chise shall be what it heretofore has been, and we will not degrade ourselves, for I look upon it as degradation, by inserting into our organic law a feature such as this coming from the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: If I could not accomplish that desire in the way that I suggest, then I would even vote for this report of the committee, but I feel confident that we can otherwise accomplish it. In not In not one Constitution in this Union is there a provision similar to that which is asked now by this report to be introduced into ours. We have copied from Illinois, a Constitution that is but a compilation of private acts of corporations. We have copied from it until our Journals are full of extracts, and yet in that State, Mr. Chairman, there is no such provision as this. This Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation has guarded against all frauds, as they think. They have incorporated an oath that I do not believe in, but they consider it necessary, and on the subject of the right to vote they have these words: "All votes shall be by ballot." That is what is in the Constitution of Illinois. If gentlemen are going to copy in other respects from that Constitution, in the name of honesty, in the name of integrity to ourselves, in the name of good constitution, let them incorporate that, and make that the provision

in ours.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am not going over the arguments that have been used, pro and con, in this discussion. I rose simply to state some of the reasons why I shall not vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Kaine,) and why I wish to enter my earnest protest against incorporating in our Constitution a clause or a section such as has come from the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation.

Mr. WORRELL. Mr. Chairman: I desire to say a few words in support of the section, as reported by the committee, and in opposition to the proposed amendments. The provision which especially commends itself to my approbation is that which permits the elector to vote an open ballot. I believe that the people would, in a great measure, correct and punish frauds upon the ballot-box if the proofs of the frauds were presented to them at or about the time of the election. But the great obstacle in the way of remedying the evils of which complaint is

made is the fact that, at present, with the secret or folded ballot, we can, except in a few cases, do no more than suspect the perpetration of fraud in any particular district, unless a legal investigation shall have determined the commission of unlawful acts. And that citizen would be temerarious indeed who would express the belief that a particular election officer had not discharged his duties with propriety, for such expression might involve him in expensive and annoying litigation. Under the present system of conducting elections, except in rare instances, no one can be visited with public censure, no matter how justly merited, until, in due form of law, it shall have been adjudicated that he participated in the corruption of the ballot-box. Now I am one of those who believe that no one is entirely insensible to popular criticism and popular reprehension; and it is my firm conviction that many an unscrupulous officer would resist and overcome his inclination to violate the law if he knew that, on the day of election, his friends and neighbors would possess overwhelming and conclusive evidences of his fraud. And if such evidences existed at that time, the offenders against the purity of the ballot would, in a large majority of cases, be prosecuted and punished; such prosecution and punishment failing now, because the evidence is not at hand at the time, when the people are in the temper for indicting and convicting the offenders.

This section, however, affords an opportunity of obtaining such evidences at the moment the officers announce the result of an election, The honest citizens of any district can, under this section, protect themselves against fraudulent counts and false returns, by voting an open ticket and having memoranda of their votes made by some one selected for the purpose; and these memoranda, properly attested, would furnish the evidence for convicting the offender.

It has been said that, if this section be adopted, legal investigation will determine if any, and if any, what frauds have been perpetrated; but I approve it, because it will invite investigation; for, if such memoranda, as I have referred to, be made, the official returns will be examined and compared to decide and settle whether such investigation shall be had or not; for these memoranda, in any division in which they are carefully kept,

ought to furnish an absolutely correct account of the votes polled in the division.

Mr. GoWEN. Mr. Chairman: I simply desire, for a few moments, to call the attention of the delegates who do not come from the city of Philadelphia to the difficulty that exists in this city, and I particularly desire to say to the delegate from Erie (Mr. Walker) that in Philadelphia there was found not only one good man, as there was in Sodom and Gomorrah, but there were several hundreds and thousands of good citizens, who united themselves together as a reform association, and determined very quietly, but very thoroughly, that they would try to bring about reform and to punish all offenders. They did not, like old Hickory, swear to do this by "the Eternal," but they formed a compact association, and employed vigilant officers for the purpose of detecting and punishing fraud.

