The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1866-12-06

whose names are entered on the list of
qualified voters by the officers Of regis.
tration-exercising due caution to know
that the person Offering to vote is the
identical person whose name is entered
upon the list of qualified voters-and
to certify the result of the elections in
the manner prescribed by law. yah
5o 1t is my1jndgment that the penalties
prescribed by the registration, act for
violation of the provisions thereof. and
of. the first article of the constitution by
the judges of election, were incorpora-
ted therein to prevent the judges of
|ielectisn from tampering with the rights
of persons, who have been. duly regis
tered, and that refusal on the part Of
the judges of election to receive the
vote ola person whose name has beef
duly entered on the list of qualified. TO-
ters by the. officers of registration ren-
ders them liable to be proceeded against
for violation of the provisions Of said
/ act. I'D 9it llG bg6lh1rff T99gaza.}
AS to the question of the ,disloyalty
of the plaintiff, which has been set up
as defense against these actions, aud
ground of justification for the conduct
of the defendants in refusing to receive
his vote, the fact of his having volun-
teered in the military service, Of the
United States, and having been honora-
bly, discharged therefrom, is conclusive
evidence of his right to have been reg
istcred. But if he was thoroughly dis
loyal, and entirely disqualified to regis
ter as a legal voter, and the officers. of
registration had placed his name on the
list Of qualified voters, and he made
application to the judges ofaelectionto
vote, they had no power to refuse to
receive his vote. If the officers of reg.
Eistration violated the law, they are
amenable to its.penalties but the judges
of election cannot constitute themselves
1 court of review to pass upon the ac-
4 tion of the officers of registration, or to
convict the person registered of disloy-
atty to the government. That is ro
part of their duty in conducting the
iidF From the consideration which 1 hare
been able to give. this subject, I am of
opinion that.the plaintiff has been great
ly injured by being deprived Of his
right to vote, and that he should be in
Identified for the injury which he has
sustained. The right of which he has
been deprived, ip the language of the
Court Of Appeals, ''is justly esteemed
| as one of the most precious and valua-
BILE belonging to the citizen, and cannot
be too highly priced Tor too carefully
protected /, 1t would be idle for courts
Of justice to place SO high an estimate
| upon the existence of Alright, and yet
fail to afford an adequate redress when
lit is Violated. The! measure of damage
Dawaftled should be commensurate with
the injury sustained; and as no greater
injury can be sustained by an American
citizen than to be deprived Of the right
I Of enjoyment of the elective franchise,
I9belisve tito be my duty to award dam
ages, to the extent Of my jurisdiction,
and have, therefore, rendered Judgment
against each of the defendants. for the
sum Of one hundred dollars and costs.
y It-isa supposed that the defendants In
these cases will appeal from the judg-
ment OF, Justice Forester to the Court
of Common Pleas