The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1904-04-08
ELECTION LAW UPH ED.


1902 The case came before the court
on an appeal from the decision OF the
Court of Appeals of Maryland. The
plaintiff, Mr.. William H. Pope, of Wash
in gton, removed in 1908 to Montgomery
county. On September 20, 1903, he
sought to register before Messrs. John
M. c. Williams and John w. Harper
the registration officers at District No.
in Montgomery county, but was denied
registration under the "declaration of in
tention" clause The case pursued the
usual legal course. finally coming before
the Supreme Court on writ of error
Mr.. Pope appeared as his own counsel
while the registration officers were repre-
sented by Mr.. John P. Poe, who was
generally regarded as the author OF the
bill
The decision was read by Mr.. Justice
Peckham and is the unanimous OPINION
of the court. After an elaborate review
of the facts in the case, Mr.. Pechham
pointed out that the subject before the
court was not the case Of statute OF the
state passed after the removal OF the PLAIN
tiff in error from Washington into Mary
land, and that there was therefore no al
iteration of any possible rights which the
plaintiff might have already acquired and
which he might claim had been taken
away from him by the passage OF the
statute. On the contrary, the law went
into effect on March 30, 1909, more than
two months before the removal OF the
plaintiff from Washington to Montgom-
cry county.
The court then proceeds to state Its
opinion that the statute does not violate
any federal right Of the plaintiff in error
So far as it concerns him, and the right
which be urges, the statute is one making
regulations and conditions for the regis
try of persons for the purpose OF voting
1t was only for the purpose of thereafter
voting that the plaintiff in error sought
to be registered and it was the denial OF
that right only which he can now review.
Whatever other rights he may have as a
citizen of Maryland by reason of his re-
moval thither is not now under review
though it does not appear that any other
rights have been infringed. The simple
question is whether the legislature OF
MARYLAND had the right to provide that a
person coming into the state should make
a "declaration of Intention year before
he has the right to register.
The privilege to vote in any state is not
given by the Constitution of the United
States or by any of its amendments. Ii
is not privilege springing from citizen
ship. 1t may not be refused on account
of race, color or previous condition OF
servitude, but it does not follow from
mere citizenship of the United States. In
other words, the privilege to vote in
state is within the jurisdiction of that
state itself, to be exercised as the state
may direct and upon such terms as may
to it seem proper, provided, of course, no
discrimination is made between individu-
ais in violation of the Constitution of the
United States. Thus a state has the right
to provide that persons of foreign birth
might vote without being naturalized, and
indeed some states have permitted per-
sons to vote on declaring their intentions
to become citizens. Other states permit
women to vote. So far as conditions fol-
voting are concerned state might pro
vide that none but natural born citizens
should be permitted to vote. The ques'
ton whether the conditions prescribed by
state are reasonable or unreasonable is
not federal one, although the court does
not wish to be understood as believing
that the condition in the statute is unrea'
sonable or improper.
The court, Justice Peckham continued,
was unable to see any violation of the
federal Constitution in the provision OF
the statute for the declaration of the in
tention of person coming into the state
before he can claim the right to be regis
tered. The tatute, so far as 1t prescrlbes
condition precedent to the exercise OF
the right to vote by persons coming into
the state, is neither an unlawful descrimi'
nation against anyone in the situation OF
the plaintiff, nor does it deny him the
equal protection of the laws, n or is it re-
pugnant to any fundamental or inalien'
able right of citizens of the United States
nor a violation of the implied guaran-
tees of the Constitution of the United
States.
The court thinks it plain that the stat
ute in question violates no right protect
ed by the federal Constitution. The rea-
sons which the state may have had which
impelled 1t to enact the statute were mat
tiers entirely for its own consideration
and are matters with which the court had
no concern. The court held, therefore,
that the plaintiff, in error, had no good
cause for complaint in regard to the decis
ion of the courts below, and the judgment
of the Court OF Appeals Of Maryland is
accordingly confirmed.
Mr.. Pope, the plaintiff in error, after
carefully attending Justice Peckham's
decision, stated that he would propably
petition the Supreme Court to grant him
another hearing in the case. He is The
private secretary to Justice White, of the
Supreme Court.
Governor Wartield has appointed the
following residents of Baltimore as mem
hers of the State Board Of Barber Elk lm