they were about to extend that right of suf-
frage. And it is an acknowledged and well-
known fact that they did so, and that was
the reason they put that provision in their
schedule.
Mr. EDELEN. It would have been more
appropriate, if they had used the term " this
constitution."
Mr. STIRLING. The gentlemen from Kent
(Mr. Chambers) admitted that they had ex-
tended the right to persons not previously
qualified to vote, beat said they had not ex-
cluded those who were previously qualified,
Mr. EDELEN. I do not know that the gen-
tlemen can claim that interpretation for the
ordinance submitting the constitution of
Tennessee to the people. The first section of
that ordinance contains this :
" Provided, That no person shall be deemed
a qualified voter in said election, except such
as are included within the provisions of the
first section of the fourth article of this
amended constitution,"
Unless the gentleman can follow that up
and show that the antecedent constitution of
the State of Tennessee was different in that
respect from their "amended constitution,"
he cannot claim that they meant to put in
any new qualifications for voting and make
it apply before their new constitution went
into operation. It is only a way, I doubt
not, a very succinct, clear and concise way,
they had of describing those qualified to vole
on the constitution. It does not appear on
the face of the constitution, or from any-
thing which the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Stirling) has brought to the notice
of the convention, but that this very identical
section referred to in the new constitution of
Tennessee was a copy of the section in the
old constitution.
But I do not wish to occupy the time of
the convention longer. I really think that
the question amounts to nothing more nor
less than this; that this convention says in
so many words that one part of this consti-
tution shall go into operation on the second
Wednesday of October next, when it is to be
submitted to the people for their ratification
or rejection; and the rest of it shall go into
operation when the people shall so signify by
their votes in its favor. While they submit
a part of the constitution, they make the
other part, by the omnipotent fiat of this con-
vention, go into operation eo instanti.
Since I have taken my seat in this conven-
tion, I have heard it conceded by every gen-
tleman who has spoken upon this question,
that even apart from that provision in the
convention bill, no man upon this floor has
ever dreamed of making any portion of this
constitution operate as the organic law of this
State, until the people by their votes have so
declared. This constitution is nothing more
in effect than a blank piece of paper, until
the people so pronounce. |
Now I really hope that this house will be
consistent, and as they say they are bound by
this convention bill, they will not take a part
of it and reject the rest. My amendment is a
very important part of that section one of the
convention bill, making it the imperative
duty of the judges of election to have the
voter challenged before they propose this oath.
Mr. CUSHING, I had supposed that the
whole dehate upon this subject was concluded
this morning. I had thought that everything
had been said that could be said, about the
outrages committed upon the people of Mary-
land by the government of the United States;
the outrages committed upon the people of
Maryland by this convention. I had supposed
that the whole political and moral question of
slavery, and the right and want of right to.
compensation) had been thoroughly gone
over; and that this house had decided defi-
nitely that they would not change the provis-
ions for submitting this constitution to the
people for their action. With that 'view 1
had not intended myself to trouble this house
with any more remarks,
But when I find to-night that this whole
question is opened again, that this old charge
of inconsistency is again thrown back upon
us; with no further argument; not one sin-
gle point touched which was made this morn-
ing by the members of the majority of this
house; not one single fact which they ad-
duced disproved; but the mere repetition of
'assertions which, in my humble judgment, are
entirely destitute of foundation in law or in
fact—under these circumstances I think it in-
cumbent upon me simply to express that
opinion to the house, and to give some few
reasons why I entertain that opinion.
The gentleman from Charles (Mr. Edelen)
has again brought in hero the constitution of
the United State's as it has again and again
been brought in here, to be used to defeat
measures designed to strengthen the operation
of that very constitution. He thought, pos-
sibly, that the members of the majority of
this house had never read that document, or
that they had come here with deliberate inten-
tion to destroy it; and that we must go to
the delegation from Charles county to be
instructed as to what does or does not consti-
tute treason.
Now I will take the definition of treason as
the gentleman from Charles has read it to us
from the constitution of the United States,
and every single thing which a man in this
oath in the article on elective franchise, is re-
quired to swear he has not done. I contend
that the 'open expression of opinion in this
State, in the length and breadth of this land,
or of any portion of it, the expression of one
single desire that the enemies of this nation
may triumph, is treason for which, as one of
a jury of twelve men, on the testimony of two
witnesses, I would hang any citizen of the
United States or any resident of the State of |
