That constitutional provision which would deny to the poor man, who could not pay his tax bill, the right to vote, should be forever blotted out of the Constitution of a Christian Commonwealth."

Is it wise to deprive men of all share in the government merely because they cannot pay a direct tax? May they not, if deprived of a proper, conservative way of giving force to their opinions or their grievances, in their discontent try other means to make their wishes known and their power felt? This tax qualification either disfranchises many thousands of men or tends to subject their votes to the control of another's will. It leads to the debasement of our politics, to the collection and expenditure of large sums of money at elections; it tends to make wealth a necessary qualification for candidates, because poverty is a disqualification for voters. In important and exciting contests it is of no effect except to degrade the voter, to burden the candidates, and to suggest and encourage corruption.

Upon such grounds the Constitutional Convention of 1853 voted more than three to one against it. Democrats, Whigs, and the founders of the

Republican party, stood side by side demanding its abolition, amongst them such distinguished jurists and statesmen as Marcus Morton, Charles Sumner, Joel Parker, Henry Wilson, Charles Allen, Francis W. Bird, Otis P. Lord, Richard H. Dana, Jr, George S. Boutwell, Amasa Walker, Anson Burlingame, Nathaniel P. Banks, Robert Rantoul and William Schouler.

There is now the same demand, just as strong and non-partisan. Recognizing it, your predecessors of last year, by a large majority, adopted a resolution to amend the Constitution by annulling so much of it as requires the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting. This resolution now comes up for your consideration. I strongly recommend immediate and favorable action upon it, and its submission to the people, as required by the Constitution, at an early day, -to the end that the suffrage may as soon as possible be made broader, safer and purer, by removing the injustice, danger and evil that now surround it.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION FOR GOVERNOR.

In this connection I submit to your consideration the question whether any useful purpose is now served by the constitutional qualification for Governor that he must "at the time of his election be seized in his own right of a freehold within the Commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds." The very terms of value point to a time and circumstances vastly different from the present. Is not this, our sole remaining property qualification, out of date?

ELECTION LAWS.

In a government really representative, which would have law the true expression of the people's will, the protection of elections from all improper influences is next in importance and order to a free and pure suffrage. This has been, and should be, peculiarly a matter of State legislation. Much has already been accomplished by the wise and successful reform embodied in our ballot law, which secures to every voter independence and secrecy, and puts upon the State a proper

charge and responsibility. Legislation can still do much in the same direction. The expenses attending nominations and elections are great and growing, and are believed by many to be in part unnecessary and in part injurious. All of them affect public interests. In my judgment the people have a right to know the amount of such expenses, for what and to whom incurred, and to limit their amount and define their proper objects. Expenditures which cannot bear the light of day ought not to be made.

Your immediate predecessors considered this subject, and passed in one branch of the Legislature "An Act to secure the publication of election expenses," as a first and proper step in this direction. I commend this matter to your favorable consideration, with the suggestion that this act, to be effectual, must be more stringent, and that it should be followed by further legislation.

THE BALLOT LAW.

The advantages of our present ballot system are so great and universally acknowledged that it should be our aim to strengthen it by removing

any just ground of criticism upon it. At present, either through misunderstanding or carelessness, the voter often fails to mark for the full number of candidates. In Presidential elections, the voter will be required to mark separately the names of at least fourteen electors in order to give full effect to his vote for President. It is probable that in this case the evil of partial voting will be much increased, and may lead to an unintentional division of the electoral vote of the State. I suggest that the law be so amended that a single mark may be a vote for all the electors of a party, with an opportunity for the voter to scratch any name and to insert another. It is desirable to encourage the voter to exercise his full right of franchise, and to make it easy for him to do so, by any means that will not impair the efficiency of our ballot system.

Further and more effectual notice of the names of candidates to be balloted for should be given to the voter before each election, either by the distribution by the State of sample ballots, or in some other proper way.

I would suggest also for your consideration the