constitution thus adopted, and what excite-
ment and bitterness of feeling will not be en-
gendered ?
I desire no office, and try to look exclusively
at this subject through the medium of right,
justice" and patriotism. I cast aside all par-
ties and party affinities when an appeal is
made to my sense of justice, to my integrity
and honor. I do hope, for the reasons stated
in my last, and for those now respectfully
offered, that you will reconsider this subject,
and if you should even have a shadow of
doubt about the exercise of the power you are
called upon to exert, let the consideration that
it is best to be on the side of the constitution,
the laws, the people, of justice and of right,
determine the preponderance and lead you to
prompt and efficient action. I have written
hastily and cursorily, because of want of
time, but I hope considerately and after due
reflection. I must beg you to excuse my im-
perfections of language, as well as my pro-
lixity, and believe that in anything I may
have written, nothing has been intended in-
consistent with the high regard I entertain
for one who has shown me so many signal
manifestations of his partiality and favor.
With my best wishes for your health and
prosperity, I am as ever, yours,
GEORGE VICKERS,
P. S. Since writing, a gentleman, (a judge
of the election by appointment in our county,)
called upon me and said, substantially:
" What are we to do about administering the
oath laid down in the proposed constitution?
I consider it unconstitutional and improper; I
shall be sworn to discharge my duty accord-
ing to law—how can I administer an oath I
deem contrary to law, and not found in any
law? It is a subject that causes unpleasant
reflections." He then asked what would be
the consequences if he refused to administer
it. I told him you had the power in that
paper to reject votes, unless certified that the
oath had been administered. He inquired if
you would reject legal votes on that ground?
1 replied that I would write to know whether
you would count votes not certified to be
voted by those who took the new oath. He
exacted a promise of me to advisa him of
your determination. Yours, G. V.
RESPONSE OF GOVERNOR BRADFORD
STATE OF MARYLAND,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, ANNAPOLIS,
October 3, 1864.
George Vickers, Esq., Chestertown, Md.;
Sir—Your letter of the 27th ultimo, re-
ceived on Saturday, is before me, and whilst
I have certainly no inclination whatever for
controversy, and but little time for argument,
such as the subject of these letters requires, I
cannot forbear from again briefly adverting
to it, and some of the considerations by which |
1 feel constrained to take the course I have
already indicated.
1 am fully aware that in coming to a dif-
ferent conclusion you are influenced by no
personal motives, and that you can take the
oath prescribed by the convention as consci-
entiously as myself; such a conviction, how-
ever, only the more, inclines me to make man-
ifest, if I can, the reasons that compel me to
differ with you,
In adverting to that clause of the act of
! assembly which authorizes the convention to
submit the constitution to the people, subject
to such rules and regulations as it might pre-
scribe, and to which I bad previously called
your attention, you seem to think that the
legislature in the use of these terms only
meant to confer upon the convention " minor
and inferior powers," such as "the fixing
of the time for holding the election," and
also "of the manner, &c.," and that it was
never thereby intended to give to the conven-
tion the power it has assumed; but the more
1 reflect upon the purport of these terms the
more I am inclined to think that in the use <
of them the general assembly meant to confer
some such power, if this was not their
meaning, and they really intended, as you
assume, only to allow the convention to pro-
vide for the time and manner of the election,
why was not the clause, concluded with the
' 'minor powers" thus conferred? Already,
in express terms, the convention had been
authorized to submit their work to the peo-
ple, " at such time and insuch manner," &c.
What, then, was meant by the further pro-
vision, that they should submit it, "subject
to such rules and regulations" as they might
prescribe? A well known rule of construc-
tion requires us to give effect to every mem-
ber of a sentence if it be possible, and if it
was not intended that these rules and regulations
to be prescribed by the convention
were to embrace the subject of the voter's
qualification, to what other subject could the
legislature have possibly meant them to apply.
But again, you argue that this construc-
tion is inconsistent with the terms used in
the latter clause of the same section, requir-
ing the constitution to be submitted " to the
legal and qualified voters of the State," and
from which you infer that no other qualifica-
tion could have been contemplated but that
provided in the existing constitution. But
with great deference I submit that this is by
no means a logical inference.
If the legislature referred at all to the per'
sons by whom the constitution was to be rat-
ified, it could only hare referred to them as
voters—of course, as legal and qualified voters;
to have. said that it should be submitted to
the people, or the citizens, or the inhabitants,
would have been to make it subject to the
ratification of people of all ages and both
sexes. In designating, therefore, the class
of persons who were to ratify the constitu- |
