Evening star., 1909-01-25
WOULD NOT BAR NEGRo VOTE
CARDINAL GIBBONS AGAINST
MARYLAND FRANCHISE PLAN.
Opposes Suffrage Amendment Be
cause It Singles Out Negro on
Ground Of Color.

BALTIMORE, January 25.-Cardinai
Gibbons expressed himself in an interview
yesterday as opposed to the proposed
amendment to the state constitution
which will be submitted to the voters of
the state at the next election. and which
is known as the "disfranchisement'
amendment. There has been little at
tempt to conceal the fact that the pur-
pose of the amendment is to deprive the
greater part of the negroes of Maryland
Of their votes, and the cardinal bases his
opposition to its passage upon his belief
that only the negroes will be disfran-
chised and that they should not be thus
Disseminated against.
He also expressed the belief that the
objections to their exercising the right
of suffrage could be overcome by other.
il less prompt. methods. such as the ed
ucation Of the race and the strict en-
forcement Of laws looking to the purifl-
cation of elections.
Before committing himself. the cardi-
nal took occasion to do little interview
ing on his own account by asking:
What do you understand to be the OBJ
ject of this proposed amendment to the
constitution of the state?'
"Primarily, the diSfranchiSement OF the
negro voters: incidentally. the deprival OF
the independent voters of the balance or
power which they now hold and the max
ing Of Maryland into a one-party state,
replied the visitor.
Upon what do you base this opinton?"
queried the cardinal
Upon statements made in my pres
ence on the floor of the house of delegates
by advocates of the measure, including
Mr.. Henry L. D. Stanford of Somerset
county, who introduced the bill a the
lNcI <Hf &c Fro
Does 1t not prescribe an educational
qualifications was the next question.
LAS a subterfuge, yes: in reality, no,
was the answer.
"Unjust and Impolitic."
THAT being the case" said the cardinal
after a brief interval "I have no hesitancy
in saying that believe 1t to be both un-
just and impolitic. Unjust because 1t is
designed to deprive a certain class OF our
fellow-men Of the rights duly conferred
upon them by the highest law OF the
land: impolitic, because, In my opinion,
it must ultimately injure the political Or
ganization which favors 1t by stirring up
bad blood and creating dissenston within
the ranks of that party.
Il infer from what you have told me
that the measure Is at least partially in
tended as punishment to the colored
voters for their continued adherence 20
the republican party. If this be an evil.
the way to cure 1t would be to offer in
ducements of a legitimate character to
them to transfer their allegiance, in whole
or in part to the party now in power In
the state. Fair treatment will accomplish
this result. An attempt to punish them
will have the opposite effect.
Unjust to Pick Out Negro.
Il do not believe such drastic meas
;,,M Mo-
state-unless all colors are subjected to the
same conditions. 1 do not believe the
negro should be disfranchised solely on
the ground of his color.
IF there is to be a disfranchsng
amendment let there be some general
qualification or requirement. Let there
be a property qualification Or an educa-
tional qualification the immortality
phase. Then whites and blacks and all
colors alike would be affected, but to
pick out the negro for no reason save his
color would be too unjust, l believe, and