The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1905-02-02
BRYAN CALLS THE POE
LAW EXTREMELY WICKED.
Attorney General Bitterly Attacks
DISTINGUISHING Act.
WRONG IN PRINCIPAL AND THEORY
Mr.. Bryan Says 1t Was Conceived
In Fraud And Brought Forth in
Trickery Denounces LegisIa-
ture.

In Saturdays issue of the Balti-
more Evening NeaOS, Attorney Will
liam S. Bryan reiterated the charge
that he made before the Court of APP
peals on Thursday that the so-called
Poe DISTINGUISHING law is wicked"
and that cit was conceived in fraud
and brought forth in trickery." Mr..
Bryan made these charges while APP
pearing as the representative of Gov
ernor Warfield to defend the latter in
the mandamus proceedings brought
by Chairman Murray Vandiver of the
Democratic State Central Committee
to compel the Governor to formally
promulgate the DISTINGUISHING consti-
tutional amendment passed by the
last Legislature.
II have maintained from the very
first that this constitutional amend
meut was wrong in principle and
theory" declared Mr.. Bryan today,
land | shall continue to maintain it
as long as / have breath. 1t is both
criminal and wicked for the Legisla-
ture of the great State of Maryland
to delegate to four irresponsible in
dividuals in any polling place to say
whether / can or cannot vote. The
use of the term wicked to describe
such an act or Constitutional amend
ment is almost too weak.
From the time that the constitu-
tional amendment now under discus
sion was first preached have been
against it, as the fies of the the Ne1CS
itself will show. The amendment has
a number of provisions, several of
which were more or less similar to
the provisions of other amendments
which were offered, including one
which | prepared myself, but it was
in the educational qualification clause
that the trick nature CT the amend
ment is apparent. This clause dele
gates to the election judges in each
precinct the unrestricted right to
decide whether man has a sufficient
intelligence to vote. | don't believe
any language is too strong for the
purpose OF denouncing such a dele
CATION of power. The amendment, If
adopted, would place the election alb
solutely in the hands of the men
who appointed the judges of election,
for the latter in turn would have the
absolute right to prevent any man
they choose from voting.
II base my argument against the
legality of the amendment upon the
ground that it passed the Legislature
in the form of an act, which should
have been signed by the Governor.
AS is well-known, the Governor did
not sign 1t. The fact that the act was
deposited with the Clerk of the Court
of Appeals did not effect the matter
in one way or the other, according to
my view of the case, for as said be-
fore the Court of Appeals, the Legis-
lature could, SO far as affecting the
| amendments legality was concerned,
just as easily have given the act to
Murray Vandiver for safekeeping."
Final arguments were made before
the Court of Appeals on the Poe case
on Thursday, Mr.. Edgar Cans ap-
pearing with Mr.. Bryan as council for
Governor Warfeld. Messrs Bernard
Carter and John p Poe, reputed
author of the amendment, appeared
the amendment was legally passed
and that Governor Warfield must
promulgate it SO that it can appear
upon the official ballot next fall.
The Court has taken the matter I'M
/ der advisement.