The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.

Union States in 1864, Part 2: Maryland through Nevada

MARYLAND. At the commencement of 1864 all parties in this State were looking forward to the session of the Legislature which was to inaugurate measures for emancipation. The question of a State Convention to alter the organic law of the State, so that emancipation could be effected, had been decided at the election in November, by the choice of members to the Legislature in favor of such change. This body assembled at Annapolis on January 6th. The Senate was organized by the election of John S. Sellman as President, and the House of Delegates by the election of Thomas H. Kemp as Speaker. The vote was for Kemp 54, for John S. Dent 16, and one blank. On the 10th the following joint resolution was passed in the Senate and sent to the House, where on the next day it failed to pass— ayes, 26; noes, 27.

Whereas, The Senate of Maryland has this day received information from a “member of the House of Delegates” and from other reliable sources, that Gen Birney, who is in command of the “negro encampment at Benedict,” has sent out about one hundred and fifty negro soldiers into the counties of Charles and St. Mary's, with orders to seize upon and carry into the encampment at Benedict all negro men found upon plantations and otherwise, for the purpose of forcing into the military service of the United States all such as are capable of bearing arms, and of setting at liberty all who are not fit for such service;

And whereas, In the opinion of the Senate, this outrage upon the rights, property, and security of her citizens has been perpetrated by said Birney without the authority, knowledge, consent, or approval of the President; therefore,

Resolved, That a joint committee of not less than three on the part of the Senate, and not more than five of the House of Delegates, be and hereby are to repair to Washington to confer with the resident, and ask such redress and protection for her citizens as the necessities of their condition claim, and demand protection at the hands of the Government, and at their earliest possible convenience report to their respective bodies.

On January 13th the position of the members of the House on the question of emancipation was brought to a test. A preamble and resolutions were introduced, declaring that the “true interests of Maryland demand that the policy of emancipation should immediately be inaugurated within her borders; ” that the Legislature “declares its intention to submit to the people at as early a day as practicable a call for a Constitutional Convention, so as to give them an opportunity to carry such policy into effect; ” and requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress “to use all honorable efforts to secure the passage of a law by Congress whereby all loyal owners may be compensated for the loss of their slaves.” By a vote of 48 to 22, the rules were suspended, and the resolutions passed to a second reading. A proposition to amend the last resolution by striking out the words “loyal owners,” and inserting “all who own slaves, and have not engaged in actual hostilities against the Government of the United States, or given aid or comfort to those engaged in hostilities against said Government,” was rejected by a vote of yeas 19, nays 51. The preamble and resolutions were finally adopted by a vote of 51 to 15, seven members being absent or not voting.

On January 15th the Committee to whom was referred that portion of the Governor's Message relating to a State Constitutional Convention, submitted a majority and minority report. The majority report was signed by all the committee except one. It proposed a bill directing an election to take place on the 6th day of April ensuing, at which ballots should be cast “for a Convention or against a Convention.” At the same election should be chosen delegates to a State Convention, on the same basis of representation as was established in the election of members of the State Legislature. If the majority of votes were cast in favor of a Convention the Governor was then to issue a proclamation, declaring that fact, and the delegates elected should meet in Convention at Annapolis on the 27th day of April. The Constitution adopted by the Convention was to be submitted to the voters of the State for confirmation or rejection at such time as the Page 497 convention might prescribe. At the time of voting on the Convention question and for the election of delegates thereto, it was made the duty of the judges of election to challenge a voter on the ground of not being a citizen of the State, that he had expatriated himself, or did not admit his allegiance to the United States. To voters thus challenged an oath of allegiance was to be administered as a test of citizenship. The vote of those refusing the oath was to be rejected. The oath prescribed required the challenged voter to swear that he had not borne arms against the United States, or encouraged persons in armed hostility thereto; that he had not yielded voluntary support to any Government within the United States and hostile thereto, or held office under any such pretended authority, and furthermore that he would support the Constitution and Government against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and bear true allegiance thereto. The members of the Convention on assembling were required to take the same oath.

The bill reported by the minority submitted the question of Convention or no Convention to the voters at an election to be held on the 6th day of April, but did not provide for the election of delegates at that time. The result was to be certified to the Governor, who was to announce it in a proclamation. The Governor was also to communicate the vote to the Legislature, if he should call an extra session, or if he should not convene one, then at the next regular session of the Legislature. The effect of the bill would then be, that unless the Governor chose to convene an extra session of the Legislature, provision for the election of Delegates could not be made sooner than two years. The bill provided no test oath for voters or for members of the Convention.

On the 18th the Committee in the Senate on the same subject reported a bill similar to the majority bill of the House without conferring the right to require an oath of allegiance of voters as a test of citizenship.

On the 20th a motion made in the House to amend the majority bill so as to postpone the election of delegates to November, 1865, was lost—ayes 15; noes 51. On the 21st a motion to substitute the minority bill was lost— ayes 20; noes 51. In the Senate a motion to postpone the election of delegates to November, 1865, was lost—ayes 6; noes 15. These votes were watched with intense interest by the friends of immediate emancipation, who regarded them as test votes.

On the 22d a motion was made in the House to strike out of the bill the test oath. On the next day it was carried—ayes 33; noes 28.

On the 27th the Senate adopted an amendment providing that in all cases where voters were challenged as to their right of citizenship, on the score of having taken up arms against the Government, or having given aid, counsel, and encouragement to those in rebellion, it should be the duty of the Judges of Election to  put the party so challenged on his oath, and to examine him as to the truth or falsity of the charge. The vote was—ayes 14; noes 3.

On the 28th the Senate passed the bill before it—ayes 13; noes 2. The House on the same day passed its bill—ayes 45; noes 17. On February 3d the House passed the Senate bill with some amendments—ayes 43; noes 16. The most important amendment was the striking out from the first section all provisions relating to military interference with the election, an providing that the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the State, the Clerks of all the Courts of Baltimore City, and the Registers of Wills, should not be eligible as members of the Convention.

The Senate, on the 5th, refused to agree to these amendments. The House declined to recede, and appointed a Committee of Conference. In conference it was agreed that the House re. cede from its amendment striking out that portion of the first section relating to military interference at the election, and that the section continue in the bill as it originally passed the Senate.

An amendment making members of the Legislature of Maryland eligible to seats in the Convention as delegates, but disqualifying the Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States, Judges of the Circuit Court of Baltimore and all the counties, the Judges of the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, and the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, the Clerks of all the said Courts, the Registers of Wills, and Sheriffs of all the counties and the city of Baltimore, was adopted.

An amendment was also agreed to requiring that sixty-five members of the whole number of delegates to the Convention—ninety-six— should be elected under the provisions of the bill before the Convention should organize; and after such organization, fifty members—the number constituting a quorum of both Houses of the Legislature—at least to constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business.

The bill was passed with amendments of the Conference Committee, in the Senate—ayes 14; noes 2. House—ayes 43; noes 15.

The provision in the bill relating to military interference with the election, was as follows:

And in case any organized military or armed force of the United States shall appear at the places where the polls shall be held, and shall interfere with said election, unless such military or armed force shall be called out by the judges of election, or other civil authority charged with the preservation of the peace, the said judges of election shall, under oath, certify to the Governor such unwarranted military interference with said election, in such election district or precinct, and the Governor shall, immediately thereupon, order a new election for delegates to said Convention, after ten days' notice, to be given by the Sheriffs as aforesaid, in such election district or precinct, and such new election shall be held and conducted in the manner and form hereinbefore provided; and the Governor shall order a new election for delegates from time to time as often as such illegal military or armed interference with the election shall be certified to him as aforesaid; but such Page 498 order or orders for such new election or elections shall not interfere with, hinder, or delay the assembling of said Convention as herein provided, if it shall appear from the count that a majority of all the votes cast in the election districts and precincts where no such illegal military or armed interference shall be certified to have taken place, are in favor of the call of such Convention.

The day fixed in the bill for the election was April 6th, and the day for the assembling of the Convention, if the election was successful, was April 27th.

Previous to the election a correspondence took place between Major-General Wallace, commanding the military department, and Governor Bradford, relative to the persons who should be allowed to become delegates to the Convention, or who should be allowed to vote for delegates, as follows:

HEADQUARTERS, MIDDLE DEPARTMENT,

EIGHTH ARMY CORPS,

BALTIMORE, Md., March 30, 1864.

His Excellency, Governor A. W. Bradford :

DEAR SIR: Herewith please find official copies of papers, a glance at which will doubtless satisfy you that persons disloyal to the Government of the United States are candidates for the Constitutional Convention, the election for which takes place on the 6th of April next. . It is hardly necessary for me to say that I am deeply interested in the prevention of the scheme disclosed; and as my offer of coöperation in all matters calculated to promote the welfare of the people of Maryland was very kindly received by you, I am to ask a question touching a subject about which your Excellency's official opinion is entitled to the most distinguished consideration.

As the oath which the law providing for a Convention requires you to administer to delegates elect, before taking their seats, was evidently intended to exclude disloyal persons from participation in the deliberations of that '. I have thought it possible that it was also the legislative intention to provide a method for the rejection, at the polls, of the votes of disloyal men, and that the power, amounting to judicial authority º; to my interpretation of the act), with which the Judges of election are clothed, was really the mode adopted by the lawmakers for the accomplishment of that purpose. Your Excellency would oblige me very much, therefore, by giving me your views as to the extent of authority possessed by the Judges of Election, and especially as to whether they have F. to reject a vote on account of the disloyalty of the person offering it? I wiil avail myself of the first opportunity to disclose to your Excellency the circumstances which, in my judgment, make it my duty to advise with you touching the subject.

Meantime I have the honor to remain, most respectfully, your friend and very obedient servant,

(Signed)                                        LEW. WALLACE,

Major General Com'dg Middle Department.

Reply of Governor Bradford.

STATE of MARYLAND Executive DEP'T,

                                           ANNAPOLLIS, March 31, 1864.

Major-General Lew. Wallace, Commanding Middle Dep't :

DEAR SIR: I received your letter of 30th inst., in which, premising that persons disloyal to the Government of the United States are candidates for the Constitutional Convention, the election for which takes place in this State on the 6th of April next, and referring to the oath which by the law providing for that Convention its members are required to take before they are entitled to seats therein. You suggest that it was probably also the legislative intention to provide for the rejection of the votes of disloyal persons at that election, and that the Judges of Election are vested with an authority to that effect. You, therefore, request me to give you my views as to the extent of the authority possessed by the Judges on that subject.

It gives me pleasure to comply with this request, and to state as explicitly and as briefly as I can my views of the power possessed by our Judges of Election in the premises.

By a clause in our election laws as it has existed for many years, it is provided that “the Judges of Election may administer an oath in any inquiry they may deem necessary to be made touching the right of any person to vote; and if any person shall swear it in relation thereto, he shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the pains and penalties of perjury.” The effect of this provision was to authorize the administration of an oath by the judges in any inquiry touching the right of a person offering to vote; but whilst the oath was thereby legalized, and a party swearing falsely was subjected to the penalties of perjury, there was nothing in the law which required the judges to administer such oath. This omission, so far at least as the election of the 6th of April next is concerned, has been supplied by the act of the General Assembly under which that election is to be held.

By the terms of that act it is no longer a discretionary authority with the Judge to administer an oath or not, but it is made his duty to do so, and especially in the language of that act, “to every person offering to vote whose vote shall be challenged on the that such person has served in the rebel army, or has either directly or indirectly given aid, comfort, or encouragement to those in armed rebellion against the Government of the United States.”

The fact to be ascertained is, whether the voter has served in the rebel armies, or directly or indirectly aided, comforted, or encouraged those engaged in the present rebellion; and whilst the Judge is required, wherever a voter is challenged on such ground, to administer an oath to him, he should not content himself with the mere denial, in general terms, by the one so challenged, that he has ever aided, comforted, or encouraged the rebels, but would be authorized, and I think required, to test the recollection of the party swearing by propounding to him particular interrogations, suggestive of different modes by which this aid, comfort, or encouragement may have been i. as when a voter is challenged on the ground of a want of residence, the mere general affirmation oath of the party challenged would not be considered sufficient proof of his residence, but he would be required to state time, place, and circumstance, upon which a proper judgment as to the question of residence might be formed.

Neither is the Judge, in case of a challenge, on any account concluded by the answers of the party challenge but he is fully authorized to administer an oath to any other who may be present and cognizant of facts having a relation to the question.

It will, of course, occur to you, from the acts which I have quoted, that the giving at any time since the commencement of the existing rebellion, either directly or indirectly, of aid, comfort, or encouragement thereto, is, so far as the coming election is concerned, the disqualification of a voter; for the General Assembly would not have imposed upon the Judge of Election the duty of inquiring into these facts, if, when their existence was established, the voter could still exercise the right of suffrage. I know that it may be said that the General Assembly possessed no i. to prescribe the qualifications of a voter, and that these are established by the Constitution; but without entering into any discussion upon this point, or as to the extent of the Judges' power to inquire into and determine the question of citizenship—one of the constitutional qualifications to be possessed by the voter— is sufficient to know that the General Assembly has declared that certain acts shall disqualify the voter in this election.

Page 499

Such is the law of the State authorizing and regulating said election, and no one can lawfully question the constitutionality of that law until some court of competent authority has declared it unconstitutional. This is a prerogative belonging to our courts alone, and even as a judicial function is the exercise of a power of a grave and delicate character, and only warranted in a clear case.

I think, therefore, sir, that from this very hasty and imperfect review of our laws upon the subject, you will agree with me in believing that they are entirely sufficient, if faithfully executed, as I have every reason to hope they will be, to exclude disloyal voters from the polls.

