The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1901-03-29
a REASONABLE ACT.

The new Maryland Election law says
the Philadelphia Public Ledger Gnd.
Rep), enacted at the extra session Of the
Legislature, is the object of 4 great deal
of severe criticism. Those who form
notions of the law from the energetic com
ment that it has elected will be led to be
lieve that the measure is wholly indie
feasible Jaw, which will disfranchise by
wholesale the coored vote and insure
Democratic ascendancy in the State. Such
views seem to be wholly erroneous.
There is little doubt that the object Of
the Democrats in passing the law Was I'M
worthy, and that is proper subject TO"
the consideration of the Maryland people,
who will probably register their disap
proval of such partisan maneuvers at the
polls; but whatever may have been The
motives inspiring the Democrats, the law,
judged solely on its merits, seems to be
eminently reasonable.
THE law takes away the party emblem
on the ballot, arranges the names alpha
betically, with party designation along
side each candidates name; forhids the
ballot clerks to give any assistance except
in cases of blindness or other physical dis
ability, and provides that specimen ballots
shall be made public before elections The
sample or specimen ballots issued before
election are enlarged copies of the official
i nd to rarmitt O.
to take into the voting booth with him, as
a guide, one of these sample ballots.
these conditions do not impose Il great
burden upon anybody. The man who can
not meet these meager requirements does
not strengthen the social fabric by eNer
cising the franchise, nor would he be per
mitted to vote in Maryland or any State
in the Union if election laws were care
fully and intelligently framed. In Mary
land the voter is required to be able tC
read. 1t is safe to say that if the other
Southern States had enacted laws like the
Maryland act no serious or sincere crltl
cism, either from white or colored, woulc
ever have been made against their election
laws.
The Maryland law is so wholly differ
ent from the laws adopted in North Caro-
lima and other Southern States that it pro
vides safe guide for the kind of law:
which they should have adopted, insteaC
of the unfair and unjust legislation which
has met with general reprobation. The
North Carolina law, with its GRANDPA
theirs clause, designed to disfranchise tht
illiterate colored vote and at the same time
to protect the illiterate white vote, il
vicious class legislation, which, in thu
opinion of the ablest jurists, violates pro
visions of the Federal Constitution. Th.
MARYLAND law does not belong in the SAM
| category 1t bears with equal weight upon
white and colored, and it is not undul,
harsh to either.
"The Democrats had partisan objec
in passing the law, but the law itself is
| reasonable act, and it seems likely tina
| the partisan hopes will not be realized
| The number of illiterates in the State
1929, and of the total 26,616 are colored
while ,3O7 are white. One result of TIL
passage of the law is that Republicans ar
making, it is said, extraordinary efforts t.
| educate the colored illiterate voters. Wilt
are much more eager in Maryland, as il
other Southern States, to get an education
and better their condition than are the il
literate whites. 1t does not seem improb
able that the Democrats will fail to rea
the expected partisan advantage of th
law, and if the law has any result it viii
encourage the illiterate to gain education
and help the State by keeping the fran
chise in the hands of those who are abb
to exercise it most intelligently."