622 



MARYLAND. 



when I was shown on the same day a copy of your 

 letter to Mr. Swann, in which you say you trust there 

 is "no just grounds for the suspicion" he had ex- 

 pressed, and declaring that you felt "mortified that 

 there could be a doubt upon this point of your (his) 

 inquiry," which point was a suggestion by Mr. 

 Swann "that the election about to take place will 

 be attended with undue interference on the part of 

 persons claiming to represent the wishes of the 

 Government," I rested satisfied that I should re- 

 ceive from you a prompt countermand of the order 

 in question. 



Ir the sending out of one or more regiments of 

 soldiers, distributing them among several of the 

 counties to attend their places of election, in defi- 

 ance of the known laws of the State prohibiting their 

 presence; ordering military officers and provost 

 marshals to arrest voters guilty, in the opinion of 

 such officers, of certain offences ; and menacing 

 judges of election with the power of the military 

 arm in case this military order was not respected, is 

 not an "undue interference" with the freedom of 

 elections, I confess myself unable to imagine what is. 



The purport of your Excellency's remarks in your 

 letter to me is confined chiefly to a justification of 

 the exclusion of disloyal voters from the polls by 

 means of the administration of an oath of allegiance. 

 Without stopping to analyze the particular oath jn 

 question, it may be sufficient to say that this clause 

 of the order is by far the least objectionable of the 

 three. If any who were once citizens of the United 

 States have been guilty of such conduct as justly 

 disfranchises them, let them take the consequences. 

 I, for one, have not interfered, and shall not inter- 

 fere to prevent it. But I insist that the judges whom 

 the State has provided are the exclusive judges of 

 the question of such citizenship, and that they shall 

 be allowed to exercise their own judgment upon 

 that question ; and I shall never cease to protest 

 against any attempt of the military power, in a loyal 

 State, to control that judgment, and especially 

 against the use of any threats tending to coerce an 

 observance by these judges of any law which such a 

 power shall undertake to prescribe. 



The first and third sections of the order are the 

 most remarkable items of the arbitrary authority 

 it assumes. The first places all persons supposed to 

 have given "aid and comfort or encouragement" to 

 persons engaged in the rebellion, and those who 

 "do not recognize their allegiance to the United 

 States," at the mercy of a military officer and pro- 

 vost marshal, and orders the latter to arrest them 

 when "approaching the polls," &c. ; and the third 

 clause intimates to the judges of elections, in very 

 unmistakable terms, the dangers they incur in case 

 they disobey the military authority. These sworn 

 officers of the law have a new law prescribed to them 

 in this military order, and for disobedience of which 

 they are to be reported to "these headquarters," and 

 must, of course, take warning of the consequences 

 that will ensue. 



I am aware that your Excellency has so far modi- 

 fied the first of aria sections as to substitute for it a 

 direction to these provost marshals " to prevent all 

 disturbance or violence about the polls, Ac. ; and 

 that, in speaking of the terms of the original order, 

 you admit that "these officers being of necessity the 

 exclusive judges as to who shall be arrested, the pro- 

 vision is liable to abuse." But I submit, with defer- 

 ence, that whilst this modification may relieve that 

 part of the order of some of the most immoderate 

 of its powers, it still leaves these officers the exclu- 

 sive judges of who are guilty of violence or dis- 

 turbances, and. of course, of who are liable to arrest 

 therefor, and leaves them, consequently, the same 

 opportunity for a similar abuse of power, the prob- 

 ability of which you may the more readily estimate 

 when I inform you that several of them arc them- 

 selves candidates at the same election for some of 

 our most important offices. 



You refer several times in your letter to the Mis- 

 souri case, and to my approval of your course there- 

 in, and seem to think that the two States are in the 

 same condition and have been treated in like man- 

 ner. Without pausing to compare their condition 

 or their respective liability to violence at the polls, 

 I propose to contrast the proceedings which have 

 severally taken place in the two. You say, "My 

 order in Missouri, which you approve, and Gen. 

 Schenck's or^r here, reach precisely the same end." 

 The only action of yours in reference to the Missouri 

 case, of which I nave expressed approval, or of 

 which I have any knowledge, is, as mentioned in my 

 letter to you, that "disclosed in your letter of in- 

 structions to Gen. Schofield," bearing date the 1st 

 of October last ; and whether the instructions con- 

 tained in that letter and Gen. Schenck's order " reach 

 the same end," as you suppose, or not, they certainly 

 propose to reach it by very different means. 



To estimate correctly this difference, we must com- 

 pare the course respectively taken by the department 

 commanders in the two States. 



Gen. Schofield, in his order of the 28th of Septem- 

 ber, 1863, and to which I understand you to refer, when 

 in your letter to him, above mentioned, you com- 

 mence by saying, "under your recent order, which I 

 have approved, &c., lays down the following as the 

 military law for Missouri on the subject of elections: 



"The right," Bays he, "of the people peaceably to assemblo 

 for all lawful purposes, and the right freely to express theb 

 will at the polls according to law, are essential to civil liberty. 

 No interference with these rights, either by violence, threats, 

 intimidation, or otherwise, will be tolerated." 



Again, in the same order, he says : 



" Any officer, soldier, or civilian, who shall attempt to In- 

 timidate any qualified voter in the exercise of his right to 

 vote, or who shall attempt to prevent any qualified voter 

 from going to the polls or voting, shall be punished by im- 

 prisonment or otherwise," &c. 



If these provisions are compared with the first and 

 third sections of Gen. Schenck's order, the contrast, 

 rather than the similarity, will I think be striking. 



In your same letter to Gen. Schofield you further 

 say: "At elections, see that those and only those 

 are allowed to vote who are entitled to do so by the 

 laws of Missouri." Not only thus conceding to the 

 State law the right to prescnbe the qualifications of 

 the voter, but enjoining upon the military commander 

 to see that he be allowed to enjoy that right. 



Though your Excellency refers to the difference in 

 the qualification required of voters in the two States, 

 I can hardly suppose, especially in view of the un- 

 qualified and emphatic terms in which you recognize 

 the control of the State laws, that you mean to plac 3 

 that recognition upon the ground that you approv? 

 the laws of one State and not of the other ; and be- 

 sides, I think, we might be allowed some benefit' of 

 the consideration that in Missouri they have recently 

 held a Constitutional Convention, which enabled 

 them to remodel their laws on the subject of the 

 elective franchise an opportunity we have not yet 

 enjoyed, and which is necessary for the purpose of 

 such modification, though such necessity might pos- 

 sibly be dispensed with nereafter, in view of the new 

 power which military commanders claim to exercise 

 in the premises. 



The conclusion of your Excellency's letter makes 

 an allusion to past precedents in Maryland, and is 

 evidently designed to make the point "that I should 

 be the last to complain of such an order, as it is, us 

 you say, "precisely what Gen. Dix did" when I wi>s 

 elected Governor. If such was the case the proceed- 

 ing at least does not seem to have been very effective 

 in reducing the vote of the State, as I received fifteen 

 thousand more votes than the highest candidate ut 

 the Presidential election the preceding year, and 

 when a verv large vote was polled in the State. But 

 your Excellency will, I think, find that no such order 

 as the present was ever issued by Gen. Dix. 



It is, besides, of some importance to note tie 



