_. J'fWV ^ PRESENTED i!Y /^ _ 3 c.:^ THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND i864-i8(:)7 SERIES XXVII NoS. 1-2 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN Historical and Political Science UnJer the Direction of the Departments of History, Political Economy, and Political Science THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND, 1864-1867 BY- WILLIAM STARR MYERS, PH.D. Preceptor in History', Princeton University. BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PtJBLlBMJO MONTMLr January- February, 1909 Copyright 1909 by THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PRESS OF The New Era Printing Compan Lancaster, pa. CONTENTS. chapter i. chapti:r ii. chaptkr iii. CHAPTER IV. CHAPTI-R V. CHAPTKR VI. The Union Party in Controi ^) National and State Politics in 1865 28 Formation of the " Democratic-Conserva- tive" Party and Defeat of tiif "R.\r>- icALS " 40 The Reform Legislature of 1867 So The Constitutional Convention 113 Self-Reconstruction CoMi-i.f th»— C(in<.kkss Declines to Interfere PREFACE. In the year k^di I i)ul)lishc(l in tlie Johns IlnPKiNS Studies (Scries XIX) a monograph upon the subject of the Maryland constitution of 1864. Tlic present study is a continuation of the earher work in point of time, anl- ished slavery and made many radical changes in the govern- ment, and accomplished its adoption at the polls. A narrow majority of 375 out of a total of 50.073 votes cast had been secured for the constitution only by the some- what doubtful expedient of permitting Maryland soldiers in the field to vote on the question, their overwhelming ap- ])roval altering the adverse result in the State at large.' But the Union party leaders felt no uneasiqcss as far as the future was concerned, for the constitution of k%4 was fle- signcd, rightly or wrongly, not only to free the slaves but to secure a permanent hold of the party in power. This element was known as the " Union " party during the war, and was composed of the more loyal and active citizens of the State, who not only desired that Maryland shouUl " stand by the Union," but believed that the South should be concpicretl and that President Lincoln and the national administration should be given hearty and un- swerving support. The party included men who liad been of various political aft'diations in times past, and it held 'See the writer's monoRraph on "The Mar>l.-ind ' >f 1864" (Johns Hopkins Studies, Series XIX, Nos. ^y ■'•d account of the political conditions in the State duruiK ihc >cur« 186J-4. 9 lO The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. together fairly well in spite of radical differences of opinion on many topics of state and national policy. The Re- publican party did not exist under that name till at least a year after the close of the war, and the process of its formation will be shown in the events about to be narrated. The Democratic party in the State, defeated and discred- ited, still kept up all the active opposition of which it was capable. It condemned the policies of Lincoln and his ad- ministration, and more or less acknowledged the right of the Southern States to secede, though all the while protest- ing its loyalty to the Union, and its hope that Maryland would remain in the old federation. The new constitution is worthy of careful attention. The Union party based their hopes on those provisions which were designed to exclude from the franchise all Southern sympathizers and other disloyal persons, and furthermore they intended so to carry out its mandate for a registration of the voters of the State^ that their opponents would be further rendered powerless at the polls. Article I, Section 4, provided that "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 or armies' with the purpose of adhering to said States or armies, and no person who has given any aid, comfort, countenance or sup- port 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 'Art. I, Sec. 2. The ritton Party in Control. il State, unless since sucli unlaw ful acts he shall have vnliinlanly en- tered into the military service of the United States, and been honor- ably discharged therefrom, or shall be on the day of election, actually and voluntarily in such service, or unless he shall lie 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." AgaJJi, every voter was rcquirctl to take tlie following so-calk-(l "iron-dad" oath (same section): — " I do swear or afTirm 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." Furthermore, the same article jirovidcd that "any person declining to take such oath shall not be alIowecr- .<^on holding office under the constitution or laws of the State, which included this additional test: — "That I have never directly or indirectly, by word, act or deed, given any aid. comfort or encouragement to those in rebellion against the United States, or the lawful authorities thereof; but that I have been tnily and loyally on the side of the United States against those in armed rebellion against the United States; and I do further swear or affirm that I will to the best of my abilities protect and defend the Union of the United States; and not allow the same •Art. I, Sec. 7- 12 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. to be broken up and dissolved, or the Government thereof to be destroyed, under any circumstances, if in my power to prevent it; and that I will at all times discountenance and oppose all political combinations having for their object such dissolution or destruction." The constitution directed,* in addition, that the legisla- ture should pass laws requiring the voter's oath to be taken by " the president, directors, trustees, or agents of corpora- tions created or authorized by the laws of this State, teach- ers or superintendents of the public schools, colleges, or other institutions of learning; attorneys-at-law, jurors, and such other persons as the General Assembly shall from time to time prescribe." Moreover, a very dangerous power was placed in the hands of the judges of election, who alone were permitted to decide as to what was " conclusive evidence " of the right of a person to vote. The sinister effects of this provision soon made themselves felt, and as we shall see, almost led to bloodshed in the exciting days that followed. The aspect of military affairs in the South at this time could only add to the confidence of the Union men of Mary- land. It was during the autumn of 1864 that Grant, after the awful slaughter of the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, was at last tightening his grip on Lee at Richmond and Petersburg. Sherman, by his masterful campaign from Resaca to Atlanta, overcame the brilliant strategy of Johns- ton and the reckless bravery of Hood, and entered upon his " March to the Sea." Sheridan defeated Early and drove him out of the Shenandoah Valley, and finally, to crown all, Thomas annihilated Hood's army at Nashville. Surely the Confederacy was in its death-throes and the Union would be saved. This was no time to look for weak-kneed sympathy with rebellion. An election for national and state officials was to take place on November 8, 1864. Governor Augustus W. Brad- ford on November 3 issued a proclamation or open letter addressed to the " Judges of Election," giving it as his opin- ion that this would be the first election under the new con- * Art. Ill, Sec. 47. ' ' The [ 'iiion Party in ( Onlrol. i 3 stituiioii, .iikI saying that it was ol)li;jati)ry upon the- jmlgcs to observe the re(|iiirenicnts and achninister the test oath to all ap|)lying to vote' A large number of these officials who were to conduct the election in Baltimore City, said to have been alxDUt one third of the total for that district, held a meeting in the criminal court room on November 3. and unanimously decided to administer the oath to all voters. This oath was not to be taken as conclusive evidence of loyalty, but in addition citi- zens were to be sworn to give true answers to such other questions as should be propounded to thcni, in order to satisfy the judges of their right to the ballot.^ A second and more largely attended meeting of the judges was held in the same place on November 7 to consider the question which had arisen and caused some controversy, as to wheth- er they had the right to commit for perjury, and if so. whether or not they should proceed to use it. .After some debate, it was decided to leave this (juestion to individual discretion, but to keq) a list of the rejected votes for future action." This matter seems in the end to have made little trouble at the election, which was very quiet, many iM?rsons of doubtful patriotic status refraining from an attem[)t to vote. There were few arrests by order of the judges." Great interest in this election was aroused by the fact that not only was a full state ticket to be voted upon, but electors for president and vice-president also were to \k chosen. The Union party ratified the national Republican nominations of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, and held its state convention on October iH. 1864. in TemiK-r- ance Temple, P.altimore. A very patriotic platform was adopted, declaring the determination to " stand by the Ad- ministration until this wicked rebellion has l>eai crushed *Bf executive proclamation of 0> Nov. I, 1864. • naltiniorc American. Nov. 4. 1864; .'^nn, N.n 5 .it'..l S, 1.S/V4 ' .Aincrican, Nov. 4; Sun. N<^v, 5. 18^x4. ' .Anirrican. Nov. 8; Sun. Nov. S. 18(14. Sec al«o Sun for Nov. 5 and 7 for various arjfiimcnts on the subject. These two Balti- niorc papers were the "organs" of their respective political parties. • .Sun. Nov. (>. iH(\4 14 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. out, and every Rebel made to bow in submission to the Con- stitution and the laws of the land, and every foot of territory brought under the dominion of the Federal Government." Candidates were nominated for all the state offices,^" headed by Thomas Swann of Baltimore City for governor, and Dr. Christopher C. Cox of Talbot County for lieutenant-gov- ernor. The Democratic party made its nominations through its state central committee, which met in Baltimore on Oc- tober 2y, and arranged a ticket including Judge Ezekiel F. Chambers of Kent County for governor, and Oden Bowie of Prince George's County for lieutenant-governor.^^ The result of the election was, as had been expected, a victory for the Union party, the vote being as follows: for governor, Swann, 40,579, Chambers, 32,068; Swann's ma- jority, 851 1. For lieutenant-governor. Cox, 41,828, Bowie, 32,178. Lincoln carried the State by 7432 majority, and for Congress, Edwin H. Webster, of Harford County, Charles E. Phelps of Baltimore City, and Francis Thomas of Alle- gany County were successful in the second, third and fourth districts respectively. The Democrats, however, carried two districts, electing Hiram McCullough of Cecil County in the first,^^ and Benjamin G. Harris of St. Mary's County in the fifth.^^ In the General Assembly of the State, the Union party secured a large majority in the House of Delegates,^* but the results of the election showed that the membership of the Senate would stand — Democrats, 13, Union party, 11. Fortunately for the latter, W. M. Holland, Democratic senator-elect from Dorchester County, resigned on Novem- ber 15, saying that circumstances of a domestic character, beyond his control, made it extremely inconvenient for him " American, Oct. 19 ; Sun, Oct. iQ and 20, 1864. " Sun and American, Oct. 28, 1864. " " Eastern Shore " of Maryland. "This district, largely in the southern part of the State, was called by the American the "political Egypt of Maryland." For official returns of the election see American, Nov. 29, 1864, and January 11, 1865; Sun, Nov. 29, 1864; Scharf, History of Maryland, III, 642-643. " Union 54, Democratic 26. The Union Part\ in Control. »5 to serve." A special election was held on December 23, to fill the vacancy, and Thomas K. Carroll, the l'nif>n can- didate, was elected by a good majority.'" This made a tic on a party vote, but the deciding vote would be cast by Lieu- tenant-Governor Cox. In spite of test oaths, partizan judges of election, and the suppf)rting influence of the na- tional government, the Democratic party in Maryland had made a fairly good showing, and there was a possibility of the Union control being shaken, or even broken, at any time. This was evidently realized, and efforts were at once made by the leaders of the latter party to gtiard against any such contingency. An editorial in the Haltimore American on the preceding October 19 had said : — " It is of the utmost importance that the control of the affairs of Maryland should be in the hands of capable, honorable, and loyal men, who will administer them, not only to the direct benefit of the State itself, but with regard to the maintenance and prosperity of the entire Union. The fortunes of Mar)'land and of the Union are indissolubly linked together, and to fill the State offices with men who have the integrity of the whole Union at heart is the true way to advance the interests of the State itself." This statement voices the opinion of the more sober and responsible leaders in the Union cause, and gives a very fair idea of the principles upon which they based their actions during the political struggles of the following two years. The General Assembly met at Annapolis on January 4, 1865. In his message'' Governor Bradford recommended for passage various measures designed to earn*- out certain provisions of the new constitution, and in addition he de- sired that action be taken looking toward the procuring of compensation from the national government for slaves emancipated under the state constitution, in accordance with IVesident Lincoln's message of March 6. i8('j2. Also, he argue5 Documents of House of Delegates. 1865. Doc. .V. 1 6 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. who may vote under the new laws and regulations. The neglect on the part of the legislature of this common-sense matter of justice and order was another cause of the tur- moil and trouble of the succeeding years. According to Article II, Sections i and 2, of the new constitution, the term of office of Governor Swann and Lieutenant-Governor Cox was to commence on January II, 1865, but the new executive was not to enter upon the discharge of his duties until the expiration of the term for which Governor Bradford had been elected. The latter had been inaugurated on January 8, 1862, hence he held office till January 10, 1866, and continued the able adminis- tration he had given the State during the preceding years of trial and perplexity. The inauguration of the new executive and his subordi- nate took place in the senate chamber at Annapolis on the appointed day. Governor Swann's inaugural address^* called upon the legislature to " forget the dissensions and heart-burnings of the past, and come together once more, in a spirit of conciliation and harmony, to give our best en- ergies, as one party, to the work of reconstruction and re- organization upon which we are entering with such pros- pects of admitted and assured success." He favored for- eign colonization of negroes, recommended an attempt to procure national compensation for the slaves, and signifi- cantly closed as follows : — " It is not a very agreeable reflection to the State of Maryland, in looking back upon the past, that many of her citizens have enter- tained, and not infrequently expressed sympathies vi^ith the objects of this rebellion. Such evidences of disaffection at the South have been summarily dealt with heretofore, by the offer of the alternative of the oath of allegiance to the so-called ' Confederate States,' or prompt expulsion beyond their lines. The recognition of such a rule here would doubtless have been received as in the highest degree tyrannical and oppressive. It is hardly reasonable to expect, how- ever, that this Government will permit itself to be sacrificed by those upon whom it has a right to rely, and who have made their election to share the protection of its laws. In standing by the Union, "House Docs., Doc. C. The Union Party in Control. \y Maryland will know how lo discriminate between its friends and enemies, and tlic time has passed when those who really desire its dissolution will he permitted to make a virtue of their disloyally, or to claim participation in the political power of the State. Dif- ferences of opinion upon National and State politics may exist with- out treason; but the paramount obligation of loyalty cannot be compromised, and the citizen who turns away from his duty of allegiance to his Government — no matter upon what pretext — for- feits the privileges which it confers, and the protection which at- taches to the rights of citizenship." Lieutenant-Governor Cox initncdiattly cnttTcd ujH)n his duties as president of the Senate, the office of heutenant- govemor having been created by the constitution of 1864. The Senate on I'Vbruary 14, by a vote of 11 yeas to 10 nays, unseated, on the ground of disloyahy. Littleton Mac- Hn, Democratic senator from Howard County, and liis Rc- pubhcan opponent, Hart B. Holton, was declared elected.'* Samuel A. Graham of Somerset County contested upon the same grounds the seat of Levin L. Waters, the Demo- cratic senator from that county, but the matter was deferred to the next session of the legislature in order that further testimony in the case might be taken, and was finally dropped.-"' perhaps in consideration of the fact that a Union party majority in the Senate was now secureil. Turning our attention to the work of the legislative ses- sion, we find that on February i Governor Bradford sub- mitted to both houses the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the L'nited States. It was advanced to its third reading on the same day by the House of Delegates, passing its second reading by a vote of 53 yeas to 24 nays. The Senate referred it to a committee and on I'ebruary 3 finally passed it by a strict party vote of 1 1 affirmative from the Union party, 10 negative from the Democrats. The House immediately passed it on its final ' 'v '>» " - clamation,'* "Senate Jour, 1865, 115-117. For testimony, etc., >cc Sciuie Docs., 1865. Docs. E, G and H. "Senate Jour, 343; Docs. F, I and L. "House Jour., 1865, 1.20-1,2.2. 145; Senate Jour., (*)~70\ .Xmerican. Feb. 2 and 4, 1865. 3 1 8 TJic Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. Some little strife was stirred up over the question of the election of a United States senator to fill out the unexpired term of the late Thomas H. Hicks, but John A. J. Cres- well of the Eastern Shore was finally chosen by a large ma- jority on March 9, his leading opponent, Lieutenant- Governor Cox, having withdrawn from the contest.-^ Two most important bills were passed by the Assembly at this session. One was the act deaHng with the status of the colored population of the State, and was voted by large majorities on March 24.-^ " All the disabiUties which had necessarily attached to the negro as a consequence of the institution of slavery were removed, with two ex- ceptions, one disqualifying negroes from being witnesses in cases where white men were concerned, and the other authorizing negroes to be sold for crime for the same period that a white man might be confined in the penitentiary for the same offence."-* The other bilP^ was to provide for the registration of the voters of the State according to the requirements of the new constitution. It was reported in the House of Dele- gates, on March 8, 1865, and after a hard struggle against it on the part of the opposition it was passed on March 22, by the vote of 51 yeas to 23 nays. The Senate,-" after more vain opposition on the part of the Democrats, passed it finally on March 24, by a vote of 13 to 6.-^ This act, famous in the history of the State, which formed a center for most of the political strife of the period, provided that the governor was to appoint three citizens " most known for loyalty, firmness and uprightness " as registers in each ward or election district, also three men to register the soldiers and sailors of the State, who were to visit the sev- eral regiments, camps and hospitals, and have the results placed upon the books of the various districts. " From ^ House Jour., 386-387; Senate Jour., 209; American, March 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1865. ^Senate Jour., 385-386; House Jour., 752-753. -* Quoted from Sun of Jan. 11, 1867. =' Statutes of 1865, Ch. CLXXIV. ^' Senate Jour., 357-369. ^ House Jour., 1865, 375, 585-600, 627, 736. The Union Party in Control. I9 tlicse lists, entry on which was in(lispcnsal)Ic in order to exer- cise suffrage, they were to exchide all disloyal persons, and might even refuse to permit them to register, after taking the oath of allegiance."-" To these officers of registration was further given*' power " to compel the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of ascer- taining the qiialilicntions or disqualifications of persons rejfistercd ; they sliall have power to issue summons, attachments and commit- ments of any Sheriff or Constahlc, who shall serve such process, as if issued hy a Judge of the Circuit Court, or a Justice of the Peace, and shall receive the same fees and in the same manner as allowed hy law in State cases." The intent of the act was well summed up in an editorial of the Baltimore Sun of July 11, 1865, as follows: — " It will be seen that the question of the right of suffrage under the Constitution and the law, is left entirely to the discretion and judgment of the various officers of registration, who are to be ap- pointed by the Governor, in the city and counties, from which judg- ment there is no appeal — and the disqualification is perpetual unless the person is restored to civil rights through military service or a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House of the General .\ssemhly." The following clause included in the bill as originally re- ported to the Mouse of Delegates was strickoti nut by a majority of only one vote in that body i"*" — "Section 19, Be it enacted. That the officers of uv;i-u.i; .n i.i the purpose of ascertaining more fully whether any person is dis- qualified under the fourth section of Article first [of] the Consti- tution, shall, if such person's right is challenged, or they have not personal knowledge, propound the following among other questions: Have you ever given aid to the rebellion by advice, by giving or sending itiformation? have you ever given or sent money, clothing, provisions, medicine or any munitions of war to persons engaged in the rebellion? have you ever given shelter or protection to persons engaged in the rebellion? have you ever advised or encouraged any person to enter the rebel service? have you ever assisted any one "Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland. 47--4S. -Sec. 13. "■'To strike out." yeas 35. nays .y. Jour. House of Delegates, 1865. 609. Docs. House of Delegates. D«k. VV. Also sec Sun. July II, 1865; Scharf, History of Maryland. HI, 6()8-6t«> 20 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. to enter such service by furnishing them with money, provisions, advice, letters or information? have you ever in conversation or by writing, justified those engaged in entering into the rebellion? have you ever expressed a wish or desire for the success of the rebel arms or for the defeat of the Union arms? have you ever rejoiced over any of the successes of the rebel arms or defeat of the Union arms? have you ever desired or wished that the rebel forces might defeat the Union forces ? " It would be difficult to imagine a more stringent or dan- gerous measure, one more hostile to the idea of a consti- tutional and orderly democratic government, or one more open to abuse. After spasmodic attempts to pass a measure requiring the oath of allegiance of all officers of corporations,^^ and another calculated to secure compensation for emancipated slaves from the United States government,^- but from which nothing ever came, the legislature finally adjourned on March 27, 1865. It is now necessary, in order to make our narrative com- plete, to retrace our steps a little in point of time. Dur- ing this period the important question of the negro popula- tion was agitating the people of Maryland. All slaves had become free on November i, 1864, when the constitution went into effect, and there were now nearly 90,000 " freed- men " to be dealt with, besides a nearly equal number of negroes who had been free when abolition was accom- plished. ^'^ When we think of this herd of human beings, little more than half civilized, poor, ignorant, and helpless, suddenly raised in legal status from a position of servitude to the proud estate of man, with all the attendant duties and obligations, we must realize that they still remained com- pletely under the power of the white population. A few wished to treat them as being what they were in fact, child- ren in intelligence with an almost unlimited potentiality of physical power, but the larger number naturally looked upon them with the contempt of former masters. Sometimes, at ^* Senate Jour., 247 ; House Jour., 39. ''House Jour., 190-191, 32>(>-Z2>7- ^ See my Maryland Constitution of 1864, 10, for statistics. The Union Party im Control. 2 1 the other extreme, there was foohsh talk alK)Ut immediate social and political e(|uality. When the October electitm showed the adi^ption of the constitution, the major part of the people of Maryland Uiy- ally ac(iuiesced in the result, but many of the more tenacious slaveholders speeilily took advantage of an old provision in the " r.lack Code" of state laws that negro slave children coukl be bound out for terms of apprenticeship without the consent of their parents. With the more or less o\H:n con- nivance of many of the court officials they had the slave children whom they owned apprenticed to them for the term of their legal minority, and usually with absolute disregard of the wishes of the parents, who were so soon to come into their natural rights. This was in many cases done before the first of November, when constitutional alxilition took effect, and before the parents had any legal right to object. Even after this date the same practice was continued, negro children being in many instances forcibly taken from their homes, and all their newly given rights ignored. Realizing the danger that a species of slavery or peonage would thus be perpetuated in spite of the emancipation movement, and being besieged by the negroes and their white sympathizers with complaints of illegal treatment, Major-General Lew W^allace. commander of the Middle Department of the United States Army with headquarters in P>altimore. decided to take matters into his own hands until the Union party could cause the proper measures of protection to be taken at the ensuing session of the General Assembly. On Xovembcr 9, 1864, he issucf 1X^15. in Senate Docs. J. See also Scharf. History of M.Tryl.ind. III. 5«><-5<». for a somewhat dif- ferent account; also daily p.ipcrs of tlie pcritnl. 22 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. negro hospital, vmder the name " Freedman's Rest."^^ The reasons for this action were stated in the following pre- amble to the order: — " Official information having been furnished, making it clear that evil disposed parties in certain counties of the State of Maryland, within the limits of the Middle Department, intend obstructing the operation, and nullifying, as far as they can, the emancipation pro- vision 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 measure 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 the grand purpose of the people of the State of Maryland, . . . [therefore] there should be remedies extraordinary for all their [i. e., the freedmen's] grievances, — reme- dies 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." The order provided further that all freedmen were to be considered under special military protection until the legis- lature should by its enactments make such protection un- necessary, that provost-marshals in their several districts, " particularly those on the Eastern and Western Shores," should " hear all complaints made to them by persons within the meaning of this order " and " collect and forward information and proofs of wrongs done to such persons, and generally . . . render Major Este such assistance as he may require in the performance of his duty." Finally, " lest the moneys derived from donations, and from fines collected, prove insufficient to support the institution in a manner correspond- ing to its importance. Major Este will proceed to make a list of all ^^The Maryland Club was considered to be an organization pe- culiarly obnoxious to loyal people, on account of the known South- ern sympathies of many of its members. This part of the order, however, was revoked. I Iw ( ninti I'ljrlx in Control. 