Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1905-01-26
PRICE ONE GENT
ARGUMENTS ARE HEARD.
IN THE DISFRANCHISEMENT
AMENDMENT.
Both Sides Spend Much Time In
Statement of The Law
And Facts.

large number of Baltimorians
1ourneyed here today to listen 60 tho
arguments in the appeal case of Gov
ernor Warteld against Murray Van
diver, in which the Governor had
been decided against in the Circuit
Oornt for Anne Arundel County. The
merits of the question which has To
do with the disfranchising amend.
ment which it is desired TO place be-
fore the people at the next general
election was gone into to an exhaus.
tive extent
Counsel for Governor Warfield and
Murray Nandiyer were late in reach.
ing the Court of Appeals. but no time
was lost IN commencing the arguments.
Before the opening of court the brief
Of Messrs. Cans and Attorney General
Bryan was filed. that for the appellee
having been filed Yesterday. In set
ting forth the contention of the Gov
ernor it was stated in the brief that
che principal argument would be that
in Maryland a proposed amendment TO
the constitution must be passed with
all check and safeguards which attend
the passing of bill into law.
The arguments on both sides follow
ed the text of the briefs to the letter,
there being but little departure from
the facts and in several instances
the wording being identical. With
brief IN hand a spectator was prepared
TO anticipate many of the remarks aud
all of the telling points. clothed as
they were, by convincing logic and
well turned phraseology.
Mr.. Alonzo Miles was not present
at the hearing and the burden of the
argument fell upon Attorney General
Bryan and Edward Cans. on the one
side and Carter and Poe on the other.
The opening argument was made by
Mr.. Cans. he went into the case at
considerable length, laying particular
stress upon the facts of the case rather
than the legal and constitutional
status of the matter. He then follow
ed his outline by referring TO the prin-
cipal argument of the appellant. az
represented by him and his associate.
He spoke of the manner in which
amendments were passed prior TO 1861
at which time they were passed at
one session of the legislature and then
confirmed at the next without having
been placed before the people.
This manner of procedure was
changed, he said. by the legislature
of the year mentioned, which made il
necessary that the people pass upon
constitutional amendment and that -
could not be passed save by the Gov
ernor's approval. He maintained that
the amendment on which he was ar
guing had no title, no enacting clause,
was introduced in the last ten days of
the session and did not receive a two
thirds vote and had not heen given
three readings, all of which was un-
constitutional.
Mr.. Cans was followed by Mr.. Poe
in one of his characteristic arguments,
rich in rhetoric and verbiage, but deal
ing lightly with the facts. He made
general denial of the fact that the
bill was not one in which danger could
be epprehended or in which evil was
TO be presented by the Governor in
refusing to sign. He stated that the
Governor had been given the power Of
veto to prevent hasty legislation, but
this case did not come under those
provisions. He referred to the argu-
ments of his predecessor aud ignored
the Arguments advanced with refer
ence to change made in 1906 He was
followed by Mr.. Carter and the clos
ing remarks we're made by Attorney
Genreal BRYAN.