Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1910-10-12
ARGUMENTS CLOSED
Far-Reaching Effect OF AnnapO-
lis Suits 0fNegrOes Against
City Registrars
Mr.. MARBURY SCORES
Interpretation OF Fifteenth Amendment
Arguments la Suit Case

tentions made by counsel for the
Democratic registers of Annapolis IN
the suits brought against them by
three negroes for being refused reg
! istration, if sustained, says the Bal
timore Sun, was made plain yesterday
in the argument of Mr.. William l..
Marbury before Judge Morris, in the
/ United States Circuit Court.
One of Mr.. Marbury's contentious,
which startled some of those who
| heard him, was that the Fifteenth
| Amendment to tie