The duty of our Judges of Election is, it seems to me, in this respect clearly defined and adequately enforced. By the 7th section of the Convention act, it is provided that any Judge of Election who shall refuse or neglect to perform any of the duties required of him by that act, “shall be liable to indictment for such offence, and upon conviction thereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be sentenced to a fine of not less than $500, and to imprisonment in the jail of the city or county where such offence may have been committed, for a term of not less than six months.”

In conclusion, permit me to say I shall be at all times pleased to confer with you in all matters connected with your command touching the interests of the people of this State.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,

                                                A. W. BRADFORD.

Unusual care was taken to prevent unsuitable persons becoming members of the Convention. In Anne Arundel County, a Mr. E. G. Kilbourn was nominated as a delegate to the Convention. General Wallace immediately ordered certain interrogations to be put to him, which, with his answers, were as follows:

First question asked: “Where were you born, and how long have you been a citizen of the State of Maryland?

Answer: “I was born in Fitchburg, in the State of Massachusetts, and have been a citizen of Maryland since 1829 or 1830.”

Second question asked: “Were you elected to and Speaker of the House of Delegates that met at Frederick, Maryland, April 26, 1861?”

Answer: “I was.”

Third question asked: “At that session of the General Assembly of the State of Maryland were a series of resolutions offered and assented to explaining the relations of Maryland with the Federal Goverment, in which the following language may be found :

Whereas, The people of Maryland, while recognizing the obligations of their State as a member of the Union, to submit in good faith to the exercise of all the legal and constitutional powers of the General Government, and to join as one man in fighting its authorized battles, do reverence, nevertheless, the great American principle of self-government, and sympathize deeply with their Southern brethren in their noble and manly determination to uphold and defend the same,

More, therefore, it is hereby resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the State of Maryland desires the peaceful and immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States, and hereby gives her cordial consent thereunto, as a member of the Union, entertaining the profound conviction that the willing return of the Southern people to their former Federal relations is a thing beyond hope. and that the attempt to coerce them will only add slaughter and hate to impossibility.

And also a resolution requesting the Representatives and Senators of the States of Maryland in the Congress of the United States to urge and vote for an immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States, in which may be found the following language:

Be it resolved, That the Representatives of the State of Maryland in the Senate of the United States, at the approaching extra session of that legislative body be, and they are hereby, earnestly desired and ... to urge and vote for an immediate recognition of the independence of the Government of the Confederate States of America. Answer: “I am presented with a copy of the laws as contained in a volume, marked “Laws of Maryland, 1861,' and without being able to state from my memory the fact, the resolutions as copied but in connection with others appear to have been offered and assented to.” Fourth question asked : “Did you vote for the series of resolutions to ‘May 14, 1861, heretofore cited, “explaining the relations of Maryland with the Federal Government, and the resolutions requesting the Representatives and Senators of the State of Maryland in the Congress of the United States to urge and vote for an immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States?’” Answer: By a journal of the proceedings of the House of Delegates I see my name recorded in favor of the series of resolutions assented to on the 14th day of June, and presume I voted as stated in the journal. Fifth question asked: Did you vote for the series of resolutions assented to June 20th, in which may be found the following words:

Resolved, That prudence and policy demand that the war now waged shall cease; that if persisted in, it will result in the ruin and destruction of both sections, and a longer continuance of it will utterly annihilate the last hope of a reconstruction of this Union; therefore we want peace, and are in favor of a recognition of the Southern Confederacy and an acknowledgment of its Government.

Answer: I have no recollection of the words of the resolution, but presume I voted as stated in the journal of proceedings.

Sixth question asked: Are you aware that in the law providing for the Convention, for which you have presented yourself as a candidate, the Governor of the State is required to administer an oath to all its members to the following purport: They are re quired to swear that

They have never, either directly or indirectly, by word, act or deed, given any aid, comfort, or encouragement to those in rebellion against the Government of the United States?

Answer: I state positively that I have not attended any primary meeting or presented myself for election, and would not take the oath, if elected, as embodied in this interrogatory, and therefore would not serve. The reason why I could not take the oath is because of the possible misconstruction of my votes in the Legislature, all of which I gave in full conviction that they would promote the peace and happiness of the Union.

Seventh question: Should you be elected to the Constitutional Convention of this State, on the 6th of April next, would you take this oath before taking your seat in the Convention?

Answer: No.

                                                                        E. G. KILBOURN.

Witness: Max Woodhull, Ass’t Adj't General In consequence of this development Mr. Kilbourn's name was withdrawn from the ticket. The county judges also were extremely careful in conducting their investigations as to the proclivities of voters. In Cecil County they adopted the following particular interrogatories for their general guidance. These were recommended for adoption in all the counties:

Questions.

1. Service in the Rebel Army. Have you ever served in the Rebel army?

2. Aid to those in armed Rebellion.

Have you ever given aid to the rebellion? 

Have you never given money to those intending to join the rebellion? Page 500 Have you never given money to their agents?

Have you never given money, clothing, or provisions for the purpose of aiding the emigration of persons from this State to the South 2 Have you never sent money, clothing, or provisions to persons in South since the rebellion ?

8. Comfort and Encouragement to the Rebellion.

Note.—Comfort or encouragement means advocacy, advice in favor of . We aid the Rebellion by giving money, clothing, and provisions; we give it comfort or encouragement by our words. A man who has advocated the cause of the Rebellion, who talked in favor of Maryland with the South, who rejoiced over the victories of the Rebel army, has given comfort and encouragement to the Rebellion.

Have you ever given comfort or encouragement to the rebellion?

Have you never, in conversation, attempted to justify the course of the States in rebellion ?

Have you never expressed a wish for the success of the rebellion or its army ?

Have you never in conversation discouraged the cause of the Federal Government ?

Did you rejoice over the downfall of Fort Sumter?

4. Disloyalty.

Note.-If the Judges are satisfied that a man is disloyal to the United States, it is their duty to refuse his vote, for such person is not a “legal voter" of the State of Maryland. Are you a loyal citizen of the United States ?

Have you been loyal ever since the beginning of the rebellion ?

Have you never rejoiced over the defeat of the Union army?

Have you never rejoiced over the success of the Rebel army?

When the Union army and the Rebel army meet in battle, which do you wish to gain the victory

Note.—After interrogating the person offering to vote, the Judges may hear other evidence to prove or disprove his statements, and must be governed by the weight of testimony.

The result of the election was a majority of more than twelve thousand in favor of holding a convention. The number of delegates elected was ninety-six, of whom sixty-one were emancipationists and thirty-five opposed to emancipation. In the election there had also been involved the question of emancipation, with or without compensation. Of the emancipationists elected all, excepting three, were opposed to emancipation with compensation.

The Convention, assembled at Annapolis on April 27th. Eighty members were present, and sixteen absent. Henry H. Goldsborough was elected President, having received fifty-eight votes. The following oath was administered to the members:

I do swear, or affirm, that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, in the duties of member of the Convention to frame a new Constitution and form of government; that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and will faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland and the Government of the United States, any law or ordinance of any State to the contrary not withstanding and that I have never, either directly or indirectly, by word, act, or deed, given any aid, comfort, or encouragement to those in rebellion against the Government of the United States; and this I swear voluntarily, without any mental reservation or qualification whatever, so help me God.

On May 12th, the Committee on the Declaration of Rights presented a majority and minority report. The majority report consisted of forty-three articles, all of which corresponded nearly with the then existing Constitution of Maryland, except the fourth and twenty-third articles, which were as follows:

Article 4. The Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof being the supreme law of the land, every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, and is not bound by any law or ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof.

Article 23. That hereafter, in this State, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and all persons held to service or labor as slaves are hereby declared free.

The minority report approved generally of all the articles contained in the majority report except the fourth and twenty-third, respecting which the minority say:

That, with regard to the proposed fourth article of the Declaration of Rights, as reported by the majority, they are of opinion that however true is the proposition that the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, yet it has never been deemed necessary by the statesmen who framed that Constitution, or by those who framed the constitution of this State, or, in so far as the undersigned have learned, by the framers of any one of the numerous constitutions of the other States, to insert amongst the rights and prerogatives of their citizens any language enforcing the obligation of allegiance to the General Government of the United States.

Nor do the undersigned perceive the necessity for a departure from the universal practice that has obtained in all the States, and which practice has been adhered to even in those instances where constitutions have been framed in the midst of existing civil war; or for the voluntary offering of allegiance to the Government, on an assumed condition of hostility in the legislation of the State to the Government of the United States.

The undersigned also dissent from the adoption of the 23d Article as proposed in the majority report, believing it to contemplate a sudden, violent, and most mischievous destruction of the relation of master and slave, which, commencing with the earliest history of the colony, has been maintained during all the intervening period, with the regular and progressive advancements of the State in all that is useful and honorable, and with a conviction of its usefulness and propriety on the part of our citizens so dee § and universally felt, that they have carefully prohibited by their Constitution, as well that of 1775 as that of 1851, any interference with this relation, the rupture of which is now recommended by the majority of the committee, without the slightest preparation on the part of either master or slave for the extreme change of condition so instantaneously precipitated upon them, inflicting upon each very serious, and unnecessary injury and suffering, an particularly upon the slaves, and in the absence of compensation, iniquitous and unjust in the extreme to the master.

The articles reported by the majority, except the 4th and 23d, were considered, and generally approved on the second reading. The latter were reserved for special consideration by the Convention. On June 1st they were taken up; when Mr. Clarke, of Prince George County, moved to strike out the 4th article, and insert the following:

The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in Jº thereof, being the supreme law of the land, every citizen of this State owes allegiance Page 501 to the Constitution and Government of the United States, within the limits of the powers conferred by that Constitution, and is not bound by any law or ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof; and the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, being reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, every citizen of this State owes allegiance to the State of Maryland, so far as the sovereignty of the State has not been affected by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and is not bound to yield obedience to laws made in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, and in the exercise of usurped powers.

To this amendment, Mr. Sands, of Howard, offered the following amendment:

Resolved, That nothing contained in this article shall be construed as giving to the State a right to secede from the Federal Union, or to form a Confederation with any other State or States of the Union, or to seize by force of arms or otherwise any property of the United States situate and being within the limits of this State, but that these acts are hereby expressly forbidden.

On the next day the amendment of Mr. Sands was adopted—yeas 45; nays, 30. The amended proposition was then rejected without a division, and the question recurred on the original article, when a motion was made to strike out the word “paramount,” and a general discussion ensued.

Mr. Cushing, of Baltimore City, in favor of the article without any change or amendment, took the floor:

He alluded to the protection that had been given the people of Maryland when the State had been invaded, and said the General Government had always exercised its paramount supremacy, for the 5d of the people. There was no authority in Maryland to protect the people but that of the Government of the United States, and it was the least that the people could do to recognize the paramount allegiance they owed to that Government, and he would be happy to record his vote in favor of the article. He contrasted the spirit actuating the Government of the United States and the so-called “Confederate” Government, saying that the former savored of the mild, merciful, and paternal spirit of our Heavenly Father, and the other of the malignant spirit of the Father of Lies, and that the difference between the two was the same as that between Heaven and Hell.

On the next day, June 3d, Mr. Belt, of Prince George County, in opposition, contended:

That “allegiance” was due to the State and “obedience” to the General Government, and said he was opposed to the article because it, tended to the adoption of the theory of the consolidation of Government, which he believed had been a curse to the country for the past three years.

The discussion was resumed on June 13th, when Mr. Miller, of Anne Arundel, in opposition said:

He would base his argument on three propositions, which he held to be true: First. That the Colonies, at the time of the accomplishment of the Revolution, were sovereign and Independent States. Second. The Constitution of the United States was adopted by the people as citizens of the distinct and independent States to which they belonged at the time of its adoption, and that each of them was then considered and recognized as a sovereign State. . Third. That the Government of the United States thus created is of a limited character, confined to the exercise of limited powers, and all such powers as are not granted to it or implied are necessarily held by the people.

Mr. Miller argued at length in support of his views, saying that he was opposed to the doctrine of Secession as a constitutional right, and that he also opposed the doctrine that we are a people living under a consolidated Government with iii. powers. The States form distinct and independent portions of the Government, and in their sphere are no more subject to the control of the Government of the United States than the latter is to the control of the State. ... The laws of the United States are supreme as to all their constitutional objects, and the laws of the State are the same, and it is no more the duty of the citizen to sustain the laws of the Federal Government against the laws of the State, than it is his to sustain the laws of the State against those of the Federal Government. Each are supreme in their constitutional sphere. . In case of a conflict where they come under judicial cognizance we have the Supreme Court of the United States to appeal to and several times that body has declared laws of both the United States and of the States to be null and void. There may arise cases which cannot be brought before that tribunal. Who, then, is to be the arbiter? Mr. Miller read extracts from an address, delivered by John Quincy Adams before the New York. Historical Society in 1839, from Edward Everett's letter accepting the nomination for Vice-president in 1860, from Secretary Seward's letter of instructions to Minister Adams in 1861, and from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, declaring that in a case of that kind arising, it would be better for the States to separate than to attempt to live together by coercion, and that such a course would only end in ruin.

Mr. Miller also said, during the course of his remarks, that the Government of the United States had no right to build a fort, dockyard, arsenal, or any building, except by the consent and permission of the State wherein such building was to be located. The Naturalization laws of the United States do not require those intending to become citizens to swear allegiance to the Government of the United States, although they have been citizens of a foreign nationality and sworn allegiance thereto. The person becoming naturalized swears only to “support” the Constitution, of the United States, and gives his “allegiance”, to the State of which he may happen to become a citizen.

