the voting places on election day unless prevented by his
provost-guards. He says that at some of those places Union voters will
not attend at all, or run a ticket, unless they have some assurance of
protection. This makes the Missouri case, of my action in regard to
which you express your approval.

The remaining point of your letter is a protest against any person
offering to vote being put to any test not found in the laws of
Maryland. This brings us to a difference between Missouri and
Maryland. With the same reason in both States, Missouri has, by law,
provided a test for the voter with reference to the present
rebellion, while Maryland has not. For example, General Trimble,
captured fighting us at Gettysburg, is, without recanting his
treason, a legal voter by the laws of Maryland. Even General
Schenck's order admits him to vote, if he recants upon oath. I think
that is cheap enough. My order in Missouri, which you approve, and
General Scherick's order here, reach precisely the same end. Bach
assures the right of voting to all loyal men, and whether a man is
loyal, each allows that man to fix by his own oath. Your suggestion
that nearly all the candidates are loyal, I do not think quite meets
the case. In this struggle for the nation's life, I cannot so
confidently rely on those whose elections may have depended upon
disloyal votes. Such men, when elected, may prove true; but such
votes are given them in the expectation that they will prove false.

Nor do I think that to keep the peace at the polls, and to prevent
the persistently disloyal from voting, constitutes just cause of
offense to Maryland. I think she has her own example for it. If I
mistake not, it is precisely what General Dix did when your
Excellency was elected Governor.