Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-07-14

WuO buOulu Interfere, OF httouPt W intotiorel
with any voter when inside said enclosed
place, or when marking his ballot, or who
should endeavor to induce any voter before
voting to show how he marks, or has mark
ed his ballot. Il Is apparent that these clauses
depend upon the preceding clause, and the
description Of the offences and the Offenders
therein set forth 10 defined and largely con-
trolled BY the preceding provisions with ref
erence to the privilege of any voter to ask
for assistance in marking his ballot. The
class Of offences and the number Of persons
who could be guilty Of an offence would
necessarily be substantially increased by the
elimination OF the words COR for any reason
In accordance with the amendment actually
made In the Legislature. II these words be
stricken out, 1t 10 manifest that a persJn
could easily be found guilty of an offence
against the law who wonld be entirely guilt
less II they are permitted to remain.
eve hold, therefore, that the several clauses
Of the section are 50 interdependent and insep-
arabic that when the phrase 'or for any rea-
SON 10 eliminated las 1t must be because II
has never received the legislative sanction
the entire section must fall with 1t.
"Nor can we give Que assent TO the sug-
gestion made with reference to section IL.
Section IL Of the Act provides for the COM
pensatiOn of the judges and clerks OF the pri-
mary elections, and for additional compensa-
ton 10 the Board of Supervisors OF Election,
aud II 10 apparent, that the execution or this
law would necessltate the expenditure OF a
considerable sum Of money. Section 81 pro-
vides that all expenses incurred In the carry
ing out Of the provisions Of the Act shall be
paid by the County Commissioners, upon
bills therefor duly approved by the Board of
Election Supervisors; and then In order to
create fund from which the County Com
missioners could be reimbursed the amount
Of money expended by them, 1t further pro-
vdes, that each candidate for nomination
for public Office at the primary election shall
| nav the sum Of twenty-five dollars, and each
delegate to nominating convention shall
pay the sum Of ten dollars, to the Supervis-
ors Of Elections al least fifteen days prior to
the date of said primary, and the said Board
of Election Supervisors shall pay over the
amount so received to the County Commits.
| sioneFs, and the name Of no candidate or
delegation shall be printed upon any ballot
uuleas the provisions Of the section should
have been complied with. How delegate TO
nominating convention can pay 10 the
| Supervisors Of Elections the sum OF ten dol
lars ct least fifteen days prior to the date OF
the primary election, by which 1t is to be
determined whether he 10 to be q delegate or
not, Is one Of the problems, impossible Of so
luton, which are furnished by this Act, and
which we will not attempt 10 answer. But as
summing 1t means that each candidate a. q dele
gate TO the nominating convention shall pay
the sum OF ten dollars II Is manifest that the
Substitution Of the word delegate for delega-
ton makes radical change in the meaning
and effect of the section. This Is illustrated
by reference to the practice Of the Republican
party In this county, which has been In the
| habit Of nominating It's candidates for public
Office by party convention.
"There are sixteen voting pre- clncts In the
| county, and the testimony of Mr.. Burdette
Shove that II has been the usage to send TO
such nominating conventions nine delegates
from each precinct. Under the law % Il was
signed by the Governor, and as 1t 10 printed,
| II each candidate as . delegate is to pay the
SUN required, and there is but one ticket In
each precinct, the expense 10 the Republican
party, or its organization, would be nine
times as much as the Legislature intended.
II there be two tickets in each precinct, which
10 much more probable, then II would be
| eighteen times as much, and so on in the
same ratio, thus swelling the indemnity fund
| to such proportions as could neveg have been
within the Legislative contemplation. On the
other hand, II we adopt the suggestion Of the
| counsel for the defence, and relieve the can
didates az delegates to the nominating con-
vention from the payment Of any sum what
|
der the provision negatOry, and entirely des-
troy the indemnity fund, would be for each
political party entitled to avail itself Of the
provisions Of the act to elect and nominate
It's candidates for Office by the process Of o
party convention, and the election OF the del.
egates TO such convention would proceed I'M
der the provisions of the law withO any
expense to the candidate, or his party, but at
the sole cost OF the taxpayers Of the county,
many Of whom belong to neither of said pO-
litical organizations. Surely we cannot az
| sumo that the Legislature intended any such
result, especially In view Of the fact that ex-
| press provision is made for the creation Of
this indemnity fund, not only In the law I'M
der consideration but in the original bill in
| trOduced by Mr.. Johnston. We must, there
| fore, condemn this section. ~
1.-THE act having been thus emasculated by
| the elimination Of sections 10 and 81 the
| question recurs as to whether the remainder
OF the law can be sustained and enforced
and In considering this question II Is neces-
sary 10 add very little to what has been said
in dcussing the invalid clauses OF the two
condemned sections. II is undeniably the
truth that II Is the duty Of the Courts to sus-
tain statutes 10 their entirety, when possible,
and to that end we should indulge all reason
able presumption In favor OF their validity.
| But when statute has been once emasculated
| these presumpti0ns no longer obtain in favor
of the remainder. On the contrary they are
| reversed, and the remainder of the statute
will not be upheld, unless II Is apparent that
| the Legislature woul Id have enacted such p0r-
ton alone, had 1t been foreseen that the
Courts would declare the remainder Of the
act void"
"Applying this test, is ii possible for US
TO assume that the General Assembly Of Mary
land In view OF the purpose the character,
and the history OF this particular piece Of
legislation, would have passed q law regulat-
ing primary elections in Montgomery county
which contains no provision by which the
| voter who 10 blind or physically unable TO
mark his ballot would be accorded the privI-
legs of voting al such election or that i'm
poses no penalty for the invasion, or At.
tempted Invasion, OF the secrecy Of the bal
lot or that makes no provision for the pay
ment of the expenses of the elections held
| Hereunder, or that dOes not provide for the
creation Of an indemnify fund by q system of
assessments levied upon the respective cand-
dates for nomlnation2 And yet such 10 the
condition Of this law with these sections elm
| mated. II seems 10 as that this eliminat ion,
which we feel compelled TO make, so thorough
| ly destroys the symmetry of the law as an
entire and complete system for the conduct
and regulation Of primary elections In Mont
gomery county AZ TO render the remainder OF
the statute Ineffective, useless and void at
any rate IL 10 certainly not what the Legisla-
ture 10 tended should be operative.
"As we have stated, we have not felt called
upon TO pass upon the other omissions and
| imperfections alleged against this measure,
but il 10 clear that their existence land we
| End that there are some material defects) fur
nlshes no reason TO induce US 10 stretch the
presidents, and 30 apply them ~ 10 sustain
this law, or compels us TO make any exhaust
| i've search for reasons TO main tain It's validity
| 10 the face OF the fatal objection 10 q part OF
II, made so apparent by the evidence 10 this
record.
| eve think the law is invalid, that the
plaintiff 10 entitled 70 the relief prayed for,
and that an injunction should issue restrain
ing the defendants from executing any Of the
provisions Of said act, and will pass u de-
| cree TO that sfect.''
In Memoriam.
i