'I the avowed rebel sympathizers resident in the city of Bahimore. with a view to levying such contrihiitions upon them in aid of the ' Frccd- man's Rest ' as may he frcim time to time re<|iiircd." Early in January, (kncral Wallace alx)lishef| the Freed- men's Bureau in Maryland and made his re|K»rt to the fiai- eral Assembly. A reading of this report and the d' of war that " frequent cotiiplaints arc received of out- rages and atrocities without parallel committed against frecilmen " in portions of NIaryland. ReporLs of Sec. of War. .2nd Sess., jgth Cong. 750. "Scharf. Chronicles of Balliniore. fvjQ : f 1st Sess.. 40th Cong., I) R.l..l!i,iii, 5.XJ) s.iv.. •• Ihe cstima;r ..f .M.irv 24 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. Confederates began to show themselves about the streets and to frequent their old haunts and a large immigration from the South, particularly from Virginia, began to set in, this feeling gave way to alarm, too often accompanied by signs of prejudice and vindictiveness. The party in power at once began to foresee and to fear what finally took place — an ac- tive coalition between the Democrats and the Southern sym- pathizers and the eventual overthrow of the Union party in the State. The registration act had been passed just in time, and when signs of opposition to it began to appear its advocates decided to fight to the last ditch to keep it on the statute-books and in active operation. The assassination of President Lincoln on April 14, 1865, threw the Union people for a time into a panic, and naturally increased hostility toward the ex-Confederates, whom they imagined to be undertaking a new method of warfare, by means of murder and secret criminal intrigue. General W. W. Morris, for a short time in command of the Middle Department, issued orders on April 15, placing Baltimore under stringent martial law, and including a provision that "paroled prisoners of war (Rebels), arriving in this department are hereby ordered to report at once to the nearest provost-marshal, in order that their names may be registered, their papers examined, and such passes furnished them as may be necessary for their pro- tection. Such prisoners of war will not be permitted to wear the uniform of the army and navy of the so-called Confederate States, but must abandon their uniforms within twelve hours after report- ing to the provost-marshal, and adopt civilian dress."'' General Wallace, who resumed command a few days later, extended these repressive measures, and was actively assisted by the officers of the United States Army stationed in var- ious parts of the State. After the death of J. Wilkes Booth and the capture of the other conspirators, the military bonds were gradually relaxed, the national government wisely leaving the settlement of the various difficulties in Mary- land to the people of the State. As a good illustration of the temper of this particular '° Scharf, History of Maryland, III, 650-651. The Union Party in Control. time, the following is quoted from an editorial iti tlK- i'.a! timore American for May (), which was entitled " The lirand of Cain." After stating that " JefT " Davis "stands con- victed as a common felon " and charging him with a!! manner of crimes, it proceeds: — "He has sanctioned and commissioned agents of pir.u.. ..;.;,. and butchery. He has sent secret employees to throw passenger trains from railway tracks, incendiaries to burn Northern cities pirates to destroy commerce, to fire merchant vessels, and to slaughter their crews. He has stolen the money belonRinR to others, and deposited it abroad to his own credit. He has plotted offences against society which have no parallels in brutality and outlawry in the annals of civilization. And now he is branded as one of the infernal cal)al whose intrijfucs, carried on for more than eight months, have resulted in the murder of Abraham Lincoln." This same journal descrihed the ex-Confederate sohhers in Maryland as " defiant and pompous,"*" and stated that they strutted around like concjuerors. All sorts of accusa- tions were made by this paper against Southerners, even charging them with an attempt to introduce yellow fever infection from Bermuda into the northern cities.** On May 9 a leading editorial said : — "To the more conspicuous leaders of the Rebellion, civil and mili- tary, should be awarded the extreme penalty of the law. Nothing short of expiation on the gallows would satisfy the simplest de- mands of justice. As to the masses of the people who have l)cen so terribly duped by these miscreants, we think there can t)e but one feeling, that they have already been subjected to such untold losses and sufferings and humiliations that they are fairly entitled to executive clemency." On April 24. 1865. the first branch of the City Council of Baltimore passed resolutions re<|uesting General Wallace to close certain " disloyal churches." and thus to " save our city from this degradation and shame by removing these cessi>ools. the miasma arising from which taints the tnoral atmosphere with treason."*' Further resolutions passed the -M.iy I. ifV);;. " Mav 8. i.%v "Jou'nial. 1st Bratich. 1864-5. 470. Also Sclurf. History of Mary- land. Ill, 651-654. 26 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. same day by a unanimous vote protested against allowing " Rebels " to return to the city.*^ On April 25 a meeting of citizens of Cumberland, Md., was held in the market-house, and presided over by the mayor. Dr. C. H. Ohr. It was then resolved that " those persons who voluntarily left their homes in this county [Allegany] and have taken up arms against the Federal Government, or otherwise aided the rebellion, shall not be permitted to return again amongst us." It was threatened that such as returned would be " summarily dealt with," and a vigilance committee of twenty-five members was ap- pointed, with power to add to this number.^* In general, the Union people were not so bitter against Confederates from other States as against those from Mary- land. Perhaps the fact that the latter might become voters under a new regime added to the feelings of hostility. Fin- ally, their contention was that " rebels should acknowledge they were wrong, if they want to be forgiven."*^ Very dififerent was the attitude of the Baltimore Sun, the leading Democratic newspaper in the State, and with good reason, for it had escaped suppression during the four years of war only by a discreet handling of the news, and by refraining from editorials for the most part, except on such truly non-partizan occasions as Christmas and New Year's Day. The Sun now began to pluck up courage as the use of the military power lessened, and on May 23 it stated that " such of our citizens and youth as had strayed away and made common cause with the South in rebellion, are now returning, and realizing the advantages of the terms of surrender, [are] generally willingly renewing their allegiance. No where now are Southern men more generously met than in Baltimore." Later on, it heartily entered into the movement to raise money to aid Southern sufferers from the war, particularly those in the Shenandoah Valley. "Jour., 468-469, 485. Also see Jour., 2d Branch, 1865, 270, 276, 288, 305-308, 325-326. " American, May i, 1865. ^° American, May 13, 1865. 7 7/t' i'nioit I\irty iti Control. 2/ As time went on, and the feelinjjs causc«l by the first flush of victory |)asse(l away, milder counsels l)ef^an to pre- vail amonj; the I'nion j)eople. The City Council of lialti- more took care to state that their " anti- Rebel " resolutions, lately adojited. did not refer to Southern merchants com- ing to the city for purposes of trade, but " only tf) the return of those who formerly had a residence among us, but who went South to aid in the overthrow of the government. It was thought best they be not permitted to return amongst us until they came as i)rodigals, seeking, not claiming a home, confessing their errors antl asking to be received as re- pentant sons."*" Also the American stated on June 20, 1865, that it was anxious to let the Southern sympathizers alone, that it would do so if they kept '* their firoper [wsi- tions " and showctl " .some indications of humanity and con- trition," and also disavowed any feelings of bigotry or vin- dictivencss. Most unfortunately, many of the leaders in the I'nion party, as we shall sec, found it to be to their i>cr- sonal advantage to keep alive the controversies an- port in the strujXRlc which they saw was imminent and in- evitable between him and the Republican Congress oti the grave question of the reconstruction of the Southern States." So, upon their suggestion and at their instance, a committee representing the Democratic state central com- mittee of Maryland waited upon the President at Washing- ton on July 19, 1865. This committee was composed of Colonel William P. Maulsby, of Frederick, Colonel William Kimmel. of r.altimore. and Mr. Knott himself. It laid before Johnson a memorandum setting forth the political conditions in Marjland, and stated that under the registry law two thirds of the voters of the State were disfran- chised, this number constituting the larger part of the Demo- cratic party ; also, that the President's " friends* in the Republican party in Maryland must realize the utter help- lessness of their cause without the aid of the Demcxratic vote, which could not be given without a change in the Con- stitution, or a repeal or an essential mo5 "Says Mr. Ktmtt : "The ntficcrs of roKistration were sw.i>C(l by a .spirit of l)ittcr and itncdinpromisinR partisanship .md . . . the Rc- pubUcan party was determined to pen>itnate its asceiulaney liy the entire disfranchisement, if necessary, of its Democratic opponents." Nelson's Baltimore. ^55. The writer would add that Mr. Knott i» so parti/an in his opinions that he is apt to cxagKcrate to the detri- ment of those who (Hsagreed with him. 34 T^he Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. It was insisted by the appellants that the new law was unconstitutional, since it gave judicial powers to the officers of registration, and that the provision of the constitution excluding from voting those citizens who could not take the required oath was void, as enacting an ex post facto law, and hence contrary to the Constitution of the United States. It was illegal for the officers of registration to inquire into acts done prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and they had no right to put questions which tended to incrimi- nate voters, nor to exclude them from registration in case they should not answer such questions. On the eve of the fall election the court decided that it would not grant an injunction to the effect that the election might be held in a manner different from that designed by law. The court held further, that it had no power to give authority to the judges of election to receive the ballot of a person not on the roll of qualified voters — a ballot not only not conferred, but expressly taken away by the Gen- eral Assembly. The decision distinctly stated that a court of equity could not be invoked to prevent the performance of political duties such as those of an officer of registration, but that if a citizen should be wilfully, fraudulently or cor- ruptly refused a vote by the register, or election judge, he might sue for damages at law. The second case was that of Anderson vs. Baker {27, Md. Reports, 531), in which a mandamus was asked to compel a register to place the name of a voter on the lists. The appellant claimed that the provisions of the constitu- tion and of the registry law were void because unconstitu- tional and contrary to the " fundamental principles of jus- tice and reason and of American republican government." A mandamus was the proper remedy, since a suit for dam- ages would not give a wronged person his vote. On November 2, 1865, the opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Bowie, Justices Cochran, Goldsborough and Weisel assenting, and Justice Bartol dissenting. It was as follows: The right of suffrage, being the creature of Kaliotial and Stale Politics :•■ -^ ■ the organic law. may l)c modified or \vitiiut three to one. endor-^ing Andrew Johnson antl his policy. '- A meeting of about 1500 citizens of Howard County who were in favor of supporting the reconstruction policy of the President was held at Clarksville on .Xugust 26. Addresses were made by Montgomery Hlair, who attacked Secretary Stanton and the Maryland registry law, and by W. H. Purnell. A letter was read from Governor Swann. who regretted his inability to be present, and praised Presi- dent Johnson.'' The I'nion convention of the second congressional dis- trict met at Broadway Hall. Kast Baltimore, on September "I have drawn this .iccotint of the electi<^<' . k.s lir,»cly from Dr. B. C. Stciiicr's scholarly little !>ook entith ' Ami Suf- frage in Marylaiul. 47-50. Also sec Sun. A J anti J, Dec. S: .Xnicrican. Sept' 6 and 15, Oct. Jo, iKi i-. .,». i.^>5. "American. July 14. i8r)5. "■American. .Aug. 28; Sun, .\ug. 28 and Sept. 14. 1865. 36 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 26, and unanimously nominated John L. Thomas, Jr., to succeed E. H. Webster.^* The proceedings of the county conventions of the same party are significant, as foreshadowing the varied counsels and final disagreement of the next year. Most of them passed resolutions endorsing Johnson and opposing negro suffrage.^^ Washington County also endorsed the registry law, and Dorchester County declared in favor of a moder- ate amendment of the same. The radical Union organ, the Baltimore American, strongly supported the President, took a conservative attitude toward negro suffrage, and was heartily in favor of sustaining the registry law as placed upon the statute-books.^*^ On September 30 it commented on the campaign as follows: — " Party spirit is running high, and the party that [formerly] de- nounced the President without stint is running a tilt with the party which sustained him, for his exclusive possession." That this comment was true is shown by the fact that the county Democratic conventions generally endorsed Johnson and his reconstruction policy, while they con- demned the registry law and negro suffrage. The Democratic state central committee on September 2 published in the Baltimore Sun an address to the people of Maryland, calling upon the latter to rise up and oppose the registry law, which it condemned for being " in marked contrast and hostility to the wise and just policy of con- ciliation which distinguishes the dealings of President Johnson with the Southern States." It was signed by Oden Bowie, chairman, and A. Leo Knott, secretary. It is sig- nificant that practically all these expressions of Democratic opinion were given after July 19, the date of the interview with President Johnson at the White House in Washington. In a thoughtful and able editorial of July 11 the Sun had already foreshadowed the position and policy of the " Sun and American, Sept. 27, 1865. ^ See daily papers of the period for accounts of same. " See in particular the issues for July 6, Sept. 14, Sept. 23. Xational and State Politics in iS6^. 37 Democrats and the conservative winp of tlic Union party as follows: — " It may reasonably be supposed that the framers of the Consti- tution and those who legislated to carry out its provisions . . . were influcnci-»n- struction. This is, in point of tinu-. the tirst n\c\\\- tter that the writer could lind in the .Maryland papers ot ir.r i^. r >W 38 The S elf -Reconstruction of Maryland. at Washington, Alexandria and Fortress Monroe, and to others in Virginia from Fredericksburg to Richmond. They registered altogether 295 soldiers.^^ The election was held on November 7, 1865, and the Union party was generally successful, getting a stronger hold on the legislature and sending J. L. Thomas, Jr., to Congress. In many places the election was almost a farce, particularly in Baltimore City, where only 10,842 citizens were registered, and of these 5338 did not vote. In the seven " lower " wards Thomas received 2040 votes, and William Kimmel, his Democratic opponent, 54.^" As might have been expected from such a grant of abso- lute power to election officials, many illegal and even crim- inal acts were perpetrated both in registering the voters and in receiving the ballots. A few illustrations will suffice. In Caroline County the officers of registration sat behind closed doors, admitted voters to register one at a time, and would not inform the individual whether they had regis- tered his name or not.-° The testimony in contested elec- tion cases before the legislature during the ensuing special session shows that " the judges of election in the 5th, 8th, loth and isth Election Districts of Somerset Coimty illegally received, counted and returned in their certificates, a large number of illegal votes. . . . The testi- mony . . . offers most conclusive and painful evidence of flagrantly vicious conduct, and a reckless disregard of the law, on the part of the judges of election."^ It is charged in another instance that one of the judges of election ^* American, Sept. 5, 1865. "Article by Wm. M. Marine (of little value), in Nelson's Balti- more, 163. See also Schirf, History of Maryland, III, 671-672. He estimates that there was in Maryland at this time a voting popu- lation of about 95,000, of which 35,000 were registered and all the remainder disfranchised. Of those qualified by registration, he gives 15,000 to the Democrats, which would leave 20,000 to the Union party, little more than one fifth of the total. Mr. Scharf's history, however, is biased and partizan, and the writer has found it very inaccurate, except when public documents are quoted. -° American, Sept. i, 1865. " House Jour, and Docs., 1866, Doc. H. Xational and State Politics in iS6$. 39 "made an improper offer to rcRistcr a voter if he would vote the Republican ticket, and others they repeatedly refused to register upon the ground that they belouKcd to the opposite party. . . . Votcrt are frequently tlisfranchised without the assigiunent of any reason . . . (and) almost every form of error is displayed throuKhout the lists."" Other examples of gross wrong and injustice will appear in the course of the narrative. The end of the year 1865 saw the passing away of what might be called the typical conditions of Civil War times. Almost coincident with the new year began the self -recon- struction of Maryland. In the ensuing period the regi.s- tration act was finally repealed and the defeated Union party split up into two factions. The radical wing became the Republican party in the State, and the conservatives joined the triumphant Democrats, in whose hands lay the destinies of Marjland for many years. " House Jour, and Docs., 1866, Doc. I. CHAPTER III. Formation of the " Democratic-Conservative " Party AND Defeat of the " Radicals." On January lo, 1866, Thomas Swann, inaugurated the year before, entered upon the active discharge of the duties of governor. The Baltimore American of the next morn- ing said of Governor Swann : — " There is no public man in Maryland who seems to be so popular with the masses, — so popular with the ' bone and sinew ' of the great Union party that has kept Maryland true to her position as ' The Heart of the Union ' throughout the late rebellion." On January 10 the General Assembly met at the call of the governor in a special session, which lasted thirty days by constitutional provision, in order to pass needed legisla- tion designed to ease the financial burden on the State. A long message^ was received from Governor Swann, in which he not only stated the objects of the session, but also brought to the notice of the law-making body " other and perhaps not less important measures of domestic policy." He de- sired the encouragement of immigration, a new ship channel to the harbor of Baltimore, a reorganization of the militia, provision for the maintenance and support of maimed and disabled Union soldiers, a complete revision of the laws con- cerning the status of the colored population, and the grant to the negro of the privilege of testifying in the courts. Perhaps the most important part of Governor Swann's message, in view of his future position in state politics, is that dealing with the agitation for the repeal of the registry law, and giving his views on national affairs. It is well worthy of careful notice. Said the governor: — ^ House Jour, and Docs., Doc. A. 40 Formation of " Ih'mocratic-Cotiscrvatixc " Pir ■ ■ : "The Act passed for the reRistration of voters . . . !u. !*^t:i threatened, I reRret to say, with resistance, in some parts of the State, chiefly aninnR those, who, in face of the decision of otir highest judicial trihiiiial. persist in denying its Constitutionahty, and ohject to the oath of allcRiance which it imposes. I trust and iMrlievc that such threats arc conlined to a very small class of our citizens. The intention of Ixith the Constitution and the registry law, was simply to protect the State against treason, and to show distrust of those who had been connected with it. . . . The law would have been less liable to abuse had it emlx>died the feature of appeal to some competent tribunal. ... If these acts (of the Union men) were radical and ultra, much more so was the attempt to revolutionize the State, and break up the Union. ... It has been alleged, that the dominant party, who now control the State, rq)resents a mittorUy of her aggregate population. If it be so. it is the more to be re- gretted, that so large a number of our citizens shall have identified themselves with the rebellion as to suffer the power, which the majority controlled, to pass into other hands. Small, however, as the minority may be, it cannot be denied that it is the fair and legiti- mate representative, of whatever there is of loyalty among our people. . . . Our citizens engaged in this Rebellion, have been re- ceived with kindness and toleration ; they come back, however, to be dealt with as the people in their wisdom may deem most expedient. Threats of resistance to the Constitution and Laws could hardly be expected to facilitate them in resuming the privileges of citizenship which they have deliberately abandoned. . . . The repeal of the Registration Act, in my judgment, will not materially benefit any class of voters who have been heretofore disfranchised under its provisions. ... As the Executive of the State, I do not feel author- ized to recommend a repudiation, by the Legislature, of the organic law of your State, by any radical modification of the terms of the Registration Act. . . . The regular stated meeting of the General Assembly under the Constitution takes place in January next. The Delegates who will compose that body may be expected to represent the wishes of the people upon this subject, as the agitation now going forward will show its results in the ensuing fall elections. No other practical mode of dealing with this question occurs to my mind than by its reference to the Representatives of the people, who shall com- pose that iMxly." I*"urtlicr, Ciovcnior Swanii unreservedly ciulorsccl Presi- dent Jt)linson and hi.s reconstruction iK)licy, and no Icjis de- cidedly opposed tiie granting of negro suffrage. Lieutenant-C"i«)vernor Cox, in calling the Senate to order, 42 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. delivered a grandiloquent panegyric on Johnson,- which well illustrates the style of oratory of the man who was soon to become a leading opponent of Thomas Swann among the " Radicals." It also shows that the Union party in Mary- land was as yet undivided on the question of Southern reconstruction. Among other things he said: — " Scarcely had the reins of power fallen from the nerveless grasp of the dead President when they were gracefully but firmly seized by his successor, and the State, shrouded in shadow and gloom, was guided with a master hand in safety through the fearful crisis which threatened it. As the sad realization of war gave way to exultation at the return of peace, so the deep sorrow at the death of Abraham Lincoln became merged into thanksgiving to God for the gift of Andrew Johnson. History affords no such instance of colossal grandeur and sublimity as that of the man, who, elevated by his own unaided merit to the loftiest civil distinction, stood forth in the hour of his country's peril, unswayed by prejudice, unseduced by flattery, undismayed by menace, and dared to do his duty. . . . Not a year has elapsed since Andrew Johnson assumed the office ren- dered vacant by the death of the lamented Lincoln, and already has he impressed the world by the greatness and magnanimity of his achievements, and made himself a reputation lasting as time itself." Cox concluded by exhorting the Senate to show a con- ciliatory spirit, and to give education and the right of testi- fying to the negro. The acts of this legislature are of importance in this connection only so far as they relate to the political move- ments of the time. There was a Union majority of two votes in the Senate, and of twenty-eight in the House of Delegates, i. e., more than two to oi:ie.^ As might be ex- pected, it was uncompromising in support of " Radical " principles. On February 3, 1866, the Senate passed resolu- tions enfranchising all members of the General Assembly not hitherto registered, by the vote of 16 yeas to 2 nays.* This passed the House on February 6 by the vote of 56 to 18.^ On February 7 the same body after some debate passed ^ Senate Jour, and Docs., 1866, 2>-7- * American, Jan. 9, 1866. * Senate Jour., 176-177, 205. ' House Jour., 356-357- ioniuituni of " Pi'inocratti-i i>n.ur:ati:i- " 43 resolutions introduced by the speaker. John M. irazur, of Baltimore City, which endorsed President Johnson and his reconstruction policy, and protested against " any at- tempt by Congress, or other co-ordinate branch t)f this gov- ernment, to force universal negro suffrage without the cfm- sent and sanction of the States." The vote on this was 48 yeas to 24 nays. A section dikewise endorsing Secretary of State Seward was stricken out." The next day the Senate adopted the report of the com- mittee on I'ederal relations which favored the policy of leaving questions of reconstruction, negro suffrage, etc., to Congress, and further " Resolved. That this General .Assembly have entire confidence that tlie intcgrrity, patriotism and I'lrmncss of President Johnson and his administration, co-operating with Congress, will restore the Union of the States on the best and surest foundations, for the glory and honor of this people."' It is now necessary to go back a little in order to trace the origin of the organized movement which finally suc- ceeded in overthrowing the registry law and the Cnion party. In January, 1866, an informal gathering of Democratic leaders in the State resolved to call a convention of all persons who were opposed to the registry law. The com- mittee which was placed in charge of the affair issued on January 10 a circular letter addressed to prominent citizens urging cooperation in the primaries to be held for this pur- pose. The Democratic members of the legislature likewise issued a call to the same effect." The movement was at once taken up in all districts, and the local Democratic leaders, actively supi>ortctl by the different newspapers of their |)olitical faith, called the meetings which prepared for the coming convention. It was held by this party that the makers of the constitution of 1864 went beyond the necessities of the occasion in putting into • House Jour., 37-38, 402-407. * Senate Docs. G; Jour., 248-250. The vote on the adoption of the resolutions was yeas IQ. nays 5. •Scharf. History of Mar>land. Ill, 672-675; Sun. J.in. 6. 11 and 13. 1866. 44 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. the permanent organic law of the State provisions which were needed to meet a temporary condition only ; that the oath clause was an ex post facto law and therefore in con- travention of the United States Constitution ; and further- more that the law was unjust in that a majority of the voting population was disfranchised. A definite attempt was to be made to influence the legislature to remove all disabilities vmder a general law by a two-thirds vote as re- quired by the constitution." The assertion was made that " the only plea that [could] be urged in support of a continu- ance of the present registry law, and the Constitution, . . . [found] its origin in political vindictiveness."