adoption of this constitution. That is a broad
power, a power to be exercised not techni-
cally but liberally; in such a manner as to
ascertain the true sense of the people of the
State, In point of fact and in point of law a
large part of the voters of this State are in
the service of the United States and out of
the. State, Any submission of the question
to a vote, which does not take their sense of
it, does not take the sense of the people of the
State, It was upon that ground that I argued
last winter that the legislature possessed this
power. I held that even if the legislature
could not give the soldier the right to vote
out of the State at our State elections, that
under the power given to the legislature to
take the sense of the people in regard to call-
ing a convention, which was not a strict tech-
nical power, but a power to be exercised upon
broad constitutional principles, and which the
legislature could not fairly exercise unless
they did take the sense of the soldiers. They
could authorize the soldiers to vote on that
question. I never claimed that it was clear
as a mere question of law to allow soldiers to
vote at all elections, bat I confined my bill
expressly to allowing them to vote upon the
call of the convention.
It has been a very grave question of doubt
whether the legislature has not a right to pro-
vide for the vote of the soldiers at any elec-
tion. I admit that the decision of most of
the courts is against it; but no court has de-
cided that the soldiers may not vote for or
against a constitution. That is always to be
taken liberally; and I hold therefore that un-
der the constitution as it now exists we have
the right in taking the sense of the people to
provide for taking the sense of the soldier.
I think there cannot be any misunderstanding
about it. It is not a question of attempting
to enfranchise unqualified persons. They are
all qualified under the constitution. The
only difficulty is that from their situation
they cannot get their votes into the ballot-
box; and this is simply a provision for the
purpose of enabling qualified citizens of Mary-
land to vote.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. The objection to
this report upon the part of the minority ap-
pears to be two-fold; first, to allowing the
soldiers in the field to vote, and the other, to
imposing an oath upon voters, in the discus-
sion of the question before the convention a
great latitude has been indulged in. We
seem to have resolved ourselves into a com-
mittee for stump-speaking; and I suppose I
shall not be violating precedent if I take part
in that discussion. My friend from Calvert
(Mr. Briscoe,) last night or this morning has
cited Henry Clay as an evidence against the
party now in power. He has cited his testi-
mony against the terrible effects of the acces-
sion of that party to power, and claims that
the prophecy which he uttered has been faith-
fully filfilled. I am not here as an advocate |
of the republican party. I do not belong to
it. I have been a whig all my life; and
whenever I have departed from the straight
path of whiggery, it was only because 1
thought .1 could do more to aid in breaking
up the worst party in the world, the demo-
cratic party. But I say the democratic party
have no right to take on their tongues the
words of that glorious patriot, Henry Clay.
He was their victim from his first entry into
public life down to the day of his death,
hunted down by the whole party, and espe-
cially by that unfortunate, feeble old man in
Lancaster, who is now shunned as a leprous
man by every one who feels that he has a
moral principle in him. I say that whatever
Henry Cay may have said with regard to the
abolition party who would have abolished
slavery without reference to forms of law,
Henry Clay has never put on record any tes-
timony in favor of the old party called the
democratic party, but he has again and again
denounced it, and his whole life was one wit-
ness against it. And ire said something bet-
ter than the gentleman has quoted, and he
sustained it by the whole course of his glorious
and beautiful political life, that if the time
should ever come when there should be two
parties in this country, one for the Union and
the other against the Union, he had no hesi-
tation on which side he would array himself,
for under the dear old flag of his country he
would stand forever. [Applause, promptly
suppressed by the President.] I trust there
will be no demonstrations of this kind during
my remarks.
If he were living to-day, he would stand
just where the gallant Douglas stood when
he found there were two parties, one for the
Union and the other against the Union, one
loyal and the other traitor.
What has this democratic party done? They
say that the abolition party of this country
has brought on the war. I deny it. I say
now, as I said before, that it arose from the
acts of the democratic party, when they ar-
rayed themselves against this Union. I be-
lieve it as firmly as I believe in the existence
of an all-wise God, that on the democratic
party of this country, as it is now organized,
rests the terrible and eternal responsibility of
all the blood that has been spilled in this war.
it is referred to an arbitrament to which I am
willing to leave it. It is referred to history ;
and history will do them justice. What are
the democratic party now doing? Clamoring
for peace. At Chicago they have presented
a platform and a candidate; a peace candi-
date with shoulder-straps and a sword by his
side ? a peace candidate opposed to arbitrary
arrests, who arrested and imprisoned our no-
ble legislature at Frederick; a peace candi-
date, unwilling to interfere with our erring
sisters, anxious to bring them back, driving
them to the walls of Richmond on paper, and
i retreating down and clinging to his gunboat |
