Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1905-04-06

him to the Registration Officers or
read TO him by them. is entitled TO
registration. the question is W whether.
In connection with the other clauses
OF the Amendment, it Is good aud
desirable amendment to the Cous,i.
tuition of Maryland. and, as such,
should be adopted by the people, or
whether it is the bad proposition
which some OF its opponents pro-
claim it TO be, and, as such, should
be rejected.
NO RACE DISCRIMINATION
In passing upon this question we
must consider at the very outset
whether 10 violates either she Four.
teenth or Fifteenth Amendment "a
the Constitution of the United
States.
The Fifteenth Amendment de-
clares that the right of citizens of
the United States TO vote shall not
De denied or abridged by the Uni
ted States, or by any State, ON &C.
count of race. color or previous con-
dition of servitude.
Looking to the language of the
clause under consideration, it is
manifest that it applies equally and
lmpartially alike to both white and
black citizens of the United States.
No discrimination is made for or
against any citizen on account of
race or color, and hence there is no
possible room for the suggestion
that the Fifteenth Amendment stands
as an obstacle in its way.
Taking up the Fourteenth Amend
ment, we find that its first section
has been repeatedly held by the
Supreme Court to have no applica-
tion whatever to the question OF
suffrage, and this must now be
treated as absolutely settled.
AS to the second section of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the utmost
that has ever been suggested is that
an educational qualification may
subject the State imposing it 10 a
reduction of its representation in
~
Congress and in the Electoral Col
lege, but Judge Cooley clearly shows
In his Principles of Constitutional
Law" page 292, that to require
ability to read is no denial of suf-
frage and hence that such denial
cannot pea violatIon oil the second sec.
tion OF the Fourteenth Amendment.
All objection to this educational
test clause as contrary to either the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amend
ments being thus eliminated, we
have only to consider its erpediemcv
under our existing political condi.
tions in Maryland.
To Judge tnis properly we must
ascertain whom il will reach and
control and how it will operate.
Taking it in connection with she
other section of the proposed Amend
ment. it is clear that il does not af.
fect or touch in the registration of the
year 1906 any native born white man
whomsoever who voted anywhere in
the Union on January. 1869, or ear
lier, nor the lineal descendant of
any such native born white man. II
will not and cannot apply to or ex.
clude any such men.
Nor will it apply to any naturaliz-
ed citizen OF the United States who
on January |, 1869, or earlier, voted
anywhere in the Union, nor 10 the
lineal descendant of any such ma
turalized citizen.
Nor will it apply to any black
man who voted anywhere in the
Union on January /, 1869, or ear.
lier, or the lineal descendant of anv
such black man.
The problem presented 20 the De.
mocratic Senate and House OF Dele.
gates at the session Of 1904 was this:
How can we frame an Amendment
to the Constitution Of Maryland
which, while not violating either
the letter or the spirit OF Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments 10 the
Constitution of the United States.
will rescue our State from the evil
and peril ofignorant negro suffrage?
The proposed AnaendmeRt solres this
problem.
SUFFRAGE NOT A NATURAL
RIGHT.
Suffrage is valuable privilege,
but it is not natural right. (An-
derson vs.. Baker, q Nd. 531.}
Hence no injustice is done by with.
holding it from persons who are not
able 20 appreciate and exercise ID