Mr. ARMSTRONG. And yet the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, would not permit it, so that it raises an unnecessary question, and it presents the question to a tribunal that is not competent to decide it. I see nothing to be gained by the amendment. This section is well and carefully guarded, and properly expressed, when it provides that the person who undertakes to attest the vote shall be a person known to the district, and who can, if necessity requires, be called upon to give evidence to that vote.

Mr. BIDDLE. Does the gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. Lamberton) object to adding the words "competent to testify ?"

Mr. HOWARD. I want to ask for information, whether this is an amendment to the section, or an amendment to an amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. An amendment to an amendment.

Mr. GoWEN. Mr. Chairman: I desire to present this consideration, which strikes me as one very great difficulty in the way of accepting the amendment of the gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. Lamberton.) Let us suppose that the elector has his ballot signed and attested by his wife. Suppose, upon opening the ballotbox, there is found in that ballot-box some other ballot purporting to be signed by this elector, and he is indicted for the crime of voting twice, can his wife be a witness for him? Certainly not; she is not competent. Therefore, the very citizen himself, by asking his wife to sign his ballot, excludes all witness in his behalf.

Certainly, it seems to me, that nobody should attest this, unless it be a person who, in all circumstances, and in every proceeding in court, whether civil or criminal, would be a competent witness, not only for the Commonwealth or the officer voted for, but a competent witness to protect the voter himself, which the wife is not and cannot be.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman: In discussing this matter in committee, the point which seemed to rule in the mind of the committee was this: Suppose, in the investigation of a contested election case, a man who had voted had died, and his ticket was endorsed by some person, how much easier it would be to prove the handwriting of that elector, who would be known, perhaps, to forty or fifty out of two or three hundred, than if some citizen had signed it, who was not known to anybody. For that reason the word "elec

tor" was taken, because the signature of that elector could be proved, as well as the name of the man in whom the vote had been cast.

The law now is that if a man goes to vote and his right is challenged, he must call an elector to prove his right, not a citizen; and we want to keep up the same method and the same principle. The right of a man to vote must be challenged by one of his peers.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman: I was going to suggest that the way out of this difficulty would be to vote down the amendment to the amendment, and then, to meet the objection of the other delegates, strike out the words "another elector," and insert "by a competent witThat is all we should ask, it

ness."

seems to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. Lamberton) agree to that modification?

Mr. LAMBERTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. Chairman: If we are to have this provision in the Constitution let us have it pure and simple; let us have it perfect; let us have it as the committee has made it. There can be no trouble whatever if we have this thing, if an elector shall sign his name upon the ballot as a witness. We are proposing to purify the ballot-box, and if we do it in this way let us confine it to electors, both as to the voter and as to the witness.

The question being taken upon the amendment of Mr. Lamberton, as modified, to the amendment of Mr. Hanna, to strike out another elector," and insert a competent witness," it was not agreed

to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Hanna) to the section. The Clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK read:

Strike out all after the word “received," in the third line," and insert as follows: "Each elector shall write his name upon his ballot, but if unable to write he shall cause his name to be written thereupon and attested for him by another elector of the district, who shall not be an election officer."

The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman: I offer a substitute for the whole section. The CLERK read the substitute, as follows:

Strike out all after the word "section," and insert: "All elections shall be by ballot,

except those by persons in their representative capicity, who shall vote viva voce : but in any city, borough or town, containing a population of at least fifty thousand inhabitants, the ballots shall be numbered by the election officers when received, and each shall have endorsed upon it the name of the clector, written either by himself or by another citizen of the district, who shall not be an election officer."

It

Mr. BoYD. Mr. Chairman: That proposition, as the committee will observe, will leave the country districts as they are. seems to me to be plain from the debate that we have had upon this subject from gentleman representing the rural districts, that they are in favor of the present mode of voting. It is equally clear that there is a remedy called for in the cities; and it is no more than right that that remedy should be afforded, inasmuch as it is well known that there are frauds of a gigantic character always going forward at elections in the city.

Now my proposition is, that in all cities with a population of fifty thousand and upwards shall have the ballots numbered and the tickets signed by the voter. In a word the provisions of the section shall be applied to the cities and leave us in the country alone.

I do maintain that in the section of the State from which I come we have no such thing as election frauds. There may be a chance illegal vote through a misapprehension or even sometimes through design, but they do not amount to enough to change the result; and I think that is the concurred testimony of every gentleman who has spoken upon this subject, save and except, perhaps, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hazzard.) If that is the case, why should the people in the rural districts be obliged to undergo this kind of inconvenience.

If the gentlemen in the cities desire a remedy for these frauds, I would respectfully recommend them to vote for my proposition. Then we will vote together, but if you cannot accept it we will be obliged to vote against the section as reported by the committee. That is about the position in which the thing is.

Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman: I have not before occupied the attention of this Conven. tion, and I do not propose now to take up very much time; but I desire to say one or two words in support of the amendment which the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Boyd) has just offered upon this subect. Iam amongst the number of those who

believe that a change in the mode of casting our ballots is demanded throughout the length and the breadth of this State, and I would advocate, if that were the amendment before the committee, a viva voce vote upon the occasion, when we cominit our suffrage to the ballot-box; but, sir, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Boyd) meets the difficulty which I have seen in the section as reported from the committee. I come, sir, from a rural district. I come from a district in which it will be impossible for the electors to comply with the provisions of this section. Our polls are open, as the law directs, but the voters frequently do not assemble until late in the day. They assemble, in country districts, far away from writing facilities, away from inkstands, away from pens, and from lead pencils, and to require the electors throughout the country to write their names upon their ballots would be simply requiring them to write upon the wheels and the seats of their wagons, and would delay and encumber the process of election to such an extent as would materially affect the result of an election.

Now, sir, I believe that this measure is necessary in our cities. I believe it will be wise and beneficent in its results there; but I believe, also, it will meet with opposition of a most serious character from the same portion of the State if it is sought to enforce its provisions there and, therefore, I desire to say the single word that I have said in support of this amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Boyd,) that it will meet the approval of Philadelphia and the cities, while it will not meet the objection of the country districts which the section reported by the committee will excite.

Mr. LILLY. That amendment does not go far enough. The Legislature has just now several contested election cases before it, and has always had some, and there are always as many from country districts as from city districts, so that making this apply only to cities of fifty thousand inhabitants would leave the corruption still almost untouched.

Mr. SIMPSON. In answer to what has been said by the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Boyd) and the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. Ross,) I would say that there are just as many frauds perpetrated outside of the city of Philadelphia as in it. [Several delegates: "Where?"]

Mr. SIMPSON. In the country districts. In Bensalem township, in the county of

Bucks, in 1868, it was proved that twentyseven votes were taken out of the ballotbox while the election officers were at dinner, and twenty-seven others substituted for them.

Mr. BoYD. Mr. Chairman: I have been charmed with the eloquence of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Simpson) on this subject of frauds at elections, until the thing is becoming somewhat wearying.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlema n from Philadelphia (Mr. Simpson) give way?

Mr. SIMPSON. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. BoYD. Oh, you do not. [Laughter.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I further desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing in this section that requires pens, or ink, or inkstands, or anything of that kind. It simply says his name shall be written upon the ticket. I presume he may write with pencil sometimes, as I sometimes do when I wish to erase one name from my ticket and insert another.

I desire to say, in answer to the argument that, if this is put into the Constitution, it will meet with opposition; I would say there is not one single measure of reform that can be adopted by this Convention that will not meet with opposition somewhere. As was well said, this morning, these frauds are like corrupting sores upon the body politic. You must apply the corrective, not merely to the place where they now exist, but you must prevent their spreading into other localities. Therefore, you want this provision for the whole State, not nerely for cities. As was observed, by the gentleman from Carbon, (Mr. Lilly,) the records now being made at Harrisburg will tell in other localities than cities. Why, sir, in 1868 frauds were proved in Bucks county, and in 1870 frauds were proved in investigating the elections in the county of Somerset, in the county of Bedford, in the county of Fulton, in the county of Adams and in the county of Bucks. So that it is not merely cities for which this provision would be necessary, but the whole Commonwealth.

M. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman: I am in favor of making this provision general, and not merely applicable to cities. I am opposed to any special provisions of this sort, and prefer a provision extending throughout the whole State.

Much as is said about the country, I certainly think we can submit to a little inconvenience there. I have lived in a country district 'all my life, and I think we can comply with this provision entirely. tirely. I see no reason for making the provision applicable only to cities, because we do not know where fraud is to be ans ticipated. I shall therefore vote for the report of the committee as it stands.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Boyd,) is so entirely different from the proposition as submitted by the committee, that I think we ought not be called upon at this time-within a few minutes of the hour of adjournment—to vote upon this question. We ought to have a little time to reflect. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The question being upon the motion of Mr. Hanna, a division was called, and resulted: In the affirmative, thirty-seven ; in the negative, thirty-six.

So the motion was agreed to.

IN CONVENTION.

Mr. CORSON. Mr. President: There being nothing before the Convention, I would like to call the attention of the members to the fact that, on the thirteenth instant, a communication was sent to this body by the board of managers of

the Eastern penitentiary, inviting this Convention to visit that institution. Upon my motion it was accepted, with the thanks of the Convention, but we overlooked the fact that the gentlemen who tendered the invitation desired us to fix upon a day when we would visit the institution. It would be well to fix a day for that purpose. I move, therefore, that we fix next Saturday at three o'clock.

Mr. SIMPSON. Next Saturday is a legal holiday.

Mr. JNO. R. READ. I move to amend, by striking out "Saturday," and inserting "Friday."

Mr. HOPKINS moved that the Convention do now adjourn, which was agreed to, and the Convention then, at one o'clock and fifty-seven minutes, adjourned until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.