Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1904-04-08
MARYLAND STATUTE UPHELD.

OF William Fl. Pope against John M. @.
Williams and John W. Harper, Of the
Board of Registry of Bethesda district, Of
Montgomery county, sustaining the validity
Of the act OF the Maryland Legislature max.
ing 1t necessary for 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 Inten.
ton TO become citizen year before regis.
tering.
The case was brought to the Supreme
Court on writ of error from the Maryland
Court Of Appeals for review OF the judg-
ment 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. Z, which had re-
fused to register Pope as legal voter on the
ground of non compliance with the Mary.
land law making it necessary for him to reg
lister.
The act Of the Maryland Legislature
which the Supreme Court has sustained be.
came statute March 80, 1902 almost three
months before Pope, on June T. 1909, moved
with his family from the city of Washing
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
resided, on the ground that he had not com.
piled with the law requiring him to register
with the clerk of the Circuit Court. Pope
appeared as his own counsel when the case
came up for argument in the Supreme
Court, and John P. Poe of Maryland, rep
resented Messrs. Williams and Harper. Mr.
Pope admitted that he did not declare his
intention of becoming a citizen, but con-
tended that the refusal to register him was
q violation of his civic rights and repug.
nant to the spirit of the Constitution OF Ma
ryland.
Justice Peckham, Of the Supreme Court,
in reading the decision declared that 1t
was not case of 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 1t concerns him, 1t was
one making regulations and imposing con-
ditions for purposes OF registration. What
ever other right Mr.. Pope may have as a
citizen of Maryland by reason Of removal
there 10 become citizen, Justice Peckham
declared 1t is not now in question, and 80 far
as 1t appeared to the court no other right
had been infringed by the statute. 1t was
a simple matter of whether the Legislature
had legal right to provide that he should be
required 10 make declaration Of his Inten-
tons one year before registering.
Justice Peckham said the privilege to vote
in any State is not given by the Federal
Constitution or any of its amendments. 1t
was not privilege springing from citizen
ship. 1t may not be refused on account Of
race, color or previous condition of servi-
tude, but does not follow from mere citizen
ship OF the United States.
sIn other words" explained Justice Peck
ham, "the privilege TO vote In State is
within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to
be exercised as the State may direct and
upon such terms as 1t may deem proper
provided no discrimination is made between
individuals in violation OF the Oonstit ution. y
The State might hold that persons of for
eign birth might not vote until after they
had become naturallzed citizens, and, as
had been said by Chief Justice Waite, such
persons had been allowed TO vote 10 several
States upon having declared their intentions
TO become citizens of the United States.
Some States permitted women 10 vote.
Others refused them that privilege. The
State, 80 far as the Constitution was con.
cerned, might provide by its own Constitu.
ton and laws that none but native born
citizens 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 pre-
scribe.
The Court holds, in the opinion delivered,
that the reasons which may have impelled
the State Legislature to enact the statute
were merely for the Legislatures consider.
alton and did not concern the court.
The Court holds that the right Of State
to legisate upon the subject OF the elective
franchise is unassailable and subject only to
the conditions stated.
"Under no conceivable state Of facts" said
Justice Peckham, "can State statute 10 re-
gard TO voting be regarded as an infringe
ment or discrimination OF the rights OF
citizen OF the United States removing into
the State and excluded by State legislation. "
Such questions might arise II the exclu-
sion were founded on the particular State
from which a person might come; for In
stance, excluding citizen Of Georgia, but
not excluding one OF New York. Ia tuch
cases IL might be argued that under the Four
tenth Amendment Of the Consultation the
citizen of Georgia was under State statute
deprived Of equal protection, and Justice
Peckhsm said that other extreme cases might
be cited, but they we're not involved In the
present case.
So far as the Pope case Is concer ned, the
Court holds that 1t Is unable 70 see that
there has been any violation Of the Consti-
tuition 10 the provision OF the State statute
for declaration Of the intentions OF the
person coming into the State before he can
4. II