MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1837.

THIRD ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole, on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair.

The question pending being on the motion of Mr. HAYHURST, to amend the amendment, by inserting after the word "taxes", and before the word" but", the words following, viz: "And free male citizens, qualified by age and residence as aforesaid, who shall, within two years next before the election, have paid any public tax required by law, shall also be entitled to vote in the district in which they shall reside".

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, rose to make one or two suggestions. It appeared to him to the object of the mover of this amendment, to introduce some mode of identifying voters as residents of the district. He (Mr. W.) would prefer the adoption of any other mode to that of paying a tax. If it was the desire of the committee to establish a mode of designating a species of record, to establish the fact of residence, it ought to be made on the most liberal principle. Ile did not believe, that a majority of this Convention were prepared to say that property is to be a basis of the right of suffrage, even to a limited extent, or that a tax qualification should be retained for any other purpose than as a record of citizenship. Gentlemen in favor of this principle, wish to make it rest on a certain length of residence. In this view, the mode of ascertaining the tax, in this amendment, is not so objectionable. In this view, it is more tolerable than when imposed under the idea that it confers any particular privilege. If a tax qualification be established for this purpose, it ought to embrace every man who pays any species of tax. A borough tax, for such purpose, would be as good evidence as a county tax; and, he who contributes by his labor, on the highways and public roads, should be equally entitled, because, owing to the great intercourse, he who pays the tax in this land of labor, stands in as much estimation, in public opinion, as he who pays a State or county tax of a shilling. Has he not as complete and full evidence of his right to vote, as if he paid a State tax? The object of the amendment is to extend the right, so as to allow him, who pays a township or borough tax, as well as him who pays a public and State tax, to exercise the right which is his, and this is sufficient evidence of the fact. He was in favor of this amendment. It extended the privilege to the honest laborer who may not have been able to save a sufficient sum to pay the State tax. There were many honest laborers, within his knowledge, who were not able to retain, from the necessary expenses of their families, the contingencies of sickness, and other incidents, enough to pay the State tax, but had contributed, by their working on the roads, and thus acquired a meritorious right to the exercise of the elective franchise. Might not this then be as satisfactory evidence as if they had been able to meet the hard faced collector. The man who has earned the right by the toil of his hands, as well as he who contributes his mite to the county tax, should be entitled to vote. And, who would object to this most reasonable extension of the right? Whom could it injure? Whose

rights would it abridge? It diminishes, abridges the right of no one, while it extends the rights of the honest laborer, who has not the means to pay in money, but only by his honest labor. Whom is it to injure? Who is to be found on this floor to oppose a provision, which gives the privilege to that labor and sinew which works on your public highways, and which its possessor would be as willing to bring into the field in time of danger? Who will say such are not qualified? No one. If the payment of taxes be only intended for evidence of qualification, here is such evidence as is not to be disputed. In regard to the terms of the amendment, the gentleman from Beaver took exception to the word public, as a vague and indefinite expression, not sufficiently intelligible. The gentleman from Beaver, he believed, was a lawyer, but all the legal talent of Beaver county could not have supplied a word more significant, or more plain. A public tax, to a lawyer and every one, conveys the idea of a tax imposed by a public law. What is a public law? The gentleman understands the difference between a public and a private law. What relates to the public, is a public law; while, a private law is that which relates to individuals. A tax is a public tax when it relates to the community. All taxes which relate to the community are public taxes.There is not the least ground for the exception taken by the gentleman. No term could have been selected more apt and appropriate. Why should not this amendment prevail. It injures no one, while it extends the rights of suffrage to a most meritorious class-not large, because most men, by means of their industry and economy, have accumulated something-those who cannot spare a pecuniary contribution, but have performed their duties on the soil, and are prepared to fulfil their duties, when required, in the field?

Mr. HAYHURST asked for the yeas and nays on his motion to amend, and they were ordered.

