The PRESIDent. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. Campbell.)

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. LILLY. I should like to move to strike out "two hundred and fifty," and insert "three hundred." ["No!" "No!"] I think if the members of the Convention will consider this matter for a moment in their minds, they will see that the number fixed here is too small. The expense of holding elections will be very considerably increased by making the districts so small, and you will have an immense number of election districts. If you make the number of voters in a district three hundred, I think the whole matter will be fairly under control, and even then you will probably not have more than two hundred or two hundred and fifty votes polled. I think three hundred will be about right.

Mr. DALLAS. I do not think the city of Philadelphia will complain of the expense if it obtains the reform that is hoped for from this section. Two hundred and fifty voters to a precinct is large enough in order to enable election officers and citizens to know those entitled to vote. I am willing, for one, to accept two hundred and fifty as a compromise; but I propose as an amendment to the amendment to strike out "three hundred" and insert "two hundred."

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, to insert "two hundred."

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HANNA. I move to amend the amendment by making it "four hundred."

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, to strike out "three" and insert "four."

Mr. HANNA. I should like to say a word upon that amendment. I think that four hundred is about the proper number. In the city of Philadelphia, at the October election last, there were three hundred and fifty-nine election divisions. The votes polled at that election were one hundred and seventeen thousand, four hundred and twenty-three, making an average of three hundred and twentyone votes to each division. Now if we reduce the number of electors to be in cluded within any election division, of course we increase the number of election divisions, and if we adopt the number three hundred or the number two hun

dred and fifty it will give us a much greater number of election divisions in the city which are to be provided for, and, as the gentleman from Carbon well remarked, it will add an immense expense to the city of Philadelphia. The election places are to be provided; they are to be paid for, because at present as a recent act of Assembly provides that liquor shall not be sold on election day, we cannot obtain public houses in which to hold the election. Consequently we shall be forced to pay for polling places.

Again, sir, the expenses will be greatly increased by reason of the increased number of election officers; and the cost of printing, and all the other incidental expenses of the election will also be increased, so that we shall impose an additional burden on the taxpayers probably of from $100,000 to $150,000. Now if we limit the number of votes in a division to four hundred, there will be no difficulty whatever; all the votes can be polled. The whole number can be polled for the reason that in many of the election divisions at the present time we have polled from one hundred and eighty-nine to six hundred and seven hundred votes on election day; and by the Constitution which I have no doubt will be adopted by the Convention, we shall throw such safeguards around elections as will prevent fraud and corruption. The gentleman from Columbia who offered an amendment for the appointment by the courts of the supervisors or overseers of election has thereby secured officers who will protect the polls, they will see that none but correct ballots and proper votes are received, and everybody will be known in the election division just as well if there are four hundred votes as two hundred and fifty or three hundred.

I submit, Mr. President, that we ought to take the considerations mentioned into view and not hastily pass this section, not increase the number of election divisions in our large cities, not increase the expense to the voters, but let us adopt the mean I have just mentioned, of four hundred votes in a division, and everything will be done properly, and all fraud and corruption and improper voting prevented.

The act of Assembly under which we now live, called the consolidation act, provides that in every election division of the city of Philadelphia where there are over four hundred voters the people shall have the right to ask that that division shall be divided, and it can be divided;

and divisions are divided by the councils of the city almost weekly upon petition of the citizens. What more do we want? Previous to the passage of the late act of Assembly we were obliged to hold the elections in public houses. We have not a sufficient number of school-houses. Although we have a public school-house, and more than one, in every ward of the city, yet we cannot have a public schoolhouse or other public property in every election division of the city, and consequently we were obliged to hold the elections at public houses, and parties owning public houses were willing and glad to have the election held there because it increased their trade; but now we are driven from those places, they are obliged to close the saloons up, and the city must pay for election places, or else do as I am told they do in the city of New York, build booths or polling places upon the public streets.

Mr. President, I do hope that the Convention will consider this matter, and consider it in a way that I think will meet the approbation of the people of Philadelphia.

Mr. W. H. SMITH. Mr. President: According to all the arguments yet made it would seem that we were legislating for Philadelphia alone, and that only one of the cities of the State. The smaller number would seem to suit the whole State better than four hundred. While we are discussing things here I wish our friends would understand that there is some other territory and some other population than that which is in the city of Philadelphia.

