St. Mary's gazette., 1863-11-19

I4E()N AkDS i
! an assnre that ysur ExeslIepsy ~ %
lsr mo1i6ssi abe 6rt of mid sectinhs - to
substituts fSf Il dirsetion to these Pro
vost Msrskala ''tc rrevsst sll diturbance
o. viole,s, sb6ut ~ pcls. ? &c; snd
that. 10 speakiug of the terms 0f ihs ssigi-
nsl order. sou VII sdmit that "thess d.
6sers bsing Of Necessity ~ sscissi'rc
i.asss !: T. :ss sh-'l .I Is sssssEfA n ne
mis-. wish dsIereace. tl,as whilst this mol-
ihcation may relisve that part Of tbs order
of some of the most i,nmodcrate of its
powers, il still leaves these efEicers the ex-
elusive judges Of Who arc guilty of violence
or disiur saricc, and. Of course. Of whs are
liable to srTes. therefor. and leaves then.
consequently. the same opportunity for .
siuilar abuse Of power, the probability Of
which you saay the more readily estimate
when ! inform you that several of them
are thcmselves candidates at the same
elscsion..for some VI our most important
sf6ces.
You refer several timcs in your letter
to the Missouri case, aud to my approval
of ysur course therein, and seem to think
that the two States are in the same CEN
dition. and have been treated in like man
ner. Without p4using to compare their
conditions. or their respective liability to
violsncs at the polls, I propose to contrast
the proceedings which have severally ta-
ken place in the two. YOU say, '.My or
der IN Missouri. which you approve. and
General Schenck's order here. reach pre-
cisely the sarae end" The only actisn OF
yours in reference to the Missouri case. of
which I hare expressed approval, or OF
which Ihavc any knowlcdge. il. AZ men
toned in my letter to you, that "di>clos-
ed in your letter Of instructions to Gen.
SchoEeld." bearing date Of the LIST Of &C.
tober last: and whsther the instructions
contained in that letter and Gen Schenk's
order ..resched the same end" as you sup
pose, or not, they certainly propose %
reach It by very different means. 'a'
To esti,satc correctly this difference, we
must comrsret the course respectively taken
BY the Dcpart,nent ComnanIcrs in the two
States, General Scho6eld. in his order Of
the 18th. Of September. 1863. and % which
Il unsesstsnd ,Foss tssfefsfs swhes- IN yurtr
letter to him. above usrnsioned, you con'-
mcsee by ssyisg: Under yoar recent
order. which have appr"ved.' &s.. lays
down the following ss the military law Of
Misssuri on the subject Of election.
'.The right" ssys he, 'of the people
peaceably TO assemble for all lawful pur
poses. and the right freely to express their
viii at the polls according to laS. arc es-
sential to civil liberty. No interference
with these rights. either by violence,
threats, insinsi.iafioa. or otherwise will be
tolerated" ' Ell
Asain, in tho same order he says:
Any oficer. soldier Or civilian, who
shall attempt ts .iatinsitsate any qualified
voter in the exercise Of his right to vote.
Or who shall attempt to preuent any qn.di-
fed rHer foons going 70 the polis or r0ting.
shall b punished by in,prisonmens Or
otherwise" Sc, IL these provisions are
compared With the first and third sections
of Genersl Scheuck's order. the contrast.
rather than the similarity will. / think,
be striking. e fs''a'
In ysur same letter to General Schofield,
you further say: ..At elections. see that
those, akd only those. arc allowed to vote
srho are e~tified to do so ty the LssCs of AIS
sopri.". Not ssaly thus conosdiag to The
State Inv the righ. to prescribe the q,ali-
fcation .! the vt'ter. but enjoiaing npoa the
Military Com,nsnder to nae that he be
allowed to enjay that right. a. 9a
Thoagh your Exeellerey refrrs, to the
difference IN ths quslic:,tioa required Of
voters, in the two States. I can hardly
suppose. especially in view, of, tho unqaal-
i6ed and s,uphatie iserns inivhich you re-
eoguise the control of the State laws. that
you mean 90 plscs th.t recpgnition' upoa
the g.sund thst yaa approve the laws of
one State and not of the other; and, besides,
| think, We might he allnwesl sos,s benefit
Of the eonsiier.aion that i. Missouri they
have recently had Constitutional Conven-
ton, which enalaled them tn remodel their
lava on the subject Of the elective franchise
--aa oppe.tuuisy we have sot yet enjoyed,
ana which 10 nccsssary Cor. she psFpase of
such mndi6caiicn. though, such necessity
might possibly v dispensed With hereafter,
in view Of The iincw pnwcrs which Military
Commanders slaina 20 exercise in the Pren-
ises- s ssrsgkeN sss easl siaa easss
The conclasiea Of yaur Excellesicy's lrts.
ter makes IN alInsiou TO past precedents in
Maryland. and iisl esiaes,ly designed 10
make the point that | should be the last ts
eomplsiu Of such an order. as j, is. as yni
say 1.'psecissiy what Genersl Dix did,
when wss elected Goveraor- II
III such was the case. the rreceeding Of
Icsss does not saen, to have been very ef-
fecsive in rsslueins, the vote of the State.
~ received fftrsn thoussnd more vs,.s,
than the highest candidats 81 the Presi-
Dental election sha proceeding year. and
when . very large vs'le was prlle,I in tt'c
State. bat your IsxcclIcncy will. I thiak.
fad that no such order as the present wss
ever issued BY Geasera, Dix slses =
Ii u. besides, of sumo imyportsncr to note
tho difference in ihe copdi,iyn of our State
II ass. n i.