But it was said, that it would operate onerously upon our mechanics, and be more of a hardship to them than any body else. He (Mr. B.) however, did not believe it would operate in this way, with reference to this class of society.

He considered this body of men, as worthy of all praise and commendation. Who are the wealthy men of our community? Those very men who by the steady pursuit of industry, have gradually accumulated property until they have become the wealthy and most respectable of our land, while the sons of the rich, after wasting the substance which their fathers earned, became the indigent and almost useless citizens of our country.

Mr. B. knew the industrious character of our mechanics, and knew that they were not the persons who would be moving about daily. He thought our country friends would tell us, that the working-classes of this country, were not a roving population, who remained but a short time in one place. He took it, that no gentleman need vote against the pending amendment on this account.

It seemed to him, that this amendment was well calculated to protect the purity of the elective franchise, which was of the utmost importance to the people of our state-he should therefore, most cheerfully give it his

vote.

Mr. CURLL considered that this whole thing had been maturely considered before, when some eight or ten days had been spent solely with reference to the city and county of Philadelpia. He trusted, therefore, that we were not going to have another discussion, with reference alone to this part of the state.

If he recollected rightly, several days had been proposed, in committee, as being a suitable time for residence in a district. Three days, five days, ten days, and twenty days, had been proposed, and the vote taken on each, and all rejected.

Then where was the necessity of bringing up this question at this late period, when our labors are drawing very nearly to a close. We have now but about fourteen days to finish the important business which we have been called together to act upon, and he hoped we would not have those amendments, which we have made in committee of the whole, embarrassed in this way.

He (Mr. C.) was opposed to this amendment at Harrisburg, and he was opposed to it here. He considered that a citizen's right to vote, depended upon the payment of his tax, and he had no idea of depriving those who had paid their tax, of a vote, upon any such grounds as those which had been advanced in support of this amendment. It appeared to him, that if election officers performed their duty, there would be but little necessity for this amendment in any district in the state. This proposition, he believed, had been introduced solely with reference to the city and county of Philadelphia, and he took it that too much of the time of the body, had been wasted upon it. He trusted therefore, that the convention would at once agree to reject the amendment.

Mr. M'CAHEN was much pleased to hear the favorable notice, which had been taken of the working-men, by the gentleman from the city of of Philadelphia, but at the same time he must say, that he took exception to the manner in which the gentleman had expressed his sentiments.

The gentleman had said, that the hardy mechanic by his industry, raised himself to fortune and respectability, whilst the sons of the wealthy, by idleness, wasted the substance their fathers had left them and become worthless creatures. maintaining the principle, that wealth conferred respectability, and poverty worthlessness.

Mr. BIDDLE did not desire what he said, to be construed in this way, as it was not his intention that his language should convey this idea. He had said, that the mechanic by his industry, had become the wealthy and respectable of your land: but he did not intend to convey any other idea, with respect to the sons of the wealthy, than that by their habits they had become less valuable as citizens.

Mr. M'CAHEN Would accept the explanation of the gentleman from the city, although he must say that he understood the gentleman differently. He would, however, drop this matter and proceed, and endeavor to show the gentleman in a satisfactory manner, that this amendment would operate unequally upon the different classes in society.

The gentleman says, that it would not be difficult for persons to maintain a residence, and to bring evidence of that residence to the polls. But the gentleman must recollect, that men who were holders of property, were not required to bring any evidence to the polls of residence, while the poor man would be compelled to come to the polls, with a witness to vouch for him. Was this not creating distinctions between the different classes? He thought it was.

He was in favor of protecting the purity of elections, by the severest penalties he would make it an infamous crime, to be punished in the severest manner, to give an illegal vote. He would go almost any length in providing punishment for fraudulent voters, but he never would consent to any provision which would make distinctions between the

voters.

He would agree to have judges of the election of different parties, or he would agree to any provision of this description, which would guard the purity of election, and which would operate equally; but he would not give his vote to a provision which would require a poor man to bring a witness along with him to the polls.