They found that a citizen of Philadelphia named Brown had been engaged, during the last election, in the pleasant pastime of visiting the different polls, in this city, and voting at each one by a different name. When it had been mildly suggested to this gentleman by the name of Brown, that it was improper for him to vote for Thomas Smith, he took the Bible and, with great solemnity, swore that he was Thomas Smith, and he voted accordingly. When he went to the next poll and offered to vote in the name of David Jones, the same quiet but earnest objection was made to his course, but he again took the Bible in his hand,as before, and swore that he was DavidJones, and voted in the name of David Jones. He continued this during the day, until his course was arrested, either then or at some future time, by a warrant issued at the instigation of this reform association, under the direction of the United States district attorney, who is an upright and honorable officer. The case of this Mr. Brown came up before the United States district court, and the testimony was so overwhelming that the utmost a jury of his sympathizing fellow-citizens could do for him was to say that he was guilty, and to recommend him to the mercy of the court. The judge sentenced him, I think, to eighteen months' solitary imprisonment, and a few weeks afterwards he was pardoned by the President of the United States. It is currently believed that the district attorney is to be removed, in consequence of his interference with

the freedom of Mr. Brown, but whether the judge of the district court is to be impeached has not yet been determined.

I therefore say that in Philadelphia we have done all we can, and that we are powerless. It is not alone Philadelphia that is injured by the election frauds in this city. The election in Philadelphia somstimes controls the election in the whole State. It will not do, therefore, for gentlemen from districts outside of Philadelphia to say that we must take care of ourselves, for the only hope the citizens of Philadelphia have is from the people who live in the other portions of the State; and if the people outside of Philadelphia are so determined that this city shall take care of itself, they will find, when it is too late, that Philadelphia has not only taken care of itself in this particular, but has exercised so much care over the elections in the country districts that no matter how honestly the latter may have been conducted they will be set aside by the vote in Philadelphia.

The evils which exist here affect the purity of the ballot-box over the whole State, and unless gentlemen who are in this Convention from districts outside of Philadelphia will do something to help us, they will find when it is too late that they are powerless to help themselves.

The question being upon the amend... ment to the amendment, as offered by Mr. Baer, it was rejected.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Chairman: I now move to amend, by adding to the end as follows:

"Provided, That in elections for county, township and municipal officers the endorsement of his name upon his ballot shall be optional with the elector."

I wish to say, in offering this, that I am heartily in favor of the clause as it stands in the report of the committee. In my opinion, however, it does not go far enough. While it provides for identifying the ballot and the voter, it does not provide for the security of the ballot-box, and it is quite apparent that in protecting that you protect the ballot with a most material form of protection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suge gest that that amendment would come in more aptly at the end of the section.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I thought of adding it to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. It will lie over until we come to the end of the section. Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Chairman: I ask if an amendment is now in order?

The CHAIRMAN. An amendment to the amendment is in order.

Mr. BROOMALL. Then, sir, I offer as an amendment, the precise provision of the old Constitution:

“All elections shall be by ballot, except those by persons in a representative capacity, who shall vote viva voce.”

Mr. HARRY WHITE. Mr. Chairman: I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Broomall) will be withdrawn until we have a vote upon the proposition of the gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Wherry.)

The CHAIRMAN. If the proposition of the gentleman from Delaware Delaware (Mr. Broomall) be adopted it strikes out the

other.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. Chairman: I rise to a point of order. The amendment offered by the gentleman Delaware (Mr. Broomall) is not an amendment at all, but the exact provision of the present Constitution, and cannot be moved in amendment of this section.

The CHAIRMAN. He can move that as an amendment if he pleases.

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Chairman: If it is necessary or desirable to have a vote first upon this proposition of the gentleman from Cumberland, I withdraw my amendment to the amendment for the present.

Mr. Hay. Mr. Chairman: I desire to ask the mover of the amendment, and also of the proposition just withdrawn,

whether such a construction has not been given by the courts of the Commonwealth in regard to the ballot, as to prevent the Legislature from saying that the ballot shail be “open." Under such a provision would not the Legislature be confined to such regulations on the subject of voting as would, nevertheless, continue the secret ballot exclusively in force.

Mr. WHERRY. No, sir. I would answer the gentleman by stating that it is a disputed question in this Commonwealth whether a man can vote an open ballot, and yet we know they are voted. I know they are voted in my district. All I want is that this matter shall be left to the Legislature to determine how these ballots shall be cast.

