The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1904-04-14
MARYLAND STATUTE UPHELD.
Which Provides that Persons Remov-
- - 49,
ing to State Must Register Their
Intention of Becoming Citizens.

against John NJ. G. Williams and John
w. Harper, of the Board of Registry
of Bethesda district, Montgomery
county. sustaining the validity of the
act of the Maryland Legislature max
ing it necessary for a person going
into the State with the intention Of
residing there to register with the
clerk of the Circuit Court of the
county in which he intends to take
up residence and thereby indicate his
intention to become a citizen a wear
before registering.
The case was brought to the Su-
premeiCourt on a writ of error from
the Maryland Court of Appeals for a
review of the judgment Of that Court
affirming that of the Circuit Court of
Montgomery county, which had
affirmed the proceedings of the Board
of Registry of District No. 7, which
had refused to register Pope as legal
voter on the ground Of non compli-
ance with the Maryland law making
1T necessary for him to register.
The act of the Maryland Legisla-
ture whichsthe Supreme court has
sustained became a statute March 30,
1902, almost three months before Pope
on June Z, 1902. moved with his fam
lily from the city of Washinet ton to
Montgomery county, Maryland, and
took up his residence at Otterbourne,
near Chevy Chase. On September
80, 1908, he applied TO be registered as
legal voter in the State, but was
refused by the Board Of Registry of
the election district in which he re-
sideG, on tile ground that he had not
compliediwith the law requiringIhim
to register with the clerk of the Cir
cult Court. Pope appeared as his
own counsel when the case came up
for argument in the iSupreme Court,
and John p. Poe of Maryland, rep
resented Messrs. Williams and
Harper. Mr.. Pope admitted that he
did not declare his intention of be-
coming a citizen, but contended that
the refusal to register him was vio-
lation of his civic rights and repug-
nant to the spirit of tile Constitution
of Maryland.
Justice Peckham, of the Supreme
Court, in reading the decision declar.
ed that it was not case of a statute
of State passed after the time when
the individual had moved from one
State to another. Justice Peckham
said that the Maryland statute in
volved does not violate the Federal
right of Mr.. Pope. So far as it con-
Germs him, it was one making regula-
tions and imposing conditions for pur-
poses of registration. Whatever other
right Mr.. Pope may have as a citizen
of Maryland by reason of removal
there to become citizen, Justice
Peckham declared it is not now in
question, and so far as it appeared to
the court no other right had been in
fringed by the statute. 1t was a sim
pie matter whether the Legislature
had the legal right to provide that he
should be required to make a decla-
ration of his intentions one year be
fore registering
Justice Peckham said the privilege
to vote in any State was not given by
the Federal Constitution or any of it's
amendments. 1t was not a privilege
springing from citizenship. 1t may
not be refused on account of race,
color or previous condition of servi-
tude, but does not follow from mere
citizenship of the United States.
I'm other words" explained Justice
Peckham, "the privilege to vote in a
State is within the jurisdiction of the
State itself, to be exercised as the
State may direct and upon such
terms as it may deem proper, provi-
ded no discrimination is made be-
tween individuals in violation of the
Constitution.
The state might hold that persons
OF foreign birth might not vote until
after they have become naturalized
citizens, ana, as had been said by
Chief Justice Waite, such persons had
been allowed to vote in several States
upon haying declared their intentions
to become citizens of the United
States. Some States permitted women
to vote. Others refused them that
privilege. The State, so far as the
Constitution was concerned. might
provide By its own Constitution and
laws that none but native born citi-
zens might vote, as the Constitution
of the United States does not confer
the right of suffrage upon anyone,
and the conditions under which that
right is to be exercised are matters
which the State alone can prescribe.
The Court holds, in the opinion de-
livered, that the reasons which may
have impelled the state Legislature
to enact the statute were merely for
the Legislatures consideration and
did not concern the court.