The gentleman from the city, has said, that the mechanics do not move about from one district to another. In this, however, the gentleman was entirely mistaken, for there was no class of society which moved about more, unless it was perhaps some few of them, who have been fortunate enough to erect a building as a permanent residence for themselves. There were, to be sure, many of them who had done this, but the proportion who had not, and who were very much unsettled as to residence, was more than as ten to one. They are compelled to move from one district to another, and from one town to another, as business changes, in search of employment.

Well, would you deprive these men of the privilege of exercising the right of suffrage, because they are compelled to move into anothe election district, in order to obtain the means of supporting and sustainin themselves and their families? He trusted that no man would be deprive of this most sacred right, on pretences so slender.

He hoped that the majority of this convention would not, by their votes, create a greater distinction between voters, than that which already exists, because it would be an extremely hard case for the man who had paid his tax regularly, but who had been compelled to change his residence a short time before the election, to be deprived of his vote in consequence of the change.

The gentleman from the city had appealed to his friends from the county, in relation to the change of residence of the mechanics and workingmen. He thought, however, that the gentleman had appealed to witnesses, who were likely to come up against him, for those persons well knew how liable the workingmen are to change their residence, although they may be the most correct and upright citizens. Would you then deprive this meritorious class of citizens, of the right of suffrage in this way?

While we can by our laws, guard the right of suffrage, he hoped we would never prevent a man, who was justly entitled to vote, from coming to the polls, if he had only resided one day in the district where he was about to vote.

He hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, might be rejected by the convention.

Mr. REIGART then modified his amendment, so as to leave the number of days blank.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, said we had had all this matter up in committee of the whole, and this section was broken down by the structure which was piled upon it. He hoped gentlemen were not now disposed to pursue the same course, and erect a fabric which must fall of its own weight, as did that which was built up at Harrisburg by the committee of the whole last summer. It might be on this occasion, that we can find a majority in favor of some half dozen different amendments to this section; but the question is, whether a majority will be found to sustain the section, with all these heterogeneous and incongruous amendments connected with it. We have found that they would not do it on a former occasion, and he thought this was a strong reason why we should now stick to the amendment of the committee of the whole.

Who is it, that it is intended this ten days' residence should operate upon? It is intended only to operate upon those whose residences are not fixed. Upon the workingmen and mechanics of the country, who are moving from one place to another continually, and, by this, provision, if it is adopted, they will be deprived of their rights.

As to the commission of fraud in elections, he did not look upon this amendment as calculated to prevent it, because, if a person is desirous of committing fraud, he can move into a district ten days before an election, and commit the fraud just as well with this amendment as without it. Besides, this provision may lead to difficulties between the voters and the election officers.

A young man may leave the place where he has been engaged, and may, perhaps, come into this district where his parents reside, and reside with them. When he presented himself at the polls, he may be told by the election officers that he has not been a resident in the district ten days, but that he was a mere transient boarder in it. Well, if he returns to

the district where he formerly resided, he may be told there that he is not a resident of that district, having left it ten days before, and by this means he may be deprived of his vote in either district.

By this amendment, you place it entirely in the hands of the judges, to deprive citizens of the sacred right of suffrage, and by your provision, you do not prevent it. It is, to say the least of it, nothing more or less, than a restriction upon the elective franchise, and he hoped that this convention, instead of placing restrictions upon the elective franchise, would endeavor to make it more free and general.

He was entirely opposed to this amendment, and to the system pursued of building up amendments on this section. It was this grain of wheat which broke the camel's back before, and he hoped it would not do the same thing again.

Mr. BIDDLE then referred to page ninety of the journal, for the purpose of showing how Mr. BROWN had there voted on this question, when it was before the convention last summer.

