counted. To suppose that the convention
meant to establish a discrimination among
the soldiers of the State so manifestly unjust
would require either the suggestion of some
most obvious reason therefor, or a purpose to
that effect so unequivocally expressed in the
constitution as to make that construction of
it unavoidable. No attempt has been made
I believe, to assign any reason for so arbitrary
a distinction, and, indeed, looking at it from
every possible point of view, any such dis-
crimination would seem as unreasonable as it
is unjust. Is there, in the next place, any
such positive restriction of the right to vote
to those who are a part of some regiment as
to oblige us to exclude all others? That
will depend on the terms, spirit and intent of
the instrument. Let us examine it to that end
The very first line of the first clause of the
article relative to the soldiers' vote rebuts the
idea that the convention meant to restrict the
right of suffrage to any particular class or or
ganization of Maryland soldiers. It declares
that "Any qualified voter of this State who
shall be absent from the county or city of his
residence by reason of his being in the mili
tary service of the United States, go as not to
be able to vote at home on the adoption or
rejection of this constitution, or for all State
officers, &c., &c., shall be entitled to vote,'
&c. Not only in the commencement of the arti
de is the purpose manifest to secure the right
to vote to any Soldier, but in all other parts
of it where it refers to the subject, a similar
determination is manifested. in the succeed
ing section, for instance, where provision is
made for a soldier who may be in some hospi
tal or military post within the State, on the day
of the election, "and not with his company,'
and who is authorized to vote at the nearest
election polls, such authority is not limited to
those who belong to a regiment; and again
in the fifteenth section the same anxious pur
pose is displayed to secure—not the votes of
soldiers attached to some regiment merely—
but the soldiers' vote generally, and the gov-
ernor is enjoined to "take all means proper
to secure the soldiers' vote."
Whence, then, the idea that no company
can vote unless incorporated with a regiment?
The sentence relied upon for that construc-
tion is found at the end of the first clause in
the article already quoted, whereby, after de
daring in the words I have cited, that any
one absent from the county or city where be
resides, by reason of being in the military
service may vote, the clause proceeds to point
out how he may vote, and in giving direction
on that subject it is stated that a " poll shall
be opened in each company of every Maryland
regiment," &c., and because in thus directing
how the votes are to be given the convention
has used these terms, it is argued that none
but those so attached to a regiment can vote
at all. This inference, in the face of the in-
justice and unreasonableness of such a restric- |
tion, and of the express purpose to the con-
trary so clearly exhibited throughout the ar-
ticle, is not warranted, I think, by any fair
construction. Did the convention really
mean thereby that none should vote except
at the polls of a company belonging to a regi-
' ment, and where that was impossible by rea-
son of there being no regiment, that the com-
panies should not vote at all? or were the
terms "of any Maryland regiment," used
'as they were by civilians unfamiliar with
. military technicalities, meant merely in the
same sense as though they had said a
poll shall be opened in each company of
Maryland volunteers? A regard to the pri-
mary object of the constitution, and to the
effectuation of its substantial purpose, force
me to adopt the latter conclusion. The princi-
pal object of the convention doubtless was to
secure the right of voting to every Maryland
soldier who was a qualified voter at home.
That essential purpose is, if possible, to be
gratified, and if that object cannot be accom-
plished consistently with all the mere direc-
tory parts of the same provision, the latter
should be sacrificed rather than the former.
The convention had no right; and, as I have
endeavored to show, they have made no at-
tempt to discriminate between these soldiers;
they were all alike voters at home; they
had all alike left their home that they might
the better protect it against invasion. If
. they voted at the company quarters of their
commanding officer, they have, I think, suffi-
ciently complied with the directions of the
constitution.
The next general objection embraces the
cases of several company commands acting at
the time of election on detached duty These
detachments were sometimes composed of
parts of several companies, and sometimes
consisted of a part of one company only.
They were stationed in some cases within,
and in others without the State, and it is ob-
jected that they had no right to vote, because
they were not companies in the sense of that
term as used in this part of the constitution.
By the terms of the constitution a poll is to
be opened in every company, the commis-
sioned officers of the company, or any one of
them may act as the judge of the election,
and voters of this State belonging to such
- company may vote thereat, &c , and it is con-
tended that by the word company, as thus
used, is meant only the organized military
command forming one of the ten subordinate
divisions which compose a regiment. I can
see nothing in the language or spirit of this
article in the constitution that should restrict
us to this limited and technical application
of the term. It is in the first place opposed
to the manifest object of the convention to
which I have already called attention, which
was to authorize every qualified voter in the
military service of the United States to exer-
cise the right of suffrage, which he could not |