On the 15th, the subject was again under discussion, when Mr. Ridgely, of Baltimore County, said:

This question was as old, if not older, than the Constitution itself, and had been a bone of contention ever since the formation of the Government; it had divided the country into sectional parties in the first Congress which met under the Constitution, and during the two first Administrations of the Government had supplied the South with sectional capital in their opposition to Mr. Hamilton's bank project, also to his .#. to assume the payment of State debts; to the excise laws and tonnage duties; and in Mr. Adams' Administration, to the laws.

During the two Administrations it had arrayed the North against the South, in its opposition to the Embargo; and the war of 1812 had led to the claim of State Rights by the North, and the right of secession, and the doctrines of the Hartford Convention. In reviewing the relative positions occupied by the North and the South in the early days of the Republic, he had reached the conclusion that this doctrine had its origin rather in the local interests of the party which had expressed it, than in any love for the Constitution, or desire to restrain its functions. The South was inflamed by the introduction of petitions from Pennsylvania, in the first Congress alien and sedition Page 502 to abolish their peculiar institution, Slavery; and the North were in a corresponding degree imperilled by the serious injury done to their commerce by the Embargo and the Declaration of War; he had, therefore, Fº his veneration for the great names of Madison and Jefferson, whose opinions had been mainly relied upon as contemporaneous with the formation of the ... as authority for the doctrine of State Sovereignty, to receive such authority with comparative qualifications and restraints —for the reason that these men were at last but men, and were influenced in good degree by the circumstances of their surroundings, by the prejudices inseparable from their locality and connections, and the training and discipline of the school of politicians to which they belonged.

They had expressed opinions upon both sides of this question. Mr. Madison, as a member of the First Congress, had earnestly opposed Mr. Hamilton's project of a bank, upon the ground that there was no such power enumerated in the grant of powers in the Constitution; that Congress had no power to create a corporation—and mainly upon his influence the scheme was defeated. The same gentleman—Mr. Madison—had, during his Presidency, surrendered these constitutional scruples, and signed the bill to incorporate the Bank of the United States. Mr. Jefferson, who, notwithstanding his well-known State Rights doctrines, had, in his advocacy of the construction of the navy by the Government for the purpose of punishing the Barbary powers, maintained that such navy would be also an effectual means of enforcing the laws against delinquent States. Mr. Jefferson had also, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, expressed the opinion that a single frigate sent to a delinquent port which had refused or withheld payment of its taxes to the Government, would be the effectual means of coercing obedience to the laws.

He also repudiated the theory that the United States was the mere agent of the separate State Sovereignties, by referring to the absurd conclusion which such premises would involve, leading, as they did, to the inevitable result, that the principal, if the individual States were such, would in fact be subordinate to the agent, for, by the Constitution, every officer of a State Government was bound, under oath, to support the Constitution of the United States; hence the obligation would be from the principal to the agent, rather than from the agent to the principal.

He concluded his speech by an analysis of the proposed Article in the Bill of Rights under discussion, contending that it was literally a transcript of the existing Article in the Constitution of the United States, which declares that the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law; and that the language of the Article reported by the Committee on the Bill of Rights did not vary the Article, but simply drew, as a conclusion from the words of the Constitution, that paramount allegiance was due to it, simply because the law being supreme, necessarily imposed, as inseparable from such supremacy, supreme allegiance to it; or, in other words, supreme obedience to it. He remarked also that he thought the objection was rather to the word allegiance, because in these times it had a peculiar significance, well understood, without special definition, rather than to the idea that supreme obedience was not due to the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof.

The question was fully discussed, and on June 16th all amendments were rejected, and the original article adopted—yeas 57; nays 31.

The 23d article was next taken up for discussion, and its passage urged by Mr. Valliant of Talbot County, who thus presented the reasons for refusing compensation to owners:

This article fails to make any provision for the compensation of those who may happen to lose by the sudden emancipation of slavery, and fails to empower the Legislature to make a provision, and very justly failed to do so. Mr. President, slavery has already been emancipated. I contend that there is not a single slave in the State. Let us see if I am correct in saying there is not a single slave in the State. If one of your servants saw fit to approach you to-morrow morning and say: “I want to leave your service forever, and that ere another day passes over my head, I shall be beyond the western hills, to take up my residence with a strange people,” you would not think it worth your while to take any steps to prevent his absconding. Is he a slave who can approach his master and use such language as this with impunity? Certainly not. Then, sir, slavery is entirely destroyed in this State, and really it is not the institution of slavery which we º: to do away with, but the status of slavery. . All we propose to do is to wipe off from our statute books all recognition of an institution which has already ceased to exist.

Mr. President, I submit to gentlemen thinking differently from myself if it is the fault of the State of Maryland that slavery has been abolished here, or in any of the States south of it? Did the honest workingmen of this State have any thing to do with it? The people of the State, or any party in it, bring about this radical change? Had the Governor of the State any hand in it? or had any of the State authorities any hand in it? Then, sir, I want to know, if neither the State nor any of the State authorities, nor the people had any thing to do with the breaking up of the institution, upon what principle of justice can gentlemen claim a compensation at the hands of the State? Was it the fault, I again ask, of the honest, hard-fisted workingman of the State, the small farmers of the State, the merchants of Baltimore, or the people of any of the Western counties? If not, then why should they be compelled to pay for it? Had the sudden emancipation of slavery been under their control, you and I would still have been slaveholders; therefore I am honestly of the opinion that the State ought not to be taxed for this destruction of property, for which destruction it is not in the smallest degree to be held responsible.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, slavery does exist in Maryland; suppose, further, that good men hands are worth all the Government is offering to pay for them; even in that case I doubt the expediency of the State paying for them, and for this reason, that if we undertake to compensate loyal owners we will soon have to compensate the disloyal.

The leading objections to emancipation were presented in opposition by Mr. Peter, of Montgomery County.

He first contended that the ties which bind the affection and love of a people to their country was a safe, sure, and stable protection in their rights and H.". among which is the right of property; hat the right of property in slaves existed by Divine authority, and by the laws of the land as settled and fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. He secondly contended that nothing sooner disturbed the quiet and equanimity of a people than the infringement or destruction of this right. That the destruction of this right would be a flagrant act of injustice to the people of Maryland, and dangerous in the extreme. If they could be stripped of one species or kind of property in this summary manner, it might soon follow that they would be deprived of some other kind of property; that by the Constitution of the United States, the people of this State cannot be thus divested of their property, under the plea of policy or necessity, without just compensation. That the Constitution of the Page 503 United States being the supreme law of the land, no State action can divest its citizens of rights secured by that instrument. That the excuses and grounds urged for the destruction of this right in Maryland were fallacious excuses for personal advancement and gain.  That we have suffered already great wrongs and injuries at the hands of the Government of the United States, which was bound to protect us. And lastly, that we were now enveloped in a vale of fanaticism.

The article was further discussed until June 33, when it was adopted—yeas 53; nays 27. On July 6th the Declaration of Rights reported by the majority of the Committee passed the Convention—yeas 43; nays 14.

The Convention continued its sessions during eighty-nine days, until September 6th, when the new Constitution for the State was reported by the Committee on Revision as ready to be submitted to the Convention. It was read and adopted: yeas 53; nays 25. Some of the members opposed to the Constitution, when called to vote briefly stated the grounds of their objections, thus: l

Mr. Dent, of St. Mary's, explained his vote as follows:

I shall vote against this Constitution for the following reasons:

First. Because I believe that the election by which this Convention was called, and its members elected, was not free for the legal voters of the State, but was held and conducted in clear violation of the legal rights of voters, in consequence of which a majority F. legal voters of the State was excluded from the polls.

Second. Because by this Constitution the cardinal H.P. of the rights of the State have been repudiated, and a rapid stride is taken toward centralization of power in the Federal Government.

Third. Because by this Constitution citizens of the State have been unjustly deprived of millions of dollars’ worth of property by the abolition of slavery, and no compensation to the owners has been provided; and not only so, but the Legislature is expressly prohibited from providing compensation hereafter.

My fourth objection is because the right of suffrage is so impaired, or attempted to be impaired, by the provisions for submitting this Constitution to the voters of the State, that there cannot be a free exercise of the invaluable right of suffrage on its adoption or rejection.

Besides these cardinal objections, I have many comparatively minor objections to this Constitution, and believe that, taken as a whole, it is an instrument of wrong and oppression, unparalleled in the history of American Constitutions, and ought not to be adopted.

Mr. Jones, of Somerset, said he considered it a violation of the rights of the citizens to prescribe an oath to qualify them to vote for the new Constitution, and therefore he should vote “no.”

Mr. Mitchell, of Charles, said that the people of his county would be affected in a great, degree by the abolition of slavery—hundreds would be ruined by it. A great portion of them would also be disfranchised, and he would therefore vote “no.”

Mr. Pugh, of Cecil, remarked that he had tried hard to be elected a delegate to the Convention, and he was proud that he had succeeded. Never in his life had he had an opportunity for more rejoicing than in casting his vote in the affirmative on the adoption of the Constitution.

Mr. Chambers, of Kent, said the new Constitution proposed the most unjustifiable seizure of property and the most wanton attack on the political rights of those whose property, liberty, and every political right the Convention had assembled to protect. He would therefore vote “no.”

A protest against the action of the Convention, signed by thirty-five of its members, was subsequently published.

The Convention provided for submitting the new Constitution to the people on October 12th and 13th, under such restrictions as were required in the Constitution for the qualification of voters at State elections, which were as follows:

Sec. 4. No person who has at any time been in armed hostility to the United States, or the lawful authorities thereof, or who has been in any manner in the service of the so-called “Confederate States of America,” and no person who has voluntarily left this State and gone within the military lines of the so-called “Confederate States of America or armies” with the purpose of adhering to said States or armies, and no person who has given any aid, comfort, countenance, or support to those engaged in armed hostility to the United States, or in any manner adhered to the enemies of the United States, either by contributing to the enemies of the United States, or unlawfully sending within the lines of such enemies money or goods, or letters or information, or who has disloyally held communication with the enemies of the United States, or who has advised any person to enter the service of the said enemies, or aided any person so to enter, or who has, by any open deed or word, declared his adhesion to the cause of the enemies of the United States, or his desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the United States, shall ever be entitled to vote at any election to be held in this State, or to hold any office of honor, profit, or trust under the laws of this State, unless since such unlawful acts he shall have voluntarily entered into the military service of the United States, and been honorably discharged therefrom, or shall be on the day of election ..". and voluntarily in such service, or unless he shall be restored to his full rights of citizenship by an act of the General Assembly passed by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House; and it shall be the duty of all officers of Registration and Judges of Election carefully to exclude from voting, or bein registered, all persons so as above disqualified ; an the Judges of Election, at the first election held under this Constitution, shall, and at any subsequent election may, administer to any person offering to vote the following oath or affirmation: “I do swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the United States; that I have never given any aid, countenance, or support to those in armed hostility to the United States; that I have never expressed a desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the United States; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States, and support the Constitution and laws thereof as the supreme law of the land, any law or ordinance of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that I will in all respects demean myself as a loyal citizen of the United States; and I make this oath or affirmation without any reservation or evasion, and believe it to be binding on me.” And an person declining to take such oath shall not be allowed to vote; but the taking of such oath shall not be deemed conclusive evidence of the right of such person to vote; and any person swearing or affirming falsely shall be liable to penalties of perjury, and it shall be the duty of the proper officers of registration to allow no person to be registered until he shall have taken the oath or affirmation above set out; and it shall be the duty of the Judges of Election, in all their returns of the first election held under this Constitution, to state in their said returns that every person who has voted has taken such oath or affirmation.

Page 504 Provision was also made for a vote of the soldiers on the new Constitution, and at the subsequent election for President and members of Congress in November. The new Constitution authorized a poll to be opened in each company of every Maryland regiment in the service, at the quarters of the commanding officer thereof; the commissioned officers of such company were authorized to act as Judges of Election, and any one of them was made competent to hold the election; if no officer was present, two of the voters could act as Judges of the Election; any votes of the State within ten miles of the poll were authorized to vote. The judges were required to take an oath, which each one could administer to the other, to perform the duties of judges according to law, prevent fraud, and observe and make proper returns.

When these sections were reported to the convention, some of the committee presented a minority report, of which the following extract contains their objections:

The undersigned dissent from the report submitted by the majority of the committee:

1st. Because they believe the authority given to soldiers in camp to vote at all elections will fail to have the effect proposed by those who advocate the measure. On the contrary, as the undersigned believe, it will enable the officers who command the soldiers to control the votes of those who feel and know the power of their officers, to make them unfair in various ways, the penalty of disobedience to their wishes. To a soldier on duty, the first great lesson taught is, “obedience to his commanding officer,” military necessity requiring a rigid exaction of this duty. It allows of no discussion or discretion. To fail in the smallest respect ensures harsh treatment, even in cases where martial law prescribes no specific penalty. It will not be doubted that the only safe approach to the favor of an officer is to gratify his wishes by voting his ticket.

2d. But whatever may be the propriety of takin the votes of soldiers or their officers, the undersigned cannot permit themselves to doubt of the concurrence of the Convention in their determined opposition to so much of the report of the majority as provides for the immediate operation of !". of the Constitution before its adoption by the people. Surely if any one º in regard to our proceedings was universally accepted, by all who voted, whether for or against a Convention, it was this, that its work was to be submitted to and accepted by the W.P. of the State before it should have any effect. ‘et the majority propose that now, at the very moment when the question of adoption is being taken, in the very act of taking that question, the people shall be bound and governed by it, so far as relates to some of its most important and vital changes of the existing system of Government. What a strange spectacle would be exhibited if the provisions now proposed should be enforced as part of the new Constitution, in direct opposition to the existing Constitution, and yet the result show that the people will not accept the new Constitution . . The present Constitution exists until the new one is adopted. How, then, can the provisions of the present Constitution be violated, or interfered with, until the new one has an existence, by the adoption of the people? The great purpose of the majority seems to be to deprive those who form the constituency of this Convention of the privilege secured to them by the present Constitution, of passing upon the work of this body; and to this end, |. newly-contrived oaths and by the aid of the military, to confirm their proceedings. For these, amongst other reasons, the undersigned protest against the report in the particulars mentioned.

