Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-11-12

His EIcfiffnCIs hO19toH LtHcOtHr lffsiafHt Of
The United Sfaies:
Sra. Your letter Of the 81 instant. in reply to
mine OF the 3lst sliimo reached me To day alter
| had already REID IL IN tie Baltimore papers of
this morning Your EreeIleucy has in this re
spect the advantage OF me. Tor though iollo~iDg
your example, shall send duplicate OF this 70
the pres. the probabilities are. lOOSing 10 recent
that 'he military authorities will not allow
its..yubcstion
When l wrote 70 you on Saturday last had
not been able % procure copy OF the mfiit=ry
order IN reference 81 the election. and acted mere
" on the runiors OF ifs character When | sac
it, As did Tor the first time on SUNDAY. ! found
il even more objectionable than rumor had repre-
scented H.; and when | shown on the al me
day a copy OF -FOUR etter 10 Dir. Swami. in which
you saw YOU trust there il mo Just ground for
the suspicion" no bad expressed. and declaring
that you felt mortified that there could be
doubt upon this point of your ths) inquiry"
which point was a suggestion 0v Mr.. Swami
''that the election about 10 take place will he at
tended with undue interference on the part of
persons claiming 10 represent the wishes OF the
government" rested satisfied that should
ceve from You prompt countermand OF the
order in question
IL the sending out of one more regiments of
soldiers distributing them among several OF the
counties to attend their places OF election, in lie
iance of tie knosn law OF the State prohibiting
their presence; ordering military officers aud
Provost Marsnals TO arrest voters guilty. ia the
opinion of such officers, of certain Offenses; and
nlenqcng Judges of election with the power OF
the military arm in this military order q
not respected, Is not undue interference
with the freedom OF elections, ! confess my
self unable to inns CINE VIII is
The purport OF YOUR Excelency's remarks in
your letter 10 me Is confined chiefly to iustif
cation OF the exclusion of dsloyal voters from
the polls by means of the administration of al
oath Of ,llegiance Without stopping to analy re
the particular oath in question, il may be su!f
cient 10 say that this clause OF the order is BY lar
the least Objectionable OF the three. Ii any who
were once citizens of the United States have
been guilty OF such conduct as justly DISTINGUISHES
them, let them take tue consequences. |. for
one, have not intertered. aud shall not intefle e
TO prevent IT, But insist that the judges whom
the State has provided are the exclusive judges of
the question OF such citizenship, and that they
shall be allowed to exercise their own judgment
upon that question; aud | shall never cease to
protest against any attempt OF the militry power
in loyal State 10 control that judgment. aud
especially against the use of anv threats teu,ling
to coerce nm observance by these Judges at any
law which such power shall undertake u
prescribe.
The first and third sections of the order are the
il assumes. The frs. places all persons sup
s posed 10 have given laid and comfort. or encour
sgement TO persons engaged IN the rebellion. and
those Who 'do not recognize their allegiance To
the United States." -. the mercy of military
officer and Provost Marshal. ana orders the lat
ter TO arrest them when approaching the polls. "
&c; aud che third clause intimates To the judges
oi election, IN very unmlstakable terms the dan
gers they incur in case they dsobe, the military
e III 4. 80.
law prescribed to them in this military or
der, and for disobedieuce OF which they are to be
reoOrted To 'these headquarters" and must, oi
course, take warning of the consequences that
will ensue.
am aware that your Excelency has 80 far
modified the first of said SECTIONS substitute
for il a direction to those Provost Marshals Ito
prevent all disturbance violence. about the
polls,' &c anu that. ia speaking of the terms OF
the original order. you admit that "these officers
being of necessity the exclusive judges 10 who
shall be arrested, the provision is lab e 10 abuse
But ! submit, with Difference, that while this
modification may relieve that part of the order OF
some OF the most immoderate of IFS powers, il
still leaves these officers the exclusive Judges OF
who guilty o. violence Disturbances, aud,
of course. OF who are liable to arrest therefor and
leaves them, consequently the same opportunity
for similar abuse of power. the probability oil
which YOU miy the more readily estimate when
inform you that several of them themselves
candidates at the same election for some of our
most important offices
You refer several times in your letter 10 the
Missouri case. and TO my approval of your course
therein. and seem 10 think that the two States
are in the same condition and have been treated
10 like manner. Without pausing 20 compne
their condition or their respective liability To viz
lence At the polls, propose To contrast the pro
ceedncs which have severtllv taken place in the
Two You SAY, MY order in Missouri, which
you approve. and General Schenck's order here
reach precisely the sumo end The only action
OF yours in reference 10 the Missouri case, OF
which have expressed approval. or oil which
have any knowledge, Is mentioned in nv ct
ter 20 you, that disclosed in your letter of in
structions To General Schofield. bearing date the
first OF October last; and whether the instruc
lions contained IN that letter and Gen. Schenck'
order reach the end" you suppose. OF
not, they certainly propose TO reach II by very
different means.
To estimate correctly this difference, we mus,
compare the course respectively taken by the de
psrtmeIt commanders in the two States
General SchOheld, in his order of the 2Sth oil
September 500, and to whom understand you
TO refer when. in your letter ID him, above men
toned. you commence by saving "under your
recent order which have approved" &c. Law:
down the following as the military law for Mis-
souri on the SUBJECT OF elections:
The right" ssys he. "of the people peaceably
to assemble for all awful purposes and the rsh
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 saws.
ANY officer, soldier or civilian who shall at
tempt to iutnidate any qualified voter in the ex
ercse of his right To vote. or who shall attempt
70 prevent any qualified voter from going To the
polls or voting. shall be punished by imprison
ment or otherwise" &c.
IL these provisions are compared with the FIRST
and third section of General Schenrk's order. ~.
contrast, rather than the similaritv will think
be striking
In YOUR came letter TO General Schofeld voy
further say: AT elections, see that those and
only those. are allowed TO vote who are entitled
10 90 40 b. the laws IF Missouri Not onl,
thus connecting 10 TIE State Ia the right To pre-
scribe the qualifications of the voter bat ejoin
INK upOn the military commander 10 see that hs
be allowed to enjoy that right
Though your Excelency refers TO the differ
ence in the qualification required OF voters in TIE
two States. can hArily suppose. especially IN
view OF The unqualified and emphatic terms in
which yoa recognize the control Of the State
laws. that you mean 10 place the recognition upon
the ground that you approve the laws of one
State and no; OF the other: and besides. | think
We might be allow cd some her "a; of the coasid