The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1909-10-07
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HITS WHITE PERSONS
A Critical Analysis by Iohh C. Rose.
of Baltimore.
In response to a request for an

: opinion do 10 whether the pTODOS-
! ed disfranchisement amendment
would bar any white voter, Mr..
John c. Rose, United States dis
trict attorney, sent a reply, in
which he denies absolutely the
contention that only colored men
would be effected, and then pro-
ceeds to riddle the argument of
those who hold otherwise. From
legal standpoint the analysis and
the construction on the law, to-
gether with its damaging results,
the argument of Mr.. Rose Is I'M
answerable.
The text of opinion embodied in
the letter of Chairman Hanna is
as follows
Hon John B. Hanna,
Chairman Republican State Cen
trail Committee Of Maryland.
Dear Sir: You say that the
advocate of the DISTINGUISHING
amendment say that it will dis
franchise no white voter. You
ask me whether that statement is
true.
I beg leave to say that II is not
true. The amendment permits to
be registered without complying
with the property or memory tests
the following classes Of persons:
/. Those who on January l.,
1869, or prior thereto, were entitl-
ed to vote under the law of this
state or of any other state Of the
United States in which such per
sons then resided.
,. The male descendants of such
persons.
;. A foreign-born citizen of the
United States naturalized between
January 1, 1869, and November ?,
1909.
!. The male descendants OF such
persons,
5. Those persons who are phys
B ically unable to write out.an appl-
cation registration
4 white man may be native of
this country, have voted i'll Mary
land or some other state, at every
election since land including that
of 1860, and yet he will be distran-
chised by the proposed amend
ment unless he is able to comply
with the property or memory tests.
He may be 50 DISTINGUISHED be
cause he was born since the first
of January, 1913, and, therefore,
was notIhimself entitled to vote
on January I, 1869, or prior there
to, and he may have been the
native son of foreign-born father,
who was never naturalized. For
illustration-the father may have
come to this, Country III I847. The
son may have been, born here at any
time after the first day of January,
1913. The'father,may never have
been naturalizedSand may, indeed
have died before he became entitled
to be naturalized Now this man,
though a native of Maryland, and
though heshas voted for 10 years,
was not entitled to vote on January
l., 500, or prior thereto, and he
-. the son of father who was
and to vote at any time before
day 4 January. /, 1869, or Of a
neri who was naturalized be
tween January l, 1869, and Novem'
Der 2,sI9o9. He cannot swear that
,. his father was entitled to vote be-
y fore January I, 1869, because in
N some cases where he knows his
= family history he may know that
N his father was not 50 naturaiZed
= In other cases he cannot make such
n affidavit because he has no Infor-
y nation or belief on the subject,
y having absolutely no know edge
= whatever on the point While the
proposed amendment makes his
, affidavit that his father was quail
y fed prima facic evidence, it is
= only prima facie and can be re-
Nbutted, and it is expressly declar-
Sed that anyone who make a will
Nfully false affidavit commits per
Sjury. Not only is the person OF
NJ 4I-. ~1ose ,Llv,a mentioned b,.,,pa1