cause. For the want of something better
they seize upon that—not as an argument,
because it is not, but as a pretext for incor-
porating such a provision as that now under
consideration in order to limit the exercise
of the elective franchise, a right which has
been so clearly defined by the constitution of
the State of Maryland, and which this con-
vention cannot limit or restrict in accordance
with law, justice, or truth, except by a con-
stitution which may supersede the old one.
It is often spoken of as the old constitution,
but I think it is still the constitution. It
is not the old constitution. We have no
other constitution than that which was
adopted in 1851.
But I return to the proposition that the
convention law, or that which is called the
convention law, which was in fact merely an
enabling act, has become the organic law of
the land. Did the people vote for or against
that convention bill? Was that the question
submitted to the vote of the people, and
upon which they gave their decision? I
think not, sir. The question was " for or
against a convention." That was the simple
question propounded to the people at the
election. By the return of the votes it ap-
pears that a majority were in favor of the
call. While I admit that as an apparent
fact, it has failed to convince me that a ma-
jority of the legal voters of the State were
in favor of the call of the convention. I be-
lieve exactly the contrary. But for the limit-
ation which was put upon the voting, but for
the restrictions imposed in the convention
bill, which were against and in violation of
the constitution, but for the interposition of
military interference with the free exercise of
the most valuable of all rights, this conven-
tion, in my bumble opinion, would not have
been sitting here to-day. It would never
have met. That, however, is a matter of
opinion. I confess the results as they have
been given to us by the returns of that elec-
tion are against that opinion so far as con-
cerns the number of votes cast.
But it must not be forgotten that on so
vital a question as that of calling and elect-
ing a convention for the purpose of framing
the organic law of the State, there was no
free expression of opinion. The ballot-box
was so hedged in by bayonets everywhere
that it was but a farce, more calculated to
excite indignation in the minds of the people
than respect for the law, or the action of
those who control these matters, it is use-
less for me to read the elective franchise as
provided for in the constitution of this State
It has been so frequently read upon this floor,
as well as so constantly within the reach of
every member of this body, that if its action
were to be influenced by the definition of a
legal and qualified voter therein prescribed,
we should not have before the convention
the provision which I move to have stricken |
out. Article fifteenth of the bill of rights'
a part of the constitution of the State, and
probably a part of the constitution which
it is proposed soon to submit to the people,
contains this provision;
" Art, 15. That retrospective laws, punish-
ing acts committed before the existence of
such laws, and by them only declared crimi-
nal, are oppressive, unjust, and incompatible
with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto law
ought to be made."
1 submit that the provision here, which is
intended to be operative before the vote upon
the constitution has been taken, is clearly in
violation of that declaration, so plainly so
as to beincontrovertible. It would seem that
it were absurd to regard it as necessary even
to call the attention of the convention to it,
Another article of the declaration of rights,
1 will read:
" Art. 21. That no free man ought to be
taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his free-
hold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or de-
prived of his life, liberty or property, hut by
the judgment of his peers and by the law of
the land."
How does this affect the privilege, the ex-
ercise of the great inalienable right of suf-
frage, which can only be lost through crime,
as declared by the constitution of the State ?
How can you clog the exercise of that right
by such provisions as that under considera-
tion? It cuts many of the citizens off from
the privilege of voting; citizens the equals of
any upon this floor; citizens as eminently pa-
triotic as any that sit in this hall or have sit
in it. Their opinions and feelings may be dif-
ferent from those of the majority here; but
1 trust they are not, in consequence of those
feelings and opinions, to be treated as crimi-
nals unworthy the exercise of that great right
of suffrage, the only safeguard for free men.
1 trust they are not to be pushed away by the
bayonet or toy force, nor by any arbitrary pro-
vision that this constitution or this schedule
of submission may make, from the exercise
of that great right which is inherent to the
citizens of the State, and of which they can-
not be deprived legally except in the manner
prescribed by the constitution.
Then, sir, I maintain that it is clearly an
effort to arraign the citizen without a trial,
and to impose a penalty upon him for certain
opinions that he may entertain; and is there-
fore wrong, by every rule or principle of jus-
tice by which it may be examined or investi-
gated. it is to impose a penalty for such a
fact, without a trial, without an investiga-
tion. Its object is, in my opinion, evidently
felonious. I think of no other wont at this
time calculated to express the effect, if not ob-
ject, of the provision now under consideration.
It seeks to disfranchise the voter without a
trial, it is a test oath imposed for the pur-
pose of restricting him in the exercise of his |
