as "blue-laid" letter paper, quite as conn
monly used as the "white-laid," and can
scarcely think it comes within the proscrip
tion of the act of assembly. The object of.
that prohibition was to prevent the judge of
any one else from knowing, by the different
color of the ballots, for what party or of
which side of a question a voter voted—a
object that was wholly unnecessary in the
case in question, as all the ballots of the com-
pany, of every hue, were on the same side
But even if these ballots were on a prohibited
kind of paper, the law puts upon the judge
the dirty of rejecting them, declaring that
ballots so printed "shall not be received by
said judges," and I have no greater power to
reject them than I would have to reject any
other illegal ballot which they had received
The vote of a company of recruits at Camp
Bradford is objected to on the ground, as I
understand it, that they are not yet assigned
to any regiment. I have already noticed the
objection taken to the votes of companies un-
connected with a regiment, and I perceive
nothing in the condition of this company that
particularly distinguishes it from other unat-
tached companies. If it is a company—so
far organized as to be under a company com-
mander, it would seem to have the same right
to vote at his quarters as any other company
not connected with a regiment. The return
sets forth that it is " a company of recruits "
—that they are " in the military service of the
United States," and a company officer of one
of the Maryland regiments appears as its com-
manding officer, makes the return, and cer-
tifies that the election was held at his quarters.
This, I think, embraces every necessary aver-
ment to entitle the company to vote.
Companies D and K, of the 1st regiment of
cavalry, it is objected, voted together. It ap-
pears that there were only four votes in the
two companies, and the commissioned officer
who took them describes himself in the re-
turn as the commanding officer of the said
two companies, and the strong presumption
is that the two had been consolidated. I
think it but reasonable so to consider them,
and accept their four votes.
I proceed now to notice briefly some objec-
tions to the sufficiency of other returns that
I think better founded. The vote of the
whole 1st regiment of infantry is objected to
on the ground that the entire regiment, in-
stead of voting by companies at the head-
quarters of each company commander, voted
together at one regimental polls.
The learned counsel appearing in support
of these returns have endeavored to sustain
this one upon the ground that a separate list
of the voters of each company accompanies
the certificate of the judges, from the caption
of which lists it would seem that the voters
therein named had deposited their ballots "at
the quarters of the commanding officer" of
said companies. However, these captions |
i- might help a return otherwise insufficient,
n they cannot control or contradict the express
3- certificate of the judges, which not only de-
if dares that they were the judges of the 1st
r regiment, but that they opened the polls for
t said regiment at the quarters of the command-
u ing officer of said regiment, and in two plaices
n erase the printed word company and insert
e regiment.
Under such circumstances it is difficult to
. presume that each company voted at. its com-
d pany quarters as required, and I feel com-
e pelled to reject their vote.
t Another well founded objection is made to
y the votes taken at a second election in two
o companies (F and 1,) of first Eastern Shore
f regiment. These companies having opened a
• poll at a proper time and place, and taken
p the votes of a portion of each company, sev-
• eral days afterwards re-opened the polls and
i received in one company twenty-one and in
e the other fifteen votes of men who were either
- absent or declined to vote at the first election.
e This fact appears by a note annexed by the
t judge to the foot of the return, and as there
was no authority for a second day's voting,
3 these votes must be rejected.
Objection is also well taken to the votes of
fourteen persons who voted at the quarters of
company 1, 1st Eastern Shore regiment. This
appears by a memorandum indorsed upon
the list of voters and certified by the captain,
who stated that these fourteen soldiers, "ab-
sent from their proper command," voted at
the polls of this company, and, as the whole
number of votes polled by the company, 133,
were given "tor the constitution," there is
no difficulty in making the deduction.
The vote of thirteen field and staff officers,
voting in the 5th and 8th regiments, at spe-
cial polls opened for such officers, must also
be rejected. It is unnecessary to determine
whether their vote could have been taken at
either of the company polls of their respec-
tive regiments, or whether the convention
has neglected altogether to provide for their
vote; bat it is certain, I think, that they
could not vote as they have done at a special
poll, and their votes will be deducted. In
three other cases, embracing in all, I think,
eight votes of persons voting at company
quarters with which they had no connection,
and where the facts are so noticed and reported
by the returning judges, the objection is sus-
tained. The sum of the votes so deducted,
for reasons apparent on the face of the return,
amounts to 285 votes for and 5 against the
constitution; and leaves the number counted
on the soldiers' vote 2,633 for and 263 against
the constitution. The aggregate of the home
and soldiers' vote then being 30,174 for and
29,799 against the adoption of the consti-
tution.
1 regret that the multiplicity of the objec-
tions suggested) and the short time allowed
since the conclusion of the discussion to-day, |
