Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-11-05
THE MARYLAND ELECTION

has arisen between the civil authorities Of Mary
specting the right of the latter to regulate and
troll the elective franchise in that State. 1t ap-
pears that this power was claimed by Gen. Schenck
on the alleged ground that there are "many evil
disposed persons now at large in the State Of Ma
ryand who have been engaged in rebellion against
the lawful Government, or have given aid and
comfort or encouragement to others 80 engaged, or
who do not recognise their allegiance to the United
States, and who may avail themselves of the in
diligence Of the authority which tolerates their
presence to embarrass the approaching election, or,
through it, to foist enemies of the United States
into power"
With the exception of single candidate in one
of the districts it is known that all the candidates
for Congress in favor Of supporting the Govern
ment in the present war, and, with the exception
of two or three candidates in the same district it
is declared by Gov Bradford that all nominees for
minor Offices in the State belong to the same cate
CORY of undoubted "loyalty." The idea, therefore,
that unless some restrictions were imposed on the
right of suffrage in Maryland "enemies of the
United States might be fosted into power" is seen
to be mere Pigment of the imagination. No ne
cessy for military interference in the elections
be based on this ground
But it is alleged by Gen. Sohenck, in responding
to the Presidents inquiry the subject, that it
was " almost certain that violence would be used
at some Of the voting places on election day, un-
less prevented by his provost guards, and that at
some of these places the Union voters would not
attend at all, or run ticket, unless they have
assurance of protection"
We should like to know the "places" at which
it was "aln,oSt certain" there would be disturb
ance "unless prevented by Gen. Schenck's provost
guards" and where Union voters" asked to be
protected by Government bayonets in dcpositing
their votes; for, if there were any such "places,
there might be some reason for stationing guard
at or near such points. But between this and
putting the whole State under military surveillance
and regimen there is wide difference, which none
can fail to appreciate
These are the only reasons" given for the ex-
traordinary measure adventured by Gen. Schenck,
on his responsibility, with regard to the elec
tive franchise in Maryland. Every reader can
Judge whether, distracted from all considerations
of right, they constitute sufficient justification Of
this military intrusion on the civil authority of
loyal State.
We are not contending that disoyal persons
should be allowed to vote in elections. We hold
that they should be prohibited by competent and
lawful authority, but any attempt by the military
power in any State to prescribe the qualifications
of suffrage, either by way of addition to or sub
traction from the laws of the State, is palpable
sncroacbment on the civil authority, and opens the
door to abuses too apparent to need designation
No one will pretend that Gen. Schenck had any
laufM authority to regulate the right of suffrage
in Maryland any more than Gen. Dix in Massa-
chusetts; nor does the presence of evil-disposed
persons" in Maryland give to the former any more
justification for his proceeding than the presence
in Massachusetts, of Disunionists like Wendell
Phillips would authorize the latter so to supple
ment the code Of that State as to require test
oath as the condition Of suffrage. It's known that
large proportion of the Republican party in Mas
sachusetts hold opinions which, in the estimation
cf the Postmaster General, make them practically
'aiders and abettors Of the Confederates." We
entirely concur in this view, but we should not
look for instant with any favor on the orders Of
any military commander who should prescribe a
test oath not required by the lao Of Massachusetts
ior the purpose Of purging the polls of such dis
loyal voters
It is known to. our readers that the case Of
Maryland is the first and only instance in which
test oath has been prescribed by the military
power as supplementary condition precedent to
the right Of suffrage in any State. La Kentucky
the military arm confined, or professed to con6ne,
its intervention to the work of supporting the
judges in enforcing the tests and qualifications en-
joined by the law Of the State. In Missouri the
Convention has in like manner prescribed a test,
and no room was thus allowed for military caprice
to make interpretations the statutes Of the State
regulating suffrage. We think it is greatly to be
regretted that there was no prescription made on
this subject by the late loyal Legislature Of Mary
land, for its absence has afforded the pretext for
this ,ncroachment on the legitimate prerogatiyes
Of the State. But, under the circumstances, when
we consider that there could be no practical neoes-
sity for such an encroachment, and especially when