The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1872-06-01
THE ANNE ARUNDEL ELECTION CASES.

The recent trials, in the U. S. Circuit
Court in Baltimore, of one of the Regis
tiers of Voters of Anne Arundel county, in
this State, and of several other citizens of
that county indicted together, as they have
been reported in the Baltimore dailies,
have attracted, we presume, as they deserve,
very general attention; and inasmuch as
the results reached in these cases are OF
very great consequence to all classes OF
citizens in the State, and indicate very
plainly the remedy for wrongs perpetrated
heretofore, it is to be feared, very generally
throughout the State against one class of
citizens we have deemed it proper to make
a sort of resume of them for the benefit OF
whom it may concern.
George W. Murdoch, Register of Voters
for the Sixth District of Anne Arundel
county, in 1870 and 1871, was indicted by
the Grand Jury of the U. S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, under the
act of Congress approved May 81, 1870,
known as g The Enforcement Act" The
indictment charged that said Register, in
the registration of 1871, unlawfully did
refuse and knowingly omit to give full
effect to the second section of the aforesaid
act of Congress, entitled an act to enforce
the right of citizens of the United States
to vote in the several States of the Union,
&C., by refusing and knowingly emitting
to give the same and equal opportunity to a
number of citizens of the United States of
African descent, as to other citizens of the
United States, to register.
Judges Giles and Bond were on the
Bench, and the United States was repre-
sented by Archibald Sterling, U. 5. District
Attorney, assisted by Geo. C. Maund, Esq.
The Register was ably defended by Hon.
A. X. Syester, Attorney General of the
State; ex-Judge Tuck, Milton Whitney
and w. F. Tucker, Esqs.; some or all Of
whom were appointed for the purpose by
Governor Whyte, in pursuance of an act
of the General Assembly Of Maryland
passed at its late session. The Jury EN-
pannelled to try the case was composed of
citizens of Baltimore city, Baltimore, Anne
Arundel, Cecil, Carroll Frederick, Har-
ford and Washington counties, james S.
Crawford, of Elkton, being the Cecil
county member
In the opening of the case the counsel
for the traverser filed demurrer in tue
Indictment, which, as it is answered in the
following opinion of the Court, we omit
for want of space.
The Court in overruling the demurrer
said:
at is the opinion of the Court that the
demurrer must be overruled. In general it
| is sufficient in cases of misdemeanor to
set forth the offence in the words of the
act of Congress under which the indict-
mcnt is drawn. This has been done in this
instance. The indictment first alleges that
the traverser was an officer of Registra-
ton under particular statute of Maryland
which creates that Office and defines its
duties, and that being such officer he was
| bound to give each citizen Of the United
States the same and equal opportunity to
comply with the laws of Maryland defining
the qualification of voters, and the charges
to do. 1t is objected. however, that the
Indictment does not allege that the person
who was refused this equal opportunity
was qualified voter. This, we think, is
not necessary. He was a citizen of the
United States, and is so alleged to be, and
as such had right to make application to
the traverser and offer to comply with the
| law of Maryland, and the traverser was
| bound to give him the same and equal OPP
po1tunty with every other citizen so to do.
81 1t was within the judgment of the
| Register to refuse to register the applicant
after his application, provided the refusal
was in good faith, but the citizen was
entitled to the opportunity to qualify him
self to vote.
$50 far as the appropriateness of the
act of Congress with reference to the pur-
pose of enforcing the Fifteenth Amend
ment is concerned we think it is not mat
ter for the consideration of the Court, but
is wholly within the determination of Con-
gresS.
eff the act of Congress made in pur-
Suance of the constitutional provision
seems to the Court to tend in any manner
to enforce that provision it will not express
an opinion upon its constitutionality by
reason of any argument to show its inetfi-
less propriety."
From the testimony produced in the case
we extract the following from. the reports
of the trial in the daily papers, the state
ments of the witnesses named not having
been refuted by any testimony produced
OH the part of the traverser, and being
fully sustained by other white testimony
of the most reputable character:
Richard Miles was then sworn, and testi-
fed that he had lived in Annapolis for
nearly three years; that he had applied to
/ Mr. Murdoch in 1870 to be registered at
his Mr.. MS office on Main street; that
he told him that he had lived in Annapolis
fourteen months, and had been discharged
from employment in the Naval Academy
within four months past; that Mr.. Muir
doch refused to register him; that he had
applied to him again in September, 1871;
then MI Murdoch asked him if he had
| anybody IN Annapolis who could vOuch
for his age; he answered he had not and
went to Vilginia, where his mother was, to
obtain evidence as to his age.
The witness was then shown several
| papers, and identified them as those he had
obtained in Virginia. He further testified
| that he had told Mr.. Murdoch under oath
that he was born in Staunton, Va; had
resided four years in Maryland and about
two years in Annapolis, and was then over
| 81 years of age.
Mr.. Sterling then called the attention Of
the jury to the following entry, which was
upon one of the registration books:
Richard Miles, age %; born at Staun-
ton, Va; resided in Anne Arundel county
three years; cause of disqualification, did
not satisfy Register of his age (non age.'D
Mr. Whitney objected to the books, but
the Court overruled the objection.
Miles then further testified that he offered
to vote at the election in November, 1871,
but did not, because his vote was objected
to on account of his name not being on the
registry list.
Mr.. John G. Taylor testified that he was
| a Collector of Customs, and lived in Annap-
oils; that he had been handed the papers
as to Miles age by his (MilesO wife at the
office of the Register on the last day of
registration in October, 1871, and had
shown them to Mr.. Murdoch, and after
wards given them to Mr.. N. Brewer.
Mr.. Nicholas Brewer of N, then testified
that the papers shown him were those
which had been given him by Mr.. Taylor,
and that he had seen Mr.. Taylor offer them
| to Mr. NurdOch