MARYLAND. 



in the war for Southern independence. Before 

 the charter election, which took place on the 

 10th of October, there was a new registration 

 of voters partially made, but at the election the 

 judges appointed by the police commissioners 

 refused to recognize it, and threw out the votes 

 of all whose names were not on the lists of last 

 year. By these means the city was retained in 

 the hands of those who held the power. The 

 number of voters, according to the new registry 

 lists, was about 25,000. The whole vote of the 

 city was estimated to be 35,000. At the 

 municipal election referred to, Mr. Chapman, 

 the Republican candidate for mayor, received 

 5,405 votes, and was elected by a majority of 

 2,840, showing a total vote of less than 8,000. 

 At first the Conservatives contemplated contest- 

 ing the election, but upon deliberation it was 

 thought a movement for the removal of the police 

 commissioners and the appointment of new ones 

 might be successful, and it was therefore under- 

 taken. While this step would not affect the 

 result of the election already made, it might, if 

 effected in season, revolutionize the State at the 

 November election, a matter of more impor- 

 tance, because the legislature then to be chosen 

 would elect a United States senator to succeed 

 Senator Cresswell. The Conservatives in two 

 days procured nearly 10,000 signatures to a 

 memorial setting forth the illegal acts of the 

 police commissioners and their agents, and ask- 

 ing for their removal. The statements of the 

 memorial were authenticated by one hundred 

 and fifty affidavits of prominent citizens. To an 

 address made to the governor when the memo- 

 rial was presented by the chairman of the citi- 

 zens' committee, the governor made a calm re- 

 ply, promising to bestow on the subject that 

 attention its importance and the character of 

 those interested in the subject demanded. The 

 commissioners were, therefore, cited to appear 

 on the 22d of October. On that day they ap- 

 peared by counsel, and, while admitting the 

 governor's authority to remove them and ap- 

 point others, whenever they should be convicted 

 of official misconduct, they denied the gover- 

 nor's authority to investigate the charges, con- 

 tending that to the courts only that belonged. 

 The governor, fortified by the legal opinion of 

 Senator Eeverdy Johnson, decided that he had 

 the right to try them as well as to remove 

 them, and appointed Friday, the 26th October, 

 as the day for the investigation. The excite- 

 ment having increased to such an extent that 

 serious alarm was felt lest the friends of the 

 commissioners should inaugurate a riot, and 

 call to their aid, for the purpose of destroying 

 the city, the organization called " boys in blue," 

 Governor Swann immediately issued a procla- 

 mation, threatening, in case of such a move- 

 ment, to use the entire power of the State for 

 its suppression and the punishment of its 

 authors. This cooled down the excitement. 

 On Friday, the trial began according to ap- 

 pointment. That day, Saturday, and Monday 

 were fully occupied in listening to the witnesses 



for the prosecution, of whom a very large 

 number were examined, mostly citizens of Bal- 

 timore, of high standing and unimpeachable 

 character at least the most rigid cross-exami- 

 nation failed to affect the credibility of their 

 evidence. All the charges set forth in the me- 

 morial of the citizens were sustained. Tuesday 

 and Wednesday ensuing the witnesses for the 

 defence were examined, but they did not refute 

 the general testimony adduced by the prosecu- 

 tion. After arguments of counsel, the case was 

 closed Wednesday night. The next morning 

 the governor rendered his decision, removing 

 the commissioners and appointing a new board. 



There has occasionally been a slight collision 

 between the Federal and State laws, in regard 

 to the colored people, certain parties attempting 

 to enforce the enactments of the slave code, 

 against the provisions of the Civil Eights Bill of 

 Congress : 



In November, a freedman convicted of crime 

 was sentenced, in accordance with an old law 

 of the State, to be sold for six mouths. As 

 this action of the court was in direct contra- 

 vention of the Civil Rights Bill, the case exci- 

 ted more attention than its intrinsic merits de- 

 manded. Those disposed to sustain the State 

 law, alleged that the sale was really an act of 

 clemency and a mitigation of punishment. The 

 following version of the affair is from one con- 

 versant with its particulars : 



Dick Harris was indicted for larceny of twenty 

 pounds of beef from a butcher's shop in Annapolis. 

 The offence was fully proved by two of his colored 

 companions who saw him take the property, and it 

 was found by the owner .where Harris had concealed 

 it. The judge before whom the case was tried, after a 

 patient hearing, pronounced him guilty, which was 

 no news to Harris, as he had admitted that he took 

 the property, but insisted that he was so much 

 intoxicated at the time that he was not responsible 

 for his act. If he had possessed a white skin the 

 judge would have been forced to send him to the 

 penitentiary for a term from one to fifteen years. 

 But availing himself of the discretion committed to 

 him by the act of 1861, he ordered Harris to be sold 

 within the State for six months. The awful sentence 

 was carried into effect, and the innocent sufferer was 

 bought by his brother for $50, and is now at large 

 working as his own master in Annapolis at $8 a week. 

 The practical result of the whole affair is, that for a 

 crime which would have consigned a white man to 

 the penitentiary, Dick Harris was fined $50, more 

 than one-half of which he says he has repaid to his 

 brother already from his earnings. When the sen- 

 tence was announced he was greatly delighted, and 

 I suppose he would hardly thank any superservice- 

 able friend who should contrive to have his sentence 

 changed to confinement in the penitentiary. 



As an offset to this case, the following one is 

 presented, as indicating the disposition of the 

 courts and people of the State to maintain in- 

 tact all the provisions of recent Federal legis- 

 lation : 



Dr. A. H. Somers, of Rockville, Montgomery 

 County, on the 22d of June, committed an assault 

 upon a colored man in the streets of Rockville, beat- 

 ing him severely. This colored man's wife, on the 

 day following the assault, sued out a warrant before 

 a justice of the peace against Somers, on which he 

 was arrested and arraigned before a magistrate. His) 



