Mr. STIRLING. The State of Maryland has
a right to define who shall vote within her
limits. We might put in a property qualifi-
cation, and take away the right of voting
from a person who has hitherto exercised it.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. You could not even
by a property qualification annul a vote that
had been cast.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Can you
convict a person of a crime, before the pas-
sage of the act making the act a crime?
Mr. CUSHING. Neither the bill of rights
nor this has been passed. But if the people
adopt both this and the bill of rights, they
become the highest law in the State.
Mr. EDELEN. I would suggest the impro-
priety of putting in this article a principle
directly in the teeth of our bill of rights. Is
it proper that we should lay down in our
bill of rights certain general principles of en-
lightened government conceded by all men
to be incontrovertible and true, and then the
very next day legislate upon a subject in a
manner directly contrary to those general
principles?
The PRESIDENT stated the question to be
upon the longest time, being the motion of
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, to fill the blank with
the words "first day of January, 1865."
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I must ask
for the yeas and nays upon this question; I
want to make a record for these gentlemen.
The yeas and nays were accordingly or-
dered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resalted—yeas 12, nays 48—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Berry, of Prince George's,
Brown, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Edelen, Hod-
son, Hollyday, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Wilmer—12.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Brooks, Cunning-
ham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washing-
ton, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Gallo-
way, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King, Mar-
key, Mayhugh, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Robinette,
Russell, Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of
Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Todd,
Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—48.
The motion was accordingly rejected.
Mr. CUSHING. I move to nil up the blank
with the words "first day of January, 1862.'
I think that will allow ample time after the
breaking out of the rebellion, for every per-
son in the State to have determined clearly
and definitely whether he was in favor of the
government of the United States or against
it, and any one who has committed any of
the acts mentioned in the amendment after
that time must have done it with a desire to
aid the confederate government.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would like to inquire |
of my colleague (Mr. Cushing,) whether the
time he has named will render obnoxious to
the provisions of this amendment any persons
who before that vote went into the southern
confederacy, and are still there in their
service "
• Mr. CUSHING. I judge from the terms of
the amendment it will include all who did
not come back before that time.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. "Persons in the service
of the confederacy." I now call to mind a
man of some scientific attainments, who went
out South, I think before that time, and did
what was very necessary to organize some
powder manufactories, not fur the govern-
ment, but for private individuals; but those
private individuals have been running them
for the benefit of the government. He is
not himself in the employ of the government,
but of individuals who work for the govern-
ment.
Mr. CUSHING, There are many such cases
which possibly may escape. But I think it
is better to allow a few of the guilty to es-
cape in that way, than to run the risk of do-
ing an injury to many persons, who previous
to that time may have gone there without
any feelings of hostility to the federal gov-
ernment,
Mr, PUGH. The first portion of the amend-
ment refers to those who have served the
rebellious States at any time prior to the
time named. With that understanding I am
willing to vote for the amendment.
Mr. STIRLING. I wish to apologize to the
house for presenting this matter in this con-
dition. The reason why I did so was this:
1 had no idea that this report was coming tip
this morning, and when it was taken up 1
had not finished my amendment. In order
to meet the purposes I design to meet, and at
the same time be just to everybody, I think it
is necessary to becareful. There was a great
deal of intercourse going on all the time up
to a certain date. I desire to reach all those
persons who did leave here with the declared,
fixed, absolute intention of entering the con-
federate service. I find that the proclama-
tion of the President of the United States,
which declared all those States, including
Virginia, in rebellion, and which prohibited
intercourse with them, did not bear date until
August 16, 1861. Therefore I think the
proposition of my colleague (Mr. Cushing,)
goes too far. I think the first of September,
1861, would be conclusive enough.
The question was then taken upon the mo-
tion of Mr. CUSHING to fill the blank with
the words "first day of January, 1862," and
it was rejected.
Mr, STIRLING. I propose to modify my
amendment by leaving out all reference to any
particular date, and have it read as follows :
" No person who has at any time been in
armed hostility to the United States or the
lawful authorities thereof, or who has been in |
