That he should not add anything to what had been already said as to the proper time for hearing the appeal. Mr. Rogers reargued the point at length. The Chief Justice then said he should like to know whether the point was insisted on by both of the counsel for the respondents. Mr. Brown stated that all he meant to say was that it would be personally gratifying to him if the highest court of the State could dispose of the main question now; which is, whether or not, on such a case as is here presented, it would be competent for the Superior Court of Baltimore City to prevent by injunction the citizens of Baltimore from voting at the very important election to be held on Wednesday next, but he did not mean to waive any of the rights of the respondents or to differ from his colleague. The Chief Justice, after consultation with his associates, said a majority of the court are of the opinion that this appeal cannot be heard at the present term. It is clear that answers in the case were filed before the order refusing the injunction was passed. Whatever might have been his opinion if the question had been presented for the first time, the question had already been passed upon in the case of Steigerwald and Winans. The answer having been filed, it is to be presumed that the judge below considered it. It was his duty to have done so, and we cannot impute to him any neglect of duty. Under these circumstances, he thought the appeal should be placed on the docket of the next term. Judge Bartol said that he dissented from the opinion of the court; that it was true that the case at bar came within the opinion in the case of Steigerwald and Winans, but that he had always considered the court in error in their ruling in that case, and he was in favor of reversing a decision when he believed it erroneous. He gave his reasons at length for not concurring in the opinion of the court in the case of Steigerwald and Winans. Judge Crain said he could not concur in opinion with the Chief Justice. Injunctions are generally granted ex parte, and the provisions of the code were intended to apply to a refusal to grant such injunction-it was to remedy an evil, equally great, whether the answer was filed or not. If he had sat in the case of Steigerwald and Winans he would have extended the remedy, but that decision has already been made by the Court of Appeals, and he should follow it. It has been acted under for six or seven years, and no legislation has taken place to annul it. He should, therefore, adhere to it. The Chief Justice said: "Consent cannot give jurisdiction, Mr. Rogers. The Court has no power to hear the appeal now, even with the consent of the respondents. It must be placed on the docket of the next term." Thus ended the fight in the courts against the convention. The docket entries in the clerk's office of the Court of Appeals contain the following notation on April 8, 1867: "Appeal dismissed, for want of jurisdiction under ruling of the Court in case of Steigerwald vs. Winans, by a majority of the Court. Bartel, J., dissented." THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE CONVENTION Maryland has had four Constitutional Conventions, those of 1776, 1851, 1864 and 1867. The Convention of 1864, when framing the instrument adopted by it, embodied a test oath* which had the effect of disfranchising a great number of people. It was provided, however, that the disabilities could be removed by a two-thirds vote of both branches of the General Assembly. In a short time the great mass of voters regained the privilege of suffrage. Public sentiment was then aroused in favor of a convention to revise the Constitution framed during the Civil War and adopted by a minority of the people. The General Assembly of 1867 passed legislation submitting the question of a new Constitutional Convention to a vote. The campaign for and against the Convention became extremely bitter in some parts of the State. The fear was frequently expressed that if a new convention were called an effort would be made to compel the State to reimburse those who had suffered losses by reason of the liberation. of slaves. Opposition was stirred up on this ground despite the fact that the act of the General Assembly providing for a ballot on the question contemplated that any constitution framed by the proposed convention should contain a clause "prohibiting the Legislature from making any law providing for payment by this State for persons heretofore held as slaves." The Democrats and Conservatives were in favor of the convention. The opposition was furnished by those known as "radicals." The following advertisement, illustrating the nature of the arguments used for the convention, is taken from The Sun of April 10, 1867, the date on which the election was held: *See test oath, page 523. Attention, DEMOCRATS AND CONSERVATIVES! Rally to the Polls! The test-oath in the present constitution, although modified by the Legislature, has disfranchised 10,000 of our citizens. THIS DAY you strike for liberty. If you are worthy to be free, VOTE FOR THE CONVENTION! If you are opposed to inequality and oppression, If you are not radicals, VOTE FOR THE CONVENTION! All the Votes Against the Convention will be You cannot avoid the issue. The crisis is upon you, and if you fail now, you are unworthy of liberty. Would Jackson have been bullied out of his rights? Did not Clay say that he would rather be right than President? Awake, arouse, or be forever degraded in the eyes of the American people. Send back a cheer to old Connecticut that Maryland marches to the music of the Constitution and the Union! By order of THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, JAMES R. BREWER, Chairman. The Democrats and Conservatives held a convention and adopted the following statement and resolutions: Address to the People of Baltimore. FELLOW-CITIZENS: The representatives of the Democratic and conservative party having met in convention to organize for the protection of the constitution and the Union, and to ensure to each and all the blessings that flow from regulated liberty, send hopeful greeting to the citizens of Baltimore. The war is past and peace reigns over all the States and Territories-every party in arms against the government has been disbanded, and patriots are everywhere seeking to renew that fraternal alliance of State and people which has advanced us to the front rank of nations. But in the midst of congratulations we have been startled by the announcement of principles subversive of the theory of the government and calculated to destroy the fair fabric of American liberty. The old abolition party, which in the days of peace and union was considered a disunion party, and whose sole purpose, as declared by their leaders, was to overturn all the compromises of the national compact, has gained such accessions of strength, since and during the late war, as to have virtually taken possession of the government. Under the name of "radical" this party has assumed the existence of a revolution in our form of government, and by a series of acts and laws, at variance with all experience and precedent, have absorbed the power of the executiev and threatened to destroy that of the supreme judiciary. Leaders of that party do not blush to appeal to expediency and policy in legislation, those arguments of tyrants, as sufficient to dictate the rights of the people under the guise of the law. States of the original thirteen, never in rebellion, have been put under ban and charged with treason to the government for the attempted exercise of rights inalienable from the citizen. Foremost in the ranks of the defamers of true Americans are the so-called "radicals" of the State of Maryland. This local junto, composed of disappointed politicians, office holders and their satelites, and a few honest but misguided fanatics, are making open war upon your rights. It is not sufficient that Maryland has been staunch for the Union; that she has emancipated her slaves; that many of her sons have died in battle; that she has registered and sworn her legal voters under the most stringent laws of a radical Legislature; but because she has chosen to regulate her affairs under the sanction of those laws; to elect conservative and Union-loving men to her General Assembly; to forget and forgive; and above all, because she has chosen to inaugurate a peaceable revolution by the ballot, these men have by open menaces threatened to deprive her citizens of the rights of American freemen. But for the connection of these men with the ruling party in the country, those threats would be but "the tale of an idiot." Composing less than one-fourth of our voting population, they are harmless at the polls. Besides, the antecedents of many of them are notoriously such as to deprive them of either the confidence or respect of any party. Some of them were openly hostile to the government at the beginning of the war, and all were so conservative since the war that they openly repudiated the policy of negro suffrage at the Philadelphia Convention of the Southern disloyalists. But since, by the patriotic efforts of the Governor of Maryland, the system of fraud and violence practiced by this minority to exclude the legal and loyal voter from the ballot, was defeated, and the people have rejected their rule, they have dropped their mask, and appear in their true colors of mere placemen and demagogues, who would sell their birthright "for a mess of pottage;" they are fully understood, and there need be no fear that they will ever "rule or ruin" the free State of Maryland. The thoughtful men of their party in other States know them well, and have no true sympathy for them, for while "they may love the treason they hate the traitors." The object of the Conservatives and Democrats of Bal |