Mr. HAY. I think, sir, that the fundamental idea of the ballot, where there is no qualification of the expression, is that it must be secret. I believe our courts have so decided.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman: I would say to the gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Wherry) that the law expressed so

that a ticket must be polled so that the names therein shall not be seen. That is the law, and any election officer in this Commonwealth who should attempt to take a ticket in any other manner from a voter could be prosecuted.

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. Wherry, it was rejected. Mr. BROOMALL. Now I offer my amendment:

"All elections shall be by ballot, except those of persons in a representative capacity, who shall vote viva voce.

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. Broomall, it was rejected.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. I move to amend the section, by striking out the word "shall," where it first occurs, and inserting the word "may.”

["No." "No."]

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Mr. Chairman: I think it is time now to introduce the alteration, desired to be made at the suggestion of the committee, to strike out “secret” and insert "folded."

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must wait until the motion of the gentleman from Schuylkill (Mr. Bartholomew) is put.

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. Bartholomew, it was rejected.

Mr. M'ALLISTER. I now move to strike out the word "secret" and insert "folded;" that the ballot shall be open or folded, as the elector shall prefer.

At the suggestion of a number of friends of the measure I withdraw this amendment, and leave the words as they are. Mr. DUNNING. Then I renew the motion.

The question being upon the amendment or Mr. Dunning, it was rejected. Mr. D. N. WHITE. 1 offer the following amendment :

“All elections by the people shall be by ballot; the names of the electors shall be entered on a list and numbered in the order of their voting; and each elector's ballot shall be numbered to correspond with his number on the list. All elections by persons in a representative capacity shall be viva voce.

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. D. N. White, it was rejected.

Mr. HAY. I propose to amend, by striking out the following, after the word "voted:""May be open or secret, as the elector shall prefer, and they," so that the section will read :

"All elections of the citizens shall be by ballot. The ballots voted shall be num

That amendment is the one of which I gave notice this morning. I do not think it affects the meaning of the section at all; it simply cuts off redundancy of expression. I do not understand that the Committee on Suffrage has any great objection to the amendment; and it strikes me that if this amendment is not adopted, the clauses of the section will be somewhat inconsistent with each other-one clause providing that the ballot shall be secret, the other that it shall not.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman: I move to amend, by striking out all after the word "received," in the first sentence of the section, and inserting the following:

"Each elector shall write his name upon his ballot, but if unable to write he shall cause his name to be written thereon and attested for him by another elector of the district who shall not be an election officer."

Mr. H. G. SMITH. Mr. Chairman: I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the words "and attested for by him."

The question being upon the amendment to the amendment, it was not agreed to.

Mr. LAMBERTON. Mr. President: I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the word "elector," in the concluding sentence of the section, and insert "citizen." It seems to me by striking out the word "elector" and inserting "a citizen" that the voter who is about to vote will then be enabled to have the attestation of some member of his own family who may not be an elector. It may be a minor, his wife or his daughter.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman : I call for a division on the last vote. I desire to know if the word "citizen" includes children, babies, and idiots. There must be some sort of limitation. The word has too large a signification for using it in this sense, the signature of a person might be attested by another wholly unable to give evidence in a court of justice. It seems to me if the word citizen is used, it should be used with a limitation, as for instance, "a citizen of age,” or “a citizen competent to testify." The purpose of the attestation is that it should be done by one who will be a

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will withdraw his decision of the question and leave it open.

Mr. M'ALLISTER. Mr. Chairman: I desire to say only one word upon this question. It was very well considered before the committee; and there were various opinions entertained by the members of the committee; but after full consideration it seemed to be conceded that the word "elector" was the proper one to be inserted.

Mr. BIDDLE. Mr. Chairman: I am in favor of this change of the word "elector” to "citizen." I can see a great deal of good in it and no possible harm. Why should not a man's wife write his name if he cannot write it himself. Why should not his son if he is himself unable to do so. Are we to be told in this Convention that a man's wife and son who are legally competent, are not to testify in a court of justice? It is really tantamount to saying that the name can only be written by an elector. I am opposed to any unnecessary restriction of the rights of the voter, and this certainly seems to me to be an unnecessary restriction. I am in favor of preserving, so far as I can, the right of an elector to cast his vote with as little publicity as possible, and I know of none better qualified to attest the writing of his name so well as the members of his own household, and of his own household none so well qualified as his wife, if he has one. She certainly is not disfran chised from giving testimony in courts of justice, and unless some better reason than has been given in favor of retaining the original word in the section is given,. I. shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. BROOMALL. I would suggest tothe gentleman who offered this. amendment, that this difficulty can be removed by substituting, in the place of the word "citizen," the words, "a competent witness."

