from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) in reviewing
that argument said that the gentleman (Mr.
Ridgely) had carefully excluded from con-
sideration the latter part of that sixth sec-
tion, which reads as follows:
"And the provisions hereinbefore contain-
ed for the qualifications of voters, and the
holding of the elections provided in the pre-
vious sections of this act, shall be applicable
to the election to be held under this sec-
tion,"
Now, it is upon that part of the section
that I intend to base the view which I shall
take of this subject; that part which my
friend from Anne Arundel said my friend
from Baltimore county had carefully avoided.
"Provisions hereinbefore contained for the
qualification of voters." What are the pro-
visions for the qualifications of voters con-
tained in this convention bill, and which are
to be applicable when they vote for the con-
stitution, or against the constitution, as they
were applicable when they voted for a con-
vention or against a convention? The gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel admits that the
people ratified the provisions of this act when
they voted for it. And he has argued that
the provisions of this act apply to this con-
vention, although every other gentleman of
his party has been forced to flee from that
conclusion, in order to avoid the necessary
implication that this oath was legal, and to
plant themselves upon the sovereign powers
of this convention, and to bold that there is
no legal qualification except those contained
in the constitution.
The gentleman from Montgomery (Mr.
Peter) was very careful this morning to note
certain qualifications laid down in the first
section of the convention bill; that is, those
prescribed for voters in electing delegates to
the general assembly. And then he read a
certain oath which the members were required
to take. But there was another part of the
first section which he did not read, but which
I will now read :
"And the judges of election shall at said
election (for the convention) administer the
oath or affirmation to every person offering
to vote whose vote shall be challenged on
the ground that such person has served in the
rebel army, or has either directly or indi-
rectly, given aid, comfort or encouragement
to those in armed rebellion against the gov-
ernment of the United States, or is for any
other reason not a legal voter in the manner
and form provided by section twenty-one of
article thirty-live of the Code of public gen-
eral laws, relating to elections."
Now the article of the Code referred to
simply allows the judges of election in ordi-
nary cases to administer the oath to the party
touching his right to vote, as regards his
residence. But it gave them the power to ask
such questions as they might deem it neces-
sary to put to the voter. That, therefore, in |
connection with the first section of this con-
vention bill, gave the judges complete power
to ask as many questions as they pleased,
and in any manner they pleased in order to
purge the conscience of the voter, and to
bring out from him any of these facts, viz:
whether he had ever served in the rebel army,
or had either directly or indirectly given aid,
comfort or encouragement to those in armed
rebellion against the government of the Uni-
ted States.
Now here is the point I make upon that.
1 say that the sixth section of the convention
bill says that the same provisions in regard to
the qualifications of voters shall be applicable
when this constitution is submitted to the
people, as were required by the first section
of that act when the question of a conven-
tion was submitted to the people. And
among those provisions is this, that the
judges of election were authorized to put
every man on his oath as to whether he had
ever served in the rebel army, or had ever
directly or indirectly given aid, comfort, or
encouragement to those engaged in armed
rebellion against the government of the Uni-
ted States. Now I ask, in what respect does
this oath which we propose to prescribe in
this schedule, differ from the one which the
judges of election were empowered to admin-
ister to every man who voted upon the call-
ing a convention? The judges might have
gone on, under the very bill which called
this convention together, and ask all the
questions now proposed by the committee on
the schedule. The only difference, if it be a
difference, that this report, instead of allow-
ing' the judges to put their questions in their
own way, has included in the form of an
oath to be taken by the voter, what the judges
under the convention bill could have accom-
plished by questions put to the voter. What
is the oath prescribed by this report of the
committee on the schedule, toeing the oath
contained in the article on elective franchise?
" I 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, that 1
have never expressed a desire for the triumph
of said enemies over the arms of the United
States, and that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the United States and support
the constitution and laws thereof as the su-
preme law of the land, any law or ordinance
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding,
and will in all respects demean myself as a
loyal citizen of the United States, and I swear
this without any reservation or evasion."
Mr. EDELEN. Do I understand the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) to give
his opinion here as a lawyer, that the oath
he has just read, is substantially the same
oath which is prescribed by the first section
of the convention bill ?
Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir. I say this, that |
