The Baltimore County union, the Towson news., 1909-10-09
COLONEL MCINTOSH REPLIES.

duu ACuCCblue ndu 10 COLpcllcu u duIuib budb
under our form of government the exercise of
sovereignty, that is, the voting power, by those
who are wholly ignorant and illiterate is liable
to the gravest abuse and is a source of danger
and weakness to the State"
You do not deny so self evident proposition.
Nor do you deny its corollary, that unrestricted
suffrage as now exercised in this State by the
ignorant and illiterate constitutes evil in the
body polite which it is desirable if possible to
remove. You tacitly admit both of these propo-
sitions. If unrestricted suffrage then be a con-
fessed evil, what ask should be the attitude of
all good citizens when an opportunity is pre-
sented to remove it. Should they avail of the
opportunity and render the body polite real
service. or decline the opportunity and dis
courage efforts having that end in view. Natur-
ally ole would say they would gladly avail of
the opportunity. But your answer is, no. We
do not deny that unrestricted suffrage is an evil
in the State and desirable thing to get rid Of
but the advocates of the amendment do not go
about it in the right manner. When you come
to deal with manner you do not resort to argu-
ment. but you rely upon bald assertion and
abuse You begin by calling the proposed
amendment ugly names. You say it is an lob
noxious measure" You arraign it as confess
edly and notoriously designed to eliminate only
gence and to retain the franchise to all white
voters no matter how iliterate or depraved,
and to prove the bad motives of those favorable
to the amendment you compare them to "gang
of miscreants" engaged in some unlawful enter
prise, such as wrecking neighbours property
because OF an cyesore or nuisance upon it. Let
us see. The pending amendment has passed the
Legislature of Maryland been published by
proclamation of the Governor of the State, and
is now submitted to the public for their ratif-
cation rejection. So far as the procedure
goes it is marked by all the requirements of
law, and yet you liken it to that of a band of
rufians engaged in doing an illegal act and in a
high handed manner. One has the formaities
of prescribed law, the other is without law, and
subjects the wrongdoer to the majesty of law
by immediate apprehension and punishment.
Don't you think your illustration a poor
one, even if you had good case I? But what
right have you to liken the men who favor this
amendment to gang of miscreants ?" Has
not your zeal gotten the better of your temper?
And let me ask you by what authority do you
undertake to pass Judgment upon the constitu-
tionality of the measure and say it is illegal
| Apparently your authority is Mr.. Bonaparte, as
you quote him in parallel column of your
| paper as saying of the amendment lit violates
| the Constitution of the United States" If you
were to ask me to characterize that assertion l
should be disposed to call it an arrogant assump-
| tion. Now, we have great respect for Mr.. Bona
/ parties many civic virtues, but you would do
well to bear in mind that Mr.. Bonaparte as
lawyer is not infallible. Even Mr.. Bonaparte
does not win all his cases. When Attorney
| General he was cocksure he would force the
Standard Oil Company to pay large fine to the
| Government, but unfortunately for him the
| Superior Courts did not sustain his judgment.
| No lawyer should undertake to speak without
absolute confidence how the Supreme Court of
| the United States may view the questions in
volved in this amendment if it is ever presented
| to that body. Like any other legislative act
| coming before a court for ratification, every
/ presumption would be in its favor. The decs-
| ions of that tribunal are sometimes reached by
| majority of one member, and the decision in
| the last income tax case reversed its previous
| position which had stood for 100 years. The
most eminent jurists are frequently mistaken
10 opinions, confidently expressed, of what any
court will do in given case. When a portion
of Baltimore county was annexed to Baltimore
city, in 1888, the act of the Legislature author
izing the annexation contained provisions which
the late Mr.. Wallis and Judge Fisher both pro-
nounced to be clearly unconstitutional, yet the
| Court of Appeals sustained the law.
When you say, therefore, the amendment is
unlawful you are simply begging the question.
| Now. if you want to vote against the amendment
| because you think it bad measure, or because
| you want to preserve your party lines and rely
| on the negro vote to sustain you. do so, but do
| not say that you will not support it because it
| is unlawful. If now the legality of the measure
| is question which can only be determined by
the Supreme Court of the United States, and
| the illiterate and ignorant vote is conceded
evil, and one which it is desirable to remove, let
| me ask you, MIR. Editor, on what ground is your
/ opposition to the amendment really based In
| opposing it, are you for the public good,'' or
| are you for "selfish greed ?' Are you actuated
/ by a disinterested sentiment for the colored
man, or by your anxiety to preserve your party
strength. Let me ask you candidly if the white
| vote in the State were today about equally di-
| vided between the two political parties, Demo-
cratic and Republican, would you be fighting
| the battle you are now? Can you put your hand
on your heart as good citizen and say that in
that case you would still think the iliterate and
| ignorant colored vote should not be eliminated,
even if the process failed to eliminate an equal
| proportion of the illiterate white vote. will
| not repeat what 1 have already said as to the
| right of any man to vote. In saying that the
| Fifteenth Amendment conferred on the colored
race no affirmative right to vote, and that the
| deprivation of right to vote previously granted
| ok.away no vested right, was simply using
| the language of the Supreme Court of the United
| States and our own Court of Appeals.
There can be no legal wrong then in the pro-
| posed amendment in that respect, and am one
| of those who do not regard it moral wrong
| Mr. Lincoln himself, the papers have recently
told us, did not approve bestowing the unre-
stricted right of suffrage on the colored race,
and the experience of forty years has confirmed
the wisdom of his judgment
And now let me ask you and your readers,
| many of whom l know to be good Republicans,
to look at the question upon a broader plane
than that of party lines. / have not discussed
it as partisan, and it should not be treated in
a partisan spirit 1t deserves broader considera-
tion. 1t is one which should be looked at in the
light of its bearing upon the public good, and
every man should decide the question accord
ing to his honest belief, whether in the
long run it makes for good government.
Unfortunately the question has become al
most wholly political one, but the underlying
principle reaches out beyond parties and party
lines. 1t affects in my Judgment the future
stability of our country, for the stability of any
republican form of government must depend
upon the intelligence and virtue of it's electorate
If the proposed amendment falls short of what
to some may appear the fullest measure of re-
lief from the ignorant voter or if that relief be
obtained by process which to others may ap-
pear partial or unequal, it does not in my judg-
ment afford sufficient ground to reject it on that
account. The object soughtto to be obtained is too
far reaching in its importance to permit such
obstacles to defeat it. In my opinion the colored
man, for whom as a race have the friendliest
feelings, will not suffer in his material welfare
by any loss of political power, and the illiterate
and ignorant factor in politics. at least partially
eliminated, the electorate will receive healthy
impulse, which will be reflected in both races
bringing about new alignments in which super
ior intelligence will find its reward and the COM
monwealth be generally the gamer.
One word MORE You have referred to my po-
siton in 1905 when you say "simlar amendment
was before the people," In saying it was SINH
lar amendment cannot agree with you. could
not give my assent to that measure. because in
my opinion the right to vote was determined not
by law, but by body of irresponsible officials
vested with arbitrary powers, from whose decis-
ion there was no appeal. l see no such danger
in the present measure.
leave you to enjoy your joke about the Aus
tralian ballot as do not recall the incident you
refer to, and | also leave you to settle your