In addition to the provision above mentioned in the 4th and 23d sections of the Declaration of Rights, the new Constitution provided for a uniform system of public schools and an elective judiciary. The right of confiscation in case of treason was also secured.

Those who were opposed to the new Constitution objected particularly to the oath as in conflict with the then existing Constitution of the State. Their rights and privileges, they asserted, were held under a Constitution adopted in 1851, and the laws made in pursuance thereof; but the new Constitution which attempted to regulate them, had not been adopted; it was a mere proposition to be accepted or rejected; it was without vitality or energy. Under those views several applications were made to Governor Bradford to instruct the judges of election to disregard the requirement of an oath, and to disregard it himself by announcing that he would not count the votes of any county where such an oath was administered to the voters. In reply to these appeals the Governor declined to act, on the ground that the decision of the question of the constitutionality did not belong to him; it was purely a judicial question, properly belonging to the Judiciary Department.

An active canvass for votes ensued. Public meetings were held in various parts of the State by the friends of the new Constitution. At one of these meetings held at Baltimore in the evening of October 10th, the following letter from President Lincoln was read:

Executive Mansion, Washington, October 10, 1864.

Hon. Henry W. Hoffman:

MY DEAR SIR: A. Convention of Maryland has framed a new Constitution for the State; a public meeting is called for this evening at Baltimore to aid in securing its ratification by the people; and you ask a word from me for the occasion. I presume the only feature of the instrument, about which there is serious controversy, is that which provides for the extinction of slavery. It needs not to be a secret, and I presume it is no secret, that I wish success to this provision. I desire it on every consideration. I wish all men to be free. I wish the material prosperity of the already free, which I feel sure the extinction of slavery would bring. I wish to see in process of disappearing that only thing which ever could bring this nation to civil war. I attempt no argument. , Argument upon the question is already exhausted by the abler, better informed, and more immediately interested sons of Maryland herself. I only add that I shall be gratified exceedingly if the good people of the State shall, by their votes, ratify the new Constitution.

Yours truly,                                                       A. LINCOLN.

Of the entire vote cast on October 12th and 13th 30,174 were for the Constitution, and 29,799 against it—majority 375. There were also 94 ballots cast by persons who refused to take the oath which were therefore rejected.

The new Constitution required the Governor on its adoption to issue his proclamation stating the fact. The Governor, in a letter to the public, on October 28th, says:

A request was made of me recently by a committee

Page 505 of gentlemen, representing, as I understood, those opposed to the adoption of the new Constitution, that before issuing any proclamation, as required by its terms, I would allow counsel to inspect the returns of the soldiers' vote provided for by that instrument, and submit to me such objections thereto as they thought could be made. Although the proposition was a novel one, and I believe no other instance exists in which election returns, filed as they are, annually or biennially in this department, have ever been subjected to a legal scrutiny as a º to executive action, I did not feel at liberty to refuse the request, and at once agreed that counsel should have full access to these returns, stipulating only that, as according to the view. I took of the case, there were no facts about which I could inquire except such as were suggested on the face of the returns, that all objections or discussion should be limited accordingly, and that the friends of the Constitution should be advised of the proceeding and allowed the opportunity of answering these objections, as well as making any other to the home vote that might occur to them.

The past two or three days have been devoted to this examination, and a great number of exceptions have been taken to these returns, and a: with the ability that distinguishes the learned counsel who conducted the examination. He had been already apprised that my previous examination of that subject had brought my mind to the conclusion, several times expressed, that so far as my action was concerned, I was bound by the provisions of the Constitution which the Convention had adopted; and whilst we differed widely as to its authority, he very courteously waived i. discussion upon that subject, and confined his argument to exceptions taken to the sufficiency of correctness of the military returns, and those I now propose to consider.

He then proceeds to state the objections to the soldiers' vote, and to reply at much length, and concludes, that “the entire vote authorized by the Constitution having been thus accurately ascertained, it becomes my duty, in obedience to its mandate, to proclaim the result and its adoption.”

A case was also brought before the Court of Appeals to obtain an exposition of the rule of law which ought to guide the discretion of the Governor in his ascertainment of the result of the election had for the adoption or rejection of the new Constitution. Justice Bowie announced the conclusions arrived at by the Court, as follows:

The relator's prayer substantially is, that the Governor of Maryland show cause “why a writ of mandamus ought not to be issued, commanding him, in ascertaining the number of votes cast at the said late election held as aforesaid,” to count certain votes which were tendered and rejected, and to exclude certain votes which shall appear to have been cast at any other place than the election precinct at which the person voting was qualified to vote.

From this brief analysis it appears the proceeding is one of the most momentous consequence, an should be treated with the greatest deliberation. Our first duty is to inquire whether it is a proper subject for judicial interpretation and interposition.

By our organic law, the powers of government are distributed into legislative, executive, and judicial. We are admonished by the Declaration of Rights that these powers “ought to be forever separate and distinct from each . and no person exercising the functions of one of said departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other.”

The second article of the Constitution is, “the executive power of the State shall be vested in a Governor.” “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The sixth section of the Convention law required the Constitution and form of government adopted by the Convention to be submitted to the legal and qualified voters of the State for their adoption or rejection, at such time, in such manner, and subject to such rules and regulations as said Convention may prescribe; and the provisions therein before contained, for the qualification of voters and the holding of elections, provided in the previous sections of this act, were made applicable to the election to be held under that section.

The eighth section further enacts that when the Governor shall receive the returns of the number of ballots cast in this State for the adoption or rejection of the Constitution submitted by the Convention to the people, if, upon counting and casting up the returns as made to him, as hereinbefore prescribed, it shall appear that a majority of the legal votes cast at said election are in favor of the adoption of the said Constitution, he shall issue his proclamation to the people of the State, declaring the fact, and he shall take such steps as shall be required by the said Constitution to carry the same into full operation and to supersede the old Constitution of this State.

Is the power and authority conferred on the Governor by this act a political or judicial power?

A late eminent jurist, whose recent death has been lamented as a national calamity, in the case of Luther vs. Borders, et al. (7 Howard, 39), expressed himself thus strongly: “Certainly the question which the plaintiff proposed to raise by the testimony he offered as not heretofore been ºf. as a judicial one in any of the State courts. In forming the constitutions of the different States, after the Declaration of Independence, and in the various changes and alterations which have since been made, the political department has always determined whether the pro|. Constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision.”

Courts of law will not interfere with the exercise of high discretionary powers vested in the Chief Magistrate of the State, for obvious political reasons. Among others, “because, as Governor of the State, deriving his powers from the Constitution thereof, he has been made a coordinate, separate, distinct, and independent department of the Government.”

In the case of Low vs. Towns, Governor of Georgia, the Supreme Court of that State said: “The ultimate effect of this remedy (mandamus), in case of refusal by the Governor to obey the laws of the land, would be to deprive the people of the State of the head of one of the departments of the Government.” (8 Geo., 372.)

Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Marbury & Madison (1 Cranch), says that “the President is invested with certain important political powers in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.”

The Chief Magistrate or Governor of the State bears the same relation to the State that the President does to the United States, and in the discharge of his political duties is entitled to the same immunities, privileges, and exemptions—vide Hawkins vs. the Governor, (1 Ark. Rep., 586.)

Independently of all political considerations, if the question was a purely judicial one, this Court could not, consistently with decisions in other States and in our own, grant the prayer of the relator.

The general principle laid down in all these, almost without exception, is, that where the act to be done requires the exercise of judgment and discretion in the officer against whom the mandamus is prayed, it will be refused. (Wide cases collected 12 Md., Purnell vs. Green, 336; 17 Howard, 230.) The result of these decisions is, that the duty and power to decide the questions which we are asked to determine are Page 506 devolved upon the officer, or Governor, without appeal, over whom, in that respect, the judiciary have no control or revisory power.

We have thus succinctly announced the general principles which lead us to the adoption of the conclusion that the order of the Superior Court in this case should be affirmed.

The Court has been invoked to enter into the constitutional powers of the Convention and express opinions upon the validity of their acts, even if they should hold that the right to issue a mandamus did not exist; and they have been referred to the eminent examples of the Supreme Court, through their Chief Justices, in some cases where they declared the law, although they could not enforce it. Without dwelling on the immense moral, political, and legal influence of that tribunal, to which we cannot pretend, we respectfully suggest there is no parallel }. the cases. Those cases in which the Supreme Court adopted that course, with one notable exception, were not cases in which society was shaken to its foundations by civil discord and parties arrayed against each other with intense bitterness. If we cannot subdue the strife, we will not add fuel to the flame. All that we can do is to show such reverence for constitutional government, by confining ourselves to the strict limits of our authority, as may induce others, who love “liberty regulated by law,” to cherish all its muniments and observe all their obligations.

Justice Bartol delivered the following separate opinion:

I assent to that part of the opinion of a majority of the Court which denies the mandamus asked for, on the ground that the duties devolved upon the Governor, by the act of 1864, chapter 5, in ascertaining and announcing the legal votes upon the adoption or rejection of the proposed new Constitution, are not purely ministerial in their character, but that they require the exercise of judgement and discretion on his part, necessarily devolving upon him the duty of passing upon and deciding the various questions argued before us, and upon which we have been called upon to pass. In such case the law is well established that a writ of mandamus will not be granted. Green vs. Purnell, 12th Maryland, 329, and the cases there referred to and many other cases might be cited. I do not agree, however, with my brothers in thinking the power devolved upon the Governor, now under consideration, is in any sense a political executive power belonging to him virtute officii, and not a proper subject for judicial investigation. That subject, however, having been submitted by law to the decision of the Governor, I forbear the expression of any opinion upon it.

                                                               GEORGE EARLE,

                                    Clerk Court of Appeals of Maryland.

The vote of the State at the Presidential election was as follows: Lincoln, 40,153; McClellan, 32,739. Majority for Lincoln, 7,414.

At the same time, an election was held for State officers and members of the Legislature. The candidates for Governor were Thomas Swann, Republican, and Chambers, Democrat. The majority by which Mr. Swann was elected, was about the same as that of President Lincoln. Of the five members of Congress elected, three were Republicans and two Democrats. The Legislature was divided as follows: Senate—Republicans, 11; Democrats, 13. House—Republicans, 52; Democrats, 28. Republicans majority on joint ballot, 22. The receipts of the State Treasury during the fiscal year ending September 30th, 1864, were from the ordinary sources of revenue, including the direct tax, $1,519,918. The disbursements on ordinary account were $1,110,281, leaving a balance of $406,636. The receipts of the Treasury on a bounty loan were $721,384. The disbursements as bounties to volunteers were $1,281,668. The bounties paid to volunteers were $150 to each man, together with five monthly instalments of $20 each. To slave recruits $100 was paid, and to the owner, $100. The number of volunteers, white and free colored, during the year, was 5,890. Eight or nine regiments of slave blacks were recruited in the State. They comprised a large portion of the able-bodied slaves in the State. The following order of Major-General Wallace was designed to aid the slaves in securing the freedom to which they were entitled by the adoption of the new Constitution:

H'QRS MIDDLE DEPARTMENT, EIGHTH ARMY CORPS, BALTIMORE, M.D., November 9, 1864. 

General Orders No. 112.

Official information having been furnished making it clear that evil-disposed persons in certain counties in the State of Maryland, within the limits of the Middle Department, intend obstructing the operation and nullifying, as far as they can, the emancipation provision of the New Constitution; and that for this purpose they are availing themselves of certain laws, portions of the ancient slave code of Maryland, as yet unrepealed, to initiate, as respects the persons heretofore slaves, a system of forced apprenticeship; for this and for other reasons, among them that if they have any legal rights under existing laws, the persons spoken of are in ignorance of them; that in certain counties the law officers are so unfriendly to the newly-made freedmen, and so hostile to the benignant measures that made them such, as to render appeals to the courts worse than folly, even if the victims had the money with which to hire lawyers; and that the necessities of the case make it essential, in order to carry out truly and effectively for the grand purpose of the people of the State of Maryland—emancipation of every slave, man, woman, and child, within her limits, from and after the 1st day of November of this present year—that there should be remedies extraordinary for all their grievances— remedies instantaneous, without money or reward, and somebody to have care for them, to protect them, to show them the way to the freedom of which they have yet but vague and undefined ideas: It is therefore ordered :

1. That all persons within the limits of the Middle Department heretofore slaves, but now free, by operation of the New Constitution, shall be considered under special military protection, until the Legislature of Maryland may, by its enactments, make such military protection unnecessary.

2. A Freedman's Bureau for said department is hereby created, office in Baltimore, Major Wm. M. Este, A. D. C., in charge.

3. Major Este is intrusted with execution of this order, and to make it effective he is authorized to institute investigations, to send for persons and pa pers, and make necessary arrests.

4. Provost Marshals in their several districts, particularly those on the Eastern and Western Shores, are requested and directed to hear all complaints made to them by persons within the meaning of this order, to collect and forward information and proofs of wrongs done to such persons, and, generally, to render to Major Este such assistance as he may re quire in the performance of his duty.

