called upon the constituted authorities to dis-
regard it. I quote an extract: "I avail
myself of the occasion to call to the particu-
lar attention of the judges of election the fact
that they are on the day of election clothed
with all the authority of conservators of the
peace, and may summon to their aid any of
the executive officers of the county, and the
whole power of the county itself, to preserve
order at the polls, and secure the constitutional
rights of the voters." The true conservative,
patriotic sentiment of the State sustained
you, and would have rallied to your support
in any mode you might have designated.
Yon further stated, that" whatever power the
State possesses shall be exerted to protect
them (the judges of election) for anything
done in the proper execution of its laws."
That was nobly and patriotically said. But,
my dear sir, what drew forth your landable
and fervent indignation? The order of Gen-
eral Schenck professed to be to assist loyal
voting and prevent traitors, rebels and dis-
loyal persons from interfering with the elec-
tions. You took the liberty of scanning the
notices' and purposes of Ibis major general,
and determined to protect the " constitutional
rights of the voters." You took a correct
view of the subject, and resolved as far as
practicable to carry out and execute the con-
stitution. You declared in that paper, point-
edly and emphatically, in reference to the
judges of election: "I need not, I am sure,
remind them of the terms of the oath they are
required to take before entering upon their
duties, and according to which they swear
to 'permit all persons too vote who shall offer
to poll at the election,' &c,, who, in their
judgment, shall, according to the directions
contained in the constitution and laws, be en-
titled to poll at the said election," &c.
I cordially approved your course and senti-
ments in the issuing and composing of that pa-
per, and with fresh remembrance of it, was it
unreasonable to suppose that you would again
address the judges of election to prevent a
greater and more flagitious wrong than was
attempted by the military order of General
Schenck? Then the election was but an or-
dinary one, except that certain officers were
to be chosen. Now it is for a constitution—
a fundamental law—that is designed to be
continued for many years, and which may
disfranchise many persons, as well as inflict
the grossest injustice upon other large classes
of the community. If the act of General
Schenck was unconstitutional, so is that of
the convention. If the order of Gen. Schenck
was covertly designed to favor a certain po-
litical party, so is that of the convention It
General Schenck's order was to prevent legal
voters from voting, so is that of the conven-
tion. If the rejected voters are now to be re-
ferred to the judiciary, should they not then
have been thus referred? Was not the ques-
tion as much of a judicial one then as now ? |
Could not a voter sue the judge if he rejected
his vote in 1863, or any one who arrested or
molested him when attempting to approach
the polls? It was the unconstitutionality of
the act that prompted your just and timely
interference; an equally unconstitutional ef-
fort is now making to obstruct what you then
called "the constitutional rights of the vo-
ters." The attempt to commit a grievous
wrong upon the legal voters of the State,
differs only in form. If General Schenck
had said that the judges should administer an
oath to every voter that lie would at the next
presidential election support the re-election of
the present incumbent of the executive chair
as a test of loyalty, it would have been no
more unconstitutional than what he did, and
it would have equally aroused your indigna-
tion. If the convention had inserted a simi-
lar clause, would you not deemit alike con-
trary to the constitution, and issue a procla-
mation to the judges of election to counteract
it?
It is not the nature of the requirement
only, but the usurpation of power, which
characterizes the act and makes it unconsti-
tutional. If there be usurpation, why not act
upon it? In your message to the legislature
in January, 1864, while referring to the outrages
committed at the previous election, and
the course you had taken, you used this lan-
guage: "If, with these facts before me, and
seeing the judges of election, sworn to con-
duct it according to the laws of the State,
openly menaced with arrest unless they re-
cognized the military authority and con-
ducted it by the rules which that authority
prescribed, I had stood silently by and failed
to assure them of the protection of the State
to the extent of its ability, I should have felt
myself utterly unworthy of the plaice of its
chief magistrate.' '
Now, governor, did not these precedents
justify an expectation that you would inter-
pose in a similar manner to prevent a greater
wrong? a wrong not only to those whose
votes may be rejected, but grievous injustice
to others by reason of that rejection, who are
and halve been as loyal as any in the State?
Should not a constitution fraught with
such momentous interests, having no paral-
lel in our State, nor in any other State of
the Union, be fairly and honestly submit-
ted to all the constitutional and legal voters
of the State? The occasion and the crisis
are extraordinary, and of intense and vital
interest to the people of the State—the whole
people. If the vote be fairly, freely, fully
taken, and the constitution be adopted, all
good citizens will submit; but if the vote be
partial, limited, unfair; if party spirit is to
be subserved, and not the public interest; if
wrong and injustice prevail; if an unconsti-
tutional oath is forced upon the people, and
voles taken without the territorial limits of
the State, then what respect can be paid to A |
