St. Mary's gazette., 1863-11-19
H. LEONARD ToWN. MD. TIIURslaAll

s#Hs
! arm aware shae yoar ExceiEency has 80
far modified the frsf Of said sccaious as to
substitute for it direction to these. Pro
vost Msrshals ito prevent all disturbance
or violefce about Tie polls" &c; and
that. in speaking Of the terms Of the origi-
nal order, you will admit ihn, '.these Of
6cers bcitlg Of necessity t:is exclusive
judges All to who shall be arrested. the
provision is liable to abnse;" but sub
nit. wiih d-fereace. that sbllst ihis nod
iasation.ss.sy -sesiesr sasassf, Ssa the 0furs
of some OF the most imrnoderate of its
powers. IL still leaves these officers the ex-
elusive judges Of who arc guilty Of violence
ar disturbance, and, of course. Of whs are
Liable to arres: therefor, and leaves them,
consequently. the SAME opportunity for
similar abuse Of power. the probability Of
which you u,ay the more rssdily estinate
when Inform you that several Of them
are themselves caniiiltes at the same
election for some Of our most important
,tfices.
You refer several fines in your letter
to tie Missouri case, and to u.y approval
Of ysnr course therein, and svcu to think
tkx, the two States are in the game cou-
dtion, and have been trcated in like man.
ner Without pausing TO compare their
conditions. or their respective .i..bility to
violeucs al the poi.s | prnpose to- contrast
the proceedings which have severally ia
ken .,lacc in iAs two. You say, My or
der in Missouri, which you arpr,ve, and
General Srhehck's order here, reach pre-
cisely The same end. The only scrioa o!
yours in references 10 TIE Missouri Case. OF
which have exp:esssa appsoyal, or OF
which hare anJ Knowledge, is. as saen-
tioscd in n,y letter 70 you. That 'discios-
ed in your letter 81 Instructions to Gen.
Schofield," bearing ix;c .! the LIST of DC
tober last; ;ratd miisilsr the instructions
contained i1,that letter sati Gen 'Sehenk's .
order reached tic r-usr end" }" rs you sup
pose. Or not. th"y certainly lsSpose to
reach it BY very different Tesus.
To estiI.ate correctly this di'it renee, We
mus. compare the course respectively taken
by the Department; ConaAn,iers ~ the two
States. General Schofeld in his order "f
the 2Sth of Sep,e:ibc ] S63;, an,: TO which
I understand YOU to r.!cr. when IN yulr
letter 70 him, above ,n-neioae.!. you cvm-
mcnce by saying: Under your recent
order, which | have xpprsved,' &o.. lays
down the following as the military law of
Missouri on .he subject Of electsa.
1.-The right" says ho, '.of the people
peaceably 20 assemble for all lawful pur-
poses. and the ;igh, freely to express their
will at the polls according +" ia~. are cs-
sential to civil liberty. No interference
with these righ,s. either by violence.
threats, Intimidation, CIR o;herwi.e will be
tolerated"
Again. in the saI:c or3rr he savs:
Amy oficer, soldier or civilian, who
shall attempt to iniimidnte amy 9ual;Gsd
voter in the 'exe-cisn oe his right to vote
or who shall attempt 20 r''rrsHt "ay q"ali-
fed roter tfoons 9oiag to tie po'ls or cutting
shall he punished by imprisonment or
otherwise" &c If these provisions are
compared with the first and third sections
Of General Sch.nck's 4 nrder. the contrast.
rather than Inc similarity. will, | think
be strikiug.
In ysur same letter ia General Schofeld
YOU further say: AT clrcfions. sse that
these, shd c,,ly those. are allowed to vote
,oho are entitled to Go so by itc iites ,9 dis
ssuit." Not enly thus concedias, TO the
State law the right tn prescribe The quail
fica,ion % Inc voter. but c..iaiaiag iIou the
Milit.-y Commander 10 scs that lie be
allowed 10 erj"y tina: right.
Though your Execllcney refers to the
difference in the justification required Of
voters, in the two Siss"s. | can hardly
suppose. cspenislly in view Of th" rnqual-
; ifed and empaa:ie ter,as in wiich you re-
eognize the control Of the State laws, that
you mean TO place t!,st recognition upoa
the gro4ind that ynu aaprsre The laws OF
one State end not cf the other: ana, b..sidss,
| think. we might be sllowrG some benefit
of the consideration that j. Missouri they
have recently had Constitutional Ccnven-
tion, which enabled thrm 10 remodel rhcir
laws OIL the snljcc, of the elective franchise
-4-an crpcrtnGisy we have pot yet enjoyed
ana which is necessary Cor the pnrpnsc of
such moGifcat;cn, though such necessity
might possibly ts dispensed with Hereafter,
in view of the new porer which Military
Commanders claim TO exercise ia the prem
isss.
The conclusion Of year Excrliensy's let
ter makes ali alasinn ID past preceGen's in
Maryland, and is esideHtly. designed tt;
make the point that should he the last TO
complain of such M order. ~ i. j.. as you
say 'precisely whsr Gczcral Dix did,
when | was elected Governor.
Ii such was the case. th. proceeding at
least does net Saem to have been very cf-
fective in r,t!,:e:ng sle yA,e Of the State,
as received fifteen thousand more v";cs
than the highest candidate at the Presi
Dental clectionsihe proceeding year. and
when very large vote was po!lcd in the
State. but yoar Excrllency will. | think.
fad that no surh or,!er ~ the p.eseai was
ever Issued by Fscuera, iix.
Il il. besides, OF sumo Importance 10 note
the difference it the condiiion of our State
bciwcca that time and Eew. Her pr.scnl