Mr. DALLAS. I only desire to say in reply to the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Hanna) that where a real reform is to be attained, the question of expense, unless it amounts to extravagance, is but a secondary consideration. He has truly said that we already, in the city of Philadelphia, have by law a provision that when a precinct contains more than four hundred voters it may be divided; but though we have that provision, the cry for reform in this respect comes up to us from this city. That is evidence that the number that he names is not satisfactory. I understand on the other hand that two hundred and fifty, an odd number, was arrived at as a compromise among conflicting views. I hope it will be retained. Mr. J. W. F. WHITE. Mr. President: My colleague behind me (Mr. W. H. Smith) misapprehends this part of the

section. It applies only to Philadelphia and Pittsburg. This section requiring every election district, when the last preceding election shows a vote of two hundred and fifty, to be divided, applies I say but to two cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburg. I hope that we shall have no piece of legislation of that kind in the Constitution. I am utterly opposed to a rule of that kind applicable to all the election precincts in these two cities. I am willing to confer the power upon the courts to divide election precincts, whenever it becomes necessary in their judgment to have a division; and at the proper time I shall move to strike out of the sixth line all after the word "cities" and to strike out the seventh line; so that the section will then read:

"All districts in cities of over one hundred thousand inhabitants shall be divided by the courts of quarter sessions of said cities, whenever the court of the proper county shall be satisfied that the convenience of the electors and the public. interests will be promoted thereby."

We have heard here often that the courts can be trusted on all these questions. Why not then leave it to the courts to say when an election district shall be divided, taking into consideration the number of electors, where they reside, and all the circumstances of the case, whether it would be judicious or not to divide it, even when there are two hundred voters in it; or if there should be two hundred and sixty in the district, if the voters of that district should not want it divided, because this will be an imperative provision. Why, merely because there are over two hundred and fifty voters in a district, put it in the Constitution that it must absolutely be divided? If every voter in the district should be opposed to it, or every voter except one, that one can bring the question before the court and then the court will be under an absolute duty to divide that district.

Why, sir, in some districts of the city of Pittsburg we have more than twice that number of votes and I venture to say that not a voter in the district of either party would want the district divided. The courts of our county have now the power to divide our election districts, as they have generally throughout the State. Unfortunately in Philadelphia they have a special law in reference to the division of their election districts, and now to get clear of the special law in Philadelphia they wish us to put a law in the Constitu

I am opposed to fixing in the Constitution any number whatever, whether two hundred, three hundred, four hundred, or any other number, but just say that the court of the proper county may divide or shall divide a division whenever the convenience of the electors and the public interest may require a division. It seems to me exceedingly unreasonable that we should fix a number of that kind which

stances of the case may be; and, as one of the delegates from Pittsburg, I protest most earnestly against a principle of that kind being applied to our city.

Mr. BAER. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to, and (at two o'clock and fifty-eight minutes P. M.) the Convention adjourned to meet again at half past nine o'clock A. M., on Tuesday, June 3.

Mr. STANTON. I offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the yeas and nays shall be called on any question only at the request of twenty members rising to second the call of any one member, except on the final passage of any section.

districts in cities of over one hundred

thousand inhabitants shall be divided by the courts of quarter sessions of said cities whenever the preceding election shows the polling of more than two hundred and fifty votes, and in other election districts whenever the court of the proper county shall be satisfied that the convenience of the electors and the public interests will be promoted thereby."

The section was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The next section will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

SECTION 10. All elections by persons

ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS.

The PRESIDENT. The second reading of the article reported by the Committee on Election, Suffrage and Representation is now in order. Will the Convention proceed with it? ["Aye." "Aye." The article is before the House on second reading. When the House adjourned on Thursday, the ninth section of this article was under consideration. A motion was made by the delegate from Carbon (Mr. Lilly) to amend the same, in the seventh line, by striking out "two hundred" and inserting "three hundred." A motion was made by the delegate from the city (Mr. Hanna) to amend the amendment, by striking out "three," and inserting "four." The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

voce.

Mr. BROOMALL. I desire to know whether, after action on this section is had, a new section would be in order, or whether a new section would have to be moved as an amendment to this section.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has no idea what the amendment is.

Mr. BROOMALL. It is an amendment pertinent to the matter of the section, but it would be better as a new section than as an amendment to this section.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was rejected. The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the section, which will be read.

