or indirectly by word act or deed given any
aid comfort or encouragement to those in re-
bellion against the United States or the law-
ful authorities thereof—every man who has
not been in every period of his past history
truly and loyally on the side of the United
States shall be forever debarred from holding
any office of profit or trust in this State."
Do gentlemen remember our action here on
Saturday? Have they forgotten the debate
that was then had on section sixth of the ar-
ticle on the elective franchise? Was not the
argument advanced by my friend from Balti-
more city that it was perfectly right and
proper to punish the men who had gone to
the penitentiary for committing larceny or
any other infamous crime, and to follow him
out and still exclude him from the ballot box
and from holding office? Upon what ground
was he to be punished? Will gentlemen tell
me that it is no punishment to me? Will
my friend put himself in my case and ask
himself the question, is it no punishment to
him as a Marylander to hermetically seal
against him the doors of office, and to ex-
clude him from the discharge of the most in-
estimable privilege of the American freeman,
the elective franchise?
I insist that if a proper case were to be
made under this oath, or this portion of it
which is in the past tense, going into the his-
tory of the past, it would be declared void
and unconstitutional, because it conflicts with
the well settled principles which are recog-
nized by our State and federal constitutions.
The men who sit in these halls in 1850 put
the oath which we find in this book of the
constitutions in the present constitution of
Maryland; and which contains this clause :
" And that, since the adoption of the
present constitution, I have not in any man-
ner violated the provisions thereof in relation
to bribery of voters or preventing legal or
procuring illegal votes to be given."
Can it be that that limitation was intro-
duced upon any other ground than that the
intelligent lawyers of that day who sal in
this hall, knew and felt and so acted, that
they had no right to incorporate an oath into
the constitution of the State which looked to
a man's past history, in other words a re-
trospective oath? I say then, sir, that so
much of my friend's proposition to amend as
is contained in these words—" that I have
never directly or indirectly by word, act or
deed given any aid, comfort or encourage-
ment to those in rehellion against the United
States or the lawful authorities thereof, but
that I have been truly and loyally on the side
of the United States against those in armed
rebellion against the United States'—is unconstitutional
and void.
Sufficient has been said, if anything can
deter gentlemen from a course upon which
they are resolved; and I do not wish to add
anything whatever to it. Gentlemen may |
attempt to meet the argument I have drawn
from other constitutions, and I believe I might
go through the whole book and find an exact
conformity with the principles I laid down,
that they were incorporated under a different
set of circumstances; that the times have
changed, and men must change with them.
1 desire to call my friends attention in this
connection to the constitution of West Vir-
ginia. I remember that when the celebrated
fourth article of the bill of rights was under
discussion, that the argument was made on
the opposite side of the house, when the mi-
nority claimed that it was unusual and un-
heard of to engraft such a provision, of the
paramount allegiance of citizens of a State to
the federal government, into the constitution
of the State, the argument was made on the
other side that there was no necessity in past
times of introducing it, that we must act for
the living present. And the constitution of
West Virginia wars referred to, which pro-
vides in its first section as follows :
"The State of West Virginia shall be and
remain one of the United States of America.
The constitution of the United States, and
the laws and treaties made in pursuance
thereof, shall be the supreme law of the
land."
That has been quoted on the other side to
show that men in framing a constitution
since the inauguration of this civil war felt it
to be a duty incumbent upon them to put in
a provision of that kind into the constitu-
tion, similar to the fourth article of our bill
of rights.
Now, I wish to call the attention of my
friend to the fact that in West Virginia un-
der precisely the same circumstances as re-
gards the civil war, and no longer ago than
last year, while preparing a constitution for
a State carved out of the very heart of trea-
son, out of the very back-bone of the rebel-
lion, because we all know that Virginia may
properly be described as such, adopted the
following provision in that constitution;
which will be found on page 639, of the book
of constitutions, in article three :
" The white male citizens of the State shall
be entitled to vote atall elections held within
the election districts in which they respec-
tively reside; but no person who is a minor,
or of unsound mind, or a pauper, or who is
under conviction of treason, felony, or bribery
in an election, or who has not been a resident
of the State for one year, and. of the county
in which he offers to vote for thirty days next
preceding such offer, shall be permitted to
vote while such disability continues."
There you have the true ground upon
which this should rest. No man should be
allowed to vote who bars been convicted of
treason. Why not, I pray you, let this stand
upon the same ground where you have placed
the offence of larceny and the other infamous
crimes? Why not let conviction according |
