Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1910-12-03
demurrers for the defendants:

/
ITO these declarations. the defend
ants have interposed a demurrer on
the following ground:
Il. That said declaration is Insult.
/ fcient in law and bad in substance.
- That said declaration fails to
show any ground OF jurisdiction in
| this honorable court over or In re-
spect TO the parties. matters and
I things set forth therein.
%. That by the laws under which
they, the defendants, were appointed
and acting. the defendants were
charged with and exercising in re-
spect 90 the Transactions. matters
| and things complained of and set
forth in said declaration. duties
functions and powers of a judicial
nature. that in the discharge and
exercise of said duties. functions and
/ powers, they. the defendants, were
not and connot be held legally re-
sponsible for anything more than an
/ honest and faithful exercise Of their
/ judgment, and that said declaration
| fails TO aliege that the defendants or
either OF them. did or failed 10 do
any act to the prejudice or injury Of.
/ the plaintiff. either wilfully. mali
ciously. fraudently or corruptly. SO
! as 20 render them or either OF them
legally liable 10 the plaintiff in the
premises
"a. Because the declaration char
| ges on its face that the Act Of the
/ General Assembly of Maryland. 1908.
! Chapter 525, under which. as the de-
clarati0n further AYERS. the defend
ants were appointed and acting. was
and is Illegal. unconstitutional and
void; and the declaration fails TO
| show that the defendants were au-
/ thorized 20 register or charged with
any duty of registering the plaintiff
| at the time he presented himself for
registration, as set forth I'm said de-
/ claratiOn, under any other statute of
law that. therefore. upon the aver
ments and charges of the declaration.
the defendants had no authority and
were charged with no duty 10 regis
ter the plaintiff when he presented
himself TO be registered. as set forth
In the declaration, and accordingiy.
are not legally liable TO the plaintiH
I'm the premises.
20. Because the defendants are
not subject or liable 90 any action
| for damages for refusing to register
! the plaintiff under said Act of 1905
/ Chapter 525, which. as charged and
shown by the said declaration. for
bade the defendants TO register the
plaintiff when he presented himself
for registration. as set forth I'm said
declaration. and which said Act. as
appears from its context. imposed
criminal penalties upon the defend
ants for any violation OF its terms
and provision.
&c. And for other reasons ard
grounds 20 be assigned at the hear
ing"
The only loop-hole through which
these people hope TO escape is the
one OF jurisdiction. II the United
States Court has jurisdiction and the
supreme Court OF the United states
$50 rules. IL will be necessary for the
learned judges to ignore the case in
order to escape .he facts. But Judge
Morris says:
The demurrers having been set /
for hearing, the court has had the /
benefit of q very full oral presenta-
ton OF the law by the able and dis
.tinguished counsel who have appear
ed for the plaintiffs and defendants.
and they have also assisted the court /
by learned briefs.
u. The first proposition urged by |
the defendants Us that the declara- |
.tions are insufficient IN law because
they do not allege that the defend
ants acted wilfully or maliciously I'm
refusing registration TO the plaintiffs.
IT rs true that In refusing regis /
tration 20 the plaintiffs. the registers
were acting in their Official capacity
and that by the law OF Maryland un-
der which they were acting, they
were required 20 refuse registration
20 the plaintiffs. But. In my judg.
meat. there are two considerations
which affect this defense.
IF the provision of the State law
under which they acted in refusing
registration IS void provision. i'll
anords them no protection; Ex parte
Sleoold, 100 l.. s., SCI 376: and II
by valid law of the United States
right OF action is given TO the plain |
uHs as a remedy for denial of regis.
traton, then their right OF action is
based upon such valid law and is re-
terable 90 il and is governed by its
terms
The consideration of the question
whether or not the provision Of the
Maryland law under and by virtue of
which the plaintiffs were denied reg
lstraJon and, In consequence. denied
the right TO vote, is a valid provision
lies at the foundation Of these suits
and must OF necessity be dealt with
at the threshold"
This would seem TO be a selfevi-
dent proposition, but Judge Morris
cites the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution Of the Trpftaa Ctoto,. %