Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1905-03-23
ADVERSE TO THE GOVERNOR
MUST HAVE BEEN A LEAK.
The Disfranchising Enactment To
Stand-Thc Capitals Fore
cast Correct.

decision and three dissenting in many
of the essential facts of the proceed
ings, an opinion was handed down
today by the Court of Appeals in the
mandamus proceedings against Cover
nor Wartield TO compel him to pro-
claim the elective franchise amend
ment.
The opinion embraced in its findings
the principal facts as published ex-
clusively in the Capital some time
since, showing that there had heen
leak in some department whereby facts
concerning the undelivered opinion
had been allowed to escape. The
opinion. in twenty five typewritten
pages. .atfirms the decision OF the lower
court and instructs Governor Warfield
to proclaim the amendment, not giving
to him the right to either veto the bill
or cause its passage by failing TO re-
turn it to the legislature within six
days of its presentment.
Three judges dissented as to the
wording of the manner in which the
matter should be placed before the
voters. they placing a construction on
the wording which would appear that
there had been some effort made to
have the bill imperative at any stage.
The court cites at great length opin-
ions on proceedings instituted on lines
similar TO the present contention
W hich were handed down in Pennsy-
lvania and Louisiana, and makes use
of the language of Article XIV of the
Maryland Constitution, which states
that a proposal of an amendment by
the General Assembly in the form of
"a bill shall have its passage by three
fifths of all the members elected TO
each house; the entry of the proposed
amendment on the journal; the pub
lication by order of the Governor for
at least three months before the next
general election; a vote of the people,
and if a majority of the voters are IA
vorable to its adoption, proclama-
tion by the Governor declaring the
amendment to be adopted and thence
forth the amendment shall be part of
the constitution.
The corut holds that there is not IA
word or syllable to be found in any
of the provisions even suggesting that
the Governor is entitled to partici-
pate, in any way, in formulating and
proposing amendments to the constitu-
tion. Coming to the second section of
the bill the opinion uses the follow
ing language THE second section
of the franchise amendment bill is in
these words: And be it further en-
acted, that the foregoing section,
hereby proposed as an amendment to
the Constitution of the State, shall
be, at the next general election for
members of the General Assembly to
be held in this state, submitted to the
legal and qualified voters thereof for
their adoption or rejection, in pursu-
ance of the directions contained in
Article XIV of the Constitution, and
at said election the vote on said pro-
posed amendment shall be by ballot,
and upon each ballot there shall be
written or printed the words For the
Constitutional Amendment, or
Against the Constitutional Amend
ment, as the voters shall elect, and
Immediately after said election due
return shall be made to the Governor
of the vote on the said proposed
amendment as directed by said article
of the constitution.
NOW it cannot be pretended that
the clause directing the amendment
TO be submitted to the legal and quail
ified voters of the state at the next
general election for the General As
sembly, is distinctively and essentially
legislative provision, requiringIthe
Governors approval, because 1T is
precisely what Article XIV prescribes
shall be done, and if the clause had
been entirely omitted from the section
the constitutional mandate would
have been operative, as it is still
effective in this particular. Nor is
the requirement that the vote ON the
proposed amendment shall be by bal
lot legislative enactment, because
the constitution itself in Section /,
Article /, declares that all elections
shall be by ballot. The direction that
Immediately after the election. due
returns shall be made to the Governor
is simply repetition of the terms of
Article ~, under which identically
the same thing would have done If the
section had been altogether silent on
the subject. The phrase as the voter
shall elect refers, not to the remote
but to the immediate antecedents-
not to the written or printed but to
the for or against because the voter
has nothing TO do with making the
ballot, and, therefore, it is impossible
for him to elect whether words shall
be written or printed. Hence of me-
cessity the phrase must mean precise
ly that which is implied and included
in the equally comprehensive provi-
sions of the law unless it is assumed
that the General Assembly purposely
intended to mislead and confuse the
voter by inserting q clause in conflict
with te then existing general law; or
that the General Assembly obviously
designed to repeal the then existing
general law in this particular and to
substitute different provision in it's
stead. No middle or intermediate at
titude exists. Either one or the other
or neither of the two alternatives
Just indicated must be accepted
There was obviously no intention
to repeal the general law, because the
General Assembly in passing the good
roads amendment concurrently with
the franchise amendment expressly in
yoked and reaffirmed the general law,
and il cannot with propriety be said
that as to one amendment the general
law was to govern, whilst as to the
other a totally different system vas TO
prevail Neither alternative can,
therefore, be invoked. AS the voters
shall elect they will vote for or
against the amendment This is what
the phrase means and that is exactly
in accord with what the code pre-
scribes.
The court discusses this phase of
the question at great length and states
positively that the words for or against
ef..a osnondwrnonf shall ho r1rfnfad and