^" Pursuant to the call, the convention met in Temperance Temple, Baltimore, on January 24. It organized by electing as president Hon. Montgomery Blair, a former member of Lincoln's cabinet. The Sun of January 25 says there was " a full attendance constituting an imposing assembly." The American of the same date remarked that there was pres- ent " quite a number of political old hunkers who used to flourish under the dynasties of former years, and who have been silent so long that few people knew of their existence." On the second day of meeting a set of resolutions was adopted, which endorsed President Johnson's " restoration policy," as it was generally called by the Maryland Demo- crats at this time, stated the determination to persist " in the effort to regain the freedom that is now most unjustly and tyrannically withheld from the majority by the minority of the citizens of the State," and urged that " there should be no cessation to the struggle to recover such freedom until equal liberty to all citizens of the State [should be] made triumphant." The registry law was condemned as " odious and oppressive in its provisions, unjust and tyrannical in the manner of its administration, the fruitful source of dissension among the people, calculated to keep alive the memory of differences which ought to be forgotten, and that 'Frederick (Md.) Republican Citizen, Jan. 12 and 26, 1866; Balti- more Sun, Jan. 4, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 1866. " Frederick Republican Citizen, Jan. 26, 1866. I'ormatiou of " Ponocralic-Coiiscnalirc " I*art\. 45 sound policy. ciiIij;IitfiK-(l statcsmansliip and |K>sitivc justice demand I cd I its immediate repeal." It was further resolved that " the provisions of tlic Fourth Section of the First Article of the Constitution which prescribe conditions to the elective franchise, before unknown to the people of Maryland, (arc) retrospective, partaking of the nature of an ex fast facto law. and repuRnant to the tcmis of the Declaration of Rights, as well as the Consti- tutioji of the United States." An address was also issued to the people of Maryland, calling for their assistance in the fight for justice. Com- mittees were appointed to present the address and resolu- tions to the legislature, to procure signatures to petitions to that body, and an executive committee was to take general charge of the movement and direct further agitation." Both houses of the legislature duly received the follow- ing communication : — " To the Srttale and House of Di-le);ati-s of the Genera! Assembly of Maryland. " The undersigned, a committee on the part of a convention which assembled in Baltimore on the twenty-fourth inst. ; in discharge of the duty imposed upon them by the said convention have come to the city of Annapolis, to ask leave to appear before your Honorable Bodies, to present the proceedings and prayer of said convention. The convention, in asking this hearing from the Legislature of the State, have supposed that the very large proportion of the people, which it is known they represent, and the paramount interest to the whole people of the subject for which they claim attention, would be a sufficient justitication for this appeal. " We arc. with great respect " Vour obedient servants. M. HIair. Ch'r. Thos. O. Jenkins. Anthony Kimmel- A. H. Davis. James Wallace. A. Leo Knott. Isaac n. Jones. F. Lewis Griffiths. James L'. Dennis. Thos. D. Ksgate " Ahnai-olis, Md., Jan. 26, iS()6." This retpiest was at once acceded to, and on the same day a joint session was held, when the committee was cour- " Sec daily papers for a full account of the movement. »l*o Scharf's History of Maryland and Nelson's Baltimore. 46 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. teously received and allowed to present its petition, where- upon Montgomery Blair made a speech of some half an hour in length. Says the Sun :^- "The whole proceedings were worthy of the representatives of the people in the re- spective capacities in which they came together." As soon as the houses had resumed their separate sittings, J. E. Pilkington, of Baltimore City, offered a resolution in the House of Delegates that the "sending of large com- mittees to Legislative Halls was a piece of unparalleled pre- sumption and [un] warranted impertinence." This was de- feated, by a vote of 51 against 18.^^ The Union party had not been idle. Said the American of January 26: — " It is plain from what has occurred within the last few days that the issue between the loyal and disloyal people of Maryland is at last made up. It remains to meet it with becoming fortitude and determination. The Convention [of January 24] has enrolled every Rebel in the State in an attempt to overthrow the Registry Law. It remains to be seen if it has not compacted the loyal men for its defence." The Cumberland (Md.) Civilian^* stated in an editorial : — " We contend that the necessity for the existence and enforce- ment of the Registry law in the State of Maryland is today ten- fold greater than ever it was before." The Frederick (Md.) Examiner, another Union party sheet, expressed its sentiments as follows, on January 24 : — " We hope, earnestly hope, our Legislators at Annapolis will promptly dismiss all petitions that shall be presented to them asking for the modification or repeal of the Registry law. To do otherwise would be opening the road to the re-instatement of the very men who labored so zealously throughout the rebellion to force Mary- land out of the Union. As in the past so in the future, we can get along without the assistance of rebels or traitors. They deserted the State in the hour of trial, and we have no need of their service now that all danger is over. Those who proved false to their native State when treason and crime threatened its existence, would prove false in any position." "Jan. 27, 1866. House Jour., 188-193; Senate Jour., 84-87, 90-92. " House Jour., 194. " Quoted in American of Jan. 29, 1866. Formation of " Ih-mocratic-Couscn-ativc " Part\ 47 Not to l)c iK'Iiind their f)|)poiicnts. the cxampK Democrats was followed, atid a union city convention oi all those opposed to a change in the registry law was held in the same place in I'altimorc on February 2. All wards were rqirescnted with the exception of two. Resolutions, addressed to the legislature, were passed protesting against any change in the constitution or the registry law. It was claimed that " the time has not arrived for extending the right of suffrage to those unfaithful citizens of the State to whom it is denied by the Constitution. . . . The Convention, through its committee, and in behalf of the patriotic and loyal people of Baltimore, indignantly repudiates the insolent and impudent assumption that traitors and the aiders and abettors of treason constitute a majority of the people of that City, or of our State. . . . We will defend and maintain the Registry Law of this State until the permanent safety of the Republic is forever guaranteed and secured." In addition, the convention expressed "its confidence that Andrew Johnson and the two Houses of Congress will be able to labor togellicr to secure the loyal people of the coimtry against a substitution of rebel political power to control the Government, for the armed efforts to overthrow it." A committee of twenty members, with C. Herbert Rich- ardson as chairman, promptly brought the resolutions before another joint session of the legislature on February 5.'* Meanwhile the General Assembly, which must adjourn by constitutional limitation the second week in February, was flooded with petitions from all parts of the State, praying for the repeal of the registry law. One petition from Baltimore City contained the names of 11.^74 citizens, ami asked that " all persons, who, under the old constitution were cntitle . 4.^ " All doubt of the power of the General Assembly uiijcr the Constitution as it stands is removed. That po>scr is limited to the perfection of the (rcRistry) law; it does not extend to its repeal"* The minority of the omiinittcc ofTcrcd amendments to the constitution removing all disabilities from the Southern sym- pathizers, rctiuiring simply an oath of allegiance to the state and the national government, to the cfTect that " I will protect and defend the Union of the United States, and not allow the same to be broken up and dissolved, or the Govern- ment thereof to be destroyed, under any circumstances, if in my power to prevent it, and that I will at all times discountenance and oppose all combinations having for their object such dissolution or destruction."" When the legislature adjourned, the Baltimore Sun of February 12 said: — "The results of tiio called session of the LeRislatiirc. which has just terminated, seem not to have been of that character of im- mediate importance which its professed objects would have led us to expect. . . . We find very little eflfected through the measures which were proposed for immediately relieving the State of its indebtedness, caused by the extraordinary demands . . . growing out of the rebellion." The Frederick Republican Citizen, on Februarj' 2, while the General Assembly was still in th,. following : — . "Our Legislature is composed, for the mo.st part, of men of narrow views and limited experience. Their whole thought seems to be directed to the surest means of retaining political power, rather than to the establishment of justice, the increase of fraternity, and the promotion of public welfare. . . . The thief repented on the cross, and these men may, by the grace of God. Ik? converted even on the last day of their session, and restore to their fellow-citixens those ' inestimable rights ' of which they have helped to rob them." After the adjournment of that l)ody, the same pa|>er on I'cltruary 16 said of the law-makers: — " Their sin of omission is so great that wc have not the heart to look into their sins of commission." House Docs., 1866, M. House Docs., N. 50 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. The convention of January 24 had declared for continued and persistent agitation against disfranchisement, in case re- Hef should be denied by the legislature. In accordance with this determination, the Democratic leaders continued their propaganda, and soon a number of the more conserva- tive men in the Union party began to weaken in their sup- port of radical principles. This was perhaps more noticeable among the leaders than in the rank and file of the party. An important factor in the situation was the antagonism between the President and Congress, which became definite and open at precisely this period by the veto of the Freed- men's Bureau bill on February 19-^ and of the Civil Rights bill on March 27, 1866.^2 The Democrats in Maryland heartily supported Johnson and his " restoration " policy as it was always called by the speakers and newspapers of their party in the State. The radical wing of the old " Union " party, now in its death-throes, after some hesitation finally cast its lot with the supporters of Congress, and it became the Republican party in Maryland, which has preserved its organization to the present day. Of the conservative Union- ists, it may be said that a few of them, such as Montgomery Blair and Reverdy Johnson, had begun to act with the Dem- ocrats as early as the fall of 1864, in opposition to the new constitution of that year. In 1866 they were joined by many who were opposed to the registry law, and when the Fourteenth Amendment passed Congress in June of that year, large numbers followed their more decided brethren, and a definite alliance was formed of all the forces opposed to the Republican party as then constituted in Maryland. This alliance was first called the " Democratic-Conserva- tive " party in the summer of 1866, and became the " Dem- ocratic " party in the autumn of 1867, although for years the names were considered synonymous. It will now be our object to see how this new alignment was brought about, which was both the cause and the result of the overthrow of ^ Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 398-405. ^Richardson, Mess, and Pap., VI, 405-413. See, for the period, Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 51-70; Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, 62-73. Pormatiou of " Dcmocratu-i ,>r..ur;iiti:r i'art\. 51 the drastic Icj^islatioii «)f tlio Civil War iK'riod and of the constitution of \^(^. The first definite move in the pohtical game was the calhng of a large mass-meeting in support of Andrew Johnson. This was held in the Maryland Institute. Balti- more, on Fehruary 26, 1866, under the joint auspices of the Democrats and Conservatives. Mr. Knott's article, quoted above/' throws valuable light on the arrangements for this meeting, as well as upon the entire iK-riofl with which we are at present dealing. lie says-* that negotia- tions were then going on between the Democrats and Con- servatives looking toward a union, but nothing had so far been accomplished. It was the desire of some of the Con- servatives that the object of the meeting should be exclu- sively devoted to an endorsement of Johnson, and that no reference be made to local issues. On the other hand, the Democrats insisted that since a great majority of the Re- publicans (1. e., " Unionists ") in Maryland were opi>osed to the President's policy, success in the State would be depen- dent upon Democratic aid, and local politics would of necessity have to be considered. President Johnson having been appealed to, the views of the Democratic leader were sustained. The meeting was large and enthusiastic. Said the Sun of the next day: " A more spontaneous and earnest demonstration was never made in the city of Baltimore, nor one animated by a In-tter spirit." The American of the .same date charged that many per- sons were present who during the preceding five years ha- lican party was thus a secfuid time ushered into existence, and for the first time since the presidential campaign of i860 a permanent state organization was formed. Among those who were its sponsors and leaders were Joseph M. Gushing. Henry \V. HofTman. John A. Needles, R. Stockctt Matthews. C. Herbert Richardson. Henry Stockbri lis, May 10, 18^)6. The letter was published in the Amer- ican on May 12, and in the Sun on May 14. In it Governor Swann stated that he was " for keeping the control of this government in the hands of loyal men exclusively," was in favor of admitting Southern representation to Congress, supported Andrew Johnson and desired to maintain the integrity of the Unconditional Union party.*" He said further : — " I am utterly opposed to universal negro sufFragc and the extreme radicalism of certain men in CouRress and in our own State, who have becr\ striving to shape the platform of the Union party in the interests of negro suffrage. ... I look upon negro suffrage and the recognition of the power in Congress to control suffrage within the States as the virtual subordination of the white race to the ultimate control and domination of the negro in the State of Mary- land." ... I consider the issue upon this subject ... as well made in the fall elections, and the most important that has ever been brought to the attention of the people of the State of Maryland." He endorsed the course of the majority of the committee and found fault with inuch of the course of action of the Radicals during the prcccdinj,' nionths. The American on May 14 published a striking e.. .. .w. understanding existed appears to be borne out by the course of events during the next year. In all likelihood. Ciovernor Swann was sincerely opposed to the measures of the " Rad- icals." He was an able man of fine presence, though a " lahort'd " public speaker, and a skillful ix)litician. Of this last there can be no doubt. lie was also in a position where his aid could be all-powerful in overthrowing the registry law. The rank and f\\c of the old I'nion party seemed loath to believe that the governor had deserted them. As late as June 13 the I'^ederick Examiner supiK)rted him in an edi- torial and said it did not believe the reports that he was going to desert his party ; that he was in favor of the regis- try law and would carry out its provisions. Not till a month later^' was the Examiner willing to accept the change of base, and then it warned Swann that he did not know whither he was going, frightened by the chimera of negro suffrage. The Frederick Republican Citizen, the Examiner's bitter rival, was naturally jubilant over the governor's defection, as were the Democrats generally. The Citizen expressed its feelings in vigorous, if not choice, language in its issue for July 6: — " We iindcrstand a minibcr of the officials here speak very harshly of their Governor. . . . They thought he was a very proper man to he elected Governor when the State and the I'nion were in most imminent peril. But these zvisc and virtuous officials, now that Mr. Sw.inn can't go the radical programme, and consent to 'cat dirt' all the days of his life, and say his dying prayers at the knees of Thad. Stevens or Charles Sumner— say they ' nnrr did think tnuch of him.' Some say he is a ' itHflfi" '—others say he is a ' foot ' — and some men go so far as to say that he is a ' traitor.' " The Democratic newspapers and leaders in general were quick to seize on the advantage given them by the popular opposition to negro suffrage, and made the State fairly ring "The American on Sept. 25, 1866. made definite charges to this effect. "Issue of lulv 18. 18(16. 58 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. from one end to the other with the fooHsh cry of " negro equahty,"^^ till many doubting and hesitating members of the old Union party fled panic-stricken into the fold of their opponents. It was altogether in vain that the Republicans denied their advocacy of negro suffrage^^ and attempted to stem the tide of defection. In pursuance of their policy of an active and aggressive campaign looking toward the definite organization of the Republican party in the State, the Radicals held a mass- meeting in Hagerstown on May 14, at which addresses were made by Senator John A. J. Creswell, Congressmen Francis Thomas and John L. Thomas, Jr., General James A. Garfield, of Ohio, and Congressman Horace Maynard, of Tennessee. These speeches endorsed in general the con- gressional plan of reconstruction, the registry law and the action of the minority of the state executive committee in calling a convention for June 6.^^ On May 17 the Radical " City Unconditional Union Con- vention " of Baltimore was held in Rechabite Hall, Fayette Street, all the wards being represented with the exception of the fourth. Resolutions were adopted by a vote of 40 to 19- which favored the registry law, upheld the minority " The two quotations that follow are taken from the Frederick Republican Citizen. March 30, 1866, it said: "If the Union is re- stored, the abolition and shoddy patriots who have ruled the country for the last five years, and almost ruined it, will be hurled from power with the curses of the people upon their guilty heads. This deserved retribution they are seeking to prevent by a revolu- tion in the fundamental principles of the government, and the eleva- tion of the negro to an equality with the white man politically, so that by the aid of negro votes they may retain political su- premacy." On June 22, 1866, it said : " Rampant, fanatical Aboli- tionism gloated with its success, drunk with blood, raving with its insane heresies is pressing furiously onward to its legitimate conse- quences, the goal of full social equality for the negro with all the degrading horrors of amalgamation. Be not deceived; our very fire-sides are threatened ; aiid unless men act, and act with vigor, even race itself, as well as home, will be prostituted to the orgies of this great moloch of America." *^The Frederick Examiner of May 16, 1866, opposed negro suf- frage and said it was a campaign lie that the Union party favored it, adding : " The Union party to a man is opposed to admitting the blacks to the right of voting. There is no difference of opinion on the subject, all are equally opposed to it." ^'American, May 15, 1866. I'ormation of " Democratic -Couscnativc " l\irt\. 59 of the cxcculivf conimittri'. and repudiated the action of the majority, saying that they had " forfeitcfl all claim to be regarded as an exixinent of t''. ^ i. - . and sentiments of loyal men of Maryland." Later in the same evening aiM>m.i (.invention under the same political name was held at Temperance Temple, com- posed of delegates who were in accordance with the views of the majority of the committee. At this meeting resolu- tions were passed which opposed negro suffrage, endorsed President Johnson and repudiated the action of the rival convention. James Young presided over IxHh conven- tions.*" The following evening a Radical mass-meeting endorsed the action of the first convention.*' On June 6, in conformity with the call of the minority of the executive committee, the " Unconditional I'nion State Convention " met at Front Street Theatre, Baltimore. Although the definite organization of the Republican party really took place at this meeting, yet the old name of '* Un- conditional I'nion " was still retained, perhaps to sustain the claim of party loyalty and political consistency made by its members. John L. Thomas. Jr.. called the meeting to order, and Dr. C. II. Ohr of Allegany County was chosen to preside. A new state central committee was appointed, and the principles of the Radical party were definitely stated in resolutions as follows: — '* That the registered loyal voters of Maryland will listen to no propositions to repeal or moc^ify the registry law. which was enacted in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, and must remain in full force until such time as the rcRi<;tcrcd voters of the State shall decree that the organic law shall be changed. ... It is the opinion of this convention that if disloyal persons should be registered it will be the duty of the judges of election to administer the oath prescribed by the Constitution to all whose loyalty may be challenged, and. in the language of the Constitution, to ' carefully exclude from votitiR ' all that arc disqualified. . . . The question of negro suffrage is not an issue in the State of M3r>land, but is raised by the enemies of the Union party for the purpose of dividing "Sun and .American, May 18, 1866. " Sun and American, May 19. 6o The Self-P-^-'^'r^'^r^'-y rr Maryland. and distractmg it, and :, 'itelv enable rebels to \otef The convention also corcially endorsed the reconstruction policy of Congress, ar.l £c;:umed 51 n^ diV.*^ The newly- appointed state central committee met on June 20 and organized with Robert M. Proud as president** Meanwhile, the Owiservatives had held on May 19 at Westminster a large out-of-door meeting of those in favor of President Johnson's pohcj- and of reform in state aitairs. Addresses were made by Senator T. A. Hendricks, of Indi- ana, Congressman L. H. Rousseau, of Kentucky, and others.** On the twenty-ninth the " Unconditional Union State Cen- tral Committee," as formerly constituted, met in Baltimore. It refused to recognize the call for the convention of Jime 6, by the minoritj' members of the executive committee, but instead it called another convention to meet in Baltimore on the fourth Wednesday of July <' twenty-fifth), and endorsed President Johnson and the recently published letter of Gov- ernor SwaniL** A large Conservative mass-meeting was held in ^lonu- ment Square, Baltimore, on June 21, in pursuance of a call " by the friends of President Johnson, Governor Swann and the opponents of negro suffrage," and "by- order of the Executive Committee of the State Central Committee and City Convention of the Unconditional Union Party of ^lary- land-" These men also valued old names and made use of them in proving party r^ularity, so they also were " Uncon- ditional Union." One of the mottoes that decorated the speakers' stand was " No affiliation with Rebels or Rad- icals." Governor Swann presided and made a speech, in which he said : " I desired to be understood as occupying a conservative, middle position between those who were en- ** American and Sun, June 7, 1866: Nelson's Baltimore, 166; Scbarf, History of ilaryland. III, 678-679. The American of tbe next day said that this convention "represented very fairly the intelligence, character and priac^Ie of the loyal men of Mary- land," and tiiat its object was to organize the Unirai party. * American, Jnne 21, 1866. ** Sun, May 21. * Srai and American of May 30. rormoiion of " Ih-mocratic-Couscnativc" Party. 6l (Icavoring to drive us into universal iuj»ro sufTraRc on the one side, and the supiwirt of disunicjnists on the otlicr." He also declared tiiat he stood for the enforcement of the regis- tration law, as he had stated in his message to the legisla- ture of the preceding January.*' Since it was upon the statute-hook it should he executed, hut not in a spirit of intolerance and o|)pression, of which there had been too much in the past. This was a distinct recession from his former (X)sition. and evidently a hint of the method he was to pursue in aiding the Democrats, who, if not already, were soon to be his allies. Addresses were also made at the same meeting by ex-Govcrnor A. W. Randall, of Wisconsin (later postmaster-general in Johnson's cabinet), Mr. IVrrine of New York, and General Charles K. Phelps.*^ On the next morning (twenty-second) an editorial in the Baltimore Sun made the statement that the meeting marked ** the inauguration under the auspices of the highest execu- tive officer of the State, of what appears to be a more rational and conservative movement in the politics of the State, than has been clearly recognizable heretofore." It will be remembered by the student of national politics that during the summer of iSr/) President .Andrew Johnson and his friends made a definite attempt to organize all the forces throughout the country which favored his recon- struction policy, so as to procure a majority in Congress, with which to defeat Thaddeus Stevens and the so-called congressional plan of reconstruction. .\u organization known as the " National Union Club " had been formed in Washington with this object in view, and during the latter part of Jutie it issued a call f»ir a convention to meet in Philadelphia, August 14, 1866. This call was signed by men prominent in the Democratic and Conservative ranks in the nation. As yet President Johnson openly kept up his alliance with the Republicans, and when his cabinet was changed by the resignation of three of its fomier mcml>ers. he appointed no Democrats in their places. " Sec page 41. "Sun and American. June 22; Nelson's Baltimore, 166. 62 The S elf -Reconstruction of Maryland. The call for the Philadelphia convention was eagerly wel- comed by the Democrats, particularly those of the South, and the movement was taken up by the more weighty ele- ment among the ex-Confederates, as well as by the conser- vative element among the Republicans, such as the anti- registration forces in Maryland.*^ Following the call of its central committee, the conservative wing of the Union party held its state convention on July 25 in the New Assembly Rooms on Hanover Street, Baltimore. A plat- form was drawn up which endorsed the course of Andrew Johnson and Thomas Swann, opposed negro enfranchise- ment and the registry law, and favored the call of the Phila- delphia convention, electing as delegates-at-large to it Mont- gomery Blair, Thomas Swann, J. W. Crisfield and Reverdy Johnson. Colonel William J. Leonard, of Worcester County, was unanimously nominated as candidate for state comp- troller for the November election.*^ The Democratic state convention met in Rechabite Hall, Baltimore, on August 8, E. G. Kilbourn, oi Anne Arundel County, serving as president. It endorsed Andrew Johnson and also the Philadelphia convention, to which it chose as delegates-at-large Thomas G. Pratt, of Baltimore City, H. G. vS. Key, of St. Mary's County, Judge Richard B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's County, Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset County, and E. G. Kilbourn. By making no nomination against Leonard for comptroller, the Conservatives and Democrats joined their forces, and took as the objects of their alliance the support of Johnson and a change in both the state constitution and the registry law.^° The Philadelphia convention cemented this alliance in "Rhodes, History of the United States since the Compromise of 1850, V, 614-616; Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 72-74; Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, go-92, 98-99. Sun, June 29, 1866. *" Sun, July 26, and American of same date, which says that Mont- gomery Blair was the " controlling spirit " in the convention. Mr. Wm. M. Marine states (Nelson's Baltimore, 166-167) that a large number of the delegates held places under Johnson in the Federal oflfices in Maryland. "° Sun, Aug. 9, 1866. Formation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnatirc " Party. 