Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-11-16


the recent extraordinary letter Of the President,
sanctioning the military order Of Gen. ScHEScK
interfering with the freedom of the elective fran
chise, and causing his subordinates to usurp the
powers of the lawful judges of the election, will
be read with deep interest. We find it in the
Washington National Inteligencer, and conceive
it to be of sufficiently transcendent Importance to
be our excuse for the exclusion Of other editorial
matter:
STATE OF MARYLAND, ExEoUTIvEl
DEPARTMENT, ANNAPOLIS, Nov. 3. 1863.
His Ercdiency, Abrahdm Lincoln, President Of
the United States:
SIR: Your letter of the Cd instant, in reply to
mine of the 3lst ultimo, reached me to day, after
had already read il in the Baltimore papers of
this morning Your Excellency has in this re-
spect the adj antaze of me, for though following
your example, | shall send duplicate of this TO
the press the probabilities are, looking recent
events that the military authorities viii not allow
Republication.
When | wrote to you on Saturday last, I had
not been able to procure copy of the military
order in reference TO the election and acted mere
ly on the rumors of its character. When | saw
it, as did for the first time on Sunday. found
it even more Objectionable than rumor had repre-
scented it; and when | was shown on the same
day copy of your letter to Mr.. Swami, in which
you say you trust there is mo just ground for
the suspicion he had expressed and declaring
that you felt mortified that there could be a
doubt upon this point of your (his) inquiry"
which point suggestion by Mr.. Swami
"that the election about TO take place will be at
tended with undue interference on the part of
persons claiming to represent the wishes of the
government" rested satisfied that should re
ceive from you a prompt cOuntermand of the
order in question.
If the sending out ofone or more regiments of
soldiers distributing them among several of the
counties to attend their places of election, in de
fiance of the known law of the State prohibiting
their presence; ordering military officers and
Provost Marshals to arrest voters guilty. in the
opinion of such officers of certain offenses; and
menacing judges of election with the power of
the military arm in case this military order was
hot respected, is not an undue interference"
with the freedom of elections, | confess my
self unable to imagine what is.
The purport of your Excellency's remarks in
your letter TO me is confined chiefly to justif
cation 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 in question, it may be suft
cient to say that this clause of the order is by far
the least objectionable of the three. If any who
we're once citizens of the United States have
been guilty of such conduct as justly DISTINGUISHES
them. let them take the consequences. l, for
one, have not interfered, and shall not interfere
to prevent it. But insist that the Judges whom
the State has provided the exclusive judges of
the question Of such citizenship, and that they
shall be allowed to exercise their own judgment
upon that question; and / shall never cease TO
protest against any attempt of the military power
in 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 sup
posed to have given "aid and comfort, or encour
agement" to persons engaged in the rebellion. and
those who edo not recognize their allegiance to
the United States" at the mercy OF a military
officer and Provost Marshal, ami orders the lat
ter to arrest them when approaching the polls"
&c; and the third clause intmates to the Judges
of election, in very unmistakableterms, the dan
gers 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 or
der and for disobedieuce of which they are to be
reported to "these headquarters" and must, of
course, take warning of the consequences that
Will ensue
l am aware that your Excellency has so far
modified the first of said sections to substitute
for il direction to those Provost Marshas Ito
prevent all disturbance or violence. about the
polls, &c; and that in speaking of the terms of
the original order, YOU admit that "these officers
being of necessity the exclusive Judges as 10 who
shall be arrested the provision is liable abuse"
But | submit, with Difference, that while this
modification may relieve that part of the order of
some of the most immoderate of its powers, it
still leaves these officers the exclusive judges of
who are guilty of violence or Disturbances and,
of course. of who liable to arrest therefor and
leaves them, consequently, the same opportunity
for similar abuse of power, the probability of
which you may the more readily estimate when
inform you that several of them are themselves
candidates at the same election for some of our
most important Offices.
You refer several times in your letter to the
Missouri case, and to my approval of your course
therein and seem TO think that the two States
are in the same condition and have been treated
in like manner. Without pausing to compare
their condition or their respective liability to VIC
ence 1t the polls, propose TO contrast the pro
ceedings which have severally taken place in the
two You say, my order in Missouri, which
YOU approve, and General Schencks order here
reach precisely the same end" The only action
OF yours in reference to the Missouri case, of
which have expressed approval, or OF which
have any knowledge, is as mentioned in my let
ter to you. that disclosed in your letter of in
structions to General Sch0feld, bearing date the
first of October last; and whether the instrnc-
tons contained 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
compare the course respectively taken by the de
partmeut commanders in the two States.
General Schofeld, i'm his order of the 2Sth OF
SeDtember, 1868, and TO whom understand you
to refer, when, in your letter to him, above men
toned. you commence by saving, "under your
recent order. which ! have approved &C.. lays
down the following as the military law for Mis-
souri, on the subject of elections:
THE right" saws he. .sof the people peaceably
TO assemble for all lawful purposes, and the right
freely to express their will at the polls, according
to law, are essential to civil liberty. No inter
ference with these rights, either by violence,
threats. intimidation or otherwise. will be tolera
ted.
Again in the same order, he says;
"Any officer. soldier or civilian who shall at
tempt 10 intimidate any qualified voter in the ex
ercise OF his right to vote, or who shall attempt
to prevent any qualified voter from going to the
polls CT voting, shall be punished by imorison-
ment or otherwise, &c.
If these provisions are compared with the first
and third section OF General Schenck's order, the
contrsst, rather than the similarity, will, think,
be striking.
In your same letter to General Schofeld, 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 concedng to the State Law the right to pre-
scribe the qualifications of the voter, but enjoin
ing upon the military commander to see that be
be allowed TO enjoy that right.