Democratic messenger., 1904-04-09
MARYLAND ELECTION
LAW WAS UPHELD
Declaration of Intention Clause
In Accord With the
Constitution.

SVu0ut0NOus
Washington, April That part of
the Maryland election law of 1902 con
tanning the ''declaration of intention"
clause was emphatically sustained in AN
opinion handed down Monday in the
United States Supreme Court. The
decision was given on an appeal by
William II. Pope. of Washington. from
the rulings of the Maryland courts.
Mr.. Pope in 1908 removed to Mont
gomcry county and ON September 30 of
that year endeavored to register before
John NJ. O. Williams and John W.
Harper. the board Of registrars in DIS
trict No Z of the county. He was re-
fused registration under the clause
mentioned. Failing to obtain satisfac-
iion in the state tribunals. Mr.. Pope
appealed to the United States Supreme
Court.
OPINION UNANIMOUS.
Justice Peckham handed down Mon
day an opinion. which was concurred in
by all the other members of the court
He gave very full statement of the
facts involved. and then pointed out
that the subject before the court was
not the case of a statute of the state
passed after the removal of the plaintiff
in error from Washington into Mary
land, and that there was. therefore, no
.,le NJ rtrxl, xxl,c
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 20. 1902.
more than two months before the re-
moval of the plaintiff from Washington
to Montgomery 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 il concerns him and
the right which he urges. the statute is
one making regulations and conditions
for the registry Of persons for the pur-
pose of voting. II was only for the pur-
pose of thereafter voting that the plain
tiff in error sought to be registered. and
il was the denial of that right only
which he can now review. Whatever
other rights he may have as citizen of
Maryland. by reason of his removal
thither. lis not now under review though
il does not appear that any other rights
have been infringed. The simple ques.
tion is whether the Legislature of Mary
land had the right to provide that a
person coming into the state should
make a declaration of intention a
year before he has the right to register
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.
The privilege to vote in any state is
not given by the constitution of the
United States or by any of ITS amend
ments II is not privilege springing
from citizenship. IL may not b. refused
ON account of race. color or previous
condition of scrvitude: but il 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 IL seem proper. provided, of
course. no discrimination is made be-
tween individuals in violation of the
Constitution of the United States.
Thus. state has the right 10 provide
that persons of foreign birth might vote
without being naturalized. and indeed.
some states have permitted persons TO
vote ON declaring their intentions to be-
come citizens. Other states permit
women To vote. So far as conditions for
voting are concerned, state might
provide that none but natural-born
citizens should be permitted to vote.
The question whether the conditions
prescribed by state are reasonable or
unreasonable is not federal one, al
though the court does not wish TO be
understood as believing that the condi-
tion in the statute is unreasonable or
improper.
No VIOLATION or CONSTITUTION.
The court, Mr.. Peckham continued,
was unable tn see any violation of the
federal constitution IN the provision of
the statute for the declaration of the in
tention of a person coming into the State
before he can claim the right to be reg
istered. The statute, so far as il pre-
scribes condition precedent to the ex-
crcise OF the right to vote 10y persons
coming into the State-and that is as
far as IL Is necessary to consider in the
COURTS not an unlawful discrimina-
iion against anyone in the situation of
the plaintiff. nor does it deny him the
equal protection of the laws. nor is it re-
pugnant to any fundamental or analien-
able right of citizens of the United
States nor, "a violation of the implied
guarantees of the Constitution of the
United States.
1t is the right of any State to legislate
ON the subject of the elective franchise
as may seem good. subject to the condi-
tions already stated
l. .l.s.,