5. As it will be impossible to carry out this order without having a place in which the sick, helpless, and needy can be temporarily rested and provided Page 507 for, Major Este is directed to take possession of the building known formerly as the Maryland Club House, but now named “Freedman's Rest,” to select some excellent lady to take charge of the same as matron, and to suitably prepare and furnish as many rooms as may be required for the purpose F." And that this may be speedily accomplished, donations are respectfully solicited from all ºntº. and Christian persons, wherever present. All fines hereafter assessed and collected by the Provost Marshal of the department will be appropriated to the support of the Freedman's Rest. To supply immediate wants, Major Este is directed to draw on Colonel Woolley.

6. Lest the moneys derived from donations and from fines collected should prove insufficient to support the institution in a manner corresponding to its importance, Major Este will proceed to make a list of all the avowed rebel sympathizers resident in the city of Baltimore, with a view to levying such contributions upon them in aid of the Freedman's Rest as may be from time to time required.

7. Major Este will enter upon the execution of this order without delay.

By command of                        Major-General WALLACE.

Oliver MATTHEWS, Assistant Adj't-General

The following estimate of the amount in value of the destruction by the enemy on their invasion of Maryland in 1864, was carefully prepared upon information gathered from responsible persons:

[…]

The new Constitution provides for the adoption of a uniform system of public schools, and the levying a tax of ten cents on the hundred dollars for their support, and five cents on the same amount to provide a permanent fund. The charitable institutions of the State were in a favorable condition.

MASSACHUSETTS. The Legislature of Massachusetts convened at Boston on January 6, 1864, and was organized by the Republican party, which had a large majority in each house. John A. Andrew was inaugurated Governor for the fourth time, and on the 8th delivered his annual address. Among other suggestions he recommended that the various acts providing for bounties, and also those in aid of the families of volunteers, be extended to meet the cases of persons enlisting as soldiers in the regular army, and credited to the Commonwealth, in the same manner as the State volunteers; also, a modification of the laws relating to the State relief to the families of soldiers, so as to include all such families irrespective of their residence, and to authorize relief to be given retroactively when the situation of the family may require it. He urged the establishment of a military academy under the supervision of the Commonwealth, and argued at length in favor of recruiting the wasted regiments in the field from the population of the rebellious States. Previous to the adjournment of the Legislature in May, a series of resolutions on national affairs, reported by the Committee on Federal Relations, was adopted by a large vote. They favored the prosecution of the war and pledged the resources of the State in its support; recommended an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, and declared that the President had discharged the duties of his office with fidelity, sagacity, and courage, and that his administration deserved the confidence of the people.

The receipts into the State treasury for the year ending January 1, 1864, were $7,229,823, and the disbursements in the same period $6,728,597, showing a surplus of $501,226 The liabilities and resources of the Commonwealth, on January 1, 1865, were as follows:

Liabilities.

Scrip loaned railroad corporations.......................

Scrip issued in '61, '62, '68, and '64, on account of war ex $6,574,485 56 expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 6,188,500 00

Scrip issued for all other purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,610,000 00

Unfunded debt, including monthly pay due volunteers. 8,521,037 00 — $22,893,972 56

Resources.

Productive property, consisting of sinking funds, &c., (and exclusive of school and other trust funds, $2,181,326).................. $14,669,293 97 Unproductive property........ 8,187,917 33 $17,857,211 80

Excess of liabilities over resources, $5,036,761.26. The ordinary revenue and ordinary disbursements during the year 1864, for other purposes than those provided for by loan, were: Revenue.

From all sources, including the corporation tax not yet distributed, and exclusive of loans ..................................... $5,840,317 61 Disbursements.

For other purposes than those provided for 5,102,257 95 Leaving cash on hand.......... $738,059 66

The public debt on January 1, 1861, was $8,103,039, and the increase during the four succeeding years, amounting to $14,372,935, of which the greater part is held by citizens of the Commonwealth, was caused by expenses and obligations arising out of the war.

The Legislature of 1864 authorized the creation of a “Bounty Fund,” by the issue of ten million dollars of scrip, at interest not exceeding five per cent. per annum payable in gold, “to be sold or disposed of at public auction, or in such other mode, and at such times, and in such pieces and amounts as the Governor and Council shall deem for the best interests of the Commonwealth.” Owing to the violent fluctuations Page 508 of gold during the summer of 1864, and the high premiums which it commanded, the treasurer found it impossible to dispose of the scrip to advantage, and in accordance with an act passed in 1863, negotiated call loans to the amount immediately needed. The interest on these loans was by law limited to five per cent, but money being worth more, loans were advertised for at six per cent., in the expectation that the additional interest would be legalized by the Legislature of 1865. By the report of the paymasters appointed under an act of the Legislature of 1863, to disburse the state bounties to volunteers, it appears that up to November 30, 1864, the disbursements amounted to $8,235,882.53, and were paid to 28,775 volunteers enlisted in the army, and to 745 enlisted in the navy. Bounties amounting to $417,700 were also paid to 1,295 men recruited in the rebel States, and there was an unpaid balance, upon the rolls in the hands of the paymasters, of $217,824.60. Besides the above there were 3,560 one year volunteers recruited in 1864, who elected to take $20 per month additional pay in lieu of advance bounty, as provided by an act passed at a special session of the Legislature in 1863. The whole number of volunteers who received the monthly pay of $20 was 13,043, and the sum disbursed to them amounted to $996,360.03. At the close of 1864 there remained in the State treasury to the credit of Massachusetts soldiers, $436,130.37.

The number of men which, according to the computation of the War Department, Massachusetts was called upon to furnish to the military service, from the commencement of the rebellion until the call of December 19, 1864, was 117,624. The number actually furnished by her up to December 22, 1864 (reckoning the nine months' men at one-fourth of their actual number, and reducing the number enlisted into the navy to the same term of three years), was 125,487, making a surplus over all calls, previous to the last, of 7,813 men. During 1864 the Commonwealth contributed to the army alone nine new regiments, one battalion, three batteries, and eight companies, amounting to 10,900 men, besides recruits, reënlisted men, veteran reserves, men enlisted in the regular army, conscripts and substitutes, amounting, according to the estimate of the State authorities, to 34,546 more, or 45,446 in all. In addition, she furnished in the course of the year 1,209 men for ninety days, and 5,461 for one hundred days' military service, who have not been credited to the quota of the State by the General Government. The number of men, reckoned as individuals, furnished by the Commonwealth for military or naval service, whether for terms of years, months, or days, amounted at the close of 1864 to 153,486. Up to December 22, 1864, the whole number of colored troops credited to Massachusetts was 4,731. Complaints having been made that the requisitions upon the people of the Commonwealth had been largely met by importing recruits from abroad, it was shown that the whole . number thus obtained was only 907, divided among four regiments. The proportional contribution of Massachusetts to the war is shown by a comparison of the number of men actually furnished by her, with the number enrolled in the militia of the State for the year 1864, which is as follows:

Number between ages of 18 and 45, enrolled by Assessor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151,923

Number between ages of 18 and 45, returned by Assessors as liable to duty.......................... 185,767

Number between ages of 18 and 24, returned by Assessor’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 273

From which it appears that, without allowing for the number of reënlistments, which it is impossible exactly to reckon, Massachusetts has sent more men into the service than are now to be found in the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and 20,000 more than are now in the State liable to perform military duty. The absorption of men by the military and naval service has caused a very considerable increase in the number of women in the Commonwealth, who are now estimated to exceed the men by 100,000. Owing to the excess of enlistments over previous calls, the quota of the State under the call of December 19, 1864, was reduced to 805 men, who were directed to be raised in the eighth and ninth Congressional districts. In response to an application to the Secretary of War, United States general hospitals have been established at Worcester and Readville, with ample accommodations for sick and wounded soldiers.

In accordance with the Act of Congress of July, 1864, Governor Andrew and Hon. John H. Clifford were appointed a commission to ascertain what credits the State and its several subdivisions were entitled to for recruits entering the naval service. In September they furnished a report, of which the following presents a tabular recapitulation:

Requested to years. three years.

 NAVAL Credits—NUMBER OF MEN. year. years.

Assigned to cities and towns ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,119 1,858 6,742 9,020;

To State at large......... 4,118 881 5,647 7,69;

Total............. 7,232 2,789 12,889 | 16,623

Total number of men...................... 22,150

A proposition to amend the Constitution so as to enable citizens of the State absent in the military service to vote, was adopted by the Legislature of 1864. If readopted by the Legislature of 1865, it goes to the people for ratification.

The returns from the various cities and towns, as compiled by the secretary of the Commonwealth, show a decrease of $18,915,420 in the total amount of personal property as compared with the valuation of 1863. This is accounted for by the fact, that by an act of 1864 the assessors are required to return the value of all corporate stocks to the treasurer of the Commonwealth, and that these stocks Page 509 are exempted from municipal assessment. The total valuation of the Commonwealth was, nevertheless, larger by $4,732,120 than in 1863. The rate of taxation varied during the year from 32 cents to $3.45 per $100 in different arts of the State. The following table exhibits the number of polls and valuation of real and personal property in the several counties:

[…]

The number of banks of discount in Massachusetts, organized under its laws, was, on January 1st, 1864, 181, having a capital of $66,991,200. Of these, 52, with a capital of $25,801,700, became national banking associations during the year, and 47 have signified their intention to become such, leaving 82, with an aggregate capital of $26,274,500, which have taken no steps toward changing. The number of new national banks in the State was 25, with an aggregate capital of about $4,000,000. The amount raised by voluntary taxation for the support of the public schools (including only wages of teachers, fuel, etc.) for the school year 1863–74 was $1,536,314.31, being an increase over the previous year of $102,299.11. The aggregate return of expenditures on public schools alone (exclusive of the cost of repairing and erecting school-houses, and of school-books) was $1,679,700.24, being an increase of $112,750.76 over the previous year, and being an average sum of $6.95 cents for every person in the State between the ages of five and fifteen, of whom the number was 241,683. All the towns raised the sum required by law as a condition of receiving a share of the income of the State School Fund ($1.50 per child between the ages of five and fifteen), and more than 85 per cent. of them raised twice, or more than twice the amount. The total sum expended in the Commonwealth for popular education, exclusive of collegiate and professional schools, is estimated at more than three millions of dollars annually. More than one-fourth of the whole number of towns neglected to keep their schools open the full term required by the law. The four normal schools were reported in a flourishing condition and unusually full, notwithstanding a large proportion of the pupils of those at Bridgewater and Westfield have at various periods during the war enlisted as volunteers. The number of persons connected with the colleges of the Commonwealth, either as alumni or students, who have entered the military service since the commencement of the rebellion, is very considerable. Harvard University has sent upward of 500, nineteen per cent. of the whole number living; Amherst College 146; and Williams College not less than 200. […].

During the year 1864 no new project was suggested or put into execution for adding to the coast defences of the Commonwealth; but the earthworks planned by the General Government to protect the harbors of Newburyport, Salem, Marblehead, Gloucester, Plymouth, and Provincetown, were completed, armed, and garrisoned; while steady progress was made on the permanent works at Boston and New Bedford. The Boston forts were supplied with some ordnance of very heavy calibre, adding greatly to the strength of the harbor defences. Of the million dollars appropriated by the Legislature of 1863 for coast defences, the sum of $354,346.11 was expended in 1864, chiefly in the purchase of heavy ordnance at home and abroad. Seventy-three guns, besides a large supply of powder and projectiles, were procured, and plans for harbor obstructions, with calculations and specifications, were deposited in the State Ordnance Bureau.

In October, 1863, work was resumed, under the auspices of the Commonwealth, upon the railway tunnel through the Hoosac Mountain, and the expenditure up to November 15th, 1864, Page 510 amounted to $486,943.26. The estimated payments for November and December, 1864, were $50,000 per month, and for 1865 from $25,000 to $35,000 per month. The construction of the road lying east of the mountain, and of which the terminus is Greenfield, in Franklin County, has not yet been resumed.

In September the political canvass commenced with the meeting of the State Conventions of the Republicans and Democrats, and thenceforth was conducted with energy, and generally in a conciliatory spirit. The Republicans met at Worcester on the 16th, and unanimously nominated Governor Andrew for reelection. Their resolutions declared the duty of maintaining the integrity of the Union; of exterminating slavery, and upholding the acts and proclamations of the Government in that behalf; of refusing to entertain any proposition of compromise with rebels in arms, or which should not be based on their unconditional surrender to the National Government; and of sustaining the Baltimore platform and the Baltimore nominations. The Democrats met in the same place on September 21st, and nominated Henry W. Paine for Governor. Their resolutions indorsed the nomination of General McClellan, and commended the action of the Chicago Convention. The following embody their main views:

Resolved, That the patriotic principles declared by the National Convention, as nobly, and eloquently expressed by its candidate for the Presidency in his recent letter of acceptance, embody a line of public policy ''." which alone, the American people can restore the Union, reëstablish Constitutional Liberty, give security to Individual Rights, and secure the return of permanent and honorable peace. That the Democratic party of this State is, as it always has been, unalterably opposed to the rebellion, and that we recognize in the victories of the national army and navy, and in the manifest popular determination to change the present administration, and return to the policy to which the Executive, Congress, and the People were solemnly pledged in the Crittenden resolution, cooperative movements toward Peace and Union.

Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war is fatal to the Union and Constitution; and, therefore, it is the highest duty of the people to preserve their Government and maintain its integrity in the present contest, by all legal means in their power.

The State and Presidential elections took place on November 1st, and resulted in favor of the republicans. The following is the vote for Presidential electors: Republicans, 126,742; Democrats, 48,745. Republican majority, 77,997.

