any manner in. the service of the so-called
"Confederate States of America," and no
person who has voluntarily gone within the
military lines of the so-called "Confederate
States" or armies, with the purpose of ad-
bering to said States or armies; and no per-
son who has given any aid, comfort, counte-
nance, or support to those engaged in armed
hostility to the United States," &c.
No objection being made, the amendment
was modified accordingly.
The question was upon agreeing to the
amendment of Mr. STIRLING as modified.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I move to
amend the amendment by inserting after the
word "person" and before the oath therein
set forth the following :
"When challenged by a legally qualified
voter, resident of said district or ward in
which the vote is offered," .
The effect of that amendment if adopted,
will be to require any person who may come
forward to vote, to take this oath when chal-
lenged by a legally qualified voter of that
district. I do not see the necessity of putting
the oath to everybody. If a man is suspected
of being disloyal, it will be known to his
neighbors. Indeed if this oath is put to
everybody, you would not get through within
the space of time allowed by law for holding
the election.
Mr. STIRLING, I considered the question
bow far this matter would be attended with
inconvenience. I came to the conclusion that
although it would produce more delay, still
there was no election district so large that it
could not be administered to all the voters.
I had it apply to all, because that would be
perfectly fair, and no one could say, if every
body was made to lake the oath, that he had
been improperly selected and unjustly
charged with being disloyal. At the same
time, it enforces the matter, and there may
be places where the judges would not be dis-
posed themselves to ask the question, and
where there might be no one to challenge;
consequently everybody would be allowed to
vote. It prescribes an oath which shall be
administered to everybody, and secures the
enforcement of that requirement. In Balti-
more city there is not a precinct in which the
oath could not be token by every voter in it.
It is not a long one, and would require but a
few seconds to administer it.
Mr. ABBOTT. The idea is to have a reg-
istry law, and then this oath is to be taken
by persons at the time their names are regis-
tered.
Mr. STIRLING. My amendment provides
that at the first election under this constitu-
tion, the judges of election shall administer
the oath to everybody offering to vote, be-
cause there will be no registration at that
election. It then provides that the commis-
sioners of registration shall allow nobody to
be registered until ha has taken the oath, and |
the judges of election may administer it at
the polls to any one; but it is not made ob-
ligatory upon them to administer it to every
one after registration.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. This right
to challenge avoter at the pulls has sal ways ex-
isted under our election laws. But voters were
challenged only for non-residence, non-age,
or some other disqualification known to the
law. it would be a source of great incon-
venience to require the judges of election toad-
minister this oath to every voter. If a voter
is disloyal, and not entitled to vote under
this constitution after it shall have been
adopted, it will be known to his neighbors,
to those who vote there at the election with
him, and it would be very proper under the
circumstances, as it would be proper under
existing laws, to challenge a voter supposed
to be disqualified under the law. This is
merely a question of convenience or inconve-
nience. I care nothing about it whatever.
The question was upon the amendment of
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, to the amend-
ment of Mr. STIRLING, as follows :
Insert in the amendment, after the word
"person," preceding the oath, the words,
"when challenged by a legally qualified voter,
resident of said district or ward in which the
vote is offered,"
Upon this question Mr. BERRY, of Prince
George's, asked for the yeas and nays, and
they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 12, nays 47—as fol-
lows :
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, Gal-
loway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Markey, Mayhugh, McComas, Mullikin, Mur-
ray, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Robi-
nette, Russell, Scott, Smith, of Carroll,
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes,
Thomas, Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard,
Wooden—47.
The amendment to the amendment was ac-
cordingly rejected.
The question was upon the amendment of
Mr. STIRLING, being a substitute for the sec-
ond section.
Mr. EDELEN. I regret exceedingly that the
report of the committee on the elective fran-
chise has been .taken up for consideration by
the convention at this time. For one, I must
confess that I knew nothing about it except
what I caught as the clerk read it the other
morning, from his desk, and I really do not
feel that I am prepared, and do not think
that any gentleman on this floor, who has |