63 Maryland more firmly and paved the way for its identifica- tion with the Democratic party. The " Southern Loyalists Convention," which was called by the radical elements in the Republican party of the na- tion, and which met at the same place on Septeml)cr 3, was an attemj)! to counteract the effects of the gathering just de- scribetl. The Loyalist speakers denounced President John- son with great unanimity; but the affair soon dcgcneratcil into an unseemly struggle between the advocates and the op- ponents of negro suffrage. The Maryland Radicals were represented by delegates to this meeting, but were not much helped by it in their state campaign."' Meanwhile a state convention had been held on August 15. in Baltimore, at the call of Robert ^L Proud, chair- man of the newly constituted " Unconditional Union State Central Committee." The platform called Montgomery Blair and Thomas Swann " traitors," condemned the latter for abandoning the jirinciplcs of his party, favored the con- gressional plan of reconstruction, and proposed to uphold the constitution of 18^)4 and the registry law "until such time as the safety of the State and Nation will warrant modification or amendment." Colonel Robert P>rucc, of Allegany County, was nominated for comptroller." Both parties made nominations in all five congressional districts of the State. General Charles E. Phelps, an ex- Union soldier, was the conservative candidate in the third district. In his address accepting the nomination he made the following significant statement : — " I have never been a Republican, I am not a Democrat, and I do not expect to be. I believe in Republican principles, and though the majority must rule, the minority must be beanl."" It now began to appear that the Democrats had really won the deci " Sun and .American ft)r .Xur. If>. iSr/v "American and Sun, Sept. 8, iSrrf); Nelson's Baltimore, 167. 64 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. Swann to break away from his party. The true signifi- cance of his policy was now made perfectly clear, namely, to do away as far as possible with the practical effects of the " iron-clad " oath of the constitution and the disfranchising sections of the registry law, and to give the ballot to the opponents of the Radical party. According to the provisions of the registry law, the exec- utive of the State was empowered to appoint the registers and judges of election in each district, and to these officials was given the final determination as to the right of each citizen to register, while from their decision there was no appeal.^* Governor Swann now began to appoint new election officials in all parts of the State, and to instruct them to interpret the oath and registry law as liberally as possible and to let the people register and vote.^^ Mr. Knott says that these men, " while adhering strictly to the law, so fairly and justly interpreted its provisions as to reg- ister a very large number of Democratic voters throughout the State and . . . secured them ... in their rights to the elective franchise." The Frederick Republican Citizen in its issue of August 3, 1866, told every Democrat to register, saying that Swann's registers would discharge their duties " in the spirit of re- publican self-government" and would not insult Democrats at the polls, or meet them in a spirit of partizan vindic- tiveness. In its issue of the tenth of the same month it fur- ther said, " The present Governor of the State zvants you all to register." On the other hand, the Baltimore American on September 11 pointedly said that Swann, with the United States Senate as his object, advised the registers to give " liberal construction " to the law. This action of course threatened the ascendancy of the Republican party in the State. During the preceding two ^* See page 19. °° Authority of Gen. F. C. Latrobe, who told the writer that at one time he liad in his possession the correspondence between Gov. Swann and the judges of election which contained these instructions, but burned the letters by direction of the governor. Swann was often called the "great emancipator." Also see Scharf, III, 679-680; Nelson's Baltimore (Knott's article), 558. I'onitation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnativi: " Part\. 65 or three years the oKl Uni(Mi party had been able to hold its place only by the use of most strenuous measures. It could hardly be supposed that this radical section of the old party would be able to overcome the DenuKrats rcinforcc7. A): "The act re- lating to the registration of the voters of the State, passed March 24, 1865, places the limitations within which the retiims of the officers of registration were required to he ma«le. heyond the period appointed by law for holding the municipal elections of the city of Baltimore. This virtually di'iframiiisr.l. according to the opituon of tlie Attorney General of the State, more than one half of its voting population. That the Legislature could not have contem- plated any such construction of the law. I am tni;\ i vx k. r.I . .-»nd the omission to name an earlier day. for the r< • --rs of Registration, so as to include the municipal cd the belief that the law was not meant to appl\ : ' '•' only to general Stale elections. Some of the most ciiniu in the State entertained this view." 5 66 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. would have to be applied to voting in corporations of all kinds, i. e., insurance, banking, etc.^^ The judges of election formally agreed to accept the pub- lished opinion of the attorney-general, and that only the registration lists of 1865 would be used as their guide in admitting or rejecting votes at the municipal election. ^^ This meant, at least, that the Radicals were sure of electing the city officials. The opposing candidates for the office of mayor were John Lee Chapman on the Radical ticket, and Daniel Harvey on the Conservative. Both parties entered upon the cam- paign with vigor, and since the municipal and state elections were less than a month apart, the party organizations worked for both of them at the same time. Thus the Con- servatives and Democrats held a grand parade and a mass- meeting on September 27, in Monument Square, presided over by William Price. Many leading men of both par- ties were present. The resolutions endorsed both An- drew Johnson and the Philadelphia convention.*^'* Then the Radicals had their parade and mass-meeting at the same place on the evening of October 4. Thomas Kelso presided and among the speakers were Senator John A. J. Creswell and Joseph J. Stuart. The resolutions condemned the Con- servatives who had " betrayed " them, expressed "detesta- tion of the treachery of Andrew Johnson," and concluded by resolving "That, making no threats, insisting only on the Constitution and the law, we look to the judges of election ' carefully to exclude from voting' all disloyal persons whom the conspiracy of the Governor and his registers have \sic\ placed on the lists, and that ''See also editorial in American, Oct. 8, 1866; Scharf, III, 680. It appears that the year before this, Wm. Price, city counsellor, in a letter dated Sept. 11, 1865, and addressed to James Young, president of the first branch of the City Council, held that the fall election of that year must take place under the registration of the year before (see American, Aug. 20, 1866). The question of the vote in municipal elections of citizens hitherto unregistered had been agitated in the American of May 14, 1866. '"American, Oct. 9; Scharf, III, 680. *" American and Sun, Sept. 28, 1866. Formation of " Dcmocratic-Coiiscnativc " Party. 67 the Union party of Maryland has the will mi.! th. i...vvrr to protect the judges and defend the ballot box."*' On October 9, the day preceding the election, there was some disorder. A mob collected in front of the Con- servative hca, and it is reasonable to suppose that the city had largely incrcasetl in populatirt the city authorities in resisting Mr. Swann's interference."" As might well be supposed, popular excitement became in- tense. On the twenty-second the governor i>suitl a procla- mation, as follows: — ■' Whereas it has come to tfie knowledge of the Executive that military and other combinations are now forming in the city of Baltimore, for the purpose of obstructing and resisting the execu- tion of the laws of this State. And whereas there is reason to be- lieve that similar combinations are attempted to be organized in other States, with the intention of invading tlie soil of the State of Mary- land, to deprive her citizens of their just riglits under tiic laws, and to control the people of the State by violence and intimidation : Xow, therefore, I, Thomas Swann, Governor of the State of Maryland, do. by this my proclamation, solemnly ll'ani the I.t-adfrs of all such illegal and revolutionary combinations against tlw and dignity of the State that, in the event of riot or bl" growing out of these revolutionan.- proceedings, they will U ■.< ^m to the strictest accountability, and the power of the State will be exhausted to bring them to prompt and merited punishment." The situation was rendered much more dangerous by the fact that the State of Maryland at this time possessed no militia, nor was there any law bv which the governor itid organize an armed f' tnilitia act of March " .\merican. Oct. 22, 1866. 70 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. lo, 1864,^'' expired by limitation on March i, 1866, and the legislature had failed to enact any substitute. On October 24 General U. S. Grant, commander in chief of the United States Army, addressed a letter to President Johnson in which he stated that upon receiving verbal instructions from the President to " look into the nature of the threatened difficulties in Baltimore," he had ordered General Canby, whose department included the State of Maryland, to proceed to Baltimore in person, in order to investigate the causes of the impending trouble. Since the return of his subordinate to Washington he (Grant) had conferred with him and also with Governor Swann, who were united in the opinion that *' no danger of riot need be apprehended unless the latter should find it necessary to remove the present police commissioners of Baltimore from office, and to appoint their successors." General Grant concluded by saying: — " I cannot see the possible necessity for calling in the aid of the military in advance of even the cause (the removal of said com- missioners) which is to induce riot. The conviction is forced upon my mind that no reason now exists for giving or promising the military aid of the government to support the laws of Maryland. ... So far there seems to be merely a very bitter contest for polit- ical ascendency in the State. Military interference would be inter- preted as giving aid to one of the factions, no matter how pure the intention, or how guarded and just the instructions. ... If insurrection does come, the law provides the method of calling out forces to suppress it. No such condition seems to exist now." Meanwhile Governor Swann proceeded with the trial of the commissioners, and after hearing the evidence and ar- guments of counsel on both sides, he decided that the parties complained against were guilty of official misconduct as charged by the committee of twenty-five. He removed Samuel Hindes and Nicholas L. Wood from office, but John Lee Chapman still remained a member of the board, in virtue of his office as mayor of the city. On Friday, November 2, the governor appointed James *" Chapter 284 of the Maryland laws. Format ion of " Dcmocratic-Consen'ati'iC " Parly. y\ Younp and William Thomas \'aliant''^4>s jxjlicc commission- ers. These K^^iitlemen immetliately (|ualifie(l and took oath before Jiu1k<-' I^- N- Martin of the Siiin-rior Court, then went at once to the office of the late board in the " (;ld Assembly Rooms" on the northeast corner of Holliday and I-'ayettc Streets. Here they were informed by Dqnity Marshal John Manley that the l)oarard. A large cnnvd having gathered in the street in front of " The American of Xovcml)cr % prints a nimor ll; "ffered appointment to John T. Ford, George R. Wc W. Ilcirn. all of whom declined. 72 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. their office, the two commissioners ordered WilHam Thom- son, sheriff of the city, to summon a posse comitatus for their protection. The sheriff was proceeding to do this, when he and Young and VaHant were arrested on two bench war- rants issued by Judge Hugh Lennox Bond of the Criminal Court. After a hearing, Judge Bond ordered bail of $5000 for each one of the three, on the charge of conspiracy. The court also ordered that the two commissioners give security in the sum of $20,000 to keep the peace toward the " existing commissioners " and those under their authority, and that they desist from all attempts to act as and exercise the powers of commissioners till they should have established their claims by law, and that the " present commissioners " continue in de facto exercise of their office. Valiant and Young refused to give bail, and were sent to the Baltimore City jail on two commitments each. Their counsel, William Schley, John H. B. Latrobe and John M. Frazier, applied to Judge James L. Bartol, of the State Court of Appeals, for writs of habeas corpus, which were made returnable on the following Monday, November 5, the day preceding the election. " The warden, influenced by the threats or persuasions of the Republican leaders, availed himself of a law recently passed, giving to the respondents in habeas corpus proceedings four days after the service of the writ within which to make answer and return." Judge Bartol was therefore compelled to postpone the hearing to November 8, two days after the election."^ It will at once be seen that the Radicals had won in the first skirmish, and most important of all, the old commis- sioners and their judges of election would conduct the state *' Knott, in Nelson's Baltimore, 560. On Nov. 2, 1866, the first branch of tlie City Council passed resolutions that " the attempted removal of the Police Commissioners ... by Thomas Swann, Gov- ernor of this State, is a deliberate attempt to trample upon the Constitution and Registry Law of the State of Maryland, and to place in power those who, during the entire war, were enemies of the United States government. Resolved, that the attempt to re- move the Commissioners without just cause, and for political pur- poses alone, calls for the condemnation of the Union men throughout the country" (Jour., 26, 28, 29, 33, 40). This was passed by the second branch the following day (Jour., 23-24). Formation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnativc " Party. 73 election in the city the next day. This seemed to offer a hope that the Conservative forces would not be able to overthrow tlieir opponents in spite of the active help of Governor Swann. Meanwhile popular excitement had reached such a pitch that there was imminent danger that violence and bloodshed would occur at any moment. To Ro back a little. On the preceding Friday. November 2, President Johnson issued the following order nddrc-^M-d to Edwin M. Stanton, secretary of war: — "There is Rrmind to apprclictul tlanRcr of an iiiMii n > ,hi:i tn Baltimore aRainst the constituted authorities of the State of Mary- land, on or about the day of tlic election soon to l>c held in that city, and that in such contingency the aid of the United States might be invoked under the acts of Congress which pertain to that sub- ject. While I am averse to any military demonstration that would have a tendency to interfere with the full exercise of the elective franchise in Baltimore, or be construed into any interference in local questions, I feci great solicitude that, should an insurrection take place, the government should be prepared to meet and promptly put it down. I accordinf,'ly desire you to call General Grant's atten- tion to the subject, leaving to his own discretion and judgment the measures of preparation and precaution that should be adopted." On the same day General Grant ordered General Canby, commanding the Department of Washington, to hold troops in readiness for service, and the latter officer at once came to Baltimore. The excitement on Saturday, November 3. was intense." The new commissioners having been placeiik contirciuo i.>t; ;m.u <■ \i--.(..i..y (Sun. 1„ r. with •The writer is informed by Mr. Isaac T. Norris that some years after the events narrated. Judge Bond -* i ■ . - ■ .m in a private conversation that excitement wa.n so great at the Hme of the arrest of the commissioners that he "did not know whether he would ever get back home fmm the Court House." The same judge was also prominent in the trial of the Ku Kliix Klan cases in the Soiitli a few years later. 74 ^^'^ Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. reference to the extraordinary conditions of affairs in this city. The result of the conference, it is stated, is to the effect that the civil and military authorities of the general government will be governed by the opinion of the law officer of the government, At- torney General Stanbery, that the militarj- power of the government cannot be used to intervene in the political complications which have arisen in this city, except in case of actual riot, or overt acts in- volving a breach of the peace." In confirmation of this may be given the following ac- count of the matter as contained in a special message addressed to the legislature by Governor Swann on Febru- ary 5, 1867:— " No correspondence" of any description has passed between the President of the United States and myself in regard to the late municipal election in Baltimore City, or the removal of the police commissioners. My communications to the President were directed to the single point as to the power of the Executive when appealed to by the civil authorities of a State, in case of an emergency, to furnish military aid in the execution of the laws. ... I felt it to be my duty in the then threatening aspect of affairs in the city of Baltimore to guard by proper precautionary measures against any outbreak likely to compromise the peace of the commonwealth. Secretary Stanton, Generals Grant and Canby, and the Attorney General, were fully cognizant of what passed between the President and myself upon this point, and I am not aware that there was any difference of opinion in regard to the construction of the law in case a proper requisition had been made. The only telegram between the President and myself w^as an inquiry from me a short time before the election whether any change had taken place since my interview with him in relation to the matter. . . . The result of the election shows that I had no wish to resort to the military unless driven to it by the most urgent necessity, and to prevent anarchy and bloodshed, which, as Governor of the State, I was powerless to control." The governor returned to Baltimore at 8.30 p. m. on Sunday, November 4. General Grant accompanied him, being sent by President Johnson as his private representa- tive.^^ He made his headquarters at the Eutaw House at the corner of Eutaw and Baltimore Streets. The next "Sun, Feb. 6, 1867. " Mr. Knott, in Nelson's Baltimore, 561. Also stated as a fact by Gen. F. C. Latrobe. PorntiUion of " Piiiwcratii-Consi'naltvc " Party. 75 morning (XovcmlK-r 5) lie sent the folIowinK telegram to Secretary Stanton : — " This morning collision looked almost inevitable. Wiser counftcU now seem to prevail, and I think there is strong hope that no riot will occur. Propositions looking to the harmony of parties arc now |)ciidiiiK. " U. S. GuANT, General." Mr. Kiioti gives some further very interesting informa- tion in regard to the situation at this time. He states that early on the same day (November 5) General Grant and General Canl)y had an interview with the leaders of the Radical party and then called upon Swann and the Demo- cratic-Conservative committee at the governor's P.altimorc residence. " They expressed to the Governor and to the Committee their hope for a peaceful solution of the difficulties, and their iKlicf that under the arrangements which had been made by the old Com- missioners, a fair and honest election wouhl be held. General Canby further assured the Committee that he had obtained from these Commissioners the promise that they would appoint a Demo- cratic judge and clerk at each of the polling places and urged the Committee to furnish such list at once. This was all that the Com- mitt. e had asked and with this assurance they were well content. ... A list of judges and clerks which had already been prepared was inunediately taken by Mr. John T. Ford and General John W. Horn to the office of the Commissioners in the Old .Assembly Rooms. . . . But these gentlemen, after being kept waiting for some time in an ante-room, were fmally refused admission to the presence of the Board and were informed by one of its counsel through a half- opened door that the judges and clerks of election had l>cen ap- pointed an -li^^ o inmis- ~"^elson's Baltimore, S^'-f^^. It will be rem ' Mr. Knott was a member of the DcuKxratic slate ex. -^ "JO The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. sioners told General Grant,'^ in reference to his proposed compromise, that they had ui\-ited the Consen-ative party to furnish a list containing the name of a judge of election for each precinct, but they had decHned, saying that they would wait until it was decided whether or not Swann's commis- sioners would have charge on election day. If Young and \'aliant were not in power, they would then hand their list to tlie old board. The election took place on Tuesday, November 6, and in spite of all their efforts, the Radicals were overwhelmingly defeated in both cit\- and State. Contrary- to expectation, the da}' passed in comparative quiet, there being '" little or nothing more of incident than is common on such occa- sions.'"* Out of a total of 24.346 registered voters in Baltimore City, a vote of i6.cx)6 was cast, Bruce (Republican ) poll- ing 7493 and Leonard ( Conser\-ative ) 8513.'^ Through- out the State, in a total vote of nearly 70,000. Leonard's majority- was about 13,000. The Democrats and Conserva- tives elected Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles E. Phelps and Frederick L. Stone in the first, second, third and fifth congressional districts respectively, while the Republicans could console themselves with but one dis- trict, the fourth, in which Francis Thomas was reelected. The rout of the Radicals extended to the legislature, where the Consenatives would have a two-thirds majority "This must have been either late on the night of Sunday, Nov. 4, or very- early the next morning. " This is quoted from the Smi of Xov. 7, which would have been quick to note any disorder. Gen. Charles E. Phelps. Conser\-ative candidate for Congress at this electiori, recently showed to the writer one of the Democratic-Conservative tickets used at the polls in Baltimore. The following was printed at the top, " National Union Ticket, Opposed to Negro Suffrage." and tmdemeath a small picture of a man nailin? a United States Sasr to a msst. ''Both Knott (Nelson's Baltimore. 562-^63^ arid Scharf (III, 684-^) state that large numbers of Conservatives, fearing violence. remained away from the polls. On the other hand, John W. B^r. in his " life," published in Baltimore, 1873, says (page 236) : '' i he Johnson men threw out • the hint that every Tnan in the Custom House who had voted the radical ticket would be turned out the next day." Formal ion of " Dcmocratii-Couscn-athc " Parly. jj ill both houses tluriiiK the coming session. It was a " (|uict revolution," and Marylan'.ntng and American, Nov. 8, 1866. 78 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. Valiant were committed to jail, in default of bail, and were compelled to wait till after the election for the return of the writ of habeas corpus. This return was made on Novem- ber 8, and on Tuesday, November 13, one week after the election, Judge Bartol gave his decision, establishing their right as commissioners from the day of their appointment. He also affirmed that " the Criminal Court had no power to pass such an order, or to commit the parties to jail for refusing to comply with it," and that " such commitment can furnish no legal cause for their detainer." Governor Swann's opinion on this matter, as expressed by him in his message to the legislature at its next session,^^ was that " the power attempted to be exercised by the Judge of the Crimi- nal Court is believed to be without precedent; ignoring alike the Great Seal of the State, and the limitations governing his judicial functions. I refer to the proceedings to show how far I have been sustained in the discharge of my official duty. Representing, as I did, the sovereignty of the State, as well as the power specifically delegated to me, in the recess of the Legislature, I held myself re- sponsible only to your Honorable Body for the course which I deemed it my duty to pursue in the removal of these delinquent officers." After Judge Bartol had rendered his decision, Young and Valiant entered into their own recognizance in the sum of $5000 each, on the charge of conspiracy, and were then dis- charged. They immediately went to their office on North Street and sent a written notice to Mayor Chapman, in which they informed him of their entrance upon the per- formance of their duties as commissioners, under judicial sanction, and invited him to attend, as ex officio member, a meeting of the board to be held that afternoon at five o'clock. Although the mayor did not appear, the other two mem- bers held the meeting, and organized by electing Young president. They notified Thomas H. Carmichael, marshal of police, to report forthwith for orders. He obeyed, and " Docs, of House of Delegates, 1867, Doc. A. FornuilioH of " Pi'mocratic-Cousenativc " Partv. 79 asked for an hour's time for consideration. i: granted, and the marshal finally submittef'. the police force following his example. The following day ( N'oveml>cr 14) another demand was made ui>on Hindes and Wock! for all the property of the police Ixiard still in their possession. They returned an answer late in the afterncKm, promising to hand over everything the next day, and this was done. The excitement, which had continued up to this time, soon abated, and the Conservative victory was won." Before closing this chapter, it is only fair to quote from an editorial defense of Hindes and WVkkI, published by the American on October 31, during their trial. Said that journal : — "If the police commissioners admitted the Governor's risht of removal, and yet refused to submit to his decision, then the f»ov- crnor would be justifiable in employing force to compel their obedi- ence. Rut, so far from disobeying any law or ju(hci.'il pr'>crss of the State, they openly avow their willingness for a con>titutiona! trial, and, if found guilty, to submit to the penalty inflicted, what- ever that penalty may be. They wish to violate no law. The only question with them is, shall they servilely submit to the mandates of Governor Swann, or protect themselves, like citizens conscious of their rights, under the Constitution and laws, against every wrong and usurpation. They choose the latter." "For full particulars of the matter of the police commissioners see Scharf, III. 680. (>86; Nelson's Baltimore, 558-56.^; House Docs.. 1867, Doc. A; Senate Docs., 1867, Doc. I, the latter a full and im- partial report by the new commissioners. The daily papers contain full reports of the contest, the evidence submitted by both sides, etc. CHAPTER IV. The Reform Legislature of 1867. The General Assembly of IMaryland met in regular ses- sion at Annapolis on January 2, 1867. The Democratic- Conservative party in the State felt that it had now- come into its own, for with a two-thirds majority in each house, and a man of the same political views as executive, it was free to repeal all legislation which remained as a legacy from Civil War conditions. It could reconstruct the government and laws according to its own ideas of what was proper and expedient. A large part of Governor Swann's message^ was taken up with the discussion of the affair of the police commissioners and has been already quoted.^ The message also contained many suggestions and recommendations, which are interest- ing in the light of contemporary events. The first of these suggestions was that the legislature look into the question of a new^ election for mayor and city council of Baltimore. Said the governor: — " Of one thing I am strongly convinced, that a continuance in authority of men profiting by their own wrong, forced upon the people, in opposition to the will of more than three-fourths of the qualified registered voters of the city, and by armed combinations of irresponsible ofificials holding their commissions from the Board of Police, would be a libel upon free government, and a gross and flagrant injustice to an outraged people." He also desired that safeguards should be thrown around the city treasury, to " check the wasteful expenditure which is already beginning to startle the tax-payer." An act to provide for the organization of a state militia was next urged, and Governor Swann then proceeded to discuss the question of the negro population of Maryland, "■ House Docs., 1867, Doc. A. ^ See page 78. 