Mr. COCHRAN, of Lancaster, said that, as the yeas and nays had been called on this question, he wished to make a very few remarks. He had been ranked, as his votes would shew, among those who opposed many amendments to the Constitution, acting, as he believed, in consistency with the views of his constituents. He was well aware that his constituents were not disposed to make any considerable changes in the Constitution. There was a majority of votes cast in his county against a Convention; but in that majority there were many who were willing to amend the Constitution in parts, but they were fearful that too much would be done. He had not considered the amendments hitherto of much importance. One which was peculiarly entertained by his constituents was in reference to the diminution of the patronage of the Executive; but he did not think the amendment made on that point as in any way carrying out their views. They did not wish the responsibility of the Executive divided with any other branch of the Government, but that it should be entirely vested in him. For that amendment, therefore, he had not voted, as his constituents desired the restrictions to be in a different form. As regarded the tax qualification, he had voted in favor of it; and he should also vote in favor of this, as he believed that he was thus carrying out their wishes. The tax qualification was the most honest test which could be desired; and whatever may be said, and whatever arguments used to the contrary—" to this complexion we must come at last"; it is acknowl

edging that he who desires a share in the Government must contribute to its support. It is the most honest mode that can be devised; and it would extend the right to every individual who is willing and able to contribute; to every man who comes to reside among us. This amendment embraces the idea completely. He thought the gentleman from Luzerne had not defined the term public taxes so accurately as he might have done. It embraces the borough tax. He was not himself lawyer enough to say how far a borough tax is a public tax: but as it relates to a corporation-to individuals-he should consider it not strictly a borough tax. But whatever there may be in these minor considerations, it can be arranged afterwards. He hoped no one who had voted for the tax qualification (and he was proud to number himself among them,) would go against this proposition. It had gone abroad that this qualification was considered necessary, not on account of the amount of money paid, but as a record evidence of qualification. It ought therefore to be a public tax, as the payment of a borough tax might not at all times be available evidence. But he would not go against the amendment on that account: it was good enough in itself to cover a much greater evil. Some young gentleman of this Convention had called the tax qualification an aristocratical provision, and asked from whence we had derived it? If the gentleman had lived in the twilight dawn of our democratic representative institutions, or had cast even a superficial glance over the history of that period, he would have known that this principle was at the bottom of our Government; that it was the cry through the whole length and breadth of the land: that it was the foundation of our liberties: that it was this principle which called our fathers to the field: and that it was recognized in the Constitution of the United States, as also in the Constitutions of several States of the Union. Can it be called aristocracy, when it forms the ground work of our institutions? Strike this feature from the fundamental law, and you knock down one of the pillars of our institutions. In times of reform and improvement like these he might be wrong in uttering these sentiments, but he regarded this as the shortest and safest mode of determining the right to vote. He should think the term aristocracy ought not to be applied to this, the wisest and best provision in our Constitution. Where was the hardship on a man, when paying his mite? Does it not purchase for him the benefit of protection in life, person, property and happiness? They who are so ready to throw a stigma on it, should think more deeply on the subject, should look back to the times that tried men's souls, and participate in the feelings of the men of that day: they would then, he trusted, instead of casting a shade on the bright virtue of their forefathers, endeavour to sustain these institutions which they had constructed, which could not be done by taking away their foundation. He should vote for the amendment, and hoped it would be adopted, and that, on the second reading of the article, it would be arranged into the place to which it was appropriate.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, remarked on the doubtful interpretation to which the term "public tax" was liable. A doubt had been expressed whether or not it included a borough tax. If it did, how would it operate on what gentlemen suppose to be the true basis of the tax qualification? Any man who pays his borough tax in one borough, may, on moving into another county, vote on the receipt shewing that he had paid that tax,

