not previously read and thought over the sev-
eral propositions set forth in that lengthy
amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Stirling,) is prepared to vote under-
standingly upon it.
Section two, as reported by the committee,
is in these words :
"No person who has at anytime been in
armed rebellion against the government of
the United States or the lawful authorities
thereof, or who has been in any way or man-
ner in the service of the .so-called Confede-
rate States of America, shall ever thereafter
be entitled to vote at any election to be held
in this State, or to hold any office of honor,
profit or trust under the laws thereof, unless
such person has been pardoned by the Presi-
dent of the United States, and has fully com-
plied with the requisitions of said pardon."
Now, I appeal to gentlemen, if in all con-
science that section is not sufficiently bind-
ing? Does not that section leave this matter
just exactly where it was placed by the Presi-
dent of this country, in his amnesty procla-
mation issued last fall? That proclamation
placed this whole question in a certain posi-
tion before the American people, from the
hills of Maine lo the Gulf of Mexico, from the
slopes of the mouontains of the west to the
waters of tire Atlantic. I cannot slate to this
convention satisfactorily what that amnesty
proclamation was. I have gone to the library
and searched but I cannot find it. But I be-
lieve it was somewhat, to this effect: that ev-
ery man except those included in certain
classes therein enumerated, either of a civil or
a military character, who would lay down
his arms, and register a certain oath therein
contained, should be thenceforth and forever
after restored to the status which he held be-
fore he raised his arm against the authority
of the federal government. Now, I appeal to
gentlemen of this convention, if they will
not be content to leave this question were
the chief executive of this country has placed
it; and permit a man whir, perhaps in an un-
thoughtful moment, bias taken up arms
against the government. to come back and do
as the President of the United States requires
him to do; let his offences then be wiped out,
and he thenceforth occupy the position in
regard to all political rights in the State or the
country that he had before he took up arms?
if the provision proposed by the gentleman
from Baltimore city is incorporated in our
constitution, then every man from this State
who has ever drawn his sword against the
lawful government of the United States,
although he may do all that is required of
him by the President of the United States, is
met upon the very threshhold of this State by
a proposition which forever disqualifies him
from ever holding any office of profit or trust
under the constitution and laws of this State,
and which closes the doors of the ballot-box
hermetically forever against him. By this
34 |
provision, which you seek to incorporate into
this constitution, )'you forever exile him from
the BORDER=0s of this State. The oath required
by that amnesty proclamation looked to future
good behavior.. And I submit that men
of this convention, the most extreme and
ultra upon this subject, should be content
with that.
1 caught in the reading of the body of this
amendment some such expression as "open
word or deed." But when the oath was read,
1 noticed that the word " open " was left out.
Now, I should like the gentleman from Balti-
more city (.Mr. Stirling,) to tell me what is
meant by the expression "open word or
deed." if a man publicly express his senti-
ments in the newspapers, that would come
under that designation. Yet in the oath the
word "open" is left out, making the oath
decidedly more stringent than the body of the
amendment.
One other remark. This strikes me a a
novel way of punishing off' noes. I had
thought that the one great and leading and
cardinal principle which had come to us from
the common law of England, was that belore
a man should be convicted of any offence
misdemeanor, he should be entitled to a trial
before a jury of his peers. But what do you
propose to do here? Gentlemen say they
do not propose to punish. Can you conceive
of a higher degree of punishment, short of
taking a man's life, than to declare him for-
ever disqualified from holding any office of
profit or trust in the State, and of closing
against biro forever the ballot box, making
him a mere cypher ill the community where
he live?, stripping him of every political
right? Look at your old constitution, and
at the constitution you propose to-day. You
find in the old constitution that the depriva-
tion of the right to exercise the elective." fran-
chise is one of the punishments which you
inflict upon a man by reason of having committed
and been convicted of an infamous
crime. It is a punishment. You proposed
to-day to bar against a man the doors of
every office, and to deprive him of the right
to vote, without an opportunity of being
heard in his defence; and nil this, I insist,
in the teeth of the doctrine that has been an-
nounced by the head of the general govern-
ment.
Look at it. The executive of this country,
who is supposed to watch over and guard the
interests of the general government, has laid
down a certain line of conducted action tor
these men in rebellion. And you here
to-day, in order to wipe out an offence
against that same government, take an en-
tirely different ground, and adopt an entirely
different and more stringent rule. If this
thing was an offence against the State of
Maryland, which yon were seeking to punish,
there would be some show of reason and pro-
priety in it. |
