the people shout, and all that sort of thing, are
a good place to talk, a good place for bun-
combe; but I tell you it is the man who is
facing death for his country who learns in a
day what we might take years to learn.
I had no idea of detaining the convention.
I did want to vindicate my country against
the idea that she sets up gibbets between the
grandfather and the grandson, when that
grandson is a sick and wounded prisoner. I
wanted to show in what a spirit of enlight-
ened christian charity she had acted, I want-
ed the world to know it. I wanted to say
here, what gentlemen must know, that that
is not the case pointed at in this section; that
no one could exclude the gentleman from Kent
upon such a ground, for ministering to the
wants of a sick and wounded prisoner when
the government allowed him to do it. That
is asufficient answer to any man sitting as
judge of election. No man in his senses would
dream of rejecting a ballot on that ground.
Let us come down to the plain simple facts of
the case. Let us set forth the cases meant to
be reached by this law. Let gentlemen who
have been their own avowed advocates upon
this floor, instead of setting up imaginary
cases and knocking them down, appealing to
your feelings, set up the real facts of the case
and appeal to your judgment.
I wanted to point out to my friend from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) how exactly the
provisions of this section of the elective fran-
chise article followed the very word and
letter and spirit of the act that called us to-
gether; and I wanted, too, to point out the fact
that we do not sit here to-day as a legislature
with regard to this matter; but the people at
the ballot-box this spring broke the legislative
fetters and sent us here to carry out their will.
That is the true state of the case.
Mr. NEGLEY. I wish to make a few re-
marks.
Mr. CHAMBERS (interposing.) My indispo-
sition compels me to retire. I desire to bear
the rest of this debate; and as it is now ten
o'clock, with the congeal of the gentleman I
will move that the convention adjourn.
Mr. NEGLEY declined to yield the floor for
the motion, and Mr. CHAMBERS thereupon re-
tired from the ball.
Mr. NEGLEY resumed: The argument of the
gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) is this
that there is no power under the constitution
of Maryland given even to the legislature or
the constitutional convention to prescribe any
other qualifications for the voter than those
given and laid down in the constitution.. The
gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller)
takes the same view, and says there is no
power conferred by the constitution, no power
residing in the legislature of Maryland, no
power in this constitutional convention to
prescribe any other qualifications than those
laid down in the constitution, Now I will
call the attention of the gentleman from Kent |
(Mr. Chambers) to the law calling this con-
stitutional convention. What does that do?
That prescribes an additional qualification.—
What is the qualification in the constitution
of Maryland? It is that a voter shall be a
citizen of the United States, shall be a resi-
dent of the State one year, shall reside in the
county or city where he attempts to vote, and
shall be a white man. These are the four ele-
ments of the qualification. The constitution
of Maryland makes no provision for any oath.
According to the theory of the gentleman,
therefore, these are the only qualifications
that can be prescribed; and no legislature
and no constitutional convention can pre-
scribe any others. Now what is the fact?
Did not the last legislature of Maryland
prescribe an additional oath as a qualification
for the voter who came forward to vote upon
the call of this convention? Had they au-
thority for that in the constitution? None
whatever.
Mr. BRISCOE. I will tell the gentleman from
Washington the position taken by the gentle-
men who opposed that oath in the convention
bill, that there was no constitutional power
to incorporate that oath in the convention
bill, and therefore that it was not binding.
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE. The majority were
against yon.
Mr. NEGLEY resumed: The position of the
gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) was
that there was no power conferred by the
constitution to prescribe any other constitu-
tional qualification for the voter. Then i
the legislature attempted to prescribe any
other qualification, it was a usurpation, and
it was illegal. If this constitutional conven-
tion attempted to prescribe any additional
qualification, it was a usurpation and illegal.
And the gentleman from Anne Arundel took
the same position. Yet what was the fact?
The legislature of Maryland last winter did
absolutely attach .in additional qualification
to the elective franchise in the vote for this
convention. What was that additional qual-
ification? Here it is. It is an oath—the
oath prescribed by the act calling this con-
vention together. It is not necessary for me
to read it. But it is not authorized in the
constitution. It is outsize of the constitu-
tion. It is an addition to the constitution.
Now I put this question. If the legislature
of Maryland had the power to prescribe an
additional oath, which did not exist in the
constitution, has not this constitutional con
vention an equal right? The legislature did
prescribe an oath. Now what do they say
in the sixth section ?
"Sec. 6. And lie it enacted, That the con
stitution and form of government adoptee
by the said convention as aforesaid, shall be
submitted to the legal and qualified voters
of the State "—
That is the legal and qualified voters of the
State as prescribed by the constitution. |
