The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1865-04-29

that Mr.. Buhrman presented this written auilori-
~ to the House, on the day he presented the ma
ority report, II was read aloud BY the Clerk, and
became part Of the proceedings OF the hopse.
Mr.. lIoff.nan. arrived In Annapolis on the day
the rase,gas determined, and stated 10 The lIouse,
that he had SeepauA folly approved Of The report
heforehe Icfl AnnapoIIa Thai 10 had sent 10 Mr.
Bulrnan, written authority 10 sIRn his name TO
lid and thai be Was glad ~ be In bis place 10 sup
IpDrt II by hIa g0ipe and sgle.
Wlly The committee wassHet called together
rs dinfcuItto ieIl Us chairman WIS Mr. Lee
who joined with tiieiw6 febpl sympatbizers In
the minority report, i WAS his plaee 10 call tho
committee together. The evidence closed on The
| 7lh Of March. Mr. Bahfman presented The ma
jorly report 10 he House Oh tbs 2lsi ~ March,
and stated thai II wna the report 0f majority Of
lhe gcommIltcc lwh0 Ind frequently reqm stcd
| tcit chairman toscdl tie whole committee to-
.gelhcr.. aud though he hpd promised 10 do 50
| from time TO time, he had Eeyer done II, and that
they were convinced ifthcy waited for The whole
committee 70 be called together, no rYort scouid
be made 10 NE Ious i,l tp 10 he acted Apo,t before
Tie ddjouynment. fIc stated openly 70 tho House,
that the 'dppdrent dad eUidem' Object Of the mi
nority OF the commitees was to prevent any re-
port being made in time to lie acted upon
| Whether Mr.. Bhhrman was right In his views OF
not, one thing is certain, the evidence was clos
| ed on the 18th of March, the majority report was
made on the 2lst Of March, &although the Legisla-
ture was within three days of adjournng, yet the
| chairman had not called the committee together
tfor the purpose ofagreeing upona report" There
Eare other things appearing in the proceedings O
the House OF Delegates, which are very significant
Messrs. Anderson, Buhrman, Hoffman, Lush,
and other members openly charged the chairman
of The committee when the case was under con
sideration in the House, with having declared Il
them up to the time the evidence was closed tina
he was in favor of report to remove Mr.. Grason
that the Evidence Of such character, that tie!
could do nothing else Lut remope him, and aiie
this, singular 10 say, he Joined with rebel sympa
thizers in the minority report, and became hi
warm supporter
The 23d of March, o'clock P. NJ ms aboy
stated, was the time the case was first fixed 70
consideration Tie journal Of tlat date shows tina
at that time Il union member and one in favor o
the majority. report, moved tospt stpone the cas-
to the next day, TO give all the members an OPP
portunity to read the evidence, bat the member
inffayor.of the minority report, voted agans
this motion, and endeavored to force the lious
Unto /, vote, without further time to consider tn
evidence. Members in favor OF the majority re
port, carried the motion and the case was post
poped until next.day at II O'clock NJ 3 SWhe
this hour arrived, Mi Miller of Anne Arunde
county, moved the previous question, the elfec
OF which was to prevent any discussion or any re
view ofthe evidence. Those for the minority re
Iport voted for this, and those for the majorit
report voted against it, defeated it and went int
discussion fthe case and review Of the evi
denee for several hours before the vote was taken
The journal of the oath Of March, also shows
that after the case was decided, Mr.. Miller Q
Anne Arundel county, offered a resolution 10 dc
clare all the acts of Mr.. Grason as judge, null ant
void His friends voted for this and the loya
men who voted against him, and whom he charge
with unfairness and prejudice, and to whom h
imputes dishonesty, voted it down. Whateve
may have been the motive of his friends for try
ing to create disorder and confusion in our court
or for opposing amoton, giving further time 70
the consideration of the evidence, or for endeaV
oring TO prevent any discussion, or review Of th
evidence when the case was under consideration
we say whatever may have been their motive 70
this, Their ucfSshow that they attempted to do th
verysthing, about which he complains Ito tn
! voters of Baltimore county, ~ and the votes of tn
: loyal men show that they prevented it..
The trouble with him and his friends, is, .th
case has settled the great and Utal principle
! the Constitution, that no one who has at an
time been in armed hostility to the United State:
or who has at any time given any aid comlor
: .countenance or support to those engaged i
armed hostility to the United States. shall eve
be entitled to vote or hold office in this State
He not only charges the loyal men from our cour
ty=with beingAnnfair,g prejidiced and lcontrole
!. by improper influences. but imputes dishonest
, to them. and every member who voted again:
him. These are grave charges for man VIII
: has been proven to be disloyal, TO make again:
the Union members of the Legislature.
JUSTIcE TO THE UNION MEMBERS atfsAa
!; OF THE LEGISLATURE