30 there was another outburst of great anger on the part of the majority. By motion of Mr. Hatch, of Baltimore City, thanks were tendered to Ishmael Day, of Baltimore County, "for the heroic and gallant act in shooting down the traitor who dared to pull down the country's flag." Mr. Schley, of Frederick County, offered an order that the Convention request the President, "as an act of justice and propriety, to assess upon known sympathizers with the rebellion resident in this state, the total amount of all losses and spoliations sustained by loyal citizens of the United States resident in this state, by reason of the recent rebel raid, to compensate loyal sufferers." This was passed by a vote of 33 to 17, the minority solidly opposing it." On the following day Mr. Belt offered a resolution that this order "was improvidently passed, and that the same be and is hereby rescinded," but it was overwhelmingly defeated by the majority members. On this same day Mr. Stirling submitted resolutions which, considering the number of Southern sympathizers in Maryland, as the experience of the past two weeks had shown, demanded of the Government of the United States that all those refusing to take the oath of allegiance or who shall have been "proved to have taken part with or openly expressed their sympathy with the recent invasion of the state. . . be banished beyond the lines of the army or imprisoned during the war."" These resolutions were passed on July 21." The minority consistently fought all these extreme proceedings, the resolutions being characterized as unjust, extraordinary and inhuman," and they not only voted against them, but actively opposed them in debate, urging in particular that the Convention. was exceeding its authority by thus acting in a legislative capacity. Mr. Belt vainly attempted to amend Mr. Stirling's resolutions by declaring that nothing contained therein should be taken to endorse any other theory of the * Proc., 257-8. 66 22 30 Proc., 267-8; Deb., ii, 830-1. 33 Deb., ii, 873. 32 Proc., 273-7. war than that declared in 1861, in which state's rights had been guaranteed and the desire expressed to preserve the Union according to the ante-bellum conditions." Mr. Sands, of Howard, well expressed the position of the majority members by saying: "It comes to the question whether you will give to the loyal people of the state of Maryland the power of the state, or whether you will allow the secessionists to force them to the wall and make them give up all their rights under the Constitution and the government or drive them from the state. For one, as a Union man, holding my allegiance to the government straight through, I prefer to be one of the men that shall live in Maryland." " 35 On August 5, Mr. Chambers, on behalf of the thirty-five minority members, presented a protest signed by all of them, in which they strongly condemned these various resolutions. In this protest they stated that the delegates to the Convention "were elected under a law of the state, to form a new constitution of civil government to be submitted to the people, and not to invite the inauguration of an unlimited military despotism in the state." The resolutions were condemned as being in direct conflict with many provisions of the Declaration of Rights as lately adopted. The protest closed by saying: "In behalf of the people we represent, and of all the peace-loving and law-abiding people of Maryland, and in behalf of all the fundamental principles of civil liberty and constitutional government, we enter this, our formal protest, against the said action of the said delegates to this Convention." " The majority stigmatized this protest as discourteous to the Convention, and it was refused a place upon the journal by a vote of 42 to 26, although several of the Union members opposed this latter action, and five of them voted with the Democrats." This closed the incident. 34 Proc., 273-5. Deb., ii, 826. For debate on the various resolutions, see Deb., ii, 800-1, 820-31. 36 Deb., ii, 1128. 37 Proc., 397; Deb., ii, 1126-38. A point of much importance during the sessions of the Convention was the question as to the eligibility of certain members. It was commonly known that a number of them were ineligible, according to the Convention Bill, which imposed the same qualifications as those necessary to a seat in the House of Delegates. On July 7, Mr. Miller submitted an order requiring the Committee on Elections to make a report as to what the qualifications for a seat in the Convention actually were, but added that he meant this to be an entirely non-partisan measure, as it would equally affect both the majority and minority. This order was tabled by motion of Mr. Stirling, who stated that it would either accomplish nothing or else result in breaking up the Convention." The Committee on Elections, which had been appointed early in the session, had as yet made no report, so on July 8 Mr. Chambers submitted an order requesting the committee to do so as soon as possible. A favorable vote on this was at once secured, but Mr. Cushing's order instructing the committee to report all members duly elected was lost by a vote of 17 to 47. On August 3 the committee, consisting of of four Union and two Democratic members, unanimously reported all the members as duly elected." This report was concurred in on August 9 by a vote of 55 to 4, Mr. Miller being the main opponent and basing his adverse argument on legal technicalities." On August 6 Mr. Belt had offered a resolution declaring, for reasons stated, that eleven named members were ineligible to a seat in the Convention, himself being one of the number." This was indefinitely postponed on August. 