ballot-box provided by the said judges for
the deposit of ballots tendered by persons
qualified to vote at the said election; that the
said judges, although they well knew that
your petitioner was duly qualified, as afore-
said, to vote at all elections held in said
ward, and especially at the election then
holding as aforesaid, dad then and there re-
fuse to receive said ballot, so as aforesaid
tendered by your petitioner, and did then
and there require your petitioner to answer
whether he would take oath so as aforesaid
prescribed to be taken by the said new
constitution, and because and only because, of
the refusal of your petitioner to take said
oath, the said judges refused to deposit the
said ballot in the ballot-box aforesaid; but,
on the contrary, took the said ballot from
him and deposited it in one other box, which
they, the said judges, had then and there
provided for the deposit and safe-keeping of
ballots received by them but rejected as hav-
ing been tendered by persons not qualified
to vote.
The petitioner, after slating that the govern-
or has declared and insisted that he will count
the votes of persons in the military service, re-
turned to him, and will not exclude them from
the count in ascertaining the aggregate vote
cast at said election, avers that even if the
provisions of the constitution allowing the
taking of soldiers' votes, away from their resi-
dences, are in themselves liable to no constitu-
tional objections, yet the governor is bound to
exclude all the soldiers' votes which have
been returned to him, from count in estima-
ting the votes "for" or "against" the said
new constitution, because, as your petitioner
avers, the new constitution itself requires that
the soldiers who shall vote on its adoption
shall, as well as those who are not soldiers,
take the aforesaid oath as a necessary prelimi-
nary to the exercise of the right to vote on said
constitution, whereas, as your petitioner
avers, the returns as made to the governor of
said soldiers' votes, do not show that said
soldiers took, or were asked to take, the said
oaths; and your petitioner avers that the fact
is, that none of those whose votes are returned
to the governor did take, nor were they re-
quired to take, the said oath, and he also
avers that if said soldiers' votes should be ex-
cluded from count by the governor, the
said new constitution has failed to receive, by
at least eighteen hundred votes, a majority of
the votes cast on the twelfth and thirteenth
of the present month of October, at the said
election on the adoption or rejection of the
said instrument, and that, too, even if the
ballots tendered by persons qualified to vote,
and were not received by said judges as the
votes of persons qualified to vote, are excluded
from the count.
The petitioner avers that an inspection will
show that many of said returns of soldiers'
votes, as made to said governor, are invalid, |
because of the neglect on the part of those
making them to observe the requirements of
the said instrument called the new constitu-
tion; and that, on each and all of the afore-
going grounds, the said governor is bound to
exclude the said soldiers' votes, so as afore-
said returned to him, in casting lip the votes
for and against the said new constitution;
hut to exclude which, as above averred, the
said governor refuses; and the said governor
also refuses to ascertain and count the votes of
those persons qualified to vote under the ex-
isting constitution of the State whose votes
were rejected because of their refusal to take
the oath as heretofore recited; and refuses
also to count the votes so aforesaid placed in
the ballots, described "rejected ballot"
boxes, which, your petitioner avers, are by
law required to be safely kept sealed up by the
police commissioners until called for, and
which are therefore readily accessible to the
said governor.
The petitioner further states that he is ad-
vised that the course which the governor
intends to pursue and is now pursuing, by
which lie proposes to execute and carry into
effect all the provisions of the said proposed
"new constitution," in reference to said
election or voting, although on the day on
which said vote was taken the said instru-
ment had not been adopted, lout was then for
the first time submitted for adoption or re-
jection by the people, and although some of
said provisions conflict with the existing and
only constitution of the State of Maryland, is
in violation of the rights of your petitioner
and others of his fellow-citizens of the State
of Maryland, The petitioner further states
that he is the owner of slaves of large value,
held and owned by him in this State under
the constitution and laws thereof, and that
by the 24th article of the declaration of rights
prefixed to the said new constitution, slavery
is abolished in this State, and all slaves are
declared to be free, so that your petitioner
will be deprived of his said slave property
without any compensation therefor, if the
said "new constitution" should go into
effect, because, the 36th section of the 3d arti-
cle of the said proposed new constitution de-
clares that the general assembly' shall make
no law, nor make any appropriation to compensate
the masters or claimants of slaves
emancipated from servitude by the adoption
of this constitution.
And your petitioner is advised that, as a
qualified voter of this State, as hereinbefore
stated, and as the owner of slaves in this
State, be is entitled to demand of your honor
a mandamus directed to the governor of the
State, commanding him to do certain acts re-
quired by the constitution of the State and
the laws passed in pursuance thereof, and
without the doing of which your petitioner
will be remediless in the premises.
After reciting that since said election a va- |
