thy for the south, I have rendered aid and
comfort," it would be equally obnoxious to
me, because it would be a violation of the
fundamental law and the rights of the people
of the State. I attack it, independent of its
provisions, because it is a violation of the
rights of the people.
One word more in regard to what fell from
the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) last
Bight, who contended that this was a case of
civil war, and unless you put some such pro-
vision as this into this report, those who had
left the State and gone into the southern army
in the event of an invasion of the State and
the return of citizens of the State in the inva-
ding army, they would have the right to vote
I humbly conceive that that is not the case
Those who were formerly citizens of the State
of Maryland, and who have left the State of
Maryland and gone into the southern army,
have abandoned their residence. Under the
decision of the courts they have been declared
to be alien enemies; and no one can pretend
that an alien enemy can come here and vote.
They have lost their right to vote under the
decision of the supreme court of the United
States; and no gentleman can contend for a
moment that one who has gone into the terri-
tory declared to be in a state of warfare, and
who has lived there, can come back and claim
this right.
Mr. DANIEL. Is that your construction of
the decision ?
Mr. CLARKE. It is. It declares that every
man in that territory is in a state of warfare
with this government, and all that are there
are alien enemies. The man residing there,
whether loyal or not, is just as liable to be
treated as an enemy, and his property treated
as the property of an enemy, as if he were
taken in arms against the government. It is
a territorial war; and all within that territory
are alien enemies. The decision is clear and
plain. They have sworn allegiance to another
government; and it is plain that they cannot
claim to be citizens of Maryland. Hence there
is no such necessity for this provision; and
gentlemen really do not fear anything of the
kind. The provision is directed, not against
the armies fighting against the government,
but against a class of men in Maryland, who
have stood here and performed their duties
under the constitution of the State of Mary-
land and the constitution of the United States
who have paid their taxes, borne the burden
of the draft, and done everything which, as
loyal citizens, they were required to do, save
to bend the knee to every violation of the con-
stitution of the United States, and to every
dogma which is announced as a party dogma
to be enforced in this State. It is done for
the purpose of reaching that class of men who
about the nineteenth of April were true; and
desired to perpetuate the Union, who at that
time, and I know many such, had southern
sympathies, and were desirous of healing |
these difficulties, and thought there was only
one way to Settle them, by standing up and
maintaining under the constitution their
rights, who only saw that it could be done in
that mode and manner. They did express
their sympathies; but because they were true
to their State, and the rights of property of
the citizens, violating no law, is that any rea-
son why they should now be disfranchised,
because they have not supported this admin-
istration when they have seen such scenes go-
ing on, because they have not shouted hozan-
nahs to those in power? Men who desired
the preservation and perpetuation of the Union
may have seen at certain stages of this contro-
versy that if the other party had succeeded
there would have been a death blow to the
republican party; and felt that in that result
1 there was more hope for the perpetuation of
the freedom of the white citizens of this coun-
try. They may have expressed such views,
and acted in good faith, desirous under the
workings of Providence to accomplish a pro-
per solution of our difficulties. Are they for
a difference of opinion to be excluded ?
Gentlemen may adopt this provision, but in
my humble judgment if adopted, the action
of the convention will not be authorized by
any powers conferred upon them; and if they
undertake to administer that oath, they will
have no more legal power or authority, now
that the present constitution is the rule of
government, than if I were to administer an
oath without any authority whatever. It is
an illegal act; anact without authority. 1
do not know whether any such case will be
tested or not, but if any one took the oath,
there is no court of law, I believe, in the State,
which would hold that he could be convicted
under that oath for perjury; because judges
have to swear to support the constitution; and
this would be contrary to the constitution;
not the constitution upon which the people
are to vote, and which is not yet the law of
the land, but the existing constitution. And
unless the judges of election have power un-
der the existing constitution to administer
that oath, they are acting outside of their au-
thority, and their act is null and void. Some
may refuse to take the oath, if they think
proper. Others may take it in good faith.?
There are others probably who might not
take it in good faith. But I say this, if they
do take it, the result is that they are simply
standing up and going through an idle form,
which no court of law can recognize any au-
thority for. I do hope that the people of the
State will not be deluded by this action of the
convention, undertaking without authority to
impose such an oath.
The legislature admitted last winter that
they had no right to impose an oath as a qual-
ification for voting upon the question of the
convention. And when the convention met
here it was denounced on the other side of
1 the house as unconstitutional, and it was said |