9, and never appeared again." It is worthy of note that, although two members of the minority, Mr. Miller and Mr. Belt, were the ones who insisted on the inquiry and led in this "strict construction" movement, the final action was 39 Proc., 229; Deb., ii, 796. 40 Proc., 385-6. 42 Proc., 414-5. 39 39 Proc., 240-2. "Proc., 435-6; Deb., ii, 1195-1201. 43 Proc., 436. entirely non-partisan, it being the general sentiment of the Convention that the people in their sovereign capacity had the right to elect whomsoever they pleased to represent them in that body, even the Convention Bill to the contrary, though some based their position on different interpretations of that instrument." The Convention held one session a day till July 21, when it was decided to meet in the evening as well, on every working day except Saturday." These latter sessions were not attended very well as a rule, there being no quorum present on eight different evenings. There was much delay in the work of the Convention, the larger part of the new Constitution as finally adopted being passed during the last six weeks of the session. The long discussion of the Declaration of Rights and the interruptions consequent upon the pressure of outside affairs as stated above, were largely responsible for this. As the people of the state were beginning to show impatience," the general result was haste towards the end, although this caused additional mutterings. Three sessions were held each day during the five days preceding adjournment. The Convention finally adjourned on Tuesday, September 6, 1864, having passed a resolution that, in view of the uncertain condition of affairs in the state "which might interfere with the expression of the popular will on the day to be fixed for voting on this Constitution," the adjournment was subject to the call of the president, and in case of his death or disqualification, Messrs. Schley, Pugh, Stockbridge and Purnell were authorized, in the order named, to act as president and call the Convention together." A resolution of thanks to President Goldsborough for his dignified, efficient and impartial discharge of the duties of the chair" was offered by Mr. Chambers, and unan "Deb., ii, 764-8; iii, 1730. 40 66 American," June 10, Aug. 2; Frederick Examiner," June 22; Deb., i, 98, 148, 204-5, 322-4. 45 Proc., 272. 66 47 Proc., 600, 773 imously adopted, several of the minority leaders heartily endorsing it." The order in the Convention had been exceptionally good." The sessions of the Convention had lasted four months and ten days, and the average daily attendance had been about sixty. The largest number present on any one day was ninety-one, on June 1, and the smallest was seven, on July 18, at the close of the period of Early's invasion. There was numerous attempts to compel the attendance of members, to publish the names of absentees, or to deduct pay for unexcused absence, but they all came to nothing, being usually tabled by good majorities.50 As stated above, there was no inducement for the minority to attempt to delay proceedings by absenting themselves from the Convention, as the majority were numerically large enough to transact business without any aid from their opponents, after the rules of order had been modified to permit the adoption of a provision by a majority of the members present. After some vacillation and delay, showing that there must have been some compunctions of conscience on the part of several members, the Convention followed the example of the preceding legislature (1864), and by a small majority, voted themselves $100 extra mileage." They based this action on the clause in the Convention Bill allowing them the same mileage as the Legislature, and thus threw on the other body any blame for an illegal proceeding. This action was entirely non-partisan, the leading members of both sides dividing into opposing groups on the question. It should be added, that in compliance with the Convention Bill the debates and proceedings of the Convention were well reported, and in point of excellence far exceed many of the other state documents and reports of that time. Having taken this survey of the sessions of the Conven 48 Proc., 709; Deb., iii, 1852. 50 Proc., 78, 89, 157, 162-3, 183, 286, 498. Deb., iii, 1757. 51 Proc., 707, 715-8. |