80 T/jt' Reform Lccjislature of iS6j. 8 1 stating that he regretted " to be ohligcfl to refer in this place to the persistent efTorts which . . . we arc so often called to witness, to bring discredit upon the State of Mary- land in her relations with the negro population." He de- nied any outbreaks of violence or any bad treatment of the negroes,^ and continued : — " I have felt encouraged by the general harmony which prevails between the races, and the total absence at this time of any serious disagreement, growing out of the recognized standard of wages or any otlicr exciting cause. . . . The recent discussion in the Mouse of Representatives, in reference to the political disabilities imposed by our laws upon the colored race,* can hardly be recognized as dealing fairly with the subject to which reference was made, with so much unnecessary bitterness. There is no disposition in this State, so far as I am informed, to interfere with the civil rights of the negro, and all laws in conflict with them I sincerely hope will receive your prompt attention. . . . The effort on the part of a class of extreme men, to turn to party account occurrences so insignificant in themselves, and susceptible of such conclusive ex- planation, is only to be accounted for, as connected with the attempt already foreshadowed, to include Maryland in the list of revolted States, awaiting the fiat of territorial subjugation. ... In commit- ting the unpardonable sin of denying to the negro the privilege of suffrage [Maryland] stands by the side of others of her sister States of the North, not less criminal than herself, and certainly as uncompromising and obstinate in their settled convictions upon tbr subject." The governor oppo.scd the Fourteenth AmenthiK. further, agreed with President Johnson's idea tliat negro suflfrage should be left to the States. He also approved the President's plan of reconstruction. Finally, he advised the calling of a convention to fomuilate a new state constitu- tion at an early day, and concluded as follows: — "If I have saved your State from threatened invasion by men who were ready to plunge it again into the horrors of civil war, and the not less disreputable machinations of revolutionar}* agita- tors in your midst — If I have turned back the airrent of a bitter and *The Sun of Jan. ii. 1867, also denied the stories of ill-treatment of negroes in Marj-land. * For a di.scussion of the funeral question of the Federal rela- tions of Maryland at this period, sec pages lOJ-Ilo, IJ9-»JI- 6 82 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. unforgiving party rancor which threatened the very existence of your political and social fabric — if I have restored to the people of my State their just rights under their Constitution and laws, I may congratulate myself that my administration thus far has not been without its fruits, in maintaining the supremacy of the laws — the freedom of republican institutions, and the credit of Con- stitutional Government." The Senate was called to order by the lieutenant-governor, Dr. Cox, who made a few remarks, in the course of which he spoke of Maryland as the first State to shake off slavery, " the incubus so stifling to her prosperity, . . . although she is unprepared now, as she will ever be, for the adoption or sanction of any measure tending to so absurd and revolting a result as the social equality of the races." He favored giving to the negroes the right of testifying in the courts.^ The House of Delegates organized the next day (January 3), and elected Oliver Miller, of Anne Arundel County, as speaker by a vote of 57 to 18 for all others. Miller was an able man, and had been prominent in the councils of the Democrats during the preceding years. In accepting the office he spoke against the reconstruction policy of Congress, and in favor of that of Andrew Johnson. The Democrats asserted that this legislature was the first one in several years which in reality represented the will of the people of Maryland,® and the popular approval of their work as shown by the succeeding elections in April and November, 1867, tends to prove this claim. The following resolutions, offered by Marriott Boswell, of Baltimore City, in the House of Delegates were passed by the legislature during the month of January. They showed the opinions on national and state politics of the Democratic-Conservative members of the legislature to be as follows: — ° Senate Jour., 1867, 4. 'Sun, Jan. 2, 1867. Scharf, III, 689, says: "Very many of the members of both Houses were gentlemen of the highest character and of great political experience, and the majority of the Legisla- ture unquestionably represented the feelings, convictions and views of at least seven or eight-tenths of the people of the State." The present writer is strongly inclined to doubt this last statement. The Reform Legislature of i86j. 83 " Resolved !)>• the General As.seml»ly of Maryland, That in thnr jiulRmcnt the policy heretofore announced, and up to this time consistently maintained hy the President of the United State*, upon the question of the right of the excluded Southern states to their Constitutional Representation in Congress is just, wise and states- manlike, and is the only practicable mode by which the Union, as created and recogiiized by the Constitution, can be restored. Re- solvetl. That the General Assembly recognizes in the action of his Excellency, Thomas Swaim, in support of this policy of the Tresi- dcnt of the United States, and in the just and liberal execution by him of the existing Registry Law of this State, a conctirrencc with the sentiments of a great majority of the people of this State, and a proper recognition of their inalienable right to participate in its Government by the exercise of the elective franchise.'*' ^ Xo time was I(^st in getting to work, and a series of meas- ures followed which aimed to complete the |)olitical trans- formation of the State. The most important act restored to full citizenship and the right to vote and hold office all persons deprived thereof by the fourth section of Article I of the constitution of 18^)4. This same section had pro- vided that any dis(|ualified person might be " restored to full rights of citizenship by an act of the General Assembly passed by a vote of two thirds of the members elected to each House." and in accordance with this a general bill applying to all the disfranchised citizens was passed by the House of Delegates, after futile opposition on the part of the minority, by a vote of 59 to 19. The Senate passed the satue bill by the vote of 16 to 7. The minority here at- tempted to amend the act by excepting from its provisions all those who had Ikcu members of the Confederate army or navy, but were defeated by the same vote. This bill secure«l to the jiolitical outcasts the vote which had hitherto been tiicirs only by the grace of Thomas Swaim and his election officials." Further legislation was as follows: (i) a bill which repealed Article XXXV, Section 9, of the code of publi<- r- "- ' House Jour, 13, 28-39. 79-801 Senate Jour., 22. 23, 35, 4- votc on these resolutions was. House, yeas 47, nays 17; >c:ui;c. yeas i.^, nays 4. •House Jour., 1867. ^ 51-55. P7-88; Senate Jour, 101-104. 84 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. eral laws, thereby relieving judges of election from the necessity of taking the " iron-clad " oath of the constitution of 1864, and substituting therefore merely an oath of alle- giance;^ (2) a bill which repealed the act passed by the legislature of 1864 requiring jurors to take the test oath/° and finally (3) a new registration law which required that the election officials and voters should take either the oath prescribed in the constitution of 1864 or a simple oath of allegiance, in conformity with the recent act restoring to full citizenship and right to hold office those deprived thereof by the constitutional provisions. It further required that the judges of election must register all persons qualified to vote, and duly receive and count all votes of such persons registered, and in addition these officials were given the powers of justices of the peace and of sheriffs, that they might issue summons to witnesses. Finally, it required that the judges of election take the vote of the Maryland soldiers and sailors in the national service. ^^ Another important act, but of a somewhat different char- acter, provided for the organization and discipline of a state militia force. This measure passed both houses of the General Assembly on the same day (March 22).^- The militia law of 1864 had expired by limitation on March i, 1866, and the legislature at its special session held that year failed to deal with the question. It is said^^ that there was no great opposition to such a force, but that the people merely thought it was unnecessary. In fact, Maryland was for some years under the military government of the United States, for the provost-marshal's office did not cease to exist in Baltimore till January 31, 1866. The events of the pre- ceding November had now evidently awakened the people to a realization of the danger of such a defenseless situation, 'House Jour., 285, 314, 800, 926; Senate Jour., 512, 535, 561. ^"Senate Jour., 153, 201, 235, 813; House Jour., 436, 1137-1138. "House Jour., 503, 625, 627, 919; Senate Jour., 426, 429, 559. "Senate Jour., 794; House Jour., 1117. "Authority of Gen. F. C. Latrobe. There was, perhaps, during the early part of 1866, a temporary opposition to a militia force as dangerous in time of peace. The Reform Legislature of iSOj. : and the General Asscnihly tf)ll5^ \\2\-\\. "Senate Jour, 50J. 5.13. 606. 780, 806; ii-uvc j.ui . >,, <. looi. 86 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. with states' rights, and also that it did not pass Congress by the required two-thirds majority, because the Southern States were not represented in that body. The report fur- ther insisted that Section 3 of the amendment, which pro- vided for the punishment of ex-Confederates, was an ex post facto law, and that neither Congress nor the Maryland legislature zvas permitted to pass it, since it was prohibited by both the national and the state constitutions.^^ In addi- tion, the report also made a long argument for the Southern view of states' rights and secession, and stated that there was " reasonable ground for believing that the seceding States were honest and sincere in their convictions, although they led them to such disastrous results ; " hence, in punish- ing the South, the question of intention should be considered in mitigation of the crime. Finally, protesting against Sec- tion 4 of the proposal, which prohibited any compensa- tion for slaves by State or by nation, it was resolved that the General Assembly refuse to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and that a copy of the resolutions be sent to the secretary of state of the United States, and to the executive of each State of the union. The report was signed by Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset, A. Leo Knott, of Baltimore City, Richard B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's, Oden Bowie, of Prince George's, George Vickers, of Kent, Levin L. Waters, of Somerset, and Alfred Spates, of Alle- gany. Any person familiar with the Maryland of that day will at once appreciate the weight and influence carried by these names.-" The minority report, which recommended that the amend- ment be ratified, was rejected, and on March 23 the Senate adopted the majority report by the vote of yeas 13, nays 4. The House of Delegates did the same by the vote of yeas 47, nays 10.^^ The State thus refused to grant citi- zenship to the negro, but as a concession to public opinion an act was passed during January by a large majority in " The italics are mine. Of course this reasoning was false. ;" House Docs., 1867, Doc. MM; Senate Docs., Doc. X. "^Senate Jour., 808; House Jour., 1140-1141. 7Vu' Reform I.c(;i stature of i86j. 87 botli li()U«M>, wliich proliihitcd the sale of nepro convicts." I'cfore passing to a consideration of the suhject of greatest importance to the Conservatives, that of the call of a constitutional convention and the attenc recorded the attempt of the Democratic-Conservative mcml)crs to carry out their part of the agreement made with the friends of Governor Swann the year l)efore. to elect him to the United States Senate. The General Assemhly in the course of its legislation had very extensively carried out the recommen- dations of the governor's message. This full jxilitical con- cord, which seems to have extended to national issues also, was another reason for the selection of Swann by the Con- servative forces. In consequence of the agreement, the two houses met in joint session on January 25, 1867, and on the seventh ballot chose Thomas Swann to be senator in succession to John A. J. Creswell. The law which rccpiired that one of the senators should be a resident of the Eastern Shore of Mary- land was repealed just before this election, and reenacted aftcrwards.^^ On Thursday, February 7. the senator-elect attendeears that late on the evening of February 22 Washington Bonifant, United "Authority of Mr. John T. Graluim of Ballimorc. who. in con- vcrs.ition with the writer. Iwrc witness to the tnith of this slaleincnt. " .W-lM.irs i'...Itim.>rc. .i;;! 90 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. States marshal for Maryland, brought news from Mont- gomery Blair in Washington, of rumors which were cur- rent in that city in regard to what was scheduled to take place when Dr. Cox became governor. 1. Swann was to be refused admission to the Senate on the ground that his election was the result of a bargain with the disloyal element in Maryland, and also that it had been a violation of the spirit if not of the letter of the Eastern Shore law when Swann was elected senator. 2. The vacancy caused by his debarment was to be filled by the appointment, by Dr. Cox, of John A. J. Cres- well. 3. Dr. Cox was further to use his influence against the enactment of a constitutional convention bill, or against carrying it into effect in case the legislature should pass such an act, and " to that end aid would be given him from Washington even to the extent of sending troops of the United States into the State." Blair further stated that Dr. Cox had been in Washing- ton for a week, and to his positive knowledge had two in- terviews, each of some length, with Secretary Stanton at the war office.^* Mr. Knott adds that Governor Swann told him that he (Swann) had been nettled by lack of support on the part of some of the Democrats,^^ so Judge Richard B. Carmichael and Philip Francis Thomas called upon the gov- ernor at the executive mansion in Annapolis on Monday, February 25, in order to allay his irritation. The present writer has it on the best authority that Swann sent John jM. Carter, his secretary of state, to Washington to inquire into conditions there, and must have been satisfied of at least the partial truth of the reports, for INIr. Knott says further: — ^ Mr. John T. Graham states that Montgomery Blair was largely correct, that there was an understanding (not a bargain) between the national and state Republican leaders according to which the above arrangement was to be carried out, but he doubts the truth of the report that the support of United States troops was promised, saying that, according to his knowledge of the affair, no mention was made of any military aid from Washington. ^ It will be remembered that it had taken seven ballots for the General Assembly to elect him. The Reform Lajishturc of t86j. 91 'After fully wcisliiiiff tin- inatlrr the Governor, late on the evening of Monday, the 2f,\\\ of February, invited several of hi^ friends, members of the LeKisIatiire. to the executive chamber and informed them that he had conchidcti to tlcfcr hin retirement from the office of Governor for the present, and that the inaiifrtration of his successor would not take place on the day followinK*' Meanwhile Dr. Cox seems to have felt certain that he was to become governor. Me visited the executive man- sion in Annapolis and told General F. C. I^-itrolnr and Adjutant-General Hcrry where he intended to place the fur- niture of the house, and how he would arrange it.*" It is said that on the morning of Tuesday. Tebruary 2G, his family and also many of his friends from the Eastern Shore were in Annapolis to attend the inauguration. He may have gotten a hint that trouble was brewing, but hopcti against hope that all would turn out well at last. However, when the Senate was called to order on the day appointed (twenty-sixth), he laid before it the following letter from Governor Swanu. which he had just received: — ■' KXECITIVE DKI'\RT.ME>fT. " Febmary 26. 1867. " To Lieut. Governor C. C. Co.x, "Dear Sir: Having informed you of my purpose to resign the position which I now hold as Governor of Maryland, on the J6th (this day), I now state, in order that it may be communicated to the Senate, to whom the announcement has been made, that I do not feel at liberty to take this important step, without further time for deliberation. I shall communicate with the General Assembly at as early a day as practicable, upon this subject. " With great respect, '■ Your obd't servant, " Thos. Swa.nn." Dr. Cox then made the following tlignified statement : — "Senators: in connection with this prtKecding. the chair desire* to present a simple statement due to himself, the Senate and the public. On Tuesday last, just one week ago, he was sent for by his Excellency, who read to him his letter resigning the Governor- ship of Maryland, which he to<^k occasion to notify him would be sent in on Tuesday, 26th inst., to take effect on and after that Authority of General Latrobc himself. 92 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. date. This was accordingly, and with his permission, announced to the Senate, on the same day on which the communication was made, and a committee appointed to institute the proper arrange- ment for the public ceremonies of installation. These progressed and were perfected in good faith. The Chair was in conference with his Excellency, yesterday, but had no reason to anticipate any change in the published proceedings, but on the contrary, was reassured of the certainty of his Excellency's resignation, at this hour today, as previously determined upon; nor was any intima- tion or knowledge of a different purpose furnished to the Chair, until an hour and a half ago, when the letter just read was received by the hands of Mr. Leary, the Private Secretary. I have deemed, Senators, this simple announcement of facts emineiitly proper on this occasion, in order that no misapprehension may arise as to the relation of the Chair, or the body over which he has the honor to preside, to the existing disappointment. The onus of explaining to the Senate and the public the cause of the failure of the pro- gramme, at so late an hour, will rest where it properly belongs."^' On March i Governor Swann formally declined the election to the Senate in a communication addressed to the General Assembly. He stated that he had intended to accept, since the office had been conferred, " as is well known to the members of the Legislature and my friends throughout the State, without any agency or solicitation on my part." He also said that lately he had been " visited by such appeals from the representative men of the State, urged with an earnestness and unanimity which could hardly be mistaken, who begged him to retain the executive office that he bowed to their judgment that his paramount duty was to the State."^^ In reply, the legislature passed joint resolutions of ap- preciation of his action as " an evidence of the same devo- tion " to the welfare of the State " which has in the past earned for him its highest honours, and will in the future more strongly commend him to the confidence of the peo- ple." Also that they were " fully impressed with the opin- ion " that he had " but complied with the general wish of '' Senate Jour., 264, 306-307; also see American, Feb. 27, 28, March I and 2, for various rumors about the withdrawal of his resigna- tion by Gov. Swann. ^ House Jour., 649-650. Tlw Reform Lajislaturc of iS6j. 93 the people of Maryland.*'" rinally, on March 12, 1867, Hon. Philip I'Vancis Thomas was elected senator on the fir>t hallot.'* Said the American of Marcli 2: — " The Radicals of Maryland have this to rejoice over. They have driven Mr. Swann out of the Senate, and they have driven him into the Democratic party. Two things to be greatly thankful for." On March 4, 1867. Dr. Cox stated in the Senate that various reports were being diligently circulatehip) to hand over the affairs of the State to the direction and control of the so-called Radical party, and secondly, that he had bargained corruptly (in the event of becoming governor) to substitute Creswell, now of the United States Senate, in the place of Swaiui, should the latter be rcjectelied with, and on March 21 the committee reported that they hail investigated the matter and had " failed to elicit any tittle of evidence to sustain such a charge. ... In an intcr\-icw which your committee held with the chief Executive officer of the State, that officer distinctly disclaimed having based his recent action upon any supposed credibility of these injurious charges, but asserted, on the contrary, that his course had been dictated by high motives of State policy. Your committee have endeavored in vain to find any one who could venture to assume the responsibility of any of the slanderous insinuations above referred to. . . . The unexpected dccliuatlon by Governor Swann of a high and coveted honor, to which his friends had con^iHrrH "House Jour, 650-651, 670; Senate Jour, 378. •* House Jour.. 84J ; Senate Jour., 559. Mr. Thomas permitted to t.ikc his seat in the Senate, on the ground of duioyAlty, and Mr. George Vickers was elected in his place. 94 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. him entitled, and for which they had contended with energy and determination, occasioned a bewildering surprise throughout the State," hence various conjectures and charges naturally arose. This report was unanimously adopted by the Senate.^^ General F. C. Latrobe of Baltimore states that although Governor Swann was very ambitious to become senator, he gave up the office as an act of patriotism and self-sacrifice, for the good of his party and the State of Maryland. He also desired to keep Dr. Cox from becoming governor, and feared that perhaps he would not be permitted to take his seat in the Senate.^*' The Conservatives had carried out their part of the agreement, no matter with whom it had been made, and it was through no fault of theirs that plans had miscarried. It was the almost unanimous opinion of the Democratic and Conservative forces that the permanency of the reforms made could not be guaranteed or the entire reconstruction of the State completed unless an entirely new constitution were drafted. Governor Swann recommended such a step in his message, and the legislature promptly entered upon its accomplishment. It is a curious fact that each one of the constitutions formed for the government of the State of Maryland was made in an illegal manner.-'''^ The constitution of 1867 was no exception. The instrument of 1864 provided in Article XI, Section 2, as follows : — " Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly shall think it necessary to call a Convention ^Senate Jour., 403, 411, 412, 730. Mr. Knott makes the fol- lowing extremely partizan statement in regard to these charges against Dr. Cox (Nelson's Baltimore, 573) : "There has never been since any reason or ground furnished to change or modify the opinion and belief at that time so generally and authoritatively expressed. On the contrary, subsequent events confirmed that opinion and belief." Mr. Knott makes no further effort to sub- stantiate his statements. ^"This statement was made by General Latrobe in a conversa- tion with the writer. ^' See, for example, J. W. Harry, Maryland Constitution of 1851, and my Maryland Constitution of 1864. The Reform Legislature of iS6j. to revise, amend or cliaiigc tliis Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors to vote at the next election for meml>cr» of the General Assembly for or against a Convention; and if a majority of all the electors voting at said election shall have voted for a Convention, the General Assembly shall, at their next session, pro- vi|)ecial election was held for the approval of the people, members of the convention were voted upon at the same time, and the representation was not the same as that in both houses of the General Assembly. Of course the Rad- icals were quick to attack the legality of the bill, and in answer to their opponents the Democratic-Conservative forces passed two series of resolutions through the House of Delegates, which contain some rather interesting vagaries in the realm of constitutional law. The first resolutions were introduced on January 22, 1867, by Alexander Evans, of Cecil County, and passed l'>bruary 7 by the vote of yeas 48. nays 17." " Tiiat to prevent anarchy, confusion and irregular unauthorized government, it is expedient that proposals to create, or to alter and amend a Constitution, should emanate from the Legislature. "2d. That the power of the Legislature at any time, to refer to the people questions concerning the organic law. cannot be con- stitutionally limited, inasmuch as any limitation would deprive them of the power enunciated in the second Article of the Bill of Rights" as inalienable, and inasmuch as the Constitution might defer :• ' mcnts to remote future time, or might render them impossib that one generation cannot, in this manner, bind future gene- " House Jour. 144, 314-316. ".Article H of the declaration of rights of the constiti; 1864 reads as follows: "That all government of rii:' • from the people, is founded in compact only, and in • for the good of the whole: and they have at all ti:-... . alienable right to alter, refonn. or alnjlish their fonn 01 ijovcm- mcnt, in such nianncr as they may deem expedient." 96 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. "3rd. That subject to the limitation of the first resolution, the people can at any time change or alter the organic constitutional law; but that any attempt to do so by irregular unauthorized action by a portion of the people, would be of dangerous tendency and consequences." The other resolutions were offered by C. C. Magruder, Jr., of Prince George's County, on February 7, and were also passed the same day, as follows :*" — " Whereas, the House of Delegates by their legislation, are en- gaged in measures of reform, touching the interests of the whole people of Maryland, and to that end are in supposed conflict with the Constitution of 1864; therefore we deem it proper to adopt and publish the following resolutions : . . . That we recognize the exist- ing Constitution of Maryland, as the supreme law of the State, sub- ject to Article 5 of the Declaration of Rights," to which every citizen must yield obedience; but the people have at all times, an inherent and inalienable right to abolish or reform said Constitution. " That revolutions by the people are always justifiable when their government has failed of its purposes, when ' life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ' are endangered, and all constitutional provi- sions for their protection and rights are denied them. " That we hold to the doctrine, that the three coordinate branches of the State Government of Maryland represent the sovereignty of the people thereof, and that all acts done by them, each in its respective sphere, in pursuance of constitutional authority, are ex- pressive of the popular will; it follows, that the State of Mary- land, in the future as in the past, guided by a spirit of public policy, will always endeavor to advance her own interests, as also that of her citizens, without regard to sections or localities. " That the call for a Constitutional Convention, emanating from this Legislature, is in pursuance of the rights of reform under the existing Constitution; and all efforts to frustrate the wishes of the people for a change in their organic law are without their sanction and authority. " That the Act already passed, enfranchising those citizens of Maryland, who under the Constitution are compelled to perform militia duty, pay taxes, etc., but are deprived of the right of electors, is indicative of the sense of the people on the subject, and *° House Jour., 254-255, 316. " " 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 Gov- ernment of the LJnited States, and is not bound by any law or ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof." The Reform Lc(jislaturc of i86j. 97 we present the fact to (tlic) whole country, as cvlncinjj their desire to forget the late civil convulsions of the land, and to join in reciprocal endeavors to sustain the enduring fame of the com- monwealth." The House of ndcgatcs, on January 3, 1867, the day upon which it orj^anizcd, had appointed a committee of five men to meet jointly with a like nunilK-r from the Senate in order to prepare a hill to take the st-nse of the people of the State upon the iiuestion of calling a convention to frame a new constitution. This hill was reported on January 10, and finally passed the House on February 6, by the vote of 54 yeas to 20 nays.