no spark of human sympathy about him? I
must appeal from the decision of the chair.
The PRESIDENT, The gentleman will state
the ground of his appeal.
Mr. MARBURY. It is this: I was explain-
ing my position, which the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Cushing) has misrepre-
sented.
The PRESIDENT. The chair does not understand
the gentleman from Baltimore city,
(Mr. Cushing) to reflect upon the motives of
the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Marbury,) in the slightest degree.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. The gentleman
from Baltimore city stated that the gentleman
from Prince George's used certain language,
which he (Mr. Marbury) says he did not use.
He (Mr. Marbury) claims now the right to
state what he did say.
The PRESIDENT. The chair permitted the
gentleman from Prince George's to deny the
facts stated by the gentleman from Baltimore
city. But the gentleman from Prince George's
was proceeding to make an argument which
the chair did not think was proper.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. The gentleman is
only repeating what he had said. I would
advise the gentleman from Prince George's
.to call upon the reporter to read what he did
say.
The PRESIDENT. If the gentleman from
Prince George's did so, the gentleman from
Baltimore city would have the right to reply
to him. If that is allowed the convention
would soon become involved in interminable
discussions of this character. If the gentle-
man from Prince George's thinks his charac-
ter has been assailed, or his motives improp-
erly impugned, the chair will allow him am-
ple opportunity to correct that. But the gen-
tleman from Prince George's can very readily
perceive that if the chair were to permit the
discussion to continue, whenever the facts
stated by one gentleman, were repeated ley
another, and his interpretation placed upon
them, there would be no end to the discus-
sion. The chair is not aware of any case
where it has ever been done or permitted. If
the gentleman from Prince George's conceives
that his motives have been assailed in any
manner by the gentleman from Baltimore
city, he will be permitted to make his expla-
nation, But the chair does not understand
the gentleman so to say.
Mr. MARBURY. I do consider that my mo-
tives have been improperly construed; that
the gentleman has represented me as being
influenced by motives of inhumanity, motives
that would reflect upon me as a Christian
man, as a good citizen of any State, and un-
der any government. I consider this a re-
flection upon me.
I was going on to state simply the reasons
upon which I based my judgment, to show
the gentleman that he could not consistently
impute any such motives to me. I was going
65 |
on to say that at the time the exchange of
prisoners was refused, it was a notorious fact,
known all through the country, heralded in
every newspaper, you heard it at every turn
and corner, that the southern country was in
a starving condition, that the}' bad neither
bread, meat, sugar, tea nor coffee; that
Hour was $200, $300 and $400 a barrel;
that such was the condition of the southern
people. At that crisis, at that very time,
there was a proposal for the exchange of
prisoners. I say this government ought not
to have stood upon a punctilio, but should
have delivered these men from their posi-
tion.
The PRESIDENT. The chair must say that
that is a mere matter of difference of opinion,
between the gentleman from Prince George's
(Mr. Marbury) and the gentleman from Bal-
timore city (Mr. Cushing.) The gentleman
from Baltimore city has as perfect a right to
entertain his opinion in regard to the course
of the government of the United States as has
the gentleman from Prince George's. How
the gentleman from Prince George's can draw
the conclusion that that is an imputation
upon his motives, the chair cannot perceive.
The chair does not regard this as a matter
of personal imputation atall.
Mr. MARBURY. Very well; I will waive
my appeal.
Mr. LANSDALE, I move .to substitute the
report of the minority of the committee on
the schedule, for that part of the report of
the majority which relates to soldiers voting".
The report of the minority was as follows:
" The undersigned, a minority of the mem-
bers of the committee on provisions and or-
dinances as may be desirable to carry into
effect amendments to the constitution, report
that they dissent from the report submilted
by the majority of the committee.
'• First. Because they believe the authority
given to soldiers in camp to vote at all elec-
tions, will utterly fail to have the effect proposed
by those who advocate the measure;
on the contrary, as the undersigned believe,
it will enable the officers who command the
soldiers, to control the votes of those who
feel and know the power of their officers, to
make them suffer in various ways the penalty
of disobedience to their wishes. To a soldier
on duty, the first great lesson taught, is obe-
dience to his commanding officer. Military
necessity requires a rigid exaction of this
duty; it allows of no discussion or discretion,
To fail in the smallest respect insures harsh
treatment, even in cases where martial law
prescribes no specific penalty. It will not be
doubted that the only safe approach to the
favor of an officer is to gratify his wishes by
voting his ticket.
" Second. But whatever may be the pro-
priety of taking the votes of soldiers or their
officers, the undersigned cannot permit them-
selves to doubt of the concurrence of the con- |
