MARYLAND. 



nant party in the State represented a minority 

 of the aggregate population. At a meeting of 

 the citizens of Howard County on the 26th of 

 August, in favor of supporting the policy of 

 President Johnson, Montgomery Blair, alluding 

 to the registration law, said : 



By the terms of that law three members of the 

 dominant party constitute a tribunal in each election 

 district, clothed with absolute power to disfranchise 

 whom they please. Thus, a penalty which has here- 

 tofore been inflicted only upon persons convicted of 

 infamous crimes, after a fair and open trial by a court 

 and jury, may be imposed by a secret inquisition. 

 That multitudes of good citizens, against whom no 

 one would dare publicly to make any dishonorable 

 charge, will thus be branded as felons, is most prob- 

 able. Men who are earnest in a cause, even when 

 disinterested, are apt to doubt the patriotism of zeal- 

 ous opponents. But when they have a selfish motive 

 to heat their passions, toleration is almost impossible. 

 But many of our registers are expectant candidates 

 for the suffrages they are deciding upon. They are 

 generally, too, the nominees of the county commit- 

 tees, who are made up for the most part of standing 

 candidates of the party. Nothing but a strong pub- 

 lic sentiment can prevent a partisan enforcement of 

 such a law. I have been against it from the begin- 

 ning for this reason. Exasperation against the re- 

 bellion affected most of those who voted for it, but it 

 was instigated, I fear, by partisanship. It bears the 

 stamp of a disfranchising spirit which existed before 

 the rebellion, the leaders in which taught the rebels 

 how to organize in secret to carry elections against 

 the public will. In my opinion, there never was any 

 justification for such a law, and certainly there is 

 none now. The ostensible reason has passed with 

 the rebellion, and the maxim that the law ought to 

 cease with the reason for it applies in such a case un- 

 doubtedly. 



To test the constitutionality of the law, the 

 case of " Thomas Anderson vs. the Board of 

 Eegistration of the fourth district of Mont- 

 gomery County " was made up. Mr. Anderson 

 appeared before the registers of the district and 

 demanded that his name be registered as a legal 

 voter, at the same time refusing to take the 

 oath required by the State Constitution, and 

 upon the registers declining to do so, applied to 

 the Circuit Court of the county for a writ of 

 mandamus to compel them. Judge Berry de- 

 ciding that there were not sufficient grounds 

 for the interposition of the court, dismissed the 

 petition for a mandamus, and Mr. Anderson 

 appealed. The case was fully argued by Attor- 

 ney-General Randall, Mr. Williams, and Revcrdy 

 Johnson, before the Court of Appeals, which 

 sustained the action of the registers; Chief 

 Justice Bowie, and Judges Cochran, Weisel, 

 and Goldsborough affirming the constitution- 

 ality of the law, and Judge Bartol dissenting 

 from their opinion. Governor Swann, in his 

 message of January 11, 1866, said: 



The act passed for the registration of voters, in fur- 

 therance of the requirements of the Constitution, has 

 been threatened, I regret to say, with resistance in 

 some parts of the State, chiefly among those who, 

 in the face of the decision of our highest judicial tri- 

 bunal, persist in denying its constitutionality, and 

 object to the oath of allegiance which it imposes. I 

 trust and believe that such threats are cpnnned to a 

 verv small class of our citizens. The intention of 

 both the Constitution and the registry law, was 



simply to protect the State against treason, and to 

 show distrust of those who had been connected with 

 it. Complaints have been made that abuses have 

 arisen in the execution of this law, and that qualified 

 voters as well as others have been arbitrarily disfran- 

 chised, upon frivolous and irrelevant issues, growing 

 out of mistaken views of the purpose and meaning ot 

 that act. I am sure that the Legislature designed no 

 more than that the provisions of the Constitution 

 should be strictly complied with, without the remotest 

 intention of interfering with any loyal citizen entitled 

 to the right of suffrage. The law would have been 

 less liable to abuse had it embodied the feature of ap- 

 peal to some competent tribunal. The registration 

 act was passed, as is well known, at a time when the 

 ravages of civil war were desolating our State. Large 

 numbers of our citizens, variously estimated at from 

 ten to fifteen thousand, had left their homes, taken up 

 arms against their State, and subscribed to the most 

 stringent oath of allegiance to the so-called " Con- 

 federate States." I do not propose at this time to 

 discuss events that have passed, further than to refer 

 to the acts of the Union men of that day in their 

 praiseworthy efforts to save their State from the 

 threatened ruin which hovered over it. I would 

 rather forget the past than reopen afresh these fruit- 

 ful sources of irritation, which should now be per- 

 mitted to sleep. If these acts were radical and ultra, 

 much more so was the attempt to revolutionize the 

 State and break up the Union. Maryland, surely, 

 could not have disregarded the first duty of self- 

 preservation. It has been alleged that the dominant 

 party who now control the State represents a minor- 

 ity of her aggregate population. If it be so, it is the 

 more to be regretted that so large a number of our 

 citizens should so have identified themselves with the 

 rebellion as to suffer the power which this minority 

 controlled to pass into other hands. Small, however, 

 as the minority may be, it cannot be denied that it 

 is the fair and legitimate representative of whatever 

 there is of loyalty among our people. They are the 

 men to whom you are indebted for the safety of your 

 State and the property which you now enjoy, and 

 without whose uncompromising devotion to the Union 

 Maryland would have been handed over to indis- 

 criminate destruction. 



The elective franchise is a function of the State. To 

 confer or withhold it is the province of those who are 

 entrusted with the formation of your organic law. 

 Our citizens engaged in this rebellion have been re- 

 ceived with kindness and toleration ; they come back, 

 however, to be dealt with as the people in their wis- 

 dom may deem most expedient. Threats of resistance 

 to the Constitution and laws could hardly be expected 

 to facilitate them in resuming the privileges of citi- 

 zenship which they have deliberately abandoned. ID 

 the mean time, they have no just right, in any fair 

 view of their existing relations, to complain of the 

 hardships of a law which they have themselves delib- 

 erately provoked, and which intended no more than 

 to place the government of the State, at a time of 

 imminent danger, in the hands of its loyal defenders. 

 Are they not the legitimate guardians and deposi- 

 taries or its power? 



The repeal of the registration act, in my judgment, 

 will not materially benefit any class of voters who 

 have been heretofore disfranchised under its pro- 

 visions. The oath of allegiance prescribed by the 

 Constitution makes it incumbent upon the judges 

 of election to do substantially what the registers are 

 required to do under a fair and proper interpretation 

 of their powers. As the Executive of the State, I do 

 not feel authorized to recommend a repudiation by 

 the Legislature of the organic law of your State by 

 any radical modification of the terms of the registra- 

 tion act. To alter or amend the Constitution, upon 

 which this act rests, would require the sanction of the 

 qualified voters of the State. The regular staled 

 meeting of the General Assembly, under the Consti- 

 tution, takes place in January next. The delegates 