*" The Senate received the measure froin the H«nise the same day, and on February 16 a majority of the committee on judicial proceedings reported the bill unfavorably, but the minority handed in a favorable report upon it as a " measure demanded by public .sentiment and the exigencies of the State." The latter was considered after great delay, and being brought to a vote on March 9, was passed, yeas 15, nays 7. Lieutenant-Governor Cox at once declared the bill rejected, since by Section 2, Article XI, of the constitu- tion of 1864 it must be pas.sed by a two-thirds vote of all members elected, and it had failed to secure this numl)er. An appeal from the decision of the chair was at once taken, and the action negatived by the vote of yeas 7, nays 14. After some further consideration the bill was finally passed only on March 20, when the required two thirtls of all the senators elected voted in the affirmative.*' The delay was caused by dissension within the Demo- cratic-Conservative forces, which threatened for a time to break the newly formed alliance. To understand these dis- sensions it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the first few weeks of the session of the legislature. The feeling against the Radical government of r>altimore was so strong that the General Assembly had decided to legislate the city officials out of office. With this object in view, a bill passed 'Honsc Jour., 10. 12, 51, 276-^70. 1053. Senate Jour., 158, 247, 510, SX'Sxt, 540. 717. 7 98 The Self -Re construction of Maryland. the House of Delegates on January 21, and the Senate on the next day, which provided that a new mayor and city council should be elected on Wednesday, February 6, 1867, and that municipal elections were to be held in Baltimore regularly thereafter in the month of February instead of in the autumn. The newly chosen mayor was to assume office on February 13, one week after the election, and the city council in March.'** Meanwhile, the Baltimore City Council on January 22, 1867, the same day upon which the above bUl passed the Senate, by a unanimous vote appropriated $20,000 to be placed in the hands of the mayor, with the instructions that he was to employ counsel and take the necessary legal steps " to test the validity of the action of the General Assembly, in their recent legislation, for the removal of the existing city government."*^ Henry Stockbridge and Archibald Stirling, Jr., were retained as cotmsel. On January 30, Judge Alexander, of the Circuit Court, upon the application of Allen E. Forrester and John N. Ing, granted an injunc- tion against the mayor and city council, restraining them from spending or contracting to spend the money.*^ Prior to this, a Democratic-Conservative city convention had met (January 25) and after sessions lasting altogether two days, nominated Robert T. Banks as its candidate for mayor.*^ Banks was of Democratic antecedents, and his nomination caused great dissatisfaction among those Con- servatives who had lately allied themselves with the Demo- cratic party, leading to discord and confusion among the members of the legislature, who must act together in order to preserve their two-thirds majority over the Republicans.*^ In addition, the Conservatives were apprehensive that the Radicals might be successful in fighting the city bill before "House Jour., 9, 46, 64, 89, 136; Senate Jour., 45, 46, 55, 76, 77, 80, 83-85 ; Sun. Jan. 23, 1867. ■"Jour, and Proc. ist Branch City Council, 1866-7, 234; Journal 2n(i Branch. 137. ^•Sun, Tan. 31, 1867. " Sun, Jan. 2?,, 1867. ** See the statement of Wm. Kimmel, of Baltimore, in the State Senate on Feb. 6 as published in the Sun for Feb. 7, 1867. The Reform Lcijisliiturc c/ ;,VVi-. r,Q the courts, since grave doubts of its constitutionality had arisen. It was found to Iw special lejjislation. and to \)c contrary t<> tlie general election law of the State which rcciuired a much longer notice of an election to Ik* given. The Conservative leaders, in consideration of the legal and political questions surrounding the matter, wisely decided to abandon the bill, which was as yet unsigned by the gover- nor, and it was repealed by the Senate on February i by the vote of 19 to i. and by the unanimous vote of the House on February 4.*" However, the jealousies aroused in the Democratic- Conservative party by the nomination of Banks were not to be so easily allayed. Although it had been found at first that the necessary two-thirds majority could not be secured in either house, yet the repeal of the city bill caused the passage of the convention bill by the House of Delegates on February 6.''*' But unfortunately for the speedy success of the latter measure, certain residents of Baltimore con- tinued to demand the removal of the Radical city officials, hence a new bill of the required character was introduced in the legislature by the Conservatives. This caused trouble in the Senate, where a deadlock was threatened. Mr. Knott, who was a member of the House of Delegates from Baltimore City, gives an interesting account of the "Senate Jour., 134-137. 147 (the single negative vote was cast by a Republican. Jacoli Tome, of Cecil Co.) ; House Jour, 225, 235. 244; Sun, Feb. 2 and 5, 1867. Scliarf, 111. (iQl (note), says: " At the session of i}^68. the Legislature .ippointcd a conunittce of investlKation in regard to the alleged corruptions practiced . . . when the following facts were gleaned: Of the $^0,000 appropriated by the City Council. Messrs. Archibald Stirling. Jr.. Henry Stixkbridgc and .Milton Whitney, the retained counsel of the Mayor, received $2,000 each: the remaining $14,000 was deposited with Alfred Mace, then clerk of the Superior Court. anoint of Fed- eral bayonets and not by the will of the people of the State. This idea was finally dropped as unfair to Baltimore City, whose representation would be made unduly small, so it was decided to take as a basis the representation contained in the existing constitution with some slight modifications, which gave an aggregate of fourteen more members to the counties of the Eastern and Western .*^hores. where the Democratic party was especially influential.'^* "It should be mentioned that both houses on March 8 passed .1 bill by which the General Assembly (in joint session* « ,.; i„ fn- ture to elect a l>oard of three police comnussi^mcrs ■ c City. Those chosen at this scsmom wrrc Lcfcvre I « r.. Carr. and \Vm. H. B. Fusselbaiigh (Senate Jour. y-. . . w>e jniir.. 813-814. <).'H-<)J9). "American, Apr. 2, 1867; Nelson's naltimore, 566. See the Hate- I02 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. It was further provided that the governor of the State should declare the results of the election by proclamation, and in case the vote was favorable, the convention should assemble at Annapolis on the second Wednesday of May, 1867. Its members were to take the same oath as to the discharge of their duties as then required of members of the House of Delegates, their pay to be five dollars per diem and mileage, and the sessions to continue till the duties were discharged for which the convention was called. The power to judge of the validity of the election and of the qualifications of its members was given to the convention, and it was to prescribe the time, the rules and the regula- tions according to which the constitution and form of gov- ernment that should be made were to be submitted to the voters of the State for its adoption or rejection. No clergy- man of any denomination, no senator or representative in the Congress of the United States, no judge of a state court, no clerk of any court, no state's attorney, auditor, register of wills or any sheriff was eligible to membership in the convention. Finally, the governor was to receive the re- turns of the votes cast for or against the new constitution, and if the same were adopted, he was to issue a proclama- tion declaring the fact, and to take such further steps as the constitution might provide, in order to carry the same into effect.^5 The General Assembly adjourned on March 23, 1867. As we have seen, it changed radically the political condi- tions in the State as they had existed at the close of the Civil War. During this period the Republicans had been by no means quiet. The account given above of their ac- tions in regard to the senatorship, the municipal bill and ment of Francis Thomas in the House of Representatives on March 28, 1867 (Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 40th Cong., 1867, 415-419). The fol- lowing fourteen counties were each given one additional delegate — St. Mary's, Kent, Calvert, Charles, Talbot, Somerset, Dorchester, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, Worcester, Caroline, Montgomery, Howard and Anne Arundel. °^ The complete text of the bill may be found in the Sun for March 22, 1867, also in Proceedings Maryland State Convention, 1867, 38-41. Tlic Reform Legislature of iSoj. 103 other matters is ample proof of the fact. They were resolved not to give up the fislit without an cfTort to rcgnin the lost ground, and realizing the utter helplessness of their party at the ballot-l)ox, they began to look to Washington for aid. The national government was now almost com- pletely in the hands of Thaddeus .Stevens, Charles .Sumner, Henry Wilson, George S. Boutwell, P>enjamin I'. Wade and others of like views, backed up by large Republican majori- ties in both houses of Congress." Surely they might be expected to lend a helping hand to their defeated Radical brethren who were right at the doors of the national capital ! As early as January, 1866, when the bill for the extension of the powers of the Freedmcn's P.urcau was under consid- eration in the United States Senate, Senator John A. J. Creswell desired that the provisions of the act be extended so as to include Marj-land among the late rebellious States, saying that returned Confederate soldiers and other disloy- alists were maltreating the negroes there, and sometimes even murdering them. Thereupon Reverdy Johnson, the senior senator from Maryland, vigorously denied this, say- ing that negroes were as safe in his State as in Massa- chusetts."^ Again, in December of the same year, after the Radicals had been overwhelmingly defeated in the State, Hon. Francis Thomas, of the fourth district, the sole Republican congressional candidate who had been elected in the face of the Conserv'ative tidal wave, proposed to appeal to Con- gress to " reconstruct Maryland," on the ground that its government was not republican in form. The .Xmerican said this would be a " patriotic and statesmanlike act " on his part."" On January 21, 1867, Hamilton Ward, of New York, sub- mitted a preamble and resolution in the House of Reprc- •* Sec Dunning, Reconstruction. Political and Economic. 86-89^ "Sec the Sun, Feb. i. 1866, for a report of the .l,!..itc. ..s well as a stronR article in support of Scn.itor Johns, 1866. I04 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. sentatives which stated that, in consideration of the fact that large numbers of disloyal persons had voted at the last elec- tion in ]Marv'land, in defiance of the provisions of the state constitution, and because it was " alleged that armed forces of the United States were ordered by Federal authoritv' to, and did, cooperate with the executive of the State of Maryland and others who were engaged with him in over- riding the constitution and laws," it was therefore resolved " that the committee on elections inquire whether the laws were violated, whether the President used or threatened to use the mili- tary, [and] whether [it was] upon [the] requisition of [the] Gov- ernor of ^laryland. ..." This was agreed to by the vote of 104 yeas, 35 nays, 52 not voting.^® General Charles E. Phelps, of the third dis- trict, actively opposed the resolution, both speaking and voting against it. As a consequence, a day or so later both branches of the Baltimore City Council passed resolutions condemning his action in the matter as follows: — " Whereas, it appears from the debates in Congress regarding the resolution of inquiry into the recent Maryland elections, that the Hon. Charles E. Phelps, . . . took it upon himself to assert that the proposed inquiry was not in accordance with the wishes of any great number of Union men of Maryland. " Be it resolved, that the Hon. Charles E. Phelps has no authority to speak for the Union men of Baltimore, as his political connections are such as to prevent him from either knowing or representing their wishes. " Resolved, that the thanks of the loyal people of Baltimore be, and they are hereby tendered, to the Hon. Hamilton Ward, for pressing his resolution of inquiry to a passage, and to the House of *' House Jour., 2nd Sess., 39th Cong., 204-206. Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess., 39th Cong., 1866-7, Pt. i, 619. Mr. Ward stated that he offered his resolution '" at the instance of prominent Union m.en of the State of Maryland, they believing that their only remedy is an appeal to the Congress of the United States. They believe that the Executive of the State of Maryland, who in imitation of a higher example has been guilty of apostasy to his party and to the principles upon which he was elected, has handed over the Unionists, bound hand and foot, to the men who, by the Constitution of the State, were deprived of the exercise of the elective franchise, because they had been engaged in rebellion against the United States." The Reform Legislature of iS6j. 105 Representatives for the interest nianifc.stee'l by vote of the Mouse."* On February 27, i8<^»7, a Republican state conventi«Mi was held in Front Street Theatre, Baltimore, with Dr. Charles 1 1. Ohr, of Allegany County, as president. This convention passed resolutions which denounced the conven- tion bill, then before the legislature, as unconstitutional and anti-republican in form, and demanc made in the existing con.>titutieILion and "srhose hatred to -tie g-ovemment rendered tie presence of militarr force dming the -war necessary to prevent their active aid to the rebels in arms, and in spite of -which tier did give large aid in men and money, tiey have marked their sessi'On br a series of acts to -which -we d^ire to call your attention." After mentioning the fact that there were J20,ooo Mary- land soldiers in the Confederate army, the resoltrbons con- tinue: — "'Sim and Americsn, Feb. 28, 1867. °^ House Joar.. ist Sess., 40rh Congress, 61. The Reform Lctjislaturc of iS6j-. 107 " These men liave nearly all returned, and a large etniKration from the South since the war has largely added to that nuinl)€r. By a doubtful construction of a clause in the existing Constitution this General Assembly, thus electe«l. has enfranchised all white men, no matter what treason they may have committed, and has thus added to the voting population al>out 30,000 persons who have only Litely ceased an armed resistance to the Rovernment. Not satisfied with this, they have just passed a militia bill which . . . has made all white rebels . . . part of the militia." Further, the complaint was made that the legislature had passed a hill for calling a constitutional convention in the illegal manner described alx)ve, particular stress Ijeing laid on the fact that increased representation had l)een given to the southern counties of the State, which were stigma- tized as " the old. wornout counties, which were fas] rebel- lious as South Carolina." The resolutions closed with the following appeal : — " These acts, we submit, arc in violation of the State and national law, oppressive, revolutionary and danRerous to the order and peace of the nation. The Union men of Maryland arc groaning under the tyranny. They arc now oppressed by verdicts of disloyal juries in many counties. Immigration to the State except from the South, is stopped, and some loyal men arc deliberating on leaving the State. The most, however, arc ready by all proper means, at all personal hazards, to resist this infamous attempt of oppression. The danger of blood.-ihed is imminent, the time is perilous. We call on Congress not to adjourn before settling this grave matter, which if not settled, may startle them in their recess by something worse than the mas- sacre of New Orleans, although not .so unequal and one-sided. We earnestly ask on the part of the majority of the people of Maryland, deprived of legal voice, except through us, a minority of the general assembly, that Congress will guarantee to us a republican form of Government on the only basis of right, truth, and peace, — impartial suffrage without respect to race and color, as it has already guaran- teed it to the Southern States."** On the very saitie day, Senator James M. N'ye, of Nevada. presented a long series of resolutions from the Grand Coun- cil of the Union League of Maryland, passed by it on March 20, 1867. This memorial, after a bitter arraignment of the " disloyal " acts of the Democratic-' l^.TV House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong.. Doc 37. io8 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. party, closed by "earnestly pray[ing] the Congress of the United States, as far as practicable, to extend to IMaryland the principles of the military reconstruction law, and to se- cure [to] all loyal citizens in the State the right of suf- frage." It was signed by Henry Stockbridge, grand presi- dent, and Charles H. Gatch, grand secretary.*^^ On March 27 the Republican state convention of Feb- ruary 27 reassembled in Front Street Theatre at the call of Dr. Ohr, its president. A series of resolutions was passed and submitted to Congress on March 28, which is herewith given in extenso, since therein will be found the plan of campaign agreed upon by the Radical leaders and also an explanation of what is shortly to follow. After thanking the Republican members of the General Assembly for addressing the memorial to Congress and urging that body to grant the request for Federal inter- ference contained therein, it was resolved ( i ) to " oppose any new convention set up in subversion of the existing constitution under the convention bill, which does not ex- press the will of the majority of the people without regard to color " and " with the aid of the loyal representatives of the nation and by all means in [our] power [to] resist and destroy any such constitution as a revolutionary usurpa- tion;" (2) to take no part in the approaching election for delegates to the convention other than a general vote against the call for a convention; (3) that should the call be sus- tained by a majority of the voters, the state central com- mittee should issue a call for district meetings throughout the State " for the choice by ballot, on the basis of uni- versal manhood suffrage, of delegates to a State constitu- tutional convention," representation in which should be based upon the provisions of the " present constitution of the State," and finally, (4) that such a convention, if called, should meet in Baltimore on the first Wednesday in June, and " proceed to form a Constitution based upon universal manhood suffrage."^^ ** House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong., Doc. 28. "House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong., Doc. 32; Sun and American, 7'hc Reform Legislature of iS^,- 109 Francis Tliomas supported these resoluti(>ii> m a v:;;Mrous speech in the House of Representatives on March 28, in tlic course of which he said : — " I utterly deny lure . . . that tlurc is a republican government in Maryland. This tyranny and oppression no free people ought to submit to. . . . What arc we to do? We arc jwwerlc^s unless Con- gress interposes. And has O^nnrcss that power? The United States have power to guarantee a republican form of government to all the States. How is Congress to exercise that power? By an Enabling Act. ... Is it unreasonable to expect that the Congress of the United States, which has expended so much bloo-land. who have been tried in the furnace, yea in the hot hell of treason in this March 2!?>, 1867. When these resolutions were presented to the I'nitcd States Senate on Mch. 28. Senator Reverdy Johnson made the fol- lowing statement, which is of interest as showing his position upon the question of calling the consiiintional convention: "I agree m the opinion . . . that the conveiiti r Jiy the recent legislation of my State should not be callc\ of peril to tiie peace and prosperity <^f ny Stntr. nrvl 1 sh.Tii cmlcavor ... to impress this view upon 1 1 hope to succeetl in it." (Cong. Globe, ist Sess ;.j8, ) "Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 40th » . ;. no The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. State — in the name of liberty, God, right and law, is there no power sufficiently strong to save us from drinking of this damnable cup? Must we stand idle and look on with composure whilst we are be- ing robbed of our dearest rights, and whilst all the sacred forms of law are disregarded by our treasonable enemies?'"^ It will be seen later on that Congress made no effort to interfere with the local affairs of Maryland but wisely left the State to work out its own political salvation. The vio- lent appeal of the Radicals finally resulted in a complete anticlimax. In order to leave no stone unturned in the effort to block the course of state reconstruction now being carried out by the Democrats and Conservatives in Maryland, Alex- ander M. Rogers, Benjamin Deford, John Clark, William Kennedy and Johns Hopkins on Saturday, March 30, 1867, filed before Judge Martin in the Superior Court of Balti- more City an application for an injunction prohibiting the sheriff and police commissioners from advertising or holding the election for a constitutional convention. The application stated that the convention bill was unconstitu- tional in that it was not in accord with the method pre- scribed by the constitution of 1864. In support of this statement the applicants charged, first, that the bill called a special election instead of providing for a vote at the reg- ular election in the fall ; second, that it provided for a dual election — on the convention and the delegates at the same time; third, that representation would not be according to the constitutional method. Alexander M. Rogers appeared as counsel for the complainants, and S. Teackle Wallis and Orville Horwitz for the respondents."'' On April 8 a majority of the court, Justice Bartol dis- senting, dismissed the appeal on the ground of want of jur- isdiction under the ruling of the court in the case of Steig- erwald vs. Winans (17 ]\Iaryland Reports, 62). The vote on the convention took place, as provided by the convention bill, on April 10, 1867, and resulted, as had ^ ist Sess., 40th Cong., House Misc., Doc. 34. °' Sun and American for April i and 2, 1867. The Reform Legislature of iS6j. \ i i been expected, in a sweeping victory for the Conservatives and Democrats.'" Since the Republicans had nominated no candidates, a solid Democratic-Conservative convcntif)n was chosen to make a new constituti(ni for the State. The total number of votes cast in the election was 58.718. Of these, 34.534 were for a convention, 24,136 apainst, and 48 ballots were blank. This vote gave a majority of 10.350 in favor of a convention. It is said that the election was one of the most (|uiet and orderly held for some years, and the l^altimore Sun thought'' that party lines were largely disregarded. In accordance with the provisions of the convention bill, on April 20 Governor Swann issued a proclamation stat- ing the results of the election and calling the delegates to assemble in Annapolis on the second Wednesday of May. When the day arrived, the Baltimore American an- nounced the advent of the convention with the following pessimistic forecast : — " Today is the recommencement of an actual conflict in the State of Maryland. ... In a word, a war for office will be inaiiRurated. . . . This is the real and sole object to be accomplished. However art- fully it may be disguised at first, we predict it will become apparent to the most incredulous as soon as the plans are sufficiently devel- oped and ready for active operations. The Rrcat thing to be ac- complished is to put out Union men, regardless of merit, qualifica- tion and the public interest, and to put in Secessionists. . . . This convention assembles to make war on men who have been honest and faithful public servants. Having accomplished, through the last Legislature, all that could have been fairly and honorably desired by any other party, this was all that was left for selfish and party malice to achieve. The convention was called, and now assembles, to accomplish this."" The Radical organ was only partially right, for while tb.c whole state government, with the exception of Gov- "At the same time a vote was taken in Baltimore City on the question of allowing street-cars to run on Sunday. It resulted in a victory for that measure also, lo.gis vt.tcs being cast in favor of it, gj<;j in opposition. ''Issue for Apr. 11, 1867. Sec also Frederick Republican Citizen for April 12. " M.iy 8, 1867. 112 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. eriior Swann, was legislated out of office by the convention, we shall find that the general character of its work was of a permanent nature. The Republican state convention assembled for a third time on May 14, 1867, in Broadway Hall, Baltimore, both white and colored delegates, it is said, being present. Bal- timore City and all the counties of the State were represented with the exception of Calvert, Dorchester and St. Mary's. Senator John A. J. Creswell presided, and after some dis- cussion the idea of an opposition constitutional convention was abandoned, it being decided instead to await the result of the Annapolis convention then in session, and to unite all efforts to defeat the new constitution at the polls, in case a provision for manhood suffrage should be omitted."^ "Sun and American, May 15, 1867. CHAPTER V. Thi: Constitutional Convention. The constitutional convention met at noon on Wednesday, May 8, 1867, in tlic hall of the House of Delegates, in the city of Annapolis. As mentioned before, its entire member- ship of 118 delegates was of the DenKxratic-Conservativc party, since the Radicals had nominated no candidates in op- position. Among the members were forty-five lawyers, ten of whom added the interests of " farmers " to their profession. There were thirty-seven who were known simply as farmers, also one member who styled himself a " planter." In addition there were twenty-two men of " business," nine physicians, two mechanics, one editor, and one conveyancer. As can be seen, the convention was largely comjiosed of business and professional men of Maryland, and included the names of some of the most important families. Many of the dele- gates were at a later day prominent ofiice-holders in the state and nation. George W. Covington and James R. Brewer, of the Worcester County and Baltimore City delegations resjK-c- tively, have told the writer' that the convention was most harmonious, and in particular that there was no rivalry between the city and county members. Economy was a ruling motive, hence the debates were not reported except for the newspapers, and only the proceedings were publishctl by authority of the State.' Both gentlemen state that Gov- * Mr. Covington also remarked upon the f.ict that, the Democratic- Conservative party havinR just been orK'atii/ed, there was great harmony and unanimity of fccIinR in the party. 'The del)atcs were larRely of minor interest, no \ircM •\-'--\.'>nt of policy divicling the delegates (see .Sun, >' ' >n August 16 the convention passed an order apji: •>« paid two "reporters," for services rendered 1-. 'g the debates for the newspapers of Baltimore and clscwhcfc vi'fv<., 674-678). 