The electors cast the vote of the Commonwealth for Abraham Lincoln for President, and Andrew Johnson for Vice-President.

The gubernatorial vote was: John A. Andrew, Republican, 125,281; Henry W. Paine, Democrat, 49,190.-Majority for Andrew, 76,091.

The Legislature elected at the same time stood as follows:

Senate. House, Joint Ballot.

Republicans              40      234    274

Democrats. .............. 0       6        6

Republican majority. 40   228   268

MICHIGAN. The finances of the State of Michigan appear to be in quite a favorable condition. The debt of the State on November 30, 1864, was $3,541,149, as follows:

[..]

During the last fiscal year the sum of $221,793 was added to the sinking fund of the State. The principle on which its financial affairs are conducted is, to raise by taxes from year to year the funds required to meet the ordinary and incidental expenses, leaving the sinking fund to clear off the State debt.

The receipts into the treasury during the last Page 531 fiscal year were $2,444,242, and the expenditures $2,004,194, leaving a balance of $440,047. The population of the State, by a census taken in 1864, was 803,745, being a gain of 54,632 since 1860. The exhaustion of the war is shown in the fact, that in 1860 the excess of males over females in the State was 50,275, but in 1864 this excess had declined to 21,132. The area of the State is more than 50,000 square miles, and 10,000 square miles greater than either New York or Pennsylvania, and more than 16,000 square miles larger than Ohio, and nearly as large as all New England. Surrounded on almost all sides by inland seas, her shores are washed by more than 1,400 miles of navigable waters.

The fisheries of the State, by the census of 1860, were returned at the value of $250,467, which is exceeded only by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island. The returns of the census are probably too low; citizens estimate them for the present year at a million dollars.

The fish thus taken is known as white-fish. The white-fish, like the salmon and other fall spawning fishes, is short lived and a rapid grower. The spawn is laid in October and November; the hatching takes place in April, May, or June, according to the locality and to the warmth of water. During the first year the young ones attain to minnows of two or three ounces, so small that no net will stop them. Soon after hatching, or as soon as they have attained to the proper fish shape so as to navigate freely, they retire into deep, clear, cold water. This generally takes place from May to June. About this time, or a little later, the young fish of last year's hatching, some thirteen or fourteen months old, show themselves in vast numbers, gradually making their way from the deeper parts of the lake toward the grounds where they were hatched, for the purpose of depositing their spawn and producing their successors. During this period, between June and September, when they return to the place of nativity, they grow most rapidly, having grown from little ones of a few ounces to full sized fishes, of four, five, and in some localities in Lake Superior, to eight or nine pounds, in the space of less than three months. The very large fish known as the Mackinac or Lake Superior white-fish, is not so much larger than those of other localities, by reason of age, but from being of a different species, of a large breed, so to speak. They are no older than the others, and none are over sixteen or seventeen months old at maturity. It has been observed by all fishermen, that the white-fish in different localities differ from each other in many marked peculiarities, not only in size, but in shape and their general appearance, as much so as different breeds of hogs, cattle, º or horses, in different parts of the country. But the families or tribes keep themselves distinct from each other, never mixing or “crossing the breed,” and the same features will be observed on the same grounds from year to year, all resembling each other, but differing from those of other places, being either larger or smaller, or having other peculiarities; and uniformly so; but all in the same locality are of remarkably uniform size, that is those of the same sex, the females in all cases being the larger. Hence, the large fish are found always in the same place in Lake Superior, and the smaller ones always in the same places in Lakes Michigan and Huron, and the still smaller ones in Detroit River and Lake Erie.

Experiments by marking young fishes prove that this class, the fall spawning, as the whitefish, salmon, etc., always return at maturity to their old spawning grounds, lay their spawn, and retire. And it is believed, and pretty well settled, that the white-fish only breeds once, that is in the fall of the second year; and that during the summer of the third year, just about the time the last year's brood are making their rapid growth to maturity, the old ones retire into deep water to die, never again making their appearance. All the practical experience of fishermen, and what scientific observations have been taken, show that the apprehensions of exhausting white-fish in these waters by any mode of fishing now in use, are groundless. All scientific men agree in the conclusions already stated as to the fact that the white-fish spawns in the fall, suddenly attains its largest size within about three months, and lives only into the third year. The unanimous testimony of the most experienced fishermen also proves that the main enemy of the white-fish is the sturgeon, who lies upon the spawning grounds and devours millions upon millions of spawn, and that fishing with pound nets invariably reduces the number of sturgeon, while the whitefish invariably increase in number on the same grounds, no matter how large the catch may be from year to year.

The copper mines of Michigan on Lake Superior are well known. The annual yield now exceeds 10,000 tons. The yield of iron ore in 1855 was 1,447 tons, but in 1864 it had reached 248,000 tons, besides 25,000 tons supplied to the furnaces in the iron region at Marquette.

Numerous springs of saline waters abound in the Saginaw Valley as well as in other sections of the State. The salt produced in that valley in 1864 was 488,189 barrels, valued at the shipping point at $2.25 per barrel, or $1,098,425.

There are extensive fields of coal in the State, much of which is of good quality, and all of it valuable for manufacturing and other purposes. §. quantities of lumber are also made in the state.

At Lakeport large investments have been made and explorations commenced for petroleum, with a favorable prospect of profitable results. The increase in the wheat crop of 1863 over that of 1859 was 1,374,442 bushels, while there was nearly as great a falling off in the corn crop. The crop of wool increased from Page 532 4,062,858 pounds in 1860, to 7,249,934 pounds in 1864.

The whole number of troops raised and organized in the State to the end of 1864 was a little in excess of 80,000 men. At that time the State had in the Federal service thirty regiments of infantry, eleven regiments of cavalry, one regiment of light artillery, one regiment of mechanics and engineers, also two independent batteries, and fifteen companies for various arms of service.

A correspondence took place relative to the quota of the State between its military officers and the Provost Marshal General, which is important as showing the principles upon which quotas were estimated:

MILITARY DEPARTMENT, MICHIGAN, ADJ.-GEN.'s Office, DETROIT, February 6, 1865.

Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War :

SIR: I am directed by His Excellency, the Governor of Michigan, to present to your consideration the following statement:

Under the call of the President of December 19, 1864, 300,000 men are required to supply the deficiency under the call of July 18, 1864, and to provide for casualties.

The entire quota of Michigan, under the call of July 18, 1804, as originally assigned by the Provost Marshal General, was 18,282, which, after the enrolment had been amended, was reduced to 15,760.

Up to and including the 31st of December, 1864, there had been enlisted in this State, and credited by the Acting Assisting Provost Marshal General, since the call of July, the following number of men:

For one year     6,016

For two years    50

For three years 10,121

Making a total of men absolutely enlisted and credited of 16,187.

This statement shows that instead of there being a deficiency in this State under the call of July 18th, to be provided for under the additional call now pending there was on the 31st December an actual surplus standing to the credit of the State of 427, counting each man, without regard to the term of his enlistment, as a unit.

In the calculations, based upon periods of service, made at the office of the Provost Marshal General, and which entirely accord with those made by the Acting Assistant Provost Marshal General of this State, the proportion of men enlisted for three years entitled the State to a surplus credit on the call of July of 20,719, one year men, to be credited to the present call.

On the 31st of December this department was officially notified that the quotas of the several Congressional Districts of Michigan, under the call of December 19th, 1864, after deducting credits, were as follows:

First District ..... 449

Second District  1,404

Third District ..  1,794

Fourth District .... 459

Fifth District........None

Sixth District... . 1,716

Total..... . . . . . . .5,822

On the 4th of February, however, a further notification was received from the Acting Assistant Provost Marshal General of the State, which placed the entire quota of the State of Michigan, under the call of December, at 30,745 men, or 30,745 years of service, which, after deducting the credits to which they were entitled, placed the quota of the several Congressional Districts as follows:

First District.      1,724

Second District  1,801

Third District . . 1,918

Fourth District   1,263

Fifth District..    1,329

Sixth District. ....1,956

Total, after deducting credits......... 10,026

A quota for Michigan of over 30,000 on a total cost of 300,000, being more than one-tenth of the whole, it is apparent at a glance involves an enormous error in calculation.

The unquestioned fact that there was a surplus in Michigan under the call of July, entirely excludes the State from any computations based upon deficiencies under that call, and limits its liability subject to the modifications produced by allowing the credits promised for long terms of service to the requirements of the demand for 300,000 men. It is submitted that justice requires that a new and largely reduced quota shall be assigned to this State. I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

JOHN ROBERTSON,

Adjt.-General, Michigan.

The reply of the Provost Marshal was as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT, Prov.-MAR-GEN.'s BUREAU,

WAHINGTON, D.C., February 14, 1865.

General John Robertson, Adjutant General State of Michigan, Detroit, Mich. :

GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter to the Honorable, the Secretary of War, dated the 6th inst., and in reply thereto, beg leave to say: The quota of the State of Michigan is her equitable proportion of the 300,000 men called for by the President on the 19th day of December, taking into account her enrolment as it stood on the 81st day of December, the amount of men heretofore a furnished and the periods of their enlistment.

A portion of the call of July 18th for 500,000 men was filled by credits allowed to the different States and districts, for men previously furnished, and not heretofore credited, º thus less than 500,000 were put in service under the July call, and hence, it is that the December call is said to be a call to make up deficiencies. But as that call was filled, either by men or lawful credits, there is no actual deficiency in the accounts of any State or district, and the December call of 300,000 has been apportioned to all the districts, in proportion to their enrolment, and in the amount of service heretofore furnished.

In the assignment of the present quotas the State of Michigan has received credit for 20,719 years of service, which she had as excess, under the July call. But as that call is for 300,000 men, in addition to all men heretofore furnished, that excess is not deducted from the quota, except to the extent that it exceeds the average amount of excess furnished by the other States. If all the States had furnished the same amount of excess (in proportion to their enrolment, then the quotas of all the States would have been in exact proportion to their respective enrolments; but if none of the States had been in excess, then the quota of the State of Michigan would have been to that extent diminished.

But as all the States have more or less excess, and as the call was to obtain additional men, the excess was added to the call, and distributed to the States according to their enrolment, and then the specific amount of excess which each State had was deducted from its quota.

The quotas assigned in December, were made up from incomplete data, and have been revised and corrected, which accounts for the difference alluded to in your communication.

A commission has been appointed by the President to examine and report upon the correctness of the quotas of all the States and districts, and the principles Page 533 upon which they are assigned, and the amount 3f credits allowed to each.

Until I have been advised by the report of the committee, that error has intervened in the assignment of the quotas of the State of Michigan, I am at loss to discover that any injustice has been done to the State.

I have the honor to be, sir, ver respectfully. your obedient servant,

                           (Signed) JAMES B. FRY,

                               Provost Marshal General.

The whole subject relative to Michigan and other States was referred by the President to a committee to investigate General Fry's mode of equalizing credits and assigning quotas, who reported as follows:

The call for three hundred thousand men, made by the President on the 19th of December, 1864, requires that that number shall be raised. But the law re. quires that the number of men previously furnished by different localities, and the periods of their service, shall be considered, so as to equalize the draft. The number of men liable to military duty is to be determined by the enrolment lists. The number of men which had been furnished by the various localities and their periods of service were ascertained, and previous accounts having been adjusted, the excesses, where they existed, were carried forward under the last draft. The amount of service furnished is determined by multiplying the number of men raised by the number of years for which they enlisted. Having thus ascertained the number of men enrolled on the 31st of December, 1864, the number of men furnished up to that date, the localities from which they came, and the periods of their service, it is proposed to distribute the call for three hundred thousand men among the several districts, and parts of districts, according to the number enrolled in each, and the number of men furnished, and the periods of service previously rendered by each. The rule by which this is accomplished is as follows:

Take the whole number of years of service furnished by the districts of the United States from the commencement of the rebellion to the 31st of December, 1864; from that sum deduct the whole number of men furnished from all the districts of the United States up to that date. The remainder will be the excess of years of service furnished by all the districts. Multiply the call of December 19, 1864, by three, to have the number of years of service upon that call, and to this add the excess as ascertained above. Then, as the number of men enrolled from the whole United States up to the 31st of December, 1864, is to the period of service as above ascertained, so is the number of men enrolled in a given district to the number of years of service it is required to furnish, including its pro rata share of the excess. From this sum deduct the actual excess the district furnished ; the remainder is the number of years of service which the district is required to furnish under the call of December 19, 1864, which, divided by three, gives the number of men required from the district.

As this call is for 300,000 men, that number cannot be reduced by men going in for a period longer than one year. Inequalities º by going under this call for longer periods than one year must be equalized on future calls. It will be perceived that though the aggregate of the excess furnished is added to the whole call, the excess of each district is afterward subtracted from its quota. Thus the number of men called for is neither increased nor diminished, but equally produced, considering the number of men, and the periods of their service. Localities which have heretofore furnished a greater amount of service have, in proportion to their enrolment, a less amount to furnish under this call, and conversely. Men having heretofore enlisted for one, two, and three years, it was necessary to take one of these periods as the basis of the calculation. As three years embraced both the other periods it makes the calculation more simple to adopt that. The same result would be arrived at by adopting either one or two years as the basis, but the process of calculation would be more complicated. Such we find to be the rule adopted by the Provost Marshal General. The rule is in conformity with the requirements of the laws of Congress, and is just and equitable. We have carefully examined and proved the work done under this rule by the Provost Marshal General, and find that it has been done with fairness. We file in the Provost Marshal General's office our calculation of the quota of each and every district indorsed by us as correct.

JAMES SPEED, Att.-General of the U. S.