The CLERK read as follows: "Wards of cities or boroughs and townships shall form or be divided into election districts of compact and contiguous territory in such manner as the court of quarter sessions of the city or county in which the same are located may direct: Provided, All

is whether it is in order to move a new section at any stage of the article-or after any particular section has been acted upon?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair supposes it would be in order to move a new section at any time; but, as action is had on entire sections, it would be better, perhaps, if amendments were moved to sections as read, if it will answer the views of gentlemen.

Mr. BROOMALL. Then I move the following amendment, to come in at the end of the section under consideration:

"Women having the qualifications herein required for male electors shall be entitled to vote at all elections for school directors, and on all questions relating to the sale and use of intoxicating drinks, which shall be submitted to the electors." I do not desire to say anything upon the amendment except that, if it is carried, I desire to have it submitted to a separate vote under the provision by which the requisite number of the Convention may require an article to be separately submitted for the approval of the people.

I will only add that if there are any gentlemen here who do not think a woman ought to have a voice in the education and inanagement of her children, or a voice in the morals of her own neighborhood, such gentlemen ought to vote against this amendment. I call for the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. PARSONS. I second the call. Mr. BOYD. I move to amend, by striking out all after the word "directors."

The PRESIDent. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the amendment, upon which the Clerk will call the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays being required by Mr. Broomall and Mr. Parsons, were taken and were as follow, viz:

YEAS.

Messrs. Ainey, Armstrong, Baker, Bowman, Broomall, Brown, Campbell, Corson, Craig, Darlington, De France, Dodd, Dunning, Edwards, Fulton, Hall, Hazzard, Horton, Howard, Knight, Lilly, MacConnell, M'Murray, Mann, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Patton, Porter, Rooke, Temple, Wetherill, J. M., White, J. W. F. and Wright-34.

NAYS.

Messrs. Achenbach, Alricks, Andrews, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Barclay, Bartholomew, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Boyd, Buckalew, Calvin, Church, Corbett, Cronmiller, Curtin, Dallas, Davis, Ellis, Green, Hay, Hemphill, Hunsicker, Lamberton, Landis, Lawrence, Long, M'Clean, M'Culloch, Minor, Mott, Newlin, Patterson, D. W., Purviance, John N., Reed, Andrew, Ross, Runk, Russell, Sharpe, Smith, Henry W., Smith, Wm. H., Stanton, Struthers, Turrell, Walker, Wetherill, Jno. Price, White,

Harry, Woodward, Worrell and Meredith, President-51.

So the amendment was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Baer, Bannan, Bardsley, Beebe, Black, J. S., Brodhead, Carey, Carter, Cassidy, Clark, Cochran, Collins, Curry, Cuvler, Elliott, Ewing, Fell, Finney, Funck, Gibson, Gilpin, Gowen, Guthrie, Hanna, Harvey, Heverin, Kaine, Lear, Littleton, MacVeagh, M'Camant, Mantor, Metzger, Mitchell, Niles, Patterson, T. H. B., Pughe, Purman, Purviance, Sam'l A., Read, John R., Reynolds, Simpson, Smith, H. G., Stewart, Van Reed, Wherry and White, David N.-48.

Mr. DARLINGTON. I move to amend the section by striking out all after the word "office," in the second line, and inserting in lieu thereof, "under the public school laws of this Commonwealth.”

I wish merely to say a single word in explanation. This amendment alters the section only in one particular. It allows the appointment of females to the office of collector of taxes under the school laws. In my own town a man is appointed who sits in his office to receive the taxes. 1 know no reason why under similar circumstances a lady might not be elected. I wish school directors to have the opportunity of appointing females, when they please, to such an office.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Darlington.)

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. Darlington and Mr. Boyd, and were as follow, viz:

YEAS.

Messrs. Ainey, Baker, Bannan, Bowman, Boyd, Broomall, Brown, Campbell, Corson, Craig, Darlington, De France, Dodd, Edwards, Fell, Hall, Horton, Howard, Knight, Lilly, MacConnell, M'Culloch, M'Murray, Mann, Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Patton, Rooke, Runk, Temple, Wetherill, J. M., White, J. W. F. and Wright-33.

NAYS.

Messrs. Achenbach, Alricks, Andrews, Armstrong, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntington,) Barclay, Bartholomew, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Buckalew, Calvin, Church, Corbett, Cronmiller, Curtin, Dallas, Davis, Dunning, Ellis, Fulton, Green, Guthrie, Hanna, Hay, Hazzard, Hemphill, Hunsicker, Lamberton, Lan