment to remove, and contended that it contemplated the substitution of something useful for that which was at present useless-that its adoption would prevent frauds and would lead to the detection of men who held themselves out as denizens when in fact they were strangers. Mr. M'LANE asked if the gentleman from Kent had any distinct purpose in view in desiring this change from the phraseology of the old Constitution." Judge CHAMBERS replied that he had none. Mr. M'LANE. In that case he would move, by way of amendment to the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, to adopt the provision on this subject contained in the old Constitution, tolidem verbis. Judge CHAMBERS thought that the language ought to be rendered a little more explicit, or there might be some difficulty in ascertaining what sort of officers would be elected. Mr. M'LANE did not apprehend any difficulty as likely to arise on this point by the adoption of the language of the old Constitution. Unless the Convention should desire for some distinct purpose a variation of the phraseology from the old article, he should feel some unwillingness to make a change. He would confess that he felt so much veneration for the old Constitution as to be reluctant to lay his hands upon it, although he was fully aware that whatever we do here would be in part to change its character in some degree He looked with great respect on some of the clauses in that instrument, and thought they had worked well Abuses, it is true, have crept in, and he was ready to co-operate with gentlemen around him in their correction where they existed. But in this article he saw no necessity for any change. He knew there had been a good deal of difference of opinion on the distinction between citizens of the State and citizens of the United States. Although he could not concur in all the views which had been thrown out in these discussions, there were some to which he gave his assent And for the principle of obviating all difficulties he now proposed, in lieu of the amendment of the gentlemen from Kent, to insert the clause as it stood in the old Constitution, without alteration, and which he would now read. 66 Every free, white, male citizen of this State above twenty-one years of age, and no other, having resided twelve months within this State and six months in the county, or in the city of Annapolis or Baltimore, next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote by ballot, in the election of such county or city, or either of them, for Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States, for representatives in this State or the Congress of the United States for Delegates to the General Assembly of this State 典 * and sheriff's. Judge CHAMBERS reminded the Convention that the instrument from which the gentleman from propriety of reinstating the words in the original instrument which a subsequent Convention struck out. Because that Convention had thought it expedient to introduce this amendment, it was by no means necessary that we should follow in their steps. It appears to me, as it did to the Committee, that these citizens are entitled by their residence to the enjoyment of the elective franchise at all the elections. Mr M'LANE did not think that the fact of an individual holding land should constitute him a citizen. But he would not press his amendment now, as he would have the opportunity to offer it when the report was made to the House. Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore, asked for the reading of the section. The section was accordingly read. Mr. McHENDY moved to amend by striking out the words from the word "election" in the third line to the word "and" in the fifth line, being as follows, "at which he offers to vote shall have a right of suffrage," and inserting in lieu thereof the words following: "Shall, unless excluded by other provisions of the Constitution, be entitled to vote at every public election in the election district where his residence may have been established days preceding such election, and not elsewhere." The Chair suggested that that amendment would be in order after the one now pending shall have been disposed of. The CHAIR stated the question. Mr. DONALDSON proposed to insert the time, and moved to fill the blank with sixty days. Mr. MCHENRY suggested that a vote should first be taken on the principle. Mr. DONALDSON. No, Sir-it is a practical Cecil had read his amendment was not the origi-matter as to the length of time. nal Constitution of 1776, but was comparatively a late affair, (1809.) The language of the old Constitution was very different as may be seen by a reference to the proceedings on its adoption. The language of the old Constitution runs thus: "All freemen, above twenty-one years of age, having a free-hold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all free men having property in this State above the value of £30 current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election, shall have a right of suffrage in the election of delegates for such county." He supposed that when the amendment was made which had just been submitted, it was because we required citizenship, which was not required in the old Constitution. That instrument only required that persons should be residents of the State-it also used only the word "free," not "free white." Conceive the phraseology altered in the slightest possible degree, what would be the effect? We have citizens of the State certainly; as nothing is more common than to pass laws to enable foreigners to hold estates Now he did not desire to insert any language which does not convey the precise idea intended to be conveyed. He wished it to be distinctly indicated what a citizen of the State is. He hoped the gentleman from Cecil would see the After some conversation, Mr. MCHENRY moved to fill the blank with ten days. Mr. PHELPS moved thirty days. The question was taken on inserting sixty days, and was reject d. And the question was taken on inserting thirty days, and rejected. And the question was taken on inserting ten days and rejected. Mr. BROWN enquired of the Chair, whether it would now be in order to move an amendment to the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr CHAMBERS.) The Chairman said it was not now in order. The pending proposition had not yet been disposed of. Mr. MCHENRY enforced the propriety of the adoption of his amendment, by reference to the changes which were proposed to be made in the new Constitution, and the elections which would grow out of them; and he defended it against the supposition that there was anything in it which would interpose new restrictions upon voters. Mr. PHELPS said the object of the amendment he had proposed was to put the wards of the City of Baltimore, on a footing with the counties. We have been told that the frauds do not usually grow out of fraudulent naturalization papers, but from the same individuals casting their votes at different places. He wished to reach this |