more force and shock the judgment; but ana-
lyzed, are they greater violations than the
other? They all violate the letter and spirit
of the constitution and the genius of our gov-
ernment, and undermine its foundation.
You refer to the language of the act of 1864,
which, in providing for the submission of the
constitution to the people, declares that it
shall be submitted " at such time and in such
manner and subject to such rules and regula-
tions as said convention may prescribe."—
You do not, however, contend that these
expressions, quoted and italicised, give to the
convention the power they have assumed.
The fixing of the time for holding the elec-
tion should of course begiven to the conven-
tion, because it was uncertain when they
would adjourn, and also of the manner, &c. ;
these minor or inferior powers were intended
to subserve the great object of calling the
convention; that is, to form a constitution and
obtain in a manner most convenient and
agreeable to the people their true sentiments
upon it.
The same act required it to be submitted to
the people, by its sixth section, in these
words: "That the constitution and form of
government adopted by the said convention
shall be submitted to the legal and qualified
voters of the State, for their adoption or re-
jection," &c. Who were the legal and qualification
voters of the State? Were they not such
as elected the legislature? "White male
persons of twenty-one years of age?" &c.
The constitution being the supreme law, the
" legal and qualified voters of the State" are
such as have the constitutional qualifications,
Can there be any other? But when we read
the whole section from which you quote, I
find immediately following the words "rules
and regulations as said convention may pre-
scribe," these words; "and the provisions
hereinbefore contained for the qualification of
the voters and the holding of the elections
provided in the previous sections of this act,
shall be applicable to the election to be field
under this section" The convention has not
only overstepped the constitution, but the
very charter under which they received their
legal exigence from the people. The rules
and regulations must be in accordance and
not in conflict with the words that follow
them, which confine and restrict them to
such form, &c., as may be necessary and
proper to execute the purposes of the law by
which they are commanded not to go beyond
them, and yet they have transcended them
You decline to interfere to protect the
elective franchise, for the reasons indicated
in your letter, that it is a judicial question
and that it might produce agitation and ex
citement, and the "effect would be to allow
those to vote who could not conscientiously
swear, &c., and to deny that franchise to
those who are daily shedding their blood
that the rebellion may be subdued." I do |
not understand you to say that the '' effect"
of a measure is to determine its legality, and
that the consequences of the exercise of a
constitutional power by the executive to
protect a portion of the people of the State in
their rights are to be weighed in the scales of
expediency, and made lo east a shadow of
doubt upon the power itself. If the conven-
tion has violated the constitution and the act
of 1864, and the executive has the power to
correct the abuse, the effects that may follow
such correction should not I think weigh a
feather against the exercise of it, although 1
think they would redound to your advan-
tage, The last legislature refused to pass a
law to allow soldiers distant from home and
beyond the limits of their county and State,
to vote abroad; that body was largely and
eminently Union, and no suspicion was ever
entertained of the character of its loyalty.
They must have believed the measure repug-
nant to the constitution; they refused to
clothe the convention with that power, and
the clause embracing the " rules and regula-
tions " will not aid the argument for it.
The first section of the act of 1864 provides
that '• on the first Wednesday of April next,
at the same places where the polls are by law
held in the several counties and city of Balti-
more for the election of delegates to the gen-
eral assembly, shall vote, &"..," and in the
sixth section it is said " that the provisions
hereinbefore contained for the qualification of
voters and the holding of the elections provi-
ded in the previous sections of this act, shall
be applicable to the election to be held under
this section." The election law provides (1
Code, 258,) that the judges of election shall
be residents of the election districts; that if
they remove out of the district others are to
be appointed—warrants to lie delivered to
them in five days by the sheriff. If a judge
shall not. attend at the time appainted, in
his district, he shall forfeit fifty dollars. If
they fail to attend, the justices of the
peace, present at the place of election, to
open polls, &c.; all pointing to the locality of
election districts as the plaice for holding the
election; and the constitution, in its first ar-
ticle, declares that a person shall be " entitled
to vote in the ward or election district in which
he resides."
If it be lawful to take votes in the army,
why not in the navy? Are the marines not
as gallant as the soldiers? If votes may be
taken in Virginia, South Carolina, &c., why
not on board the national ships under Farra-
gut, Porter, &c.? and why not in foreign as
in domestic waiters? Is not every illegal and
improper vote given a fraud upon the legal
voters? Are not the election laws framed to
protect the ballot-box, and throw around it
all possible safeguards? Would army elec-
tions promote these ends? I would have
every soldier and sailor to vote if he could do
} so legally and constitutionally, and I would |
