New-York daily tribune., 1859-02-16
FROM ALBANY.
From Or on, CorTespoad.1t.

70 be heard
In the Senate day, after lively debate Sc
lect Committee was ordered to investigate the
charges made by Mr.. o. b. Wheeler, in the matter
of the alleged attempt on the part OF a member
Of the Legislature, and prominent lobbyman, to
briba the ChaUInan Of the Committee having the
Albany Bridge investigation IN hand.
| There.was an interesting debate in the issembly
to-day on the Registry bill. which had been made
the special order for II o'clock this forenoon.
After some few amendments had been made, Mr..
MORRIS Of Yates, who is Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee which reported the BILL from which re-
port be dissented at the time, offered substitute,
or shat he called substitute for the bill, which
was not Registry bill at ALL but bill mainly to
prevent, by additional enactments, the corrupt Use
| of money for the purpose Of carry ing elections.
Mr.. SPENCER ruised the point of order that the
| substitute was not german TO the subject before
the House, but not pressing the point, Mr.. Morris
was permitted to speak in support of his substitute
Nr. MORRIS said b. rose with some embarrass-
me?t growing out of the fact that in this matt sr
| MS daty to the people Of the State seemed t.
hict so,ncv hat with allegiance to his party; but in
all such epses party must give way. lie took issue
with the irirods of tie BILL and believed they
| mistaken in sHpposing that II would, If enacted
into law, prove a remedy for the frauds and evils
complained Of "Will the enactment Of Il law"
| said Mr.. Morris prevent fraud The law Of
| and ought to know, /! hc does not that the obec
| ton have urged against q Registry law is equally
valid against the enactLaent Of sny law whsteyer
for the punishment or suppression OF crime
Blr Morris regarded the bill as an infringe
ment Of the Constitution, as requiring new snd
different test from that provided by the Constltu
ton az a condition of enjoying the elective fran-
chise and recited Art. =, Sec. of that instru
mert which provides that the voters shall be cit
izens one year u resident of the State, four month
of the County and thirty days OP the District, &c.
But Mr.. Morris did not quote Section 4 of tae
same article Of the Constitution, which declares
that claws shall be made for aJcrrtaining, by
"prOper proofs the citizens who saGll be entitled
"to the right of suffrage hereby established" If
the Constitution settles everything, why u Mr.
Morris here proposing to enact laws on any sub
iect He proposes to take the Constitution IN his
hand, go to the polls, and demand has rights as
voter under lis provisions. Why not take the
same course TO obtain his rights or redress his
wrongs in other matters The fact Is the COnst |
tuition won go by Itself It's very good Const |
tuition in the main, doubt; but after 1t was es
tabished il required some legislation to set the |
machinery of justice ir6notion. And IN the matter
of the elective franchise the officers having charge
of the elections required Instructions as to tho
means of ascertainng who are citizens eutitled to
vote under the provisions of the Constitution. !
With Difference, it seems clear 10 your correspond
ent that il Mr. Norrs's logic is sound the Constl-
tuition has already been violated by the enactment
of a lnw now on the statutcbook, which requires |
voter to prove his right to vote by his oath when
challenged. There Is no such provision IN the |
Constitution. And If man be required u prove |
his right to vote by one witness (hmself may he
not also be required to prove The same right by TWO
witnesses and may not the Legislature go further
ard require that he shall do so simple an act as TO
have his name register to facilitate the dispatch o
business at elections and secure the purity OF the
10 : h, an here
fact that mans name is not on the registered list
is only prma facie evidence that he IS not voter
He can still deposit his ballot by proving 10 the
satisfaction of the Board that he is, under the Con-
stitutlon, legal voter.
When NJ. Morris had cOnclpded, Mr.. SPENCER
renewed lis point of order that the amendlnent
was not GERMAN to the subject before the Com
mittee, which was oyerruled by the Chairman,
(Mr Scholefeld). Mr.. SPENCER regarded the
substitute as no substitute at all, and made strong
argument IN favor of the original bill.
DR.. TUTHIIL might be in favor of Mr.. Morris's
bill as an independent proposition, but not as
substitute for the Fegistry bill. He was IN favor
of Registry act, and believed that one would IN.
oue.t;onably be passed at this session.
Mr. WARNER of Ontario favored the substitute,
snd opposed the Registry bill as unconstitutional
and improper in many respects.
Mr. MOORE of Kings referred to the eonstitu-
tjonal objections raised by Mr.. Morris, at which
istry bill because it was, IN his Judgment consti-
tutioual requirement Of the Legislature TO pass
such an act and gave bis reasons for such opinion;
Dr. LOOMS OF Oneida opposed the bill, ana
moved that the Committee rise and repor! progress,
| which motion was lost. The question recurring on
| the substitute, Dr.. LOOMS made another drive
against the bill and in favor Of the substitute lie
| was followed by Mr. NORRIS on the same side
Another attempt 10 report progress was voted
\ down.
Mr.. HUTCHINSON was in favor of a Registry
! bill and believed his constituents were slso-thzt
| they expected hm TO vote .or such measure; but
| he thought rOthing vas 70 lie gained by rushing II
/ through without due consideration. Ii was a very
| iuportnn. bill and ought 10 be- msde perfect as
| possible.
! The HOUSE again refused TO report progress
| Mr. SPENCER said bs had no objection to report
| progress when o'clock, the time for adjournment
| should arrive.
Gen. DURyEA was in fayor of a Registry Aw,
but he thought the present bill defective In many
particulars, and be favored the idea of referring
| the subject 10 Select Committee. he Gndersto
that another bill had been carefully prepared which
! might be referred 10 the Select Committee 10 De
raised
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD wss opposed to the Select
| Committee.
A motion to report progress was again voted
| down. .,
M. OPpyKE had hoped that Mr. Morris woald
| withdraw b 3 substitute, there were many mem
b.r, presert W no fay ored both bills and as, if voted
down. II could nat come before the House again
He would. therefore, If in order, appeal IRON the de-
cision OF the char.
The CHAR ruled i not in order, as other
nlstter had i1.ervened.
Mr.. MORRIS decli-sd 20 withdraw his subst'
tut. ara. after some further debate and the stop-
L L., r.a.A