Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1885-02-12

The Intelligent observer Oh Tue prs
sent day, who looks back at the ex-
traordinary and revolutionary pro-
ceeding of twenty years ago whereby
the people Of Maryland were deprived
Of their slave property, will be apt to
be effected with some surprise at the
acouiescsnce with which the result OF
that revolutionary measure was re-
ceiyed throughout the State, but more
especially in these peninsular coun..
ties where 1t bore most heavily and
entailed irretrievable ruin upon the
people. But that surprise will be apt
to be increased to the point OF aston
ishment when an investigation dis
closes that no we'll devised or earnest
action has ever been taken by the
people Of this section of the State
looking TO the rsmedying of the great
wrong or the obtaining Of compensa-
ton for the large amount OF property
tins illegally taken away.
We question if it is known to one
half Of the people Of the State, at the
present day, that the constitution OF
1884, whereby slavery was abolished
in Maryland, was never legally adop-
ted by the people Of the State, but
was purely revolutionary measure,
set OF, foot by few bad and design
ing politicians and successfully carr
ried into execution by the most I'M
lawful fundamentally, under cover
oil the turbulent times prevailing in
this border State AZ result of the
then existing civil war. Yet such is
the fact.
A large majority OF the qualified
voters of Maryland voted against the
constitution of 1884 and it was there
fore not adopted by the people as
their organic law Of government.
When Governor Bradford proclaimed
that document--tbe declaration of the
will Of q minority of the peopls-to
be the organic law Of the State, su-
preceding the previously existing con-
stitution, he usurped power quite
outside of his constitutional functions
and assumed the attitude of revolu-
ZIONIST. The people Of the State would
have been entirely justified in resist
ing with force the change in govern
ment thus proposed, whereby they
were deprived of vast amount of
property guaranteed ito. them by the
then existing constitution, and in
time Of peace would beyond doubt
have done so. But in those days Of
civil strife, when the people had been
60 well accustomed to the doctrine
that might gives right" fearing that
instruction and bloodshed would be
the result of resistance, they yielded
sullen and sorrowful acquiescence
and accepted the irretrievable ruin
which the great wrong entailed upon
them.
The question of the legality of the
adoption Of the constitution of 1854
came up before the Court Of Appeals
in October of that year in the case of
Samuel G. Miles, of Baltimore city,
VS.. Bradford, Governor, wherein the
complainant asked a mandamus upon
the Governor. commanding him to
count the votes of such citizens duly
qualified under the then existing con-
stitution, whose ballots had been re-
iected and placed in separate boxes at
the disposal of the Governor because
of the refusal of such voters to takG
the obnoxious test oaths proposed by
the iunto that controlled the consti'
tutional convention as a means Of Sc
curing the success of their revolution
AIRY scheme, It was shown by the ev
idence in that case that, If the vote
thus excluded were counted, the con
stitution would not have been rejec
ted, Notwithstanding thata great man,
men in the military service outsid
Of the State, many of whom were cit
liens Of other States, had been per
mitted to vote on the adoption of Tia
constitution in violation Of all law AM
president.
The mastery argument presente'
in behalfof Milesiu that case by Messrt
Alexander and Steele, set forth as it
nnanswerable major premise, the pro
position that "The New Constitution
can have no legal effect and operatio
until after and in virtue of the ratifi
cation and adoption thereof by tn
people of the State; and by the pee
pie Of the State are intended the cor
atituency in whom resided the elet
tive franchise at the moment of sui
hitting the new constitution to th
popular vote. This proposition
which is almost self-evident, was COZ
clusively established by numerous a,
thorities cited in their brief. Fro
this proposition it was demonstrate
that any power that may have bee
attempted to be conferred upon Il
Governor to disfranchise citizens o
ready qualified under the Constitute
was Unconstitutional, revolutional
and void. The court. confessedly i
timated by the threatened revoluti,
and bloodshed, declined to inqui
into the source whence this power W
derived and rendered decision viii
has ever since excited the contem
and censure of lawyers. This vac
latipg decision was the only semblan
Of legality which the constitution !
ceived, and that was not even a al
dow, as the Court, acknowledging tt
it was afraid and powerless to expr,
an opinion in the matter, merely
clined to do so.
But the question Of the adoption
the constitution Of 1864 came up aga
before the high tribunal of the p,