498 



MARYLAND. 



order or orders for such new election or elections 

 shall not interfere with, hinder, or delay the as- 

 sembling of said Convention as herein provided, if it 

 shall appear from the count that a majority of all the 

 votes cast in the election districts and precincts 

 where no such illegal military or armed interference 

 shall be certified to have taken place, are in favor of 

 the call of such Convention. 



The day fixed in the bill for the election was 

 April 6th, and the day for the assembling of 

 the Convention, if the election was successful, 

 was April 27th. 



Previous to the election a correspondence 

 took place between Maj.-Gen. Wallace, com- 

 manding the military department, and Gov. 

 Bradford, relative to the persons who should be 

 allowed to become delegates to the Convention, 

 or who should be allowed to vote for delegates, 

 as follows : 



HEADQUARTERS, MIDDLE DEPARTMENT, ) 

 EIGHTH ARMY CORPS, V 



BALTIMORE, Md., March 30, 1864. j 

 ffis Excellency, Gov. A. W. Bradford : 



DEAR SIK : Herewith please find official copies of 

 papers, a glance at which will doubtless satisfy you 

 that persons disloyal to the Government of the 

 United States are candidates for the Constitutional 

 Convention, the election for which takes place on the 

 6th of April next. It is hardly necessary for me to 

 say that 1 am deeply interested in the prevention of 

 the scheme disclosed ; and as my offer of cooperation 

 in all matters calculated to promote the welfare of 

 the people of Maryland was very kindly received by 

 you, I am encouraged to ask a question touching a 

 subject _about which your Excellency's official 

 opinion is entitled to the most distinguished con- 

 sideration. 



As the oath which the law providing for a Conven- 

 tion requires you to administer to delegates elect, 

 before taking their seats, was evidently intended to 

 exclude disloyal persons from participation in the 

 deliberations of that body, I have thought it possible 

 that it was also the legislative intention to provide a 

 method for the rejection, at the polls, of the votes of 

 disloyal men, and that the power, amounting to 

 judicial authority (according to my interpretation of 

 the act), with which the Judges of election are 

 clothed, was really the mode adopted by the law- 

 makers for the accomplishment of that purpose. 



Your Excellency would oblige me very much, 

 therefore, by giving me your views as to the extent 

 of authority possessed by the Judges of Election, and 

 especially as to whether they have power to reject a 

 vote on account of the disloyalty of the person offer- 

 ing it? 



I will avail myself of the first opportunity to dis- 

 close to your Excellency the circumstances which, in 

 my judgment, make it my duty to advise with you 

 touching the subject. 



Meantime I have the honor to remain, most re- 

 spectfully, your friend and very obedient servant, 

 (Signed) L'EW. WALLACE, 



Maj. Gen. Com'dg Middle Department. 

 Reply of Gov. Bradford. 



STATE OF MARYLAND EXECUTIVE DEP'T, ) 

 ANNAPOLIS, March 31, 1864. j 



Maj. -Gen. Lew. Wallace, Commanding Middle J)ep't : 

 I)EAR SIR: I received your letter of 30th inst., in 

 which, premising that persons disloyal to the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States are candidates for the 

 Constitutional Convention, the election for which 

 takes place in this State on the 6th of April next, and 

 referring to the oath which by the law providing for 

 that Convention its members are required to take be- 

 fore they are entitled to seats therein. You suggest 

 that it was probably also the legislative intention to 

 provide for the rejection of the votes of disloyal per- 



sons at that election, and that the Judges of Election 

 are vested with an authority to that effect. You, 

 therefore, request me to give you my views as to the 

 extent of the authority possessed by the Judges on 

 that subject. 



It gives me pleasure to comply with this request, 

 and to state as explicitly and as briefly as I can mv 

 views of the power possessed by our Judges of Elec- 

 tion in the premises. 



By a clause in our election laws as it has existed 

 for many years, it is provided that "the Judges of 

 Election may administer an oath in any inquiry they 

 may deem necessary to be made touching the right of 

 any person to vote; and if any person shall swear 

 falsely in relation thereto, he shall, upon conviction 

 thereof, suffer the pains and penalties of perjury." 

 The effect of this provision was to authorize the ad- 

 ministration of an oath by the judges in any inquiry 

 touching the right of a person offering to vote; but 

 whilst the oath was thereby legalized, and a party 

 swearing falsely was subjected to the penalties of per- 

 jury, there was nothing in the law which required the 

 judge to administer such oath. This omission, so far 

 at least as the election of the 6th of April next is con- 

 cerned, has been supplied by the act of the General 

 Assembly under which that election is to be held. 



By the terms of that act it is no longer a discretion- 

 ary authority with the Judge to administer an oath 

 or not, but it is made his duty to do so, and especially 

 in the language of that act, " to every person offering 

 to vote whose vote shall be challenged on the ground 

 that such person has served in the rebel army, or has 

 either directly or indirectly given aid, comfort, or 

 encouragement to those in armed rebellion against 

 the Government of the United States." 



The fact to be ascertained is, whether the voter 

 has served in the rebel armies, or directly or indi- 

 rectly aided, comforted, or encouraged those engaged 

 in the present rebellion ; and whilst the Judge is re- 

 quired, wherever a voter is challenged on such ground, 

 to administer an oath to him, he should not content 

 himself with the mere denial, in general terms, by the 

 one so challenged, that he has ever aided, comforted, 

 or encouraged the rebels, but would be authorized, 

 and I think required, to test the recollection of the 

 party swearing by propounding to him particular in- 

 terrogations, suggestive of difterent modes by which 

 this aid, comfort, or encouragement may have been 

 given precisely as when a voter is challenged on 

 the ground of a want of residence, the mere general 

 affirmation upon oath of the party challenged would 

 not be considered sufficient proof of his residence, 

 but he would be required to state time, place, and 

 circumstance, upon which a proper judgment as to 

 the question of residence might be formed. 



Neither is the Judge, in case of a challenge, on any 

 account concluded by the answers of the party chal- 

 lenged, but he is fully authorized to administer an 

 oath to any other who may be present and cognizant 

 of facts having a relation to the question. 



It will, of course, occur to you, from the acts which 

 I have quoted, -that the giving at any time since the 

 commencement of the existing rebellion, either di- 

 rectly or indirectly, of aid, comfort, or encourage- 

 ment thereto, is, so far as the coming election is con- 

 cerned, the disqualification of a voter; for the Gen- 

 eral Assembly would not have imposed upon the 

 Judge of Election the duty of inquiring into these 

 facts, if, when their existence was established, the 

 voter could still exercise the right of suffrage. I 

 know that it may be said that the General Assembly 

 possessed no power to prescribe the qualifications of 

 a voter, and that these are established by the Consti- 

 tution ; but without entering into any discussion 

 upon this point, or as to the extent of the Judges' 

 power to inquire into and determine the question of 

 citizenship one of the constitutional qualifications 

 to be possessed by the voter it is sufficient to know 

 that the General Assembly has declared that certain 

 acts shall disqualify the voter at th's election. 



