The Washington bee., 1910-11-26

educational test; and it could not be
said, although that was the result in
tended, that it was a discrimination
on account of race or color; but
would be referable to a different test
But looking at the constitution and
laws of Maryland, prior to Jan. I,
1868, how can it be said, with any
show of reason, that any but white
men could vote then-and how can
the court close its eyes to the OBJ
vIous fact that it is for that reason
solely that the test is inserted in the
Maryland Act of 1908, and is not the
court TO take notice of the fact that
during all the 40 years since the adop-
ton OF the Fifteenth Amendment, col
ored men have been allowed to regis
ter and vote IN Maryland until the en-
actment of the Maryland Statute of
1908?
1t was primarily the right of suf-
| rage, which was to be protected as
against any restrictive legislation of
the States which was the subject mat
ter dealt with by the Fifteenth
Amendment and the Revised Statutes;
and, considering the purpose of the
law, It does not seem that any other
construction can be defensibIe.
United States VS.. Reese, o2 u. S.,
2J4-2I8.
1t is urged by the defendants that
the inhibitions of the Fifteenth
Amendment against the denial of the
right to vote of citizens of the United
States on account of race or color,
must be held to apply only to the
right to vote at Congressional eIec-
tlOns derived from the United States,
and does not apply TO the right TO
vote at State or Municipal elections
given by the State
The Fifteenth Amendment was pro-
claimed March 80, 1870, and by the |
Act of May 81, 1870, Congress
undertook to exercise the powers it |
understood were granted it by the
and passed the Act, now |
Section 2oo4, providing expressly |
that all citizens of the United States |
otherwise qualified should be entitled
and allowed to vote at all elections in /
any State, Territory, county, city,
distinction of race or color,
any constitution, law, custom, usage
or regulation of any State or Terri
tory to the contrary notwithstand-
ing.
Nothing in the way of interpreta-
ton by the legislative body which
itself had framed the amendment,
could be more significant than this
enactment passed by Congress imme-
1iately upon its adoption. l do not
find in the cases cited from the Su-
1reme Court anything opposed to that
1t seems clear that, when, by the
Fifteenth Amendment, it is declared l,
hat the right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be de-
NED or abridged by any State on ac-
count of race or color, it means |
what Congress understood it to I
mean, namely: The right to vote at
Ill public elections. !,
1t is further agreed by the defend
Lnts that if the Fifteenth Amendment ,
,e construed as forbidding discrimina- |
ions at State municipal elections, it :
S beyond the power of the States to =
% amend it, and therefore it should I
lot receive that construction.
l do not appreciate the force of this y
+
That the Amendment declaring all e
ersons born in the United States to Ii
e citizens of the United States, and {
f the State wherein they reside, 6
without discrimination on account G
f race or color, is beyond the r
mending power is not suggested; and s
so, it cannot be reasonably main i
aimed that to declare that such c
itizens shall not be deprived of the I
rivilege of suffrage because of race /
+ color, is beyond the amending a
over. One follows from the other
1t is my judgment that each of the
eclaratIonS states a case in which
he right of action is validly given by
he construction and laws of the
United States and that the demurrers
hould be overruled. 7