8 113 114 ^^^^ Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. ernor Swann was personally popular with the convention, and that its members often consulted him. Several Union soldiers were in the delegations (i. e., Colonel William P. Maulsby, of Frederick, and Colonel James Wallace, of Dorchester), and John F. Lee, of Prince George's County, had been at one time in the Confederate army.^ John F. Dent of St. Mary's County had been a member of the conventions of 185 1 and 1864. Ephraim Bell, of Baltimore County, Benjamin B. Chambers, of Cecil County, William T. Goldsborough, of Dorchester County, and Samuel S. Mc^Master, of Worcester County, were dele- gates to the former and Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset County, Fendall Marbury, of Prince George's, and Charles S. Per- ran, of Calvert County, to the latter. The convention was in session altogether three months and nine days, and the average attendance was about sev- enty-eight. There were only three days on which there was no quorum present (i. e., one half of the members elected). The largest attendance was one hundred and nine on May 8 (the opening day of the convention) and on May 24. The smallest was forty-seven on June 10. One ses- sion a day was held until July 23, and after that date there were altogether fifteen evening sessions on various days. The convention was organized by the unanimous choice of Richard B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's County, to be its president.* In accepting the office. Judge Carmichael made a short speech, which contained this significant para- graph :— " It would not be becoming in me to attempt to foreshadow the result of the proceedings of this Convention by reference in detail to any of its measures. They are unknown to me. It is only for me to say that you have been called here to frame a new Constitu- tion or to adopt that which has had an existence, de facto, here for a * Authority of Mr. John M. Carter, of Baltimore. * Mr. Covington states that Messrs. Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset, Thomas J. McKaig, of Allegany, and John F. Dent, of St. Mary's, were each ambitious to be president of the convention. However, Judge Carmichael was particularly favored by the delegates, who sympathized with him in his forcible removal from the Bench by the military in 1862. The Constitutional Convention. I i 5 fcnV/ st>ace, and to express the opinion that you will discharKc the duty that has been imposed upon you in such a manner at to pro- mote the peace and order of the State, and to reflect lastiuR honor on yourselves. I trust. Rentlemen. that the prcKeeclinRS of this Convention will be marked by that harmony which shotdd prevail amonp men of common opinions and upon an occasion of so great magnitude."* In accordance with the provisions of the convention hill," Judge Daniel R. Magruder of the second judicial district administered to the president of the convention the oatli of office and of allegiance. This oath includccrs of the convention. This oath was a strong guarantee that they were net " disloyal " in their saitiments as charged by the Radical party. Judge Carmichacl seems to have made a fair, just and impartial presiding oflricer," and the convention at the close of its session passed a unanimous vote of thanks " for the urbamty and fidelity with which he has discharged the duties of presiding officer."" • Proc., 8. • Acts of 1867, sec. 5, chap. 3^7. • Proc., 0-12. 'Opinion of both Mr. Covington and Mr. Brewer. The wnler, however, has a strong suspicion tliat Judfic Carmichacl wa« not par- ticularly well versed in the rules of parliamentary procedure. •Proc.. 675, 711. Ii6 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. On June 20 the convention by unanimous vote invited President Andrew Johnson, about to be absent from the city of Washington " for the purpose of visiting one or more of the eastern cities," to " visit the ancient and honored seat of government of Maryland," since " it would be a source of much gratification to the members of this convention to have an opportunity, during the session of said convention, to manifest in person their respect for the patriotic Chief Magistrate of the nation." ^^ This invitation being accepted. President Johnson was form- ally received in the convention hall on the morning of June 29,^^^ Hon. William H. Seward, secretary of state, Governor Swann and various others of more or less prominence being present. Governor Swann introduced the President to the convention as the " great advocate of the people's rights," and then proceeded to deliver a grand- iloquent paneg}-ric upon him, of which the following will servx as illustration : — " Unawed by persecution, stripped of the powers, the essential pow- ers conferred by the Constitution upon his high office, powers which he has conscientiously and honestly exercised for the benefit of the whole people, in the interest of patriotism, and not of part>'; almost within reach of accomplishing the great object of reconstruction, to which his efforts have been directed, he stands here today not the less honored because he has failed, from untoward interferences, to accomplish the great object of his mission and dut>'. . . . Standing within these ancient walls, consecrated by so many of the proudest recollections of the past, we may enjoy the privilege here, in the State of ^laryland, at least, while not forgetting our duties as Statesmen and Christian men, of doing honor to Andrew Johnson, for in this we renew our pledges to the Constitution which comes down to us from our fathers of the Revolution to which this dis- tinguished man, this uncompromising advocate, and I may say, the friend of popular government throughout the world, has devoted his life." Not to be outdone. Judge Carmichael also welcomed the President with an oratorical outburst, saying among other things: — "Proc, 294. " Proc, 326, 360. The Constitutional Contention. ny " Welcome, Mr. rrcsidcnt ! Thrice welcome to the Capitol of the State of Maryland ! Tliis greeting throbs in every heart of thi* Con- vention, and would have utterance from every lip if it were in the order of procedure. . . . You are . . . assured that, in coming here, you are in the midst of your friends— friends of your policy and your person This occasion . . . was intended to convey to you and to the country the approbation of this Convention and of this State, for the measures adopted by your administration for the restoration of tlic Union. These measures, inaugurated for that purpose, and to bind up the wounds of a bleeding country, were received throughout tlie State of Mar>Iand with universal acceptance. It was the policy of a wise statesmanship. It was the promptings alike of patriotism and philanthropy. ... It brought men together who had held life-long differences in poli- tical opinions. It bound up broken ties of former friendships, and made them firmer and faster. It made us one people, as you here find us of one mind and one heart." President Johnson replied in a dignified speech wliich expressed his appreciation of the attention and honor thus conferred upon him, and also defended his policy in re- gard to the national issue of the reconstruction of the Southern States, Said he: — " If I know myself, from the beginning of the late unhappy civil strife, I had but a single object in view, and that was to preserve the harmony, peace and union of these States. It would have been at any time the highest object of my ambition to tic up the bleeding arteries which caused so much blood, and the ex- penditure of so much money. Now, however, there is a new era. and I trust wc shall have peace on earth and good will toward men. ... I have been taugl;t to believe [the Constitution) sacred in principle, and for (its) preservation I have periled my all. . . . When the requirements and securities of the Constitution arc set at naught by a tyrannical majority, and their will made law, lib- erty is gone and despotism takes its place. ... In politics, as in religion, when my facts give out and reason fails, my conviction is strong that truth is mighty and will ultimately triumph. Though I may go down and perish, my proud consolation at the ' mcnt will be that I have done my . - 1 '• Sun. Mav Jt). 1.S67. ".Article XXIV. 120 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.'"' This was a direct condemnation of the war policy of Presi- dent Lincoln. As in previous constitutions, Article I dealt with the "elective franchise." The convention entirely omitted the retrospective test oaths of 1864, providing merely an oath of office binding a person to the support of the Consti- tution of the United States and the constitution and laws of the State of Maryland, and to the faithful discharge of the duties of an official. Section 5 provided for a uniform registration of the voters of the State, and made it con- clusive evidence of the right to vote.^'* One of the greatest improvements made in the funda- mental law of the State by this convention was in giving the veto power to the governor.^^ It was also provided that in order to override the opposition of the executive, bills must be passed by a three-fifths vote of each house of the General Assembly. The office of lieutenant-gover- nor was abolished probably on account of personal hos- tility to Dr. Cox and to save the State a small item of ex- pense. Provisions were introduced for the election of a governor by the General Assembly in case of a vacancy in that office.-^ A new state election was to be held in 1867 and every fourth year thereafter for the choice of a governor and other officers, but the term of Governor Swann (who had been elected in the fall of 1864) was to be completed before his successor took charge of state affairs. All the other state officials were legislated out of office by the convention.^^ The words " qualified voter " were inserted "Proc, 15, 20, 26, 27, 52-57, 8S-90, 97-100, 112-114, 120-121, 123- 124, 133-134, 139-142, 143-145, 157-164, 498-501. "Proc, 27, Z7, 48, 151-153, 258-259, 270-272, 276-278, 289, S4CH 550. ■*Art. II, Sec. 17; Proc, 71, 189-190, 507-508; Sun, June 7, 1867. " Art. II, Sees. 6 and 7. When the General Assembly adjourned on March 22,, 1867, Lieut.-Gov. Cox made a speech evidently an- ticipating the abolition of his office if a convention were called. ''^ See Sun, Aug. 19, 1867. There was much talk in the con- The Constitutioual Contcution. \2\ in the fifth section of the article which prcscrilKd the quahfications of the executive, the fear being expressed that otherwise a negro would he eligible.** Tlic salary of the governor was raised from $4000 to $4500, and that of the secretary of state from $1000 to $2000 — a very short step taken in the right direction.** In fixing the representation of the counties and of the city of Baltimore in the General Assembly, the constitution of 1864 made the white population the basis. The con- vention changed this by making the whole population the basis, thus materially increasing the power of the southern counties, the large negro population of which was thus " represented " although not given a vote. A sliding scale of apportionment of delegates was adopted, based some- what upon population, but by an arbitrary rule limiting the representation of the city of Baltimore and of the larger counties in the interest of the Democratic stronghold, 1. c, the counties in southern Maryland. -■' Section 11 of Article III inserted the old provision of the constitution of 1851 (Art. Ill, Sec. u) which had been omitted in 1864. It made any minister or preacher of the Gospel, or of any religious creed or form of belief, ineligible to membership in the legislature.-" Section 34 of the same article especially permitted the General As- sembly to appropriate not more than $500,000 " in aid of the construction of works of internal improvement, in the counties of St. Mary's, Charles and Calvert, which have vcntion of .nlso turning Gov. Swann out of oflicc, m.iny of the " old-line " Pcniocrats evidently remembering liis .nctivily in the " Know-N'othiuK" and "Unconditional Union" parties in past years. However, a feeliuR of gratitude for his aid. particularly in the appointment of the registers, finally caused the matter to be decided in his favor. •Sun, June 5, 1867. . Troc., 27, i-;8-ij2, 169-175. 170-181, 187-190, 197-.XM. «o. S<»- 500. •Art. III. Sees. 3-5. Proc., 20. 28, 78. 05. -> "^ 601-610. It should be noted that Sec. 4 >* '•■>" '<* whether the represent.ition of the largest county 'he maximum or the minimum limit for each district of B*Utuiv>t€ City. •Proc., 326-328. 122 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. had no direct advantage from such works as have been here- tofore aided by the State." Section 37 retained the provision placed in the consti tution in 1864 v^hich prohibited the legislature from grant- ing any payment for emancipated slaves, but a clause was added that it should " adopt such measures as [it] may deem expedient, to obtain from the United States com- pensation for such slaves, and to receive, and distribute the same, equitably, to the persons entitled."^^ Section 53 settled a long controversy by making no person " incom- petent, as a witness, on account of race or color, unless hereafter so declared by Act of the General Assembly,"^® while Section 55 was also an aftermath of Civil War con- ditions, since it provided that the " General Assembly shall pass no Law suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus." J. Hall Pleasants, of Baltimore City, made an attempt to do away with the provision of the constitution of 1864 (Art. Ill, Sec. 50) which placed the legal rate of interest at six per cent, per annum, with instructions to the General Assembly to provide the necessary forfeitures and pen- alties against usury. A memorial from the Baltimore board of trade to the same effect was also presented by him on May 28. This movement was vigorously opposed by the county delegations, led by John F. Dent, of St. Mary's, and John T. Stoddert, of Charles, and as a final compro- mise, Section 57 provided for a six per cent, legal rate " un- less otherwise provided by the General Assembly."^^ Perhaps greater changes were made in clauses relating to the judiciary than in any other part of the constitution. The convention legislated all the judges out of office and did away with the independent Court of Appeals, which the ^'Proc, 29, 353-355, 364-367, 604-605. *' There was a great deal of opposition in the convention to the idea of negroes witnessing in court. Judge Wm. M. Merrick, of Howard Co., most ably supported the measure and it finally pre- vailed. See Sun, July 24, 1867; Proc, 148-150, 153-154, 157-161, 288, 387-388, 439, 442. ^ Proc, 30, 34, 126-127, 220, 236-237, 241-242, 258, 296-304, 602- 604; Sun, June 15, 1867. The Constitutional Con: .r.t: 25 delegates attackeil as "too tcchnic..:. .; })rovidcd for eight judicial circuits instead of thirteen, with three judges in place of one judge for each, and constituted the eight chief justices of the circuits the Court of Appeals, and these judges were to he elected hy the people of each circuit respectively, instead of hy the people of the whole State. The convention also required that all cases in the Court of Appeals should stand for hearing at the first term in- stead of certain special cases only, and that the clerk of this court should no longer he appointed but be electe- of Mr. Edward Otis Hinkley in his edition of the constitution of iSr>7, published bv l-'n Nfurphy and Company, naltimorc. See also Proc., 20, 27. ;.VJ- 343. 36o-.l(M. 303-306, 406-407, 400-413. 4«7. ^^t- " has beeti pointed out that there was a larr- • i luturc judicial candidates in the convention, for - -on the (|uc<»- tion of its creation at the election to he held ujjon the adoption of the constitution. This matter ha5. 2<>9. 2»X), .\<^7. 3,W. 345. 384. 507. 544. ^77: House Jour.. iS/y>. i()5. 190. 202. 2735. blank ballots, 890S (Baltimore City voted, "for," 31,373, "against," 31,622). St. Mary's was the only county in southern Maryland which was strongly opposed. At the same election the vote for governor was, Elihu E. Jackson of Wicomico Co. (Dem- ocrat), 99,038; Walter B. Brooks of Baltimore City (Republican), 86,622. On Nov. 5, 1907, the vote of the State on the question was even more decided, " for " a convention, 32,778, " against," 87,035 (Baltimore City, "for," 18,894, "against," 41.944). It has been remarked that the state judiciary has generally been good, and that this is one of the strongest reasons why the present constitution has lasted. ^Proc, 710-71 1. ^' Proc, 711-712. CHAPTER \T. Self-Reconstruction Completed — Congress Declines TO Interfe:re. The new constitution was at once published, and Septem- ber iS. 1867. was proclaimed by Governor Swann as the date for its submission to the voters of the State. The American of August 20 voiced the feehng of the Ra^«r. I a? 128 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. affair.^ The Conservative forces swept the State and the constitution was adopted by an overwhelming majority. Out of a total vote of 70,215, the number "for" the con- stitution was 47,152; "against," 23,036; blank ballots, 27.* The American of September 19 said of the election: — " To the apathy of the Republicans in the city and State is due the large majority of their opponents, who have considerably increased their vote since September last. . . . Our despatches from the counties indicate that the same course pursued by the Republicans here was practiced there, and the election was almost allowed to go by default on their part, while the opposition brought out all their strength.' We have appealed time and again to the Republicans throughout tlie State to properly organize their party. A want of organization, energy and united course of ac- tion has injured the party in the past, as in the contest of yester- day." The Democrats were of course jubilant, rightly believing that their cause was now won beyond any chance of future danger, and that the self-reconstruction of Maryland was complete. Said the Sun of September 24, 1867: — "A grand moral triumph has thus been achieved, which even the most reckless political iniquity will scarcely venture to con- front. It should silence and crush the machinations against the popular will and the welfare and honor of the State, which have so long sought to prostrate the vast majority of the Maryland people, and all its great interests, beneath the heel of a faction so inconsiderable that, with free access to the polls, and none of those restrictions imposed upon it which it is always seeking to impose upon others, it could not carry a single precinct in Balti- more, nor a single county in the State." The new constitution went into effect on October 5, 1867, as the convention directed, and on the twenty-third of the month the first election for the choice of a new city govern- 'Sun, Sept. 19, 1867. *The vote of Baltimore City was, "for," 16,120; "against," 5627; total, 21,747. Those districts of Somerset and Worcester counties which were to form Wicomico County voted, " for," 1281 ; " against," 906, giving a favorable majority of 375. A vigorous opposition to it had developed. " The Frederick "Examiner of Sept. 25, 1867, states that there was no organized effort against the new constitution on the part of the " Union men." Si'lf-I\i'constructioit Completed. 129 mcnt for Baltimore was held. The Demorrats were again successful, K. T. Hanks heing elected mayor by the over- whelming vote of 1 8.4 JO in his favor to 48*/) for his Repub- lican opj)onent, A. W. Denison. At the state election on November 5 follo\vin{j. the Democratic candidate* for gov- ernor, Odcn Bowie, received 63,694 votes, anoint when it had received, in March. 1867, numerous petitions from the defeated Republicans of that State who. under the leadership of Francis Thomas, were praying for " a repub- lican fomi of government," and were attempting to arouse at Washington a violent political agitation again.st the Con- servatives in Maryland." This movement was at once op- posed by the small Democratic minority in Congress as " dangerous constitutional dtKtrine."" In addition it was strongly resisted by loyal Union men such as, for example, •The " Conscrv.itivc " Unionists h.icl by thi<» time lo*i their identity .is an orR.nnizcd political party, and had linaily merged with the Hctnocrats. 'The vote of Raltimore City was, Bowie, I0.0t^: Bond, 4X46. ' See pace no. •Cong. r,!..i..- T^' <:,... .o»h Cong., 1867, 415-419. 9 130 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. Charles E. Phelps, of the third Maryland district, who had been a gallant officer in the Federal army during the war. Consequently the Republican majority failed to act, and the movement died down during the course of the year in spite of several determined efforts to revive it. Thus, on July 15, 1867, William H. Kelsey, of New York, obtained the passage of a resolution in the House of Repre- sentatives, instructing the judiciary committee to inquire and report by bill or otherwise as to whether the States of Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were living under gov- ernments republican in form.^° In November of the same year, James G. Blaine, of IMaine, submitted a resolution that the general commanding the army of the United States should communicate to the House, among various papers, " all correspondence in regard to the difficulties in Baltimore touching the police commissioners and other matters prior to the election of 1866."" Again, on December 17, Francis Thomas offered a reso- lution that the committee on the judiciary " be authorized to continue inquiries . . . concerning public affairs in Mary- land." This was carried in spite of the vigorous opposition of General Phelps, who stated that this move for congres- sional reconstruction of Alaryland was " in the interest of a defeated and disappointed political faction " and that " an investigation [had] been going on before a committee of this House for the last twelve months involving the integrity and independence of a State in full relation with the Gov- ernment of the United States. "^^ Thomas continued to present during the next two years various petitions from " citizens of Maryland praying for a republican form of government,"^^ but, although he was himself a member, the judiciary committee steadily refused "House Jour., ist Sess.. 40th Cong., 211-212, 244; Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 40th Cong., 1867. 656-657. "House Jour., ist Sess., 40th Cong., 269. " Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess., 40th Cong., 1867, 230-231. This investi- gation generally took place behind closed doors. "House Jour., 3rd Sess., 40th Cong. (1868-9), 18. m. 128, 149, 156, 202, 242, 263, 312, 412. Self -Reconstruction Completed. 1 3 i to take any action, and nothing further was done by Con- gress. Maryland, therefore, was permitted to carry out a policy of self-reconstruction, with no outside interference.** The Radicals in the State, realizing the uselessncss of fur- ther agitation, accepted the situation as inevitable and turned their attention to more promising fields of endeavor. Their violent and unreasonable agitation had ended in a complete fiasco. It is perhaps easy, in the retrospect of more than forty years, for us to criticize and condemn this or that man, or this or that party. However, it is well for us also to remem- ber with pride that although feeling was aroused, during the reconstruction period following the war, to a height which we of this day can hardly imagine, a large majority of the people of Man^land showed the characteristic restraint of the strong American stock from which they had sprung. They never forgot that the comer-stone of a democratic government is after all the rule of law as made by the will of the majority. They were willing to submit when beaten, and turned their attention to repairing the losses caused by the Civil War, and to advancing the prosperity and future well-being of the State of Maryland. "House Jour. 2nd Sess.. 40th Cong.. 109; 3rd Sess.. 40th Coor.. 431. General Ch.irlcs E. Phelps, in a recent intcr\-icw pranted the writer, jjave his authority for the statement that Francis Thomas had for years bitterly opposed the undue reprc-;entntion in the General .-Xs^cmbly of the Democratic counties of < •'! rn ^T.^^y- land. and this move for the reconstruction of the St.- -■•■<% chimed in with these views, hence it was a strong i* active advocacy of the plan. General Phelps fun! it the whole movement was soon stripped hare as merely (urn/an. and that the Republican leaders were unwillinR to assume the responsibility for revolutionizing a State in the interest of a poli- tical party. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN Historical and Political Science Under the direction of the Departments of History, Political Economy and Political Science TWENTY-SEVENTH SERIES, 1909. The University Studies will continue to publish. 8A heretofore, the reaiilta of recent investigations in History, Political Science, and Politi- cal Kcononiy. The new series will present topics of interest in the early political, social and economic history of EurojH? and the United States. The cost of subscription for the regular Annual Series, com- prising about 600 pages, with index, is $3.00 (foreign {)ostagc, 60 cents). Single numbers, or special monographs, at special prices. For Ihf ytar 1U09, the titles yivru Inlmr an- ninr ant\i>unc i: K. SiHMldon. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ENGLISH PUBLIC OPINION, 1789 1801. Hy \V. T. I.jipr:i.l.-. THE JOHNS HOP KINS PRESS OF BALTIMORE. A.merican Journal of Mathematics. Fbank Moeley, Editor. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XXXI in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign post- age fifty cents.) American Chemical Journal. Ira Remsen, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. Vol- ume LXI in progress. $5 per year. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildebsleeve, Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XXX in progress. $3 per volume. (Foreign post- age fifty cents.) Studies in Historical and Political Science. Monthly. 8vo. Volume XXVII in progress. $3 per volume. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) Johns Hopkins University Circular. Monthly. 8vo. $1 per year. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. Montlily. 4to. Volume XX in pro- gress. $2 per year. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume XV in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) Contributions to Assyriology and Semitic Philology. Paul Haupt and Friedricii Delitzsch, Editors. Volume VI in progress. Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory. Five volumes have been issued. Modern Language Notes. A. M. Elliott, Editor. Monthly. 4to. Vol- ume XXIV in progress. $1.50 per volume. (Foreign postage twenty- five cents.) American Journal of Insanity. Henby M. Hued, Editor. Quarterly. Svo. Volume LXV in progress. $5.00 per volume. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity. L. A. Bauee, Editor. Quarterly. Svo. Volume XIV in progiess. $2.50 per volume. (For- eign postage twenty-five cents.) Reprint of Economic Tracts. J. H. Hollandeb, Editor. First series, $3.00. Second series, $2.00. Third series in progress, $2.00. Report of the Maryland Geological Survey. Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the President to the Board of Trutsees. Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list of officers and studeata, and stating the regulations, etc. Rowland's Photoobaph of the Noemal Solae Spectbum. Ten plates. $25. Photographic Reproduction of the Kashmieian Athabva-Veda. M. Bloomfield, Editor. 3 vols. Folio. $50. PoEMA de Febnan Gon^alez. Edited by C. Carroll Marden. 284 pp. $2.50 net. The Taill of Rauf Coilyeab. Edited by William Hand Browne. 1G4 pp. $1 net. A New Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Paul Haupt, Editor. Prospectus on application. Studies in Honor of Professor Gildersleeve. 527 pp. $6. The Physical Papers of Heney A. Rowland. 716 pp. $7.50. Baltimore Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory OF Light. By Lord Kelvin. 716 pp. $4.50 net. The Oyster. By William K. Brooks. 225 pp. $1 net. Ecclesiastes : A New Metrical Translation. By Paul Haupt. 50 pp. 50 cents. The Book of Nahum: A New Metrical Translation. By Paul Haupt. 53 pp. 50 cents. Ancient Sinope. By David M. Robinson. 112 pp. $1 net. Communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press, ii THE Quarterly Journal of Kcoiioniics riii)lisli('(l lor Ilarvard I riivr-'it\ . U tv*tal>lisho \>y lhi> full nml fro«» din- cuadion of ocononiic questionn. Thc« cditorrt nHMiiinc no rc^Npotmihilitj for the viowfl of contributorH, iM-yond n fruanint*-*' tlint thoy have a grxnl clftim to the attention of wollinformcil renders. Conimunioations for the editors Hhould U» aihlrcHHcd to the (juarti-rly Journal of Economics, Cambridge, Masfl.; businpsn conimunirntion-t and subscriptions ($,1.00 a year), to Geo. II. Ellis Co.. 272 Congrejui Street, I'.o.ston. Mass. CONTENTS FOR NOVEMBER. 