The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1909-10-28
CALLS PROPOSED AMEND
MENT A SELFISH SCHEME
Major W. E. Stewart Says the Pro-
posed Law Is "0bfuscatinq.

of the Democratic party for selfish
purposes, and the agitation about
good government and the better
ment of the State is a pretense. 1t
hides selfish ambitions that are
ready to seek refuge in motives
higher than those which really
prompted it, and should it ever be
allowed to pass THERE WOULD
BE COMPARATIVELY FEW
MEN IN THE CITY OF BAL
TIMORE WHO COULD HON
ESTLY REGISTER UNDER
ITS PROVISIONS.
This is what Major w. E. Stew
art, Of Easton, Md, an old.
Democrat, who was once a citizen
of Baltimore, thinks of the Straus
DISTINGUISHING amendment which
the Democratic bosses are trying
to lnf1ict upon the people of the
State. In second letter to The
News Major Stewart says.
DIR. Herring, in accepting the
nomination for Comptroller, said
Our party has conducted the affairs
of our good old Commonwealth for
nearly 40 years, and every Mary
lander can point with pride to the
excellent government under which
we have lived in these years. To
this sentiment the Governor and
all our soi-disant leaders say amen;
and negroes have been voting here
for nearly 40 years, and the ratio
between the whites end blacks has
but slightly varied. Why then
this hullabaloo and Clamoring for
radical change in our Constitu
ton?
-Four years ago these same men
told US that the Poe amendment
was essential to our prosperity.
Now we are informed by them that
1t was a mere tumble and speakers
and papers are exposing its defects.
The advocates of the Straus amend
ment have boxed the compass
the legal lights have shown to their
own satisfaction, the unconstitu
tlOna lty OF the Constitution of the
United States; we have been in
formed that all white men, native
and foreign-born, could vote under
the grandfather and naturalization
clauses, and that negroes could
vote only under the educational or
property qualifCations;then we are
shown that all white men cannot
vote, and that negroes from other
States can vote; but the native
born Maryland negroes cannot
vote; to disfranChise the negroes
from other States, they say, would
be in conflict with the Constitution
of the United States, but to dis
franchise the home born negroes
on account of color would not be
unconstitutional. Two very wise
leaders for the amendment publicly
assert that the educational test is
so simple that the most ignorant
negro could soon learn to vote I'M
der it; whereas, every one save
themselves knows it to be ium-
BILE, chinese puzzle, and that
there are not thousand men in
the city Of Baltimore today that
could honestly register under its
provisions.
rs it right for a man to vote
: for an amendment to the Constitu-
ton imposing qualifications on an
other which he does not possess
and which it would be impossible
for him to acquire? Is not this an
immoral act?
THE advocates of the amend
ment tell us that it makes no dis
tinction between native and for
eign.born white voters, yet we
know alter this year no foreign
born white citizens or their de-
scendants can vote except under
the educational and property tests,
and that this does not at all apply
to native born white citizens, and
we know that citizens naturalized
prior to 1869 who did not vote un-
til after that date, and their de-