legiance down in the army than up here, it
will not do any harm, I have said about all
I desire to say. I shall vote for the amend-
ment with great pleasure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. One word, Mr. President;
although I do not intend to take any part in
this electioneering debate which has been
carried on here, not being in the category of
gentlemen one side or the other. As long as
they choose to occupy the stump I shall listen
to them certainly with pleasure. The last re-
mark of the gentleman from Carroll (Mr.
Smith) amused me exceedingly. The gentle-
man said what, if he had been on the stump,
would have been a most appropriate thing,
but which could hardly be called a constitu-
tional argument, with which alone we have
anything to do. McClellan is before the peo-
ple, and Lincoln is before the people—no
doubt about that—and one of them is to be
elected. Give them a fair field; that is all
I want. Let them be who they may, and let
their politics be what they may, give them a
fair chance.
In the mean time I have something to say
about the State of Maryland, upon a subject
that seems to have been lost sight of for some
time. The argument which I had the honor
to submit, has not, in my humble judgment,
been met. I stated the language of this oath
to be such that it would embarrass men whose
conduct was as free from reproach as that of
any man on this floor or any man elsewhere.
The only sort of an answer that I have heard
is that of the gentleman from Howard (Mr.
Sands,) that that is a matter of interpreta-
tion. it is not denied that the language does
include such individuals; but it is answered
that individuals must judge for themselves ;
that it is a matter of interpretation. Now I
wish to submit this question to the majority
of this house. I wish to submit it to any
gentleman who wishes to deal fairly with the
people of the State; to deal fairly, not with
traitors, rebels, prisoners in the armies, and
all that sort of thing, but with honest men,
with an honest purpose; with loyal men who
have always been loyal. If there are doubts
in the phraseology of this oath, calculated to
embarrass men who do not wish to see how
near they can come to an obligation which
the words might embrace, or how near to a
violation of their conscience they can come
by an oath, if that is the case, why not put
into the oath language which does not leave
room for interpretation? Gentlemen know
bow to frame these matters. They have
here stated that no man shall be permitted to
vote unless he swears that be has never given
aid, comfort or countenance to any one who
has been in the rebel army,
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir; it does not say that.
It is no one in armed rebellion.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the interpretation
Why not put it in the language ? |
Mr. STIRLING. I have; just as well as I can
express it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Here it is; to be adminis-
tered to any person offering to vote :
"1 do swear or affirm that I am a citizen of
the United States, that I have never given any
aid, countenance or support to those in armed
hostility to the United States," &c.
Mr. STIRLING. Now I will ask the gentle-
man to explain whether a man lying wounded
and sick in a hospital is in armed rebellion,
or in armed hostility to the United States?
Mr. CHAMBERS, A man who has been in
armed rebellion is as much in this category,
in my judgment, as if he were to-day un-
wounded and unimprisoned. I want to know
what sort of " aid, countenance or support"
is contemplated. A man to-day in prison
receives from me one hundred dollars in
money to add to his comfort. He is exchanged
to-morrow, and the next day is in arms
against the government of the United States.
Gentlemen may raise their bands and stare
their eyes as much as they please; that is the
very language: "I have never given any aid,
countenance or support to those in armed
hostility to the United States," I understand
that to mean to any one in armed hostility to
the United States. Did I not give aid and
comfort in the case supposed? Is not he in
armed opposition to the government? is not
that the language of the oath? You know
how to put it in terms that lead to no diffi-
culty. Why not do it?
But I rose now to say that I heard with
the most infinite amazement, the assertion
made upon this floor that the elections had
been conducted in the last election without
military interference. That any man with
eyes in his bead and ears to hear should rise
and take the responsibility of making that
assertion is to me a matter of amazement, 1
do not profess to know in many districts in
the State what occurred at the election; but
so far as I do know there was inspection at
every district, I make this assertion, and it
can be proved by as respectable testimony as
can be furnished to prove any fact on oath,
that in my county not only did military in-
terference prevent men from voting, but the
military made the proposition to individuals.
If you will vote for the gentleman who is
now in power and has control, yon may vote
the balance of the ticket as you like. Yes,
sir; by military men such an offer was made;
you may vote provided you will vole a given
ticket. Does any man pretend to say he does
not know that the member of congress in our
district would not have received, if a fair
vote had been allowed, one vote—1 was about
to say in ten—scarcely more than that? And
yet here we are told that there was no mili-
tary interference.
But even that perhaps would not have in-
duced me to leave my seat if the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge) had |