1908 I. THE STATISTICAL COMPLEMENT OF PURE ECO- NOMICS Henry L. Moor* II. RAILROADS IN THEIR CORPORATE RELATIONS . Fr»nk H. DHon III. A STATISTICAL SURVEY OF ITALIAN EMIGRATION. R. F. Fo«rit«r IV. ON THE NATURE OF CAPITAL; INVESTMENT. IN- TANGIBLE ASSETS. AND THE PECUNIARY MAGNATE Thonteln V«bl«n V. TWO EXPERIMENTS IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF STEAM RAILROADS F. W. Pow«U REVIEWS AND SURVEYS: Davenport's Value and Distribution T. N. Carrer The Civic Federation Report on Public Ownership W. B. Munro NOTES AND MEMORANDA: Sex Ratios at Birth In Town and Country ... W. Z. Btpley The Australian Tariff: A Supplementary Note Victor 8. Clark The Cleveland Referendum on Street Railways . £. W. Bemls CONTENTS FOR FEBRUARY. 1909 I. A TEAR AFTER THE PANIC OF l^OT. II. ON THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL VALUE III. PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE STATE A. D. VoyM Joseph Bchampeter __ _ BANKING LEGISLATION IV. THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM OF THE MEDIAEVAL PAPACY IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT LITERA- TURE V. THE PRESENT PERIOD OF INCOME TAX AC- TIVITY IN THE AMERICAN STATES .... REVIEWS AND SURVEYS: Irving Fisher on Capital and Interest .... Some Recent Text-booka In Economics .... NOTES AND MEMORANDA: The British Board of Trade's InTestlraUons Into Cost of Llvlnf W. C. HlteJiaU Inaccuracies in Roren' History of Prices ... I. Xb tMtt Pierre Jay W. E. Lnnt D. 0. Klnsmaa A. W. riua C. McCrM THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHED 1903 James Bryce, Washington, D. C , ^SrtCUti'at Ccunci'I J President President, Vice-Presidents, Albert Bushnell Hart. Harvard Univ., Secretary and Treasurer, ex-opficio riRST Vice-President c-r.rm^^.. i ^. ^ .. « Stephen Leacock, McGill University H. A. Garfield, Princeton University. *; Lawrence Lowell^ Harvard Univ. Second Vice-President ^'-^^''t Shaw, New York City SECOND vice president jheodore Woolsey. Yale University Paul S. Reinsch, Univ. of Wisconsin. James T- Young, University of Penn. Third Vice-President J. W. jenks, Cornell University J. H. Latane, Washington & Lee Univ. W. W. Willoughby, Johns Hopkins C. E. Merriam. University of Chicago University, Baltimore, Md., F. J. Goodnow, Columbia University Secretary and Treasurer Isidor Loeb, University of Missouri AIM The advancement of the scientific study of Politics, Public Law, Administration and Diplomacy in the United States. MEMBERSHIP Any person may become a member upon payment of $3.00 annual dues. Life membership $50. Libraries eligible to annual member- ship. Members entitled to all publications of the Association issued during membership. PUBLICATIONS Proceedings An annual cloth bound volume, containing papers read at the annual December meetings of the Association. The American Political Science Review Published Quarterly. Each number containing: 1. Leading articles. 2. Notes on Current Legislation. 3. " Notes and News," National, State, Municipal, Colonial, Foreign, Personal, and Miscellaneous. 4. Reviews. 5. Index to Political Publications, Books, Periodical Articles, and Government Publications. Each number contains approximately 176 pages. The first number issued November, 1906. Annual subscription price to persons not mem- bers of the Association, $3.00. Members desiring to complete their sets of publications of the Association may obtain volumes I, II, and III of the Proceedings for one dollar each, and back numbers of the Review for seventy-five cents each. Specimen copy of the Review sent upon request. ADDRESS ALL REMITTANCES AND COMMUNICATIONS TO Secretary of the W. W. WILLOUGHBY American Political Science Association Johns Hopkins University and Managing Editor of the Review Baltimore, MD. STUDIES IN HISTORY. ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY &ECENT NUMBERS. VOLUME XXVIII. 1907. 664 pp. Price. |3M. I. DeWltt CliDton and the Origin of the Bpoili Syttem In New Tork. Hy IloWAiu. I.Ki: M* lUi.N. I'li.U. Price. $1.60. t. The Development of the LeffliUtora of Colonl&l Vlrfinl*. By E. I. MiCLKB. IMi.D. Price. 11.50. 3. The Dlitrlbutlon of Ownership. Hy Jo.SKIM! II.MiniNO rSDERWOOD. Pii.D. Pflc*. 11.50. VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, H-OO. 1. Early New England Towna. Hy .V.n.nk IU sii MacI.kak. I'h.I). Prtc*. 11.50. t. New Hampahlre as a Royal Province. Hy \\ illiau H. Ikv. I'h.U. Price. f3.U0. VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price. M-OO. The Province of New Jeriey, 1664-1738. Hy Kdwin P. Tanner. Ph.D. VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 675 pp. Price, |S.60. 1. Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. Hy I.. I). 11. Wei.i.. PhD. Price. 11.50. t. Ohio before 1850. Uy KiHiKUT K. ("mamnk k. Ph.D. Price. 11.50. 3. Consanguineous Marriages In the American Population. ny (lEiiHciK H. I.ni i.s Akneh, ITi.D. Price. 75 c*nt«. 4. Adolphe Quetclet as Statistician. My Kuvsk H. IIankin.s. Ph.D. I'ric*. 11 Hi. VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, 94.00. The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. Ity nr.KTHA llANXN PCTSAM. PlI.D. VOLUME XXXIU, 1908 1909. 1. Factory Legislation In Maine. Hy K. Stau.; Wiiitin. .\ U Price, 11.00. VOLUME rV, No. 2, 1908. •The Inheritance Tax. (OmplottMy rcvlm-il .ind onlnrKod. Hy .Max West. Ph.D. Price, 12.00. The price for each volume is for tho set of monographs in paper. Each volume, aa well as the separate monographs marked *. can be supplied in cloth-bound copies for fifty cents additional. All prices are net. The set of thirty-two volumes, comprising eighty-five monographs (except that Vol. II can be supplied only in unbound Nos. 2 and S) la offered bound for $106. Volumes I. Ill and IV can now be sup- plied only in connection with complete seta. For further Informntlon npply t» Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. Columbia University. or to MESSRS. LON'OMANS. OREEN * CO.. New Tork. London: P. S. KING ft BON, Orchard House. Westminster. SFI.ECT10NS AND DOCUMENTS IN ECONOMICS Edited by PROFESSOR WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY Harvard University. \n Application of the Case- System to the Teaching of Economics SELECTED READINGS IN ECONOMICS By CHARLES J. BULLOCK^Assistant Professor of Economics in Harvard University This latest book of the series furnishes the collateral reading needed to supplement text-book and lectures in a general course in economics. The large amount of descriptive and historical material includes various selections from standard authors and modern periodical literature bearing upon important j^oints of economic theory. The Accumulation of Capital: Saving and Spending The Division of Labor The Law of Population. Human Wants and their Satisfaction The Manufacturing Industries of the United States Studies of the Iron and Cotton Industries American Agriculture The Organization of Exchange Prices The Growth of Cities in the United States The Organization of Production before and after the Industrial Revolution are chapter titles that indicate the importance and interest of the subjects treated. OTHER BOOKS OF THE SERIES RAILWAY PROBLEMS. A collection of reprints, with maps and intro- duction, by William Z. Ripley. TRUSTS, POOLS AND CORPORATIONS. With an introduction by William Z. Ripley, Professor of Economics, Harvard University. SELECTED READINGS IN PUBLIC FINANCE. By Charles J. Bullock, Assistant Professor of Economics in Harvard University. TRADE UNIONISM AND LABOR PROBLEMS. Edited, with an intro- duction, by John R. Commons, Professor of Political Economy, Uni- versity of Wisconsin. SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS. A handbook for students of sociology, by Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor of Political Economy in Harvard University. GINN & COMPANY, Publishers BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON THE YALE REVIEW A QUARTERLY JOURNAL FOR THE DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC. POLITICAL. AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS The Yale Review is the successor of the New Englander and Yale Review, founded in 1843. In 1802 its title was modified and its field sj)ecialized. It now confines itself to economics, politics, and the social sciences, giving particular attention to the scientific discussion of practical economic and social prob- lems, and to the legislative and voluntary efforts made to solve them. Among its contributors outside of the editorial Ijoard, are Henry C. Adams, E. Benj. Andrews, I3dward Atkinson, Simeon E. Baldwin, John Bascom, John Graham Brooks, T. N. Carver, J. B. Clark, Richard T. Ely, Worthinpton C. Ford, E. R. L. Gould, J. H. Hollander, Bra}'ton Ives, J. Laurence Laughlin, Henry C. Lea, Emilc Lcvasscur, Bernard Moses, H. T. Xewcomb, Simon X. Patten, William Z. Ripley, L. S. Rowe, E. R. A. Selig- man, Werner Sombart, H. Morse Stephens, F. J. Stimson, William Graham Sumner, F. W. Taussig, Hannis Taylor, F. A. Walker. Edward B. Wliitncy, David Willcox, T. S. Woolsey, Carroll D. Wright, Clinton Rogers Woodruff. It is edited by the following [irofessors in the Departments of Political Science and Ilistori-. of Yale University: Henry W. Farnam, E. G. Bourne, John C. ScinvAB. Irvixq Fisiikr, G. S. Cvllender, Henry C. Emery, Ci.TVi: Day. and .\. G. Keller. PUBLISHED QUAF^TERLY On the Kth of Februar\', May, August and NovcmbrrT, Phi). 270 pages. Kvo. Cloth. .*2.00. The Supreme Court of the United States. By \V. W. Wii.mi oudy, Ph.D. I'Jt paps. Svo. Goth. $1.2.'). The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan. By I.nazo (Ota) Nitobe, Ph.D. lOS {.ap's. 8vo. Cloth. $1.2.-.. Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By Fb.v.vk W. Black mar, Ph.D. 3S0 pap-s. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By Morbi.s M. Cony. 2.10 paps. Svo. Cloth. $l.r)0. The Old English Manor. By C. M. Andrew.s, Ph.D. 280 pages. Svo. Cloth. JL-IO. The Southern Quakers and Slavery. By SiKniKN B. Wf.f.k.s. Ph.D. 414 pap'S. Svo. Cloth. 62.00. Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. By C. D U\7.y.s, Ph.D. .12.-) pa^os. Svo. Cloth. .?2.00. Industrial E-xperiments in the British Colonies of North AjnericA. By Elea.nob L. Ix)RD. 104 pa^^es. Svo. Cloth. $1.25. State Aid to Higher Education: A Series of Addresses at the Johns Hopkins University. 100 pages. Svo. Cloth. $1.00. Financial History of Baltimore. By J. II. Hollander, Ph.D. 400 pages. Svo. Cloth. $2.00. Cuba and International Relations. By .T. ^f. Callahan. 503 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $.1.00. The American Workman. By E. Ll:^•AS^E^B (translation). 540 pagra. 8vo. Cloth. .$.1.00. Herbert B. Adams. A Memorial Volume. 2.12 pages. Svo. Cloth. A History of Slavery in Virginia. By J. C. Ballaoii. IflO page!*. Rvo. Cloth. $1..10. The Finances and Administration of Providence, 1636-1901. By IIowa«d K. Stokk.s. 474 pop'fl. Svo. Cloth. $.1.50. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. By IIoraii; K. KiacK. 280 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. Finances and Administration of Providence By HOWAED K. STOKES 464 pages. 8to. Cloth. Price, $3.50. Cuba and International Relations By JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN, Ph.D. 503 pages, octavo. $3.00 The Neutrality of the American Lakes and Anglo-American Relations By JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN 200 pages, octavo. $1.50 American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk By JESSE S. REEVES, Ph.D. 335 pages. Cloth. Price, $1.50 This volume discusses the Northeastern Boundary Controversy; the Ashburton Treaty; the Relations between Mexico and the United States. 1825-1843; the Annexation of Texas; the Northwestern Boundary Contro- versy; the Oregon Treaty; Polk's attempted Negotiation for California; the Outbreak of the Mexican War; the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. International Law and Diplomacy of the Spanish-American War By ELBERT J. BENTON, Ph.D. 300 pages. Cloth. Price, $1.50 Among the topics discussed are: Cuba and National Policy; American Neutrality, 1895-1897; Abandonment of Non-intervention Policy; Inter- vention; Transition from Neutrality to Belligerency; Relations of the Belligerents; Relations between Belligerents and Neutrals; Negotiations of Belligerents during War; Restoration of Peace; Interpretation and Fulfilment of Treaty of Peace. Orders should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Pkess, Baltimore, Maryland. z TiiK ami:rican workman 11 V PROFESSOR H. LHVASSEUR AN AMERICAN TliANSLATlON IlY THOMAS S. ADAMS >:mt>:i> iiY TIIEODOKK MAKHri:<; 5-40 pas:e5, octavo. Price $3.00. This is a spicially nutliorizrd uikI currfully prrjuintl trniiMlation of the celebrated work of M. Levaascur on the American Workman. Among the topics treated arc The Progress of American Industry in the last Fifty Years; The Productivity of Labor and Machinery; Ijihar I^iws and Trade Regulations; Organizations of Ijibor; The Strike; Wajjea i)f Men; Wages of Women and Children; Factors D«'termining Numinal Wages; Ileal Wages and Workmen's Budgets; I*re«ent Conditions and Future Prospects of the American Workman. THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT By HORACE EDGAR FLACK. I'li.D. 286 pages, 8vo. Cloth, price $a.oo. This work will be of great interest both to tlic historian ami to the constitutional lawyer. To the historian it olTers the most cumplelo aceount as yet prepared of the circunisUimes leading up to this most ini|><)rtAnt political event. To tlie constitutional lawyer it presents an analy»«is of the objects sought to \>c accomplished by those who frametl and rntitiiHl the Amen«lment, and thus furnishes a means for determining in how far these objects have b^-^-n recognized and given effect to by the t-ourts. The study Iwgins with an account of the c«>nj:re»sional legiilation pre- ceding the Amendment, esjMX-inlly of the Frjvdmen's Utin-iii nr.\ <'jv«l Rights Acts. Tne history of the .Amendment N>fore ('<• people, and Wfore the States, is tlien considenii in ^ ; and the work c-. Princeton in v.-rsitv. BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRFSS M;«t.i«HCO MOMTMCV J*nuar>-Febman . i*>> JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN Historical and Political Science Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS, 1882-1901 FIRST SERIES.— Local Institutions.— $4.00. I. An Introduction to American Institutional History. By E, A. Fbebman. 25 cents. II. Tlie Germanic Origin of New England Towns. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. III. Local Government in Illinois. By Albekt Shaw. — Local Government in Pennsyl- vania. By E. R. L. Gould. 30 cents. IV. Saxon Tithingmen in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. V. Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest. By E. W. Bemis. 25 cents. VI. Parish Institutions of Maryland, By Edwakd Ingle. 40 cents. VII. Old Maryland Manors. By John Hemsley Johnson. 30 cents. VIII. Norman Constables in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. IX-X. Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. XI. The Genesis of a New England State. By A. Johnston. 30 cents. XII, Local Government and Schools in South Carolina. By B. J. Bamage. SECOND SERIES.— Institutions and Economies.— $4.00. l-II. Methods of Historical Study. By H. B. Adams. III. The Past and Present of Political Economy. By R. T. Ely. 35 cents. IV. Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town Meeting. By James K. Hosmer. 35 cents. V-VI. Taxation in the United States. By Henry Carter Adams. 50 cents. Vn. Institutional Beginnings in a Western State. By Jesse Macy. 25 cents. VIII-IX. Indian Money in New England, etc. By William B. Webden. 50 cents. X. Town and County Government in the Colonies. By E. Channing. XI. Rudimentary Society among Boys. By J. Hemsley Johnson. XII. Land Laws of Mining Districts. By C. H. Shinn. 50 cents. THIRD SERIES.— Maryland, Virginia and Washington.— $4.00. I. Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the U. S. By H. B. Adams. 75 cents. II-III. Virginia Local Institutions. By E. Ingle. IV. Recent American Socialism. By Richard T. Ely. 50 cents. V-VI-VII. Maryland Local Institutions. By Lewis W. Wii.helm. $1.00. VIII. Influence of the Proprietors in Founding New Jersey. By A. Scott. 25 cents. IX-X. American Constitutions. By Horace Davis. XI-XII. The City of Washington. By J. A. Porter. FOURTH SERIES.— Municipal Government and Land Tenure.— $3.50. I. Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson River. By I. Elting. II-III. Town Government in Rhode Island. By W. E. Foster.^— The Narragansott Plant- ers. By Edward Channing. IV. Pennsylvania Boroughs. By William P. Holcomb. V. Introduction to Constitutional History cf the States. By J. F. Jameson. 50 cei.:- VI. The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland. Bv D. R. Randall. VII-VIII-IX. The Land Question in the United States. By S. Sato. $1.00. X. Town and City Government of New Haven. By C. H. Levermoee. 50 cents. XI-XII. Land System of the New England Colonies. By M. Egleston. 50 cents. FIFTH SERIES.— Municipal Government, History and Politics.— $3.50. I-II. City Government of Philadelphia. By E. P. Allinson and B. Penrose. 50 cents. III. City Government of Boston. By James M. Bugbeb. 25 cents. IV. City Government of St. Louis. By Marshall S. Snow. V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By John Geoege Bourinot. 50 cents. VII. Effect of the War of 1812 upon the American Union. By N. M. Butler. 25 cents. VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By Heebert B. Adams. 25 cents. IX. Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. By James Beyce. 25 cents. X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By P. Feedehicq. 25 cents. XI. Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By H. B. Adams. 25 cents. XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By A. D. White. 25 cents. SIXTH SERIES.— The History of Co-operation in the United States.— $3.50. SEVENTH SERIES.— Social Science, Education, Government. I. Arnold Toynbee. By F. C. Montagtte. 50 cents. II-III. Municipal Government in San Francisco. By Bernard Moses. 50 cents. IV. The City Government of New Orleans. By Wm. W. Howe. 25 cents. V-VI. English Culture in Virginia. By William P. Trent. VII-VIII-IX. The River Towns of Connecticut. By Charles M. Andrews. $1.00. X-XI-XII. Federal Government in Canada. By John G. Bourinot. EIGHTH SERIES.— History, Politics and Education. I-II. The Beginnings of American Nationality. By A. W. Small. $1.00. ni. Local Government in Wisconsin. By D. B. Spencer. 25 cents. rv. Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. By F. W. Blackmar. V-VI. The Study of History in Germany and France. By P. Fredeeicq. $1.00. VII-IX. Progress of the Colored People of Maryland. By J. R. Beackett. $1.00. X. The Study of History in Belgium and Holland. By P. Febdericq. XI-XII. Seminary Notes on Historical Literature. By H. B. Adams and others. 50 cents. NINTH SERIES.— Education, Hiatory, Politic*, SocUl Science. I II. OoTernment of the United Stats*. Ily W \V. Wii.ux •.iiiiT ■od W V Wiu <.i ..hut III IV. Uulveralty Kdui&tlon In XaryUnd. Ity II r. Siki.skii. Tb* JehM XerUas Unlveriity (1876 1891). My I» »'. (in. man. .',ii ,,ijIt. V VI. Munlrinal Unltr III the Lombard Communei. Itv \\ . K Wilmamm VII VIII. Public Lanil* of tho Boman Bepabllc. Ilv -\ SixnitMio?*. 75 cMtta. IX. Conitltutlonal Development of Japan. Ily 'I' Iw.na';a. r<>:il 50 c«Dla. TENTH SERIES.— Church and State: Columbus and America.— 43.50. I. The Bishop Hill Colony. IlyMi.iM>T ,\ >!!KK»:ijt»N &<• c.-nta. II-III. Chiiron and Stite In Now EncU- ' '• ■■ ■• i K. I.a( ka. IV. Church and State in Maryland. ISt i; V VI. Religious D»velopm< lit In the Ir ih Carolina. By « B. Wkxks. VII. Marylindt Attitude in the Struc,: .». Hy J \V. Ilua. k OO ciDt*. VIII IX. The Quakers In PpnngyWant.v. i., .\ i ,\iii •;.;.» ktii. 7.'» cntu X XI. Columbus and his Dlfcovery of America. Ily II. M. Aimmh and It W>>>t> f." cro** XII. Causes of the Amorlran KeTOlutlon. Ity J. A. Wimimu hn. •>) rnu 1 ELEVENTH SERIES.— Labor, Slavery, and Self-Government.— Ij.so. I. The Social Condition of Labor. Ity K It I. lix ii>. .'•<> rrnts. II. The Worlds ReprosentallTe Asaemblies of T" Dir. liv K K .Virr-; no cr^LM. Ill IV. The Negro in the District of Columb!.i ' • V VI. Church and SUte in North Carolina. 1 '• VII VIII. The Condition of the Western Tut '. 00. IX X. Hl! i: U Kkmi. ai. 1 ■ t: .ri $ : •■". TWELFTH SERIES.— Institutional and Economic History.— #3.50. I II. The Cincinnati Southern Railway. IW J. 11. II' iHM.rn |1 '•■' III. Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina. Ilv .1 S llv.sMrT r. ' ■ -nta. IV. Struggle of Dissenters for Toleration in Virginia. Itv II K M' I; .« vim: BO cnita. V-VI VII. The Carolina Piratet and Colonial Commerce. Ilv .>< r lit .!.s.-. IJ.Ow. VIII IX. Representation and Suffrage in MassachusetU. Ily ti II. lU^'O'i. GO ctOla. X. English Institutions and the American Indian. lU .1 A. JxMr.H. 'J-'i rrn«« XI XII. International Beglnniaga of the Congo Free SUta. Ity J. H. Iti:i:\i:a. BO ecata. THIRTEENTH SERIES.— South Carolina, Maryland, V I II. Government of the Colony of South Carolina. Ily i: I. \\ III IV. Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia. Ily .1 II V. The Rise of the Bicameral System In America. Ily 1. 1". M VI VII. White Servitude In the Colony of Vlrclnla. Hy J. C IIai i.auh. :. • vii-'.^. VIII. The Genesis of California's First Conntituiljn. Ity K I>. Mint. 60 c«Dla IX. Benjamin Franklin as an Economist. Hy W A. WFT7.ri. .'.<• rrnta. X. The Provisional Government of Maryland. Ilv .1 A. Sii,\rR .'.O crnfa XI XII. Government and Religion of the Virginia Indians. Ily .«». U. Ilr.Mrt^. 50 crota FOURTEENTH SERIES.— Baltimore, Slavery, Constitutional History.— mas. ■.'.•. III. Colonial Origins of Now England Senates. Ity F. I, U'.r: T'' IV V. Servitude in tho Colony of North Carolina. I'.v .t - VI VII. RepresenUtion in Virginia. Ily J A ' t , n •. VIII. History of Taxation in Connecticut (1630 177tii. .•■.■■> IX X. A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. It.v IIim.y S ^ XI XII. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. Ily I' I --1 ui;s ..' r.-nts FIFTEENTH SERIES.— American Economic History.— fj-S©- I II. The Tobacco Industry in VIrrlBia since 1880. Itv II W Ai!n.>im^ T' •••• III V. Street Railway System of Philadelphia. Ily I- . \N . Mi n .■• VI. Daniel Raymond. Hv <'. 1' Nnn.i.. .M' <.-i.i« VII VIII. Economic History of B. ft 0. R. R. Hy M lit •' IX. The South American Trade of Baltimore. Rv IV K I; X XI. State Tax Commissions In the Ualted States. I'v • • XII. Tendencies in American Economio Thought. Ity H > SIXTEENTH SERIES.— Anglo-American Relations and Soulhcin HLtory.— ^350. I IV. The NeutralitT of the American Lakes, etc Ily J. M. i*i.i.aii*>. II 25 V. West Flori-la. i- " ' i-ii*»a fr. m a XII. Jared Sparks a;. 1 Ai-i,, Ue ToetnevlHe. ll> li •• SEVENTEENTH SERIES —Economic HUtory; Maryland and the Soutk— Ij-SO- 1 II III. HUtnrv of SUte Banking in Maryland, lu A r H 1 ■• > > •'""'.., IV V. Tho Kri.v.". Nothing Party in Maryland. H- : •"•■ VI. The La'iAHrt Colony In MarrUn*. My H P. ▼ II VIII. Hi.tr^ry of Slavery in Hortk Carolina, i ,. IX X XI. Development of the CTiawipaake ft Ohio o. — - ••' • " -. • XII. Public Educational Work ia laltlBora. By HkitwfcM U. AMifft. *^ «» ■ J EIGHTEENTH SERIES.— Taxation; Church and Popular Education.— $3.50. I-IV. studies in State Taxation, Edited by J. H. Hollander. Paper, $1.00 ; cloth, $1.25 V-VI. The Colonial Executive Prior to the Restoration. By P. L. Kayb. 50 cents. V.II. Constitution and Admission of Iowa into the Union. By J. A. Jamks. 30 cents. VIII-IX. The Church and Popular Education. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. X XII. Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists. By W. T. Thom. 75 cents. NINETEENTH SERIES.— Diplomatic and Constitutional History.— $3.50. I III. America in the Pacific and the Far East. By J. M. Callahan. 75 cents. IV V, State Activities in Relation to Labor. By W. F. Willoughbx. 50 cents. VI-VII. History of Suffrage in Virginia. By J. A. C. Chandler. 50 cents. Vill-IX. The Maryland Constitution of 1864. By W. S. Myees. 50 cents. X. Life of Commissary James Blair. By D. E. Motley. 25 cents. XI-XII. Gov. Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. By G. L. Radcliffe. 50 cents. TWENTIETH SERIES.— Colonial and Economic History.— $3.50. I. Western Maryland in the Revolution. By B. C. Stbinbe. 30 cents. II-III. State Banks since the National Bank Act. By G. B. Baenett. 50 cents. IV. Early History of Internal Improvements in Alabama. By W. B. Mabtin. 30 cents. V-VI, Trust Companies in the United States. By Geoegh Catoe. 50 cents. VII-VIII. The Maryland Constitution of 1851. By J. W. Haeet. 50 cents. IX-X. Political Activities of Philip Freneau, By S. B. Foeman. 50 cents. XI-XII, Continental Opinion on a Middle European Tariff Union. By G. M. Fisk. 30 cts. TWENTY-FIRST SERIES,— Indiana, North Carolina and Maryland.— $3.50. I-II. The Wabash Trade Route, By E. J. Benton. 50 cents. III-IV, Internal Improvements in North Carolina. By C. C. Weaver, 50 cents. V, History of Japanese Paper Currency, By M. Takaki. 30 cents. VI-VII. Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750, and the Public Services of Daniel Dulany the Elder, By St. G. L. Sioussat. 50 cents. VIII-IX-X, Beginnings of Maryland, 1631-1639, By B. C. Steinbr. 75 cents. XI-XII. The English Statutes in Maryland. By St. G. L. Sio0SSat. 50 cents. TWENTY-SECOND SERIES.— Social and Industrial History.— ^3.50. I-II. A Trial Bibliography of American Trade-Union Publications, 50 cents. III-IV, V/hite Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820, By E. I. McCoemac. 50 cents. V. Switzerland at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century. By J. M. Vincent. 30 cents. VI-VII-VIII, The History of Reconstruction in Virginia, By H. J. Eckeneode. 50 cts. Lay Sermons, By Amos G. Waener. (Published as Notes Supplementary to the Studies.) IX-X, The Foreign Commerce of Japan since the Restoration, By Y. Hattoei. 50 cents. XI-XII. Descriptions of Maryland. By B. C, Steineb. 50 cents. TWENTY-THIRD SERIES.— Colonies, Revolution, Reconstruction.— $3.50. I-II. Reconstruction In South Carolina, By J. P. HOllis. 50 cents. III-IV. Political Conditions in Maryland, 1777-1781. By B. W. Bond, Jr. 50 cents. V-VI. Colonial Administration under Lord Clarendon, 1660-1667. By P. L. Kate. 50 cts, VII-VIII, Justice in Colonial Virginia, By O. P. Chitwood. 50 cents. IX-X. The Napoleonic Exiles in America, 1815-1819, By J. S. Reeves. 50 cents. XI-XII, Municipal Problems in Mediaeval Switzerland. By J. M, Vincent. 50 cents. TWENTY-FOURTH SERIES.— Diplomatic History: Trade Unions.— $3.50. I-II. Spanish-American Diplomatic Relations before 1898, By H. B. Flack. 50 cents. III-IV. The Finances of American Trade Unions. By A. M. Sakolski. 75 cents. V-VI. Diplomatic Negotiations of the United States with Russia, By J. C. Hildt. 50 cts. VII-VIII. State Rights and Parties in North Carolina, 1776-1831. By H. M. Wagstaff. 50c. IX-X. National Labor Federations in the United States, By Williaji Kiek. 75 cents. XI-XII. Maryland During the English Civil Wars. Part I, By B. C. Stbinee. 50 cents. TWENTY-FIFTH SERIES,— International and Colonial History,— $3,50. I. Internal Taxation in the Philippines. By John S. Hord. 30 cents. II-III. The Monroe Mission to France, 1794-1796. By B. W. Bond, Jr. 50 cents. IV-V. Maryland During the English Civil Wars, Part II. By Bernard C. Steinee. 50c. VI-VII. The State in Constitutional and International Law, By R. T. Crane. 50 cents. VIII-IX-X. Financial History of Maryland, 1789-1848. By Hugh S. Hanna. 75 cents. XI-XII. Apprenticeship in American Trade Unions. By J. M. Motley. 50 cents. TWENTY-SIXTH SERIES.— Administrative and Political History.— $3.50. I-III, British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622- 1675. By C. M. Andrews. 75 cents. IV-VI, Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War. By R. G. Camprell. 75 cents. VII-VIII. The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects. By S. L. Ware. 50 cents. IX-X. A Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste. My R. V. D. Magoffin. 50 cents. XI-XII, Beneficiary Features of American Trade Unions. By J. B. Kennedy. 50 cents. The set of twenty-sis (regular) series of Studies is offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use for $85.00 net. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. L-EAg'09