a society in which all are interested in the welfare of the others-each one in the welfare of all the other members of the family. It is a society which all consult for the interests of the whole.

I claim that this family, in the exercise of their right of suffrage, cast the ballot through the head, the representative of the family, making the family a part of the people, in whom all power is inherent. They are not cut off-the wife is not cut off-the children are not cut off. All are All are represented, and represented in accordance with their interests. The family, Mr. Chairman, thus becomes the unit of the State. It is out of families that governments are framed, and without these family relations there can be no governments; none ever has been formed. It is from these units that we call families that the government is constituted.

I have said that it was a secret society; that it was a society in which each one deliberated for the benefit of the whole. It is a relation into which discord should never enter. It may, however, possibly enter; but when it does, the fewer discordant sounds that are heard beyond the family threshold the better for the family and for the State.

Now it is proposed to throw an element of discord into this sacred relation, to constitute the wife a voter in opposition to the wishes of her husband, and bring disputes and quarrels into the family. I utterly deny its policy, and for this reason, if there were no other, I would vote against the granting of the right of suffrage to

Women.

:

But there are other objections of equal importance. The point of honor in man is bravery. Physical ability and courage are his distinguishing characteristics. He is the natural protector of woman, and the natural defender of his country's rights. The point of honor in woman is virtue. A refined nature and a delicate sensibility are her distinguishing characters. These impart to the many excellencies of woman the chief charm. I would not harden that refined nature, and blunt that delicate sensibility by conferring upon woman the right of suffrage, which, if exercised, would compel her to buffet, not only with the rougher specimen of her own sex, but with vulgar men, in her effort to reach the election window. To confer this right would impose upon woman the entire change of her dress. She would have to assume the Bloomer costume. How could a lady with her trail,

in a crowd, get to the election window? It might be trampled on by fifteen men, one behind the other.

Again, Mr. Chairman, in bearing and nursing her children, the mother is often. as unfitted to discharge the duties of an elector as she is to discharge the duties of a soldier. We should, for these and many other reasons, confer the right of suffrage upon male citizens only.

A word here with reference to the other pre-requisites to the right of suffrage, in the first paragraph of this section, the payment of taxes. I have already alluded to the principle upon which the payment of taxes, as a pre-requisite to the exercise of the right of suffrage, is founded, and I shall not dwell further upon that; but I shall ask the indulgence of the committee whilst I refer briefly to a few of the Constitutions of the States upon this subject.

The requisite of taxation is not found in any of the States of this Union but five. It did exist in many other States, but it is being gradually abolished from time to time and from year to year, so that there are but five left. They are Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee. "A man is known by the company he keeps." It may be true with reference to States; and I do not myself desire that Pennsylvania should keep company with Delaware and her whipping-post, nor many other institutions that she now has; nor do I desire her to keep company even with Massachusetts in her free-hold qualification, which she still retains, or the substance of it; nor do I desire her to keep company with Rhode Island, for although after she incarcerated Dorr within the walls of her penitentiary she made material changes, which somewhat liberalized her institutions, she still retains property qualifications, which are a disgrace to any republican government. I am not here to allege that Dorr was not legally convicted and legally incarcerated. The inquiry of the court was, what was the Constitution of Rhode Island, and what the offence of Dorr? And under those inquiries Dorr was legally found guilty; and that, too, although Dorr, in common with a large majority of the citizens of Rhode Island, had honestly made every possible effort to secure proper and needed reforms; although a Convention had been called by the people to amend the Constitution, after every effort had been made to induce the Legislature to call it; after petition after petition had

gone up to the Legislature from a majority of the citizens of Rhode Island for relief from organic laws, which, confining the right of suffrage to a very small portion of the people, although the Legislature had turned a deaf ear to these petitions; although a Constitution was adopted, and submitted to the people and approved by them, and approved, too, even by a majority of those entitled to vote under their old laws, still it was not the Constitution of Rhode Island, because the Legislature of Rhode Island had not called the Convention or sanctioned the Constitution thus adopted by the Convention and approved by the people. And therefore Dorr was convicted, sentenced and incarcerated. And why? Because the people could not be permitted to revolutionize the government. If Rhode Island had been an independent government-if she had not been one of the United Statesthink you that Dorr would ever have been imprisoned? Not at all. It was the relation that Rhode Island bore to the general government, and it was the intimation that came down from that government that the power the United States must recognize was old Legislature, not the Legislature under the Constitution. And therefore it was that the army of Dorr dispersed, and that he was arrested and imprisoned. The patriot was suddenly transformed into the felon.