Mr. LAMBERTON. Mr. Chairman: The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines who are citizens of the nation and of the States.. It is objected to the use of the word which I propose to substitute for the word "elector," that it necessarily includes mi-nors, idiots, and persons who are non, compes. Now, Mr. Chairman, let the intelligence of this Convention for a moment think of the inconvenience which will be

undergone by an elector who is about to make up his ballot at home-the very place I wish to reach by this amendment. There may be no other elector there that he can call to attest his signature; but his wife, who will know the candidates he endorses, will be there, or an intelligent son may be there, who would be a competent witness in a court of justice. It is not likely that a husband or a father would go outside of his own home to call in a habitual drunkard, or one who is not a competent witness, to attest his signature placed upon the back of his vote. It is because I want to throw around the signature itself every protection which has been referred to, and it is because I do want to have a competent witness to attest the signature that I have named the word “citizen” instead of "elector.”

Mr. ARMSTRONG.. Mr. Chairman: This Convention is evidently called upon to wrestle with a hydra-headed monster, and there is not a citizen in the State but must be conscious that the main purpose for which this Convention has been called is to arrest that tide of fraud which bids fair to sweep our institutions into confusion, if not destruction. We are here to arrest the evils that pertain to the system. We are not here to provide safeguards for honest men, but a mode to prevent dishonest men from perpetrating fraud with impunity. Now my friend from Dau[phin (Mr. Lamberton) refers to the Constitution of the United States as defining what is a citizen; but he knows very well that it is not only within the letter of the law, but within the adjudicated cases, that a person born is a citizen, and presumpatively a native citizen of the land; and he knows, further, that the very purpose of insisting upon the writing of the name Pupon the ballot is not to secure the right of voting to those who would properly wote, but to prevent those from exercising it improperly who would desire to corrupt the entire elective franchise.

My friend from Philadelphia (Mr. Biddle) suggested that the wife, daughter or -sister might be a competent witness. So they might be, if they were adults, and of sound mind; but we are constructing

a section; we are providing here a safeguard for the elective franchise, and although such persons, under the term citizen, would be competent witnesses, it by no means excludes the fact that the child, just able to write his name, would also be within the entire purview of this expression. Therefore, a child, just learn

ing to write his name, whose memory would not carry his recollection of the fact of his signature beyond a year, and who would not be admitted in any court of justice whatever, as a competent witness for any purpose, might have his name written upon a vote, and it would be an attestation within the full letter of» this law.

What I desire is, and I think it is the purpose of the Convention, that such language shall be used as will exclude any person who is not a competent witness, from giving evidence of the fact that the vote which he attested was properly attested. Why use this word citizen? It is too large in its meaning. It covers a scope which would be utterly useless, and would render this section inoperative, because it would be the easiest matter for those intending to perpetrate a fraud upon the election to write the name and attest it by the name of a citizen not known to the district, and not known to the citi

zen.

Mr. LAMBERTON. Will the gentleman permit me to make a suggestion?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Certainly.

Mr. LAMBERTON. I will suggest that the section, as amended, would read, "by another citizen of the district.”

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I will inquire of the gentleman if every man's baby is not a citizen?

Mr. LAMBERTON. No doubt; but no man would call upon a baby who could not write to attest his signature.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That might or might not be. I will ask the gentleman by what construction of this law the baby would be excluded?

Mr. LAMBERTON. By none whatever. Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is the answer. Mr. BIDDLE. Allow me to make a sug

gestion.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Certainly.

Mr. BIDDLE. The language is: “Must be attested." Does not that per se, by the force of the term ex vi termini, mean a person com~ petent to testify. Attested means: Vouched by him or her who attests the witness. Does not that cover the whole ground?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It might or might not. Suppose a child able to write his name, four years of age, were to sign as a witness, could he give evidence?

Mr. BIDDLE. No, because the laws of the land do not allow him to testify.

Mr. LAMBERTON. There is nothing in the law of the land to exclude it.