vention to vote against every measure calcu-
lated to assist the government. But for that
I should still be silent.
They protest against this and that clause
of this and that report. They protest most
particularly against allowing the soldiers to
vote. I ask, why not allow those to vote
who have been fighting for their homes and
our homes, for their country and our coun-
try—men who hare been baring their breasts
to the bayonet to preserve our rights—men
to whom we owe the fact that our State has
so far been protected from the horrors of
war? Yet we are told that they are not en-
titled to vote. Have they lost all their
rights and privileges by doing as they have
done? Or is this objection raised because it
is believed that the soldiers will cast their
ballots for this constitution and thereby in-
dorse the work of this convention and assist
in burying this damning institution of
slavery so deep that it will never be heard
from again in our State?
I call upon the majority of this body to
exercise the power given them by the peo-
ple. Let every one of their votes be cast for
this and every other section in this report.
Let it go forth and thereby gladden the hearts
of those men to whom the whole people of
this State owe a deep debt of gratitude. The
whole effort of the opponents of this report
is against the men who have been hearing
aloft the old starry banner. The cry of
"law," "law," is raised to arouse hatred
to those men because they are soldiers in the
armies of the United States. So far as I am
concerned, I tell gentlemen that I intend he
shall be allowed to vote who has been will-
ing to lay down his life for his country, and
that he who is not willing to take the oath
prescribed in this constitution, and thereby
give some evidence of his attachment to this
Union, shall not be allowed to vote.
I desire to say further, that if the friends
of the Chicago convention want bullets in-
stead of ballots, as was said upon this floor
this morning, so far as the people whom I
have the honor in part to represent are con-
cerned, they are perfectly willing to give
them as many as they want. I heard here
this morning, as I have heard nearly every
day since this convention met, language
which if used down South against the rebel
government, would, to say the least of it,
cause to be sent beyond their lines those
using it. And I thought to myself, this morn-
ing, of the oath we all took up in the cham-
ber of the governor. I made up my mine
that no matter what oath we might put in
the constitution these men would gulp it
down. And so we have been told upon this
floor. I know, gentlemen, that the test about
to be administered to you is a bitter one.
would that it were more so, and that it might
purge you of every disloyal sentiment and
idea that you now possess. |
Mr. DANIEL. I have a few remarks which
1 wish to submit upon this question. I shall
not travel into the political view of the ques-
tion. But I have an opinion or two upon the
legal question, which so far as I now recol-
lect, has not yet been presented by any gen-
tleman, precisely in the form in which it
has struck my own mind.
What are the theories advanced here as to
the powers of this convention? One is that
we are confined by the restrictions which are
contained in the bill calling this convention,
and which was submitted to the people, and
whose provisions it has been contended have
been adopted by the people. The other theory
is that we are not restrained by anything in
that bill, except so far as it is our pleasure to
observe its provisions. That, as a sovereign
convention, we have of ourselves all power,
and that we are under no restrictions. Now
1 do not see how gentleman can sustain them-
selves upon any other theory than the one
which has been adopted by the gentleman
from Kent (Mr. Chambers) and by every other
gentleman, except the gentleman from Anne
Arundel (Mr. Miller) who addressed the con-
vention last night.
, The gentleman from Anne Arundel, con-
sistent with himself, for he has heretofore
advocated that theory upon this floor, held
that we were bound by the provisions of the
act which called us into being, that this con-
vention was the mere creature of that act.
And the gentleman argued that view very
ably, when the question was presented about
the right of certain members to their seats in
this convention,
1 Now, I adopt that theory. I think that so
far as the provisions of the act which called
us into being are applicable to us, they do
, govern us. And this convention has practi-
cally so said, by its observing the restrictions
contained in the provisions of that act. This
convention has acted upon the provision giv-
ing us our per diem and upon other pro-
visions, thereby showing that it considered
itself bound by the provisions of that act.
Now, taking that act as my standard, and
looking to the provisions of that act, starting
from the very point from whence the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) started,
1 come to a very different conclusion in my
construction of that act. I come to the con-
clusion that the provision we are now about
to adopt, requiring an oath to be taken by
voters at the polls, is the very provision, ill
substance at least, if not in so many words,
which is sanctioned and authorized by that
act. The gentleman from Baltimore county
(Mr. Ridgely) based his argument in favor of
the section now under consideration, upon
that portion of the sixth section of the con-
vention bill which authorized this convention
to submit the new constitution to the people
"subject to such rules and regulations as
said convention may prescribe." My friend |