Still, Mr. Chairman, that effort at reform led to the improvements in the Constitution of Rhode Island, but it is still a disgrace to a government calling itself republican, and, therefore, I desire that Pennsylvania shall not keep that kind of company. There then remains but one other State, and that is the State of Tennessee. The only thing I admire in the State of Tennessee is: That although they have a tax qualification as a pre-requisite to the right of suffrage, the people have independence of character enough to call it by the right name. Some of the five States have a dollar tax, but they do not call it by the right name. In Tennessee, however, they call it just what it is-a poll tax. It is the same tax that we have in Pennsylvania, and the only difference is in amount, five cents and a dollar. The amount can make no difference in the principle. It is a poll tax in the one case, and it is a poll tax in the other. It is a personal tax in both cases. Other States have a poll tax of a dollar, but Tennessee comes up manfully, and calls it by its right name to her credit. It will be found

We

that in all these States they have retained other property qualifications, which have been abandoned in Pennsylvania. have come down to the five cents, and yet it is claimed that we should continue to retain this pre-requisite to the right of suffrage, of which all other States in this Union, but those I have alluded to, have become ashamed. I have dwelt longer upon this section than probably I ought, but I have dwelt upon it solely from its exceeding importance. The report of the committee occasions me considerable embarrassment, from the fact that the printed report has just come to my hands, and I have been unable to make any notes upon it.

A number of the sections have been framed for the purpose of preventing fraud upon the ballot, and to preserve the purity of the elective franchise. The principle upon which the Committee on Suffrage acted in all these provisions was to do all that was absolutely and indispensably necessary to accomplish these objects, and no more. They conceived that the preservation of the purity of the ballot-box, and the honest exercise of the right of the elective franchise, lie at the very foundation of our institutions, and that if they be struck down and corrupted by the rogue and villain, we may as well surrender our republican government. Representation will be a failure. We would have misrepresentation, and not representation, and therefore the members of the committee were unanimously of opinion that whatever is necessary to be done must be done, no matter how burdensome and inconvenient to accomplish these objects. Although I should have greatly preferred to have grouped the different sections so as to have spoken upon more than one section at a time, yet, under the circumstances in which I am placed, I shall be compelled to take them up separately, and comment upon them as I proceed.

against any time rather than have a longer time than one month. But finally the committee almost unanimously agreed upon the section as it has been reported, believing that vigilance will supply the lack of time, and that any evils which may arise can be corrected. Therefore one month was agreed upon almost unanimously in committee. The second section reads: “All elections of the citizens shall be by ballot; the ballots voted may be open or secret, as the electors may prefer, and they shall be numbered by the election officers when received. Each elector shall write his name upon his ballot, or cause it to be written thereon, and attested for him by another elector of the district, who shall not be an election officer." When this proposition was first mooted in committee it had but few advocates. The more it was considered, and the greater the knowledge acquired of the frauds perpetrated in elections, the greater seemed the impossibility of guarding against them in any other possible way than this, and the more convinced the committee were of the necessity of reporting the section as it has.

In the opinion of the committee this section will preserve the secrecy of the ballot to as great an extent as is consistent with the detection of fraud. If the frauds on the ballot-box can be detected in any other manner than is provided for in this section, the committee is not desirous of urging upon the Convention its adoption as a necessity. The great difficulty in the past has been in ascertaining when the ballot-boxes were produced, where and in what manner the frauds had been committed.