Mr. BROWN would ask the gentleman, to refer to page 101, and see how he had voted there upon it.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, had been attempting to alarm the convention, by telling gentlemen that it was this last grain of wheat which had broken the camel's back. Now, every man who would refer his recollections back to that time, must know that this amendment was finally lost, 55 to 54, and that it was not lost on account of this grain of wheat, but in consequence of some other objectionable features.

Mr. BROWN. I say it was lost because of this last grain of wheat. It was lost by one vote only, and I voted against it, merely, because it had this amendment connected with it.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, that this was no evidence that it was voted down on this account. There were other gentlemen's votes to be operated upon, as well as that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, and he now said that it was fair to presume, that it was voted down as much on account of the objectionable feature, in relation to corporation taxes, as on any other account.

By a reference to page eighty-six, of the committee of the whole, it will be seen that the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. Hayhurst) introduced an amendment, providing that all those who had paid a school, poor, or municipal corporation tax, should be entitled to vote. That amendment was adopted, and then the provision in relation to ten days' residence, was introduced, and in consequence of so many objectionable provisions in the section, it was voted down, 55 to 54. He would take the occasion to say, that he knew two or three gentlemen who were absent from their seats at that time, who would have voted for this provision.

He trusted therefore, as we had once agreed to this amendment, that we would still adhere to it, and he had no doubt a majority of the convention would concur in the section if the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EARLE said, that his colleague had stated that those in favor of restricting the right of suffrage, would go for the amendment at this time, and those opposed to a restriction of that right, would vote against it.

Now, he (Mr. E.) did not want to be classed among those, who were in favor of restricting the right of suffrage, as he thought he should be in favor of extending it farther than it was at present extended, and farther than any other delegate had said he would go, but while he would extend the right so far that taxation and representation in all cases would go together to the fullest extent, so that it should be extended to every man who was taxed upon his dress, or upon his food, but at the same time that he would do this, he would be willing to go for such restrictions as would prevent fraud and corruption in our elections.

Mr. REIGART then proposed to fill the blank with seven days.

Mr. BIDDLE proposed ten days; and,

Mr. FORWARD proposed fifteen days.

Mr. FORWARD wished to say a word to those who were opposed to any restrictions, in regard to this matter of residence. He felt certain that some limitation in regard to residence ought to be made, and fifteen days seemed to him to be an appropriate length of time. All have agreed that frauds have been committed in the exercise of the right of suffrage, and it appeared to him that it must be admitted on all hands, that some such restriction as this ought to be provided, to preserve the purity of your elections, and prevent that greatest of all evils, corruption therein.

ment.

Whenever the people see your elections carried by fraud, then will there be an end of all confidence, and in a short time will there be an end of free government. A few corrupt votes may make the majority in your whole state government-aye, sir, ten corrupt votes may turn the scales in your senate, your house of representatives, and your executive governTen corrupt votes, on one side, may give a majority in the senate -a majority in the house, and a majority for the governor of the state. Then, if there is this chance of fraud, will the people be content ?—if there is a certainty of fraud in your elections, will the people submit to it? It seemed to him that they would not, and that the best and the surest and the safest way of preserving peace and order and content in the public mind on this subject, was to place such restrictions upon this right, as would ensure the purity of your elections.

He could not see any hardship in the amendment proposed, because, if a man made himself incapable to vote, it was his own act, and he did it knowingly. It might be, that, in some few cases, it would operate onerously, but, on the other hand, if it was not adopted, honest votes might have their votes destroyed, by the exercise of the right, by illegal suffrages.

Some have objected to the amendment, because it might be productive of inconvenience. This, however, ought not to operate against it, because every general rule must, in some cases, produce inconvenience. In the very nature of things it must be so. Go into your courts of justice, and how often do you find inconvenience, because a general rule never can be so perfect, as entirely to do away with inconvenience.

In fact, there is no general rule without some hardship, but it was infinitely better that the honest voter should be secure in his vote, when it was given, than that an illegal voter should have the opportunity of nullifying his suffrage.