R. DELAFIELD, Brigadier-General and C. Eng. U. S. A.

C. W. FOSTER, Colonel and Ass. Adjutant General.

Approved February 17, 1865.

(Signed) LINCOLN.

By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. Townsend, Ass. Adj't General.

Some difficulties occurred in Huron County, arising from an attempt to compel drafted men to report. They were not, however, of a very serious character. With regard to recruiting in States declared to be in rebellion, Governor Blair said in a proclamation:

For the purpose of filling this quota, only two resources, are available, viz.: 1st. Recruiting in the States declared to be in rebellion under the act of July 4th, except the States of Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana. 2d. Recruiting among our own people. The first of these, I believe, will be found of no substantial value to us. I shall not, therefore, appoint any such agents to be paid by the State, but will, under proper regulations, appoint such agents for the benefit of any counties, towns, or sub-districts which may request it, paying the expenses of the agencies for themselves.

On October 30th the city of Detroit was thrown into a great excitement by a report that a raid was to be made during the night by armed parties of the enemy from Canada. Soldiers were called out; artillery was brought from the barracks and posted in the streets; the steam fire-engines were brought forth to be in readiness to extinguish fires, and the depots and public buildings were guarded. No enemy, however, appeared.

The State election was held on the second Tuesday of November. The vote given for President was as follows: Lincoln, 85,352; McClellan, 67,370. Majority for Mr. Lincoln, 17,982. The candidates for Governor were Henry H. Carpo, Republican, and Wm. H. Fenton, Democrat. The vote was as follows: Carpo, 91,356; Fenton, 74,293.

An act was passed by the previous Legislature, authorizing the soldiers in the Federal service to vote. The Supreme Court of the State decided this act to be unconstitutional and therefore void.

MINNESOTA. This young State, situated on the extreme northwest of the other States, is rapidly increasing in population. The amount of public land entered by settlers during the year was 665,750 acres, being an increase of 202,454 acres over the previous year. The increase in logs scaled for lumber is 28,000,000 feet. The sales of school lands during the year were 41,510 acres for $287,675, and during the past three years 131,950 acres for $839,984, averaging nearly $6.50 per acre. A hundred miles of railroad within the State are in operation, and two hundred miles more are graded and ready for the rails. The balance in the State Treasury at the end of the year was $93,530. The number of troops contributed to the Federal service by the State at the close of the previous year was 13,201. Under the call for five hundred thousand men in July, 1864, the State contributed for one year, 2,682 men; for two years, 204; for three years, 61 men. The excess of credits to the State on August 1st, was 1,407 men.

A correspondence took place between Governor Miller and Provost Marshal General Fry, relative to the quota of the State under the call for troops made in December, 1864. The latter stated that the call of December was intended to supply deficiencies in the call of July arising from credits allowed under that call, and said:

The rule in applying credits is, that they should be deducted from the quota of the call that produced them. All men raised since the call of July 18, 1864, are credited upon the quota under that call; if the quota is more than filled, it is carried as an excess to the credit of the locality, and taken into account in the assignment of the quota under the call of December 19th, 1864, and provost marshals are instructed that, in determining the quotas of sub-districts under the present call, they will apply such excess accordingly; and all men raised since December 19th are of course credited upon the call of that date.

In crediting the excess that is carried forward from the call of July 13th, 1864, and applied to the call of December 19th, 1864, I consider not only the number of men of which the excess is composed, but also the period of their service, and the quotas assigned un§. the call of December 19th are thus reduced by this excess of service, and hence they should not be further reduced, except by enlistments subsequent to December 19th, 1864, the date of the call for three hundred thousand men.

The entire vote given by the State at the Presidential election was 42,435, of which Mr. Lincoln received 25,060, and General McClellan 17,375; majority for Mr. Lincoln, 7,685. Soldiers do not vote out of the State. The vote of the State in 1860 was 34,421, being an increase of 8,014. Two Republican members of Congress were chosen at the same election.

The Legislature elected was divided as follows:

                            Senate   House.

Republicans               16      32

Democrats................   5       10

Total...........................21      42

The educational and benevolent institutions of the State made more progress than during the previous year. They are yet, however, in their infancy.

The large Federal force on the western border prevented the incursions of the Indians as in previous years, and the State was comparatively free from disturbance in consequence of the neighboring Indian war.

MISSOURI. The session of the Legislature of Missouri, commenced immediately after the close of the election in November, 1863. In February, 1864, a bill was passed, which provided simply for a call of a convention to revise the organic law of the State. The election of delegates to this convention was to be held in November ensuing, at the time of the general election. At the same time the people were to vote on the proposition whether they desired a convention or not. If they decided against a convention, then the delegates were not to assemble. If the vote sustained the proposition, then the convention was to meet in St. Louis on Jan 5th, 1865.

The action of the convention in 1863, on the subject of emancipation, was not satisfactory to a portion of the citizens. It provided for gradual instead of immediate emancipation. The latter was sought to be obtained by a new convention, composed of men more recently elected than those of the adjourned convention. The annual election was held on November 8th; previous to which General Rosecrans, in command of the department, issued the following orders:

HEADQUARTER'S DEPARTMENT of THE Missouri, St. Louis, Mo., October 12, 1864. }

General Order No. 195.

Our free government, established and administered by the will of the people, expressed through legal elections, requires from every citizen a sacred regard for the preservation and purity of the elective franchise.

The General commanding expects the united assistance of the true men of all parties, in his efforts to secure a full and fair opportunity for all who are entitled to vote at the approaching election in the State of Missouri, and in excluding from the polls those who by alienage, treason, guerrillaism, and other crimes or disabilities, have no just right to vote.

The laws of the State declare who may vote, and prescribe the times and places of voting. But, in the present, disturbed condition of the country, the civil power is too weak effectually to enforce the execution of those laws, or adequately punish offenders. Wherefore in compliance with his duty as a citizen and department commander, and with the wishes of all true citizens, and in aid of the law, the General commanding orders as follows:

1. Those, and only those, who have the qualifications, and who take the oath prescribed by the State, copies of which are hereunto annexed, shall vote.

From the terms of the oath, it is manifest that it was the intention of the Missouri State Convention that no person should vote who, since the 17th day of December 1861, has wilfully taken up arms or levied war against the United States, or against the Provisional Government of the State of Missouri. This excludes from the right of voting all who, since that date, have been in the rebel army or navy anywhere, and all who, since that date, have been anywhere engaged in guerrilla marauding or bushwhacking. If, therefore, any such person offer to vote, his vote may be challenged, and he shall be immediately arrested. And any judge of election shall be arrested and punished who permits the name of any such person to be recorded in the poll book, or his vote to be received, where such judge has personal knowledge of his true character, or the same is shown to him by lawful evidence before the vote is received.

Voting, or attempting to vote, in contravention of law or orders, is declared a military offence, subjecting the offender to arrest, trial, and punishment, if convicted.

2. No one who has borne arms against the Government of the United States, or voluntarily given aid and comfort to its enemies during the present rebellion, shall act as judge or clerk at an election; nor shall any county judge knowingly appoint any such person to act as judge at an election. Violation of this will be promptly noticed, and the offenders brought to trial by the local military authorities.

3. Outrages, upon the freedom of election by violence or intimidation; attempting to hinder legal, or to procure or encourage illegal, voting; interfering with the legal challenge of voters; acting as officers of election, in contravention of law or orders; wilful neglect to perform their duties, under the laws and these orders, by officers of elections, and especially taking the voters' or officers' oath falsely; and all other acts and words interfering with the purity and freedom of elections, are crimes against the liberties of the people, and are declared military offences, and will be rigorously punished.

4. The laws of the State provide that those of its citizens who are in the army shall not thereby lose the privilege of voting, ºil. the voting is done in the manner prescribed. The commanding General, therefore, directs that, on the day of election, every practicable facility be afforded for taking, in camp, or on the field, the vote of citizens of Missouri who may then be in any company of Missouri volunteers or militia, in the service of the United States or the state.

A copy of the ordinance of this State, providing for elections under the supervision of the commanding officers of companies, is hereto subjoined, for the guidance of all concerned. Such commanding officers will not on any account neglect to make arrangements for, and to hold, such elections, where the condition of their commands will admit of their being held without detriment to the service.

The commanding General deems it better that all citizens of Missouri in the military service in this State should vote in their companies, as authorized by said ordinance; but he does not consider that the uniform of the army should be a badge of exclusion of any soldier from voting at the polls where he, as a citizen, would be entitled to vote, and therefore does not prohibit it. At the same time, he directs that any soldier who abuses the privilege of access to the polls, by any disorderly conduct, or by any unauthorized interference with other citizens in the lawful exercise of the right of voting, shall be punished, and all military officers are especially charged to prevent any such act on the part of any soldier.

5. Wherever there is good reason to apprehend that rebel bushwhackers, or other evil disposed persons, will attempt to control the election . any precinct by their acts, threats or presence, a sufficient Page 552 guard will be detailed to prevent any such control, and keep the peace.

6. District and all subordinate commanders will strictly and carefully enforce this order at the approaching elections, and use all diligence to bring to speedy and condign punishment all civilians, officers, or soldiers who violate any of its provisions.

7. The commanding General earnestly invokes the zealous and active aid of all law-abiding citizens, on the day of the said election, in preserving the peace at the polls, and preventing illegal voting; and he hopes that every newspaper in this State will see proper to º this, order continuously in every issue until the day of the next election.

By command of Major-General ROSECRANS.

FRANK ENO, Assistant Adjutant General.

The vote given by the people for President, was as follows:—

Lincoln, 71,676; McClellan, 31,626. Majority for Mr. Lincoln, 40,050.

The Radical or unconditional Union candidate for Governor, Thomas C. Fletcher, was elected by a majority of about 41,125 over Thos. L. Price.

The total vote relative to a State Convention, was 89,215; of which the majority in favor of a convention, was 37,793. Of the members chosen to the convention, three-fourths belonged to the Radical party. The entire Radical ticket for State officers was elected, also a large Radical majority of the members of the Senate, and three-fourths of the Assembly; eight out of nine Radical candidates were elected to Congress. The Radical ticket was also elected in eighty of the one hundred and fourteen counties in the State.

This was the first election for State officers which had been held in Missouri since the beginning of the war. The acting Governor, after Governor Jackson and Lieut.-Governor Reynolds withdrew from the State, had been chosen by the convention (Gamble), and also the Lieut. Governor Hall who succeeded on the decease of the former.

The Legislature assembled on December 26th. Governor Hall in his message stated that on July 1st, 1864, the State had furnished by volunteer enlistments ten thousand more soldiers for the Federal army than her quota. Since that time eleven new regiments had been recruited and organized.

The whole number of men furnished by Missouri under different calls of the President prior to February 1st, 1804, is.................................. 59,676

Number of men furnished since February 1st, 1864, as shown by the reports of the Commissary of Musters, Department of the Missouri, and Assistant Acting Provost Marshal General for Missouri,............ 18,508

Veteran Musters to April 28, 1864,.................... 1,409

The Enrolled Missouri Militia that have served six months and longer reduced to three years standard, by report of Adjutant-General of Missouri of April 18, 1864, ......       2,174

Total number furnished to 30th November, 1864. 81,767

In addition there has been in the field since July 31st, 1861, more than sixty thousand militia, in payment of which more than four millions of dollars. have been expended. On January 1st, 1864, there was due the militia $989,579.05, to provide for which the Governor recommended an issue of bonds. The services of this militia have been of great importance to the welfare of the State.

The revenue of the State for the two years ending September 30th, 1864, was $2,046,567. The balance in the treasury on October 1st, 1862, was $700,101. The amount subject to appropriation, after adding balances transferred from the road and canal funds, was $2,751,899, The expenditures in the two fiscal years, including ordinary and special appropriations, were $961,830; adding the several sums chargeable on the revenue fund, and the expenditures were $2,358,207; balance October 1st, 1864, $393,691. The revenue of the State, in 1863 and 1864 exceeded that of the years 1861 and 1862.

The bonds and interest due up to January 1st, 1865, by the State, including old debt, revenue bonds, and interest due on railroad bonds. issued the State to the various, railroads is as follows :

State bonds, old debt, due in 1862,....... $163,000 1863,.......239,000 | $402,000

Revenue bonds, 1864,... 217,000 1866, ... 214,000 431,000

Interest on Pacific R. R. bonds from July | 1861, to January 1S65, inclusive.......... 1,680,000

Interest on Pacific R. R. bonds for Southwest Branch, from July 1861, to January 1865, inclusive...................... 1,120,000

Interest on Platte Co. R. R. bonds from July 1861, to January 1865, inclusive, ... 168,000

Interest on North Missouri R. R. bonds from July 1861 to January 1S65, inclusive 1,044,000 Interest on St. Louis and Iron Mountain R. R.” bonds from July 1861, to January 1865, inclusive...................... $40,240 Interest on Cairo and Fulton R. R. bonds from July 1861, to January 1865, inclusive 156,000 5,008,240

Add for money borrowed from the banks by Governor Gamble,.............. 150,000 $5,991.340

There was also contracted a military debt by the State. The Missouri Convention, at its October session, 1861, passed an ordinance appropriating one million of dollars in defence warrants, redeemable and payable into the State treasury for taxes, to enable her authorities to protect the State by organizing and putting into service the loyal militia. These warrants, to the amount of one million three hundred and seventy thousand four hundred and eighty dollars, have been paid out in the State for the organization, support, and maintenance of the State militia. The General Assembly at its last session, by an act to provide means for the payment and support of the enrolled militia, approved March 9th, 1863, appropriated the sum of three millions of dollars, and authorized the issue of three millions of Union military bonds for that purpose. The sum of three millions of these bonds have been issued, and delivered tº the paymasters of the State, and by them paid out to the enrolled militia, making a military debt of the State of four million three hundred and seventy thousand four hundred and eighty dollars. Defence warrants were made receivable for all taxes due the State; Union military bonds were made receivable for 50 per cent of Page 553 State revenue, and for all º and commutation tax, provided for under said act of March, 1863, up to and including the year 1864. There has been paid into the treasury and cancelled and destroyed, up to the 1st of December, 1864, defence warrants amounting to the sum of one million one hundred and thirteen thousand three hundred and sixty-five dollars.