It was represented in committee, by 'those who had facilities for obtaining the information, that instances are known where election officers have been bribed to allow parties to take the ballot-boxes into an adjoining room, change their contents, or rob them of every vote that had been deposited in them. This section proposes, therefore, to place the contents of the ballot-box in such a condition that when opened the officers of the court can have the means of detecting whether any frauds have been perpetrated upon the elective franchise. The committee knew of no way by which this could be done better than by affording a means under which the voter himself could be called before the court, and if he could not write, a means by which an elector of the preeinct or district could be called before the

court and easily identify every ballot. The adoption of this section, it is believed, will accomplish this result. Every ballot can be identified by the elector who writes his own name, or by the elector who writes the name of another. There can be no change made in any of the ballots for the purpose of committing a fraud upon the contents of the boxes without prompt means being furnished of detecting the fraud. It was argued in the committee, and it will, no doubt, be argued here, that this will destroy the secrecy of the ballot. It will to some extent, I admit, and although it has been said that the election officers will be able to ascertain the nature of the ballot, I do not know that this necessarily follows, unless the name of the party for whom the vote is cast is taken down by the officers. The number of the ballot will be taken down, and by this and its endorsement it is to be identified.

It is not at all necessary, it seems to me, that the contents of the ballot should be known to the election officers, but if it were, then they could be sworn to secrecy. There is no necessity for the exposure of the ballot until it comes into the court for investigation, and there necessity requires the exposure.

"The Legislature shall enact a uniform law for the registration of electors, but no elector shall be deprived of the right to vote by reason of not being registered.”

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand the gentleman from Centre to desire to go over the whole bill and discuss every section?

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Mr. Chairman: I the committee to make these changes. want to give the reasons which induced

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no wish to confine the chairman of the Com

mittee on Suffrage, Election and Representation to the discussion of the first section unless objection is made. If it is the wish of the committee to allow the gentleman from Centre the privilege of discussing the entire report the Chair has no objection.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. Mr. Chairman: Will the gentleman from Centre give way a moment? I think that the chairman of the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation should have the privilege of explaining his full report, and I submit to my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Broomall,) that he withdraw his amendment, for the present, for the

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Chairman: That cannot be done now, but, as I understand the rules, the chairman of any committee has a perfect right to explain his whole report, and go over the whole subject in committee of the whole.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will give the gentleman from Centre that privilege unless some gentleman makes objection. Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Chairman: I suggest that, by the rules, he is entitled to it anyhow.

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Mr. Chairman: I certainly have no disposition to trespass upon the attention of this Convention.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires the gentleman to understand that the Chair has no desire to stop him at all, and would prefer him to go on. The statement was made to the Chair, by some gentleman on the floor, that the chairman of the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation was discussing the whole

bill.

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that the amendment be withdrawn, because I saw the embarrassment in which I would be placed by it. I conceived it to be my duty to make these explanations, and therefore felt embarrassed by the position in which the amendment placed me.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from The gentleman from Centre will go on unless he is checked. Mr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman: I desire to ask the gentleman from Centre if the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation have considered viva voce voting as a means of preventing frauds at elections.

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Mr. Chairman: The Committee considered the question of viva voce voting very fully. Indeed, my recollection is that there was no member of the committee who, when the subject was before it, did not share in the discussion of the subject. But there were so many objections raised to it that it was thought inexpedient to report a section incoporating that idea. I do not think it necessary that I should occupy the time of the committee on that subject, as my colleagues can answer any argument of my friend from Philadelphia, (Mr. Woodward,) or any other gentleman who proposes that view.

To return to the subject of the registration of voters. Evils have existed, in times that are past, growing out of our

essential, indispensable, that a registry should be made of the electors, with the view of affording the citizens of a district an opportunity of inquiring into the places of residence of the proposed electors. The time, as many other things in all these other sections reported by the committee, is left to the Legislature. There is no one thing in our report that does not require legislation. The committee did not consider themselves as codifiers.

They simply establish certain principles to be carried out by the Legislature, by enactment of laws under these requisitions, and all that they required in this was a registration of the voters, with a view of furnishing that information which is indispensable to the detection of frauds at a coming election. But while this registration was thus conceded to be necessary, it was unanimously decided, in committee, that it should not deprive, as in the past it has deprived, men otherwise qualified to vote, of their right to do so, and therefore the above provision.