If it was intended to include a borough tax, an assessment of any description, for any purpose, made by any borough, however constituted, would be suffictent to give the holder of the receipt a vote; and it was clear that the amendment would break down that principle on which many gentlemen had already voted, who had considered the payment of a tax as important in the light of evidence of general qualification. How could the authenticity of all the countless receipts, which might be exhibited in remote parts of the State, be ascertained by judges of the elections? It would be impossible that they who presided over the polls could decide correctly on all the documents which would be presented to their view as evidence. If public tax included boroughs, as he believed it did, it would include the smallest tax of the smallest borough, and who could learn the limit? Was it not clear that a wide door to fraud would then be opened? And a temptation to deceit, than which it would be better to abandon all restrictions, and at once permit the officers of our Commonwealth to be elected, and her fate and fortunes to be passed upon by strangers to her interests, and aliens to her soil? But he had already stated to the committee, that, in his view, the provision of the existing Constitution did not rest upon the ground of evidence alone, but had probably been intended as a financial provision. He believed it to be the best, the most effectual, and the least oppressive mode of securing to the public the contributions due from the citizens. Under our present system, the exercise of the right of suffrage is connected in the mind of the freeman with the payment of his contributions. The connexion causes that payment to be willingly and cheerfully made: to be regarded as an honorable act, worthy of a freeman, and to be followed by the enjoyment of a high, correspondent privilege. Take away that privilege, and you leave him simply in the position of a man paying a tax. He was unwilling to break down this principle to lessen the force of this association. And, in taking this course, he regarded himself as advocating the best interests of the lowly and the humble. It was to them of deep importance, that the property of the land should freely contribute its aid, and fully to the means of supporting those institutions upon which their peace, their liberty, their personal protection, and their domestic enjoyments rested. How can liberty be supported-how can the fireside of the cottager be protected from oppressionhow all that is dear to man be preserved to him-but by that government to maintain which, pecuniary contributions are necessary, which must be paid by those who are accommodated? These are the best modes of securing those enjoyments. If you break it down, you injure those for whose benefit you propose to pass this amendment. There is no necessity to pass it to secure the effects which are desired. The grounds are, that the labor of the laborer who works on your roads, ought to be available to him in giving him the right of suffrage-to stand in lieu of money. If it be to take the place of money, his labor is worth money, and how is it that he cannot as easily get a certificate of the payment of the value in money? There was nothing to prevent the Legislature from passing a law to regulate this, why then should we take away the great inducement to the payment of taxes, and break down the financial operations of the Go vernment? It was for the advantage of the poor, that those who were more fortunate, should contribute in proportion to their property; an effect which would be destroyed by establishing the rule that the payment of a single, uncertain, trifling borough tax, should give to the man of property

2

the same right at the polls, that he now derived from his full and free contributions. Americans had always revolted against direct taxes. The machinery of investigation and collection is averse to their habits-the most profitable taxes, and those most easily collected, have always been duties on imports. The feeling is in both cases the same; they dislike compulsory payment-but associate that duty with the privilege, and make it part and parcel of the freeman's rights; and, instead of being considered a burden, it will hereafter, as it has been heretofore, be deemed dishonorable to neglect that on which the support of the Government, and the enjoyment of their own franchise, alike depend. Substitute for this manly sentiment, the sufficiency of a borough receipt, and as to all the rest, suit and collectors' distresses, and it is easy to see what will be the result— how little advantageous to the real interests of those particular classes of persons for whom gentlemen affect so much anxiety. He believed that if any class of people in this Commonwealth, however humble, were assembled, and the boon was offered to them, that they should enjoy the right of suffrage, without contributing according to their means, that boon would be rejected with scorn. His countrymen did not require this at the hands of this Convention. They were a proud and a sturdy race of men. They loved the Government which they supported, and they felt that they had a property in it, because they rendered that support. It was a free and a manly sentiment, and went far to uphold the principle of equality of rights. It was a sentiment which he was unwilling to weaken-it was honorable to the American character, and should be upheld-not broken down, as in some degree he believed it would be, by the adoption of the amendment. He did not believe that they would feel honored or pleased by this amend

ment.

The extreme cases stated in argument, were all within the power and legitimate scope of legislative action. So, too, was it in the power of the Legislature, if they deemed it proper, to render a township certificate of work done on the roads, receivable in payment of county taxes, if that work should overrun the township duty. It was unnecessary to point out the modes of relief-they did exist and could be applied. Instead of which, we were now proposing to break up the whole system, and put afloat the whole doctrine of evidence, of finance, and of voluntary contribution. Borough receipts might hereafter become of cheap and easy purchase, and in the course of time-for we are not framing laws for a day or a year, but for a century-struggling parties at the extremity of a State, might find it a profitable speculation to contribute to the necessities of some new-fledged borough, wherever it could be found, and purchase at the cheapest possible rates, tickets of admission to the polls of freemen. It is our duty to guard the Commonwealth against the dangers of corruption. If men were always pure and good, the labor of legislation would be light, indeed. For these reasons, as one whose feelings are friendly to that class of citizens for whose benefit this amendment was intended, and feeling at heart their equality of rights, and as a detester of every thing at war with that feeling, he was constrained to give his preference to the old Constitution.

Mr. WOODWARD said, the Constitution, as it now stands, requires the payment of a State or county tax. He wished to know, if working on the road would pay a State or county tax? Would working on the road pay a State or county tax? The Siste has no roads on which a tax can