There has been redeemed and paid into the treasury for taxes, etc., up to the first day of December, 1864, Union military bonds, amounting to the sum of one million two hundred and twenty-eight thousand nine hundred and seventy dollars and interest allowed thereon amounting to three thousand four hundred and seventy dollars and seven cents.

During the years 1861 and 1862 the disturbances in all portions of the State utterly suspended and prostrated the common schools in nearly every county. In 1863 many schoolhouse doors were thrown open and children gathered in the schools in all parts of the State. In 1864 nearly all the counties north of the Missouri River had their common schools in full operation, and in many counties south of the river schools were opened. The change about to take place in the condition of the slaves, has already turned attention to their education and to the relations which they shall hold to the institutions of the State.

It was estimated that nearly one-third of the population of 1860 had been lost to the State in consequence of the war. Even at that period the population was hardly sufficient to develop the resources and gather the harvests. Immigration is therefore greatly needed.

The newly-elected State officers were inaugurated on January 6th, 1865. Governor Fletcher in his address says: In point of physical advantage, in the combination of all the elements of wealth, in the invitations that are held out to enterprise, and in the magnificent and swift rewards that wait on industry, no area on the Western Continent containing an equal number of square miles, can compare with our own State. While embracing a greater number of acres of good agricultural land than any other State in the Union, Missouri has more iron than all the other States combined; lead in quantities greater than elsewhere discovered in the world; mines of cobalt and zinc, and lodes of copper; whole districts of country underlaid with strata of coal; almost illimitable forests of the most useful timber, including the giant resiniferous ine, inviting the hand of  industry and liberal enterprise to gather its wealth; prairie and forest diversified everywhere by streams affording unequalled water-power; one of the largest rivers o the world flowing through her centre, and another washing the whole length of her border.

The military policy adopted at the present time in Arkansas and Missouri, it is expected, will prevent the return of the Confederate armies to the soil of either State.

That part of the State north of the Missouri River is mostly an agricultural country. Good timber is found in abundance along the streams, and out from one-fourth to half a mile usually, the prairie begins. The land is rich, and the sub-soil is of a loamy clay, making it a very lasting soil. Coal of a good quality for fires and blacksmiths' use, is found in most of the counties. Fine building-stone is found in nearly every county. South of the Missouri River minerals are found, with but little farming land except along the Kansas border and Missouri River, and a small section of the southwest corner of the State. The surface of the country is broken and hilly, the Ozark Mountain range crossing the entire breadth of the southern part of the State. Several rivers, that are at times navigable quite a distance, and numerous mountain streams and great springs, will furnish, when improved, immense power for manufacturing purposes.

The minerals are in great abundance; the coal and wood in close proximity, rendering the cost of working the ore very little. Often iron ore, coal, wood, and water power may be had from the same hillside.

On January 6th the Constitutional Convention assembled in St. Louis. It was organized by the election of Arnold Krekel, of St. Charles, as President. On the 11th, a committee reported the following ordinance of emancipation:

Be it ordained by the People of the State of Missouri in Convention assembled, That hereafter in this State there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and all persons held to service or labor as slaves, are hereby declared free.

The subsequent proceedings of the Convention are thus reported:

The ordinance having passed to a second reading, Mr. Drake proposed the following amendment:

Sec. 2. That no person can, on account of color, be disqualified as a witness, or be disabled to contract, or be prevented from acquiring, holding, or transmitting property, or be liable to any other punishment for any offence than that imposed on others for a like offence, or be restricted in the exercise of religious worship, or be hindered in receiving education, or be subject in law to any restraints or disqualifications in regard to any F. rights than such as are held upon others under like circumstances.

Mr. Switzler. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. I desire to amend the amendment by adding an additional section as follows:

Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide by law for apprenticing all slaves emancipated by this ordinance, between the ages of twelve and twenty-one years.

Mr. Drake. That is introducing a new proposition under the name of an amendment, which is in direct contravention to the rules.

The President. I shall rule that proposition out of order under the rules.

A lengthy discussion ensued, in which the subject of negro suffrage was variously handled by members, to cut off which Mr. Budd moved the previous question.

Mr. Drake. What is it?

Mr. Budd. If the question is sustained by a majority of this house, it brings the subject to a yote, first on the first amendment, and second on the second amendment, and third on the original proposition.

The President. The question now before the convention is, on the rejection of the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin; the previous question affects that alone.

Mr. Budd. I withdraw it.

Mr. Drake. The question is on the motion I made  Page 554 to reject the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin.

Mr. Clover. demanded. Mr. Drake. that question.

Mr. Strong. I ask, Mr. President, if it is in order to amend that motion ?

If so, I desire to offer a motion that all amendments be rejected temporarily. The President. I don't think it is proper at this time.

The vote was then taken and resulted : ayes, 58; noes, 4.

The motion to reject the amendment prevailed: ayes, 37; noes, 25.

After the disposal of several points of order the vote was taken on the adoption of the ordinance, resulting—ayes, 59; noes, 4; absent, 2. The noes were Messrs. Gilbert of Platte, Harris, Morton, and Switzler.

The announcement of the vote was received with loud applause and with waving of handkerchiefs and swinging of hats. The president and sergeant-at-arms found it impossible to quell the enthusiasm.

Mr. Owen. I desire to move to reconsider the i. on adopting the ordinance and lay it on the table.

 The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Owen. I understand that the Rev. Mr. Eliot is in the hall, and I move that he come forward and give thanks to Almighty God for the passage of an ordinance of Emancipation in Missouri.

Prayer was then offered by the Rev. Dr. Eliot as follows: Most merciful God, before whom we are all equal, we look up to Thee who hast declared Thyself our Father and our helper and our strong defence, to thank Thee that Thou art no respecter of persons, to thank Thee that Thou didst send Jesus Christ into the world to redeem the world from sin, and that He was the friend to the poor, that He came to break the manacles of the slaves, “that the º might go free.” We thank. Thee that this day the people of this State have hº given them to do as they would be done by. e pray that º blessings may rest upon the proceedings of this Convention, that no evil may come to this State from the wrong position of those who do not agree with the action of to-day, but that we, all of us, may be united to sustain this which is the law of the land. We pray, O God, but our hearts are too full to express our thanksgiving. Thanks be to God for this day; that light has now come out from darkness, that all things are now promising a future of peace and quietness to our distracted State. Grant that this voice may go over the whole land until the Ordinance of Emancipation is made perfect throughout the States. We ask it through the name of our dear Lord and Redeemer. Amen.

Mr. Budd offered the following resolution: And upon it the ayes and noes are Yes, I call for the ayes and noes on

Resolved, That a copy of the ordinance passed by this Convention, freeing all persons in the State heretofore held as slaves, signed "..." President and attested by the Secretary as a true ...]”. , and the same shall be placed in the hands of a special messenger to transmit to the Governor of the State at Jefferson City; and when received by him, he is requested to issue his proclamation, stating that by an irrevocable act of the Convention, slavery is abolished in the State of Missouri now and forever.

The resolution was adopted, and the Convention adjourned.

The news of the passage of the ordinance was immediately sent by telegraph to Jefferson City, where the Legislature was in session, and a scene of great rejoicing ensued. Several spontaneous gatherings of the people were held, “at which the wildest enthusiasm prevailed. At one of the meetings speeches were made by State senators, the chaplain of the House, and Congressmen elect, and the report says: Mr. Bonner, of St. Louis, offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved, That Colonel Jameson, of St. Louis, Mr. Kutzner of Hannibal, and Mr. Doan, of Grundy, be invited up in front of the speaker's stand and sing “John Brown." The song was sung amid immense . The Lieut.-Governor offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed by the chair to draft joint resolutions suitable to the importance of the occasion, and that the same be submitted to the General Assembly for its action.

The chairman appointed the committee.

Pending the proceedings of the meeting, which was held at night, every window of the Capitol was illuminated, and the very hills of Jefferson were made to lift up their heads and rejoice.

On the next day a message was received by the Convention from the Governor and Legislature of Illinois, expressing their congratulations on the passage of the ordinance. Afterwards a motion was made in the Convention to pay the loyal owners for their slaves. It was laid on the table—ayes, 44; noes, 4.

A motion was also made to submit the ordinances of the Convention to the people. After some discussion it was laid on the table—ayes, 44; noes, 9.

The number of slaves in Missouri, according to the census of 1860, was 114,931.

Measures were introduced before the Legislature to provide for the welfare of the emancipated blacks. These measures, and also the further proceedings of the State Convention, form a portion of the history of 1865, and will be found in a subsequent volume.

At the close of the year Major-General Pope was ordered to relieve General Rosecrans in command of the military department.

NEVADA. This territory having formed a State Constitution under an enabling act previously passed by Congress, was admitted as a member of the Federal Union, “on an equal footing with the original States.” The State Convention was held at so late a period of the year, that it was necessary to telegraph the Constitution to Washington, in order that it might be received there in time to secure the admission of the State previous to the Presidential election. Immediately on its reception the President issued the following proclamation:

Whereas the Congress of the United States passed an act, which was approved on the 21st day of March last, entitled “An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a Constitution and State §º and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States: ”

And whereas the said Constitution and State Government have been formed pursuant to the conditions prescribed by the fifth section of the act of Congress aforesaid, and the certificate required by the said act, and also a copy of the Constitution and ordinances have been submitted to the President of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in accordance with the duty imposed upon me by the act of Congress aforesaid, do hereby declare and proclaim that the said State of Nevada is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord one [L. S.] thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

                                                         ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

The vote of the State at the Presidential election was 16,420; of which Mr. Lincoln received 9,826, and General McClellan 6,594; majority for Mr. Lincoln 3,232. At the same election H. G. Blasdell was chosen Governor by 9,834 votes; in opposition to David E. Buell, Page 575 who received 6,590 votes; majority for Blasdell 3,244. A Republican member of Congress was also chosen.

The Legislature is entirely Republican.

The boundaries of the new State, as defined by Congress, are as follows: Commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the thirty-eighth degree of longitude west from Washington with the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude; thence due west along said thirty-seventh degree of north latitude to the eastern boundary line of the State of California; thence in a northwesterly direction along the said eastern boundary line of the State of California to the forty-third degree of longitude west from Washington; thence north along said forty-third degree of west longitude and said eastern boundary line of the State of California to the forty-second degree of north latitude; thence due east along the said forty-second degree of north latitude to a point formed by its intersection with the aforesaid thirty-eighth degree of longitude west from Washington; thence due south down said thirty-eighth degree of west longitude to the place of beginning.

The enabling act passed by Congress, contained the following proviso.

And provided, further, That said convention shall provide, by an ordinance irrevocable, without the gº." of the United States and the people of said State :

1. That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

2. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

3. That the people inhabiting said Territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory, and that the same shall be an remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said State on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.

The conditions of this enabling act were a limitation on the powers of the Government of the new State. That is, all power was withheld from the new Government to organize an institution of slavery within the State, etc. The President, in his proclamation, states the title of the enabling act of Congress passed for such and such purposes, and “for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.” The original States have not yet limited themselves by a surrender of the power to create or to abolish slavery within their limits. This inconsistency between the title and the contents of the act were evidently overlooked by its authors.

Five per centum of the net proceeds of all public lands sold within the State, is appropriated to the State for the purpose of making and improving public roads, constructing ditches or canals, to effect a general system of irrigation of the agricultural land.

Nevada is probably the richest State in the Union in respect to mineral resources. No region in the world is richer in argentiferous leads. These are found scattered over the entire Washoe country, the richest of which is that known as the Comstock lead, of Virginia City. The localities of the other principal mines in the region east of the Sierra Nevada are the Esmeralda mines, one hundred miles south-southeast of Virginia City; the Humboldt, one hundred and sixty miles northeast; the Silver Mountain, sixty miles south; Peavine, thirty miles north, and the Reese River country, one hundred and seventy miles east-northeast, embracing many districts, and flanked by two of more than ordinary promise—the Cortez, seventy miles north, and the San Antonio, one hundred miles south of Austin, now the principal town on the Reese River.

During the year, another deposit of mineral wealth was brought to light, which has proved of incalculable value to the silver miners. This was an immense basin of salt, five miles square, near the sink of the Carson River. This basin appears once to have been the bottom of a lake, and the salt is found good even on the surface. A covering of about three inches is loose and indifferent; but beneath this, for a depth of fourteen feet, pure rock salt is found as clear as ice, and white “as the riven snow.” Beneath there is water, which seems to be filtered through salt for an unknown depth. The whole of the fourteen feet in thickness does not contain a single streak of any deleterious matter or rubbish, and is ready for quarrying and sending to market. The locality is one hundred miles west of the Reese River, and seventy miles east of Virginia City, on the overland road.

At the close of the year there were one hundred and twenty-five quartz mills in operation in Nevada, which were erected at a cost ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. About three fourths of the mills of Nevada are driven by steam, and the balance by water power. Of the entire number, four-fifths are in the vicinity of Virginia City. There is an average of one hundred mills in constant operation.

Page 576


Source: The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.