Then comes the section in reference to the bribing of voters, the giving or offering to give to an elector any money or consideration for his vote, or for its withholding at an election. The section is a little more voluminous than the committee could have desired, and yet it seemed to be necessary that it should be so extended to meet every possible case. It is not necessary that I should go into the verbage of this section. It may be amended with advantage, but it seemed indispensably necessary to throw this shield around the exercise of the right of suffrage. It was stated in committee, by many members of the committee, that in many counties in the interior of the State the purchasing of votes, in closely contested districts and closely contested counties, has been and is a common practice, and that the price of votes have ranged from five to fifty dollars. Acting upon this information, and upon this basis, the committee reported this section as indispensably necessary to the protection of the the honest voter, disfranchising the perpetrator of the wrong, who, in these words, "shall thereby forfeit the right to vote at such election."

Then came the question, shall he be pardoned by an Executiv,e whose office was secured, perhaps, by the very fraud? Shall the Executive have the right to pardon? No gentleman on the committee

and no one in this assembly, could pretend that he should. Then should he be forever deprived of the right of suffrage, without the hope of relief, no matter what the circumstances? Here we had two alternatives-leaving to the Execu tive the pardon of his own accomplices, if you please, or depriving him forever of the right to vote. It seemed to the committtee that the provision with which this section concludes would meet that fully, "shall thereby forfeit the right to vote at such election, and any elector whose right to vote shall be challenged for such cause before the election officers shall be required to swear or affirm that the matter of the challenge is untrue before his vote shall be received."

I thought it was a proviso, but I misstated. I beg the pardon of the Convention. That is another section. I was speaking of the proviso in another section-I thought it was in this.

I have a word further to say upon the section under consideration. It was conceded that the right which was forfeited by this section could not be tried at the election board. There was no one could pretend that it should. But where the right is challenged on that ground, it was thought right to put the man who claimed the exercise of that right upon his oath as to the truth or falsity of the cause of challenge. If he swear that the subject matter of the challenge is false, then he votes. No matter how the fact may be, he votes. But he is liable to the pains and penalties of perjury in a future prosecution if he swear falsely. It leaves him in hands of the law, but his right to vote shall not be further inquired into at that poll. This seemed to the committee to be right.

"Every person convicted of any fraudulent violation of the election laws shall be deprived of the right of suffrage, but such right, in any particular case, may be restored by an act of the Legislature, twothirds of each House consenting thereto." This is the provision to which I alluded in mistake. It was thought, for the reasons that I have given, and I will not repeat them, that this was the best disposition to be made with reference to pardon. That it should first be an act of the Legislature, requiring the assent of the Governor, and that it should also require two-thirds of each House before the pardons could be granted. It would not place the fraudulent voter, whether guilty or innocent, beyond the hope of relief, but it would place

him in a situation in which he would not be likely to obtain a pardon improperly.

Then, as to withholding testimony: “In cases of contested elections no person shall be permitted to withhold his testimony upon the ground that it may criminate himself, or subject him to public infamy, but such testimony shall not afterward be used against him in any judicial proceedings." It was thought that the nature of this crime and its character, as striking at the very life of our institutions, at that which we hold most dear, at that on which all our institutions depend, justify the people in requiring a voter to tell what he knew about frauds at an election. And therefore it was that we compel all who participate in these frauds to testify. Now it was said, and it will be said, that you cannot depend upon the testimony of men who are guilty of these crimes. I admit that those who purchase votes at the election polls, to turn a doubtful contest and secure a victory in a doubtful district, cannot be depended upon. But the masses who come in from the country round can be. We had evidence that twenty five farmers come in at one election poll, and take compensation for their votes at an election held in the last year, and these men would not swear to a lie. They were induced thus to act under the belief that they might just as well make some money out of this thing as anybody else. Without reflecting on the enormity of the crime they come in and take the money, but if called up to testify in an investigation of the fraud, they would still testify to the truth, if relieved from the pressure brought to bear upon them by those who seduced them from the path of virtue, and who now come to them and say, "if you testify, if you open your mouth upon this subject, you will be in prison within an hour, and in the penitentiary before a year.”

It is this threat thus made to the man who has been seduced that prevents the detection and punishment of these frauds, and by removing the penalty, by taking this instrument out of the hands of the villain, will secure his conviction and his punishment, and prevent the frauds so common upon the elective franchise.

I will now refer to the provision relating to the election of managers and directors of incorporated companies-private corporations.

Although there were differences of opinion in reference to this mode of election, the free vote in its application to general elections, there was no difference in the