prescribed by the first section of this conven-
tion bill, said that they were the same. Now
let us see how consistent gentlemen are
with themselves. They plant themselves here
upon a theory, and when we ask them to
carry that theory out to its logical conse-
quences and conclusion, they fly from it;
they take a part and reject the rest. Here are
the words of this convention bill. Admit, for
the sake of the argument, that we are bound
and concluded by it, and that gentlemen
have a perfect right to put this into the con-
stitution, because this convention bill was
indorsed by the people at the polls in April
last. Here are the words of the convention
bill:
" And the judges of election shall at said
election 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 indirectly given aid, com-
fort or encouragement to those in armed re-
bellion against the government of the United
States."
That is all; these were the disqualifications
pointed out by the convention bill. A man
who had been in open war against the gov-
ernment, serving in the rebel army, or who
had directly or indirectly given aid, comfort,
or encouragement to those in armed rebellion
against the United Statics. All the time look-
ing to overt acts and demonstrations; not
seeking to go down into and probe the secret
recesses of a man's heart and mind, and pa-
rade them upon the hustings as a reason for
disqualifying a man from voting who was
otherwise entitled to vote.
Now what is the oath prescribed by this
convention? After going on and putting in
here a list of disqualifications that covers
absolutely nearly the whole of a page of the
journal, then comes the oath :
'' 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."
So far you are in substantial keeping and
accord with the provisions of the convention
bill. If this oath had gone no further than
that, then my friend from Baltimore city
(Mr. Daniel) could have well answered me
that there was no substantial difference be-
tween the two. But the oath goes on to say:
— " that I have never expressed a desire
for the triumph of said enemies over the arms
of the United States," etc.
Now is there no difference between overt
acts, and the mere expression of opinion,
perchance in a man's private chamber, libra-
ry, office, or anywhere else? Does not the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel)
know full well, as a Lawyer, that the acts
covered by this convention bill, and spoken
of in the first part of this oath, are what
the law would call treason, coming within |
the definition of the word " treason " as de-
fined in the constitution of the United States?
Section three, article three, of that constitu-
tion says:
' 'Treason against the United States shall
consist only in levying war against them, or
in adhering to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort. No person shall be con-
victed of treason, unless on the testimony of
two witnesses to the same overt act, or con-
fession in open court."
Must you not in all cases have the overt
act, in order to make the party amenable for
the crime of treason? And yet the gentle-
man from Baltimore city, and others who
take the same ground, with a show of con-
sistency which will not bear the test for one
moment of a close and careful scrutiny, plant
themselves upon this convention bill, and
insist here that the oath they have incorpora-
ted in this new constitution, and which they
have put in this schedule for voters upon this
constitution to take, is one and the same
thing as that spoken of and contemplated by
the convention bill. The purpose of my
proposition is to carry us back to the true in-
tent and meaning of the language of this lat-
ter clause of the first section of the conven-
tion bill; that it shall not be the duty of the
judges of election to administer this oath
to any voter, except he be challenged, just as
the convention bill requires.
1 will make one reference to a quotation
which my other friend from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) made from the constitution of
Virginia, if he is not in error about it, it
certainly has created doubt in my mind. The
quotation lie made was from section three of
the schedule of the constitution of Virginia :
"And such officers (judges of election)
keeping said polls open for the space of three
days, shall then and there receive, and re-
cord in said poll-book, the votes for and
against this constitution and schedule, of all
persons qualified, under the existing or
amended constitution to exercise the right of
' suffrage."
To what does that term "amended consti-
tution" refer? In the preamble of this con-
stitution of Virginia, we learn that in 1776
the people of Virginia framed their fust con-
stitution; and in 1829 they framed what they
speak of in all their proceedings as their
"amended constitution." And I doubt not
that when, in this very section of fie sched-
ule, they speak of " the existing or amended
constitution" reference was bad exclusively
to that which was known as the " amended
constitution" of Virginia, the constitution of
1829.
Mr. STIRLING. The gentleman is mistaken.
The constitution of Virginia, from which 1
read, and from which the gentleman is read-
ing, is the constitution which enacted uni-
versal suffrage. And that convention sub-
mitted that constitution to those to whom |
