Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1905-03-14
HAS THERE BEEN A LEAK !?
COURT OF APPEALS DECIS-
ION ANTICIPATED.
1t Is Stated BY Several That Gov
ernor WarfieId Will Be De-
cided Against In The
Mandamus
Case.

Although it is probably outside of
the range of posi- that the
Judges of the Court of Appeals could
have intimated TO any person what
their opinion would be relative to
their decision in the appeal of the
mandamus proceedings against Cover
nor Warfield, yet it is fact that bets
are being openly made here as TO what
that decision will be.
Varying sums of money have been
wagered by those who in that way are
willing to back up their knowledge,
real or professed, as to what the de-
cision OF the Court will be. Whether
it is wild guess on their part or
whether there has been leak in the
channels through which the Court
proceeds TO make known its findings
is not known.
Those wise ones who claim TO know
what this decision will be when de-
livered ON Wednesday of next week,
claim that the decision will be adverse
to Governor Warfield and that the
Court will instruct him to proclaim
the disfranchislng amendment, which
the Governor has repudiated. Also
do they claim that the Court is di-
vided on the question, that three are
in favor of giving the decision to the
Governor and the other five win de-
eide that he must place the amend
ment before the people.
They have even gone SO far as to
give the names Of the judges who are
ON either side of the question. AL
though no attempt is made to give q
detailed statement of the opinion of
the Court, the wise ones attempt to
tell of matters on which the Court
will touch. 1t is assured with great
gravity that the Court will bring into
the decision the consideration of facts
which were not produced by the at
torneys on either side and which are
not german TO the Importance of de-
Gliding whether or not the Governor is
safe guarding the interests of the citi-
zens of the state by refusing to ratify
the amendment.
The original trial as we'll as the ap-
peal was solely on the right of the
Governor to refuse TO proclaim the
amendment if, in his opinion the in
terests of the state demanded it. No
other facts, as far as the contents of
the amendment itself were concern
ed. we're touched upon in the argu-
ments. Generally speaking a Court
does not bring into the consideration
of case such as this any facts which
were not eluoidated by the attorneys
ON either side.
Those, however, who claim to know
so much about what the decision of
the Court will be, claim that the Court
has made startling discovery in the
phraseology of the bill which they
will bring to the fore in making the
decision. 1t has to do with the man
ner in which the voter shall give ex-
preston to his wishes with reference
60 the proposed amendment.
In speaking of this manner the
amendment, as il at present stands,
states that the voter shall write or
print" the words 'in favor of the
amendment" or opposed to the
amendment. " How voter shall print
or write his vote when the wording he
decides to adopt is already printed on
the ballot and but needs his cross mark
is a question which seems to be the
life-slzed 'nigger in the woodpile. "
This is the question which it is al
legged the Court will touch on to a con-
siderable extent in face of the fact
that il was not discovered by any one
else and was not brought to their at
tention in the ordinary events having
Co do with consideration of the facts
as elucidated by the attorneys on
either side.