pacity to hold office, even if they have been
guilty of these offences which this convention
supposes ought to operate as disqualifications,
atill by the fundamental principles of civil
liberty and constitutional government, they
have certain rights of which this convention
has not the authority to deprive them, with-
out a violation of the fundamental principles
of our civil institutions, and of all free gov-
ernment. According, to the declaration of
rights which you yourselves have adopted,
they are entitled to a trial for offences which
are to be visited with punishment upon them
to such an extent as is contemplated here.
There is scarcely a provision in the declara-
tion of rights which looks to the preservation
of the absolute rights of the citizen that is
not violated by the provision which it is now
proposed to incorporate into this article.
In the first place, you have declared that
the right of the people to participate in legis-
lation, is the best security of liberty, and the
foundation of all free government. That you
have broadly declared as a fundamental prin-
ciple, a maxim in all free government. And
I need not remind this convention that the
fundamental principle of all criminal law, is
the presumption of the innocence of a party
charged with any crime, until he has been
proven guilty by due course of law of some
offence previously declared, and to which
punishment has been previously affixed.
.Every man contemplated by the gentleman
in these ten classes of criminals, is presumed
to be innocent, is presumed to be a white
male citizen, entitled to participate in the
legislation of the State, as one of the funda-
mental principles of free government. He
starts out with that right.
And what further? You have declared
that no man shall be compelled to give evi-
dence against himself, as one of the. rights
which in civilized communities, is recognized
as being an absolute right pertaining to
every person, not to be interfered with. You
have declared that your legislature shall pass
no law compelling a man to give evidence
against himself. Now, what is the distinc-
tion between requiring a, man, before he shall
be allowed to vote or hold office, to swear
that he has been guilty of no offence, and to
compel him to give evidence against himself
when charged with an offence? The very
objection to his holding office and voting
presupposes the charge that he is guilty of an
offence, and you call upon him to purge him
self upon oath, a thing which yon cannot do
in a court of justice, according to the bill of
rights which you have adopted.
You have further declared in your bill of
rights:
" That every man, for any injury done to
him in his person or property, ought to have
remedy by the course of the law of the land
and ought to have justice and right freely
without sale, fully without denial, and speech |
ily without delay, according to the law of the
land."
The next article declares:
" That the trial offacts where they arise is
one of the greatest securities of the lives, lib-
erties, and estate of the people."
You have further declared—
' 'That in all criminal prosecutions every
man hath a right to be informed of the accu-
sation against him; to have a copy of the in-
dictment or charge, in due time (if required)
to be prepared for his defence; to be allowed
counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have process for his witnesses;
to examine witnesses for and against him on
oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial
jury, without whose unanimous consent he
ought not to be found guilty,"
You have also further declared—
" That no man ought to be taken and im-
prisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liber-
ties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or
in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his
life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land."
And it is also a fundamental principle of
our government that no ex post facto laws
ought to be passed; which clearly means that
no law ought to be passed making that an
offence which was not so before, and to pun-
ish any person who, previous to the passage
of the law, has committed that which at the
time the law was passed was not an offence.
Now, will you show me any of the statutes
of the State which prohibit any of these ten
offences? You can do it very readily. Sev-
eral of them are prohibited by your treason
law, are punishable under your treason law
upon indictment, trial before a jury, and con-
viction in a court of justice, if the indictment
is sustained. But you have declared that
every person so charged is entitled to that
trial,
It is proposed now to violate all these provi-
sions; it is proposed now, without a trial be-
fore a jury, without an indictment, without
notice of any charge, suddenly at the polls,
before ajudge of elections, to call up a party
and charge him there, with perhaps a witness
who undertakes to testify to gome expression
—for it goes to " expression by word or
deed"—call upon him unprepared, without
notice, without counsel, without a jury, with-
out any opportunity for trial, and to find him
guilty, to exclude him from the right of
voting, and to declare him unworthy to hold
office. These are the consequences presented
f by the oaths now under consideration.
It is not in order now, I believe, to submit
' the amendments of which I gave notice this
morning, because there are already two
amendments pending. The gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott) has offered an amendment
, to which the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) has offered an amendment.—
- I Therefore I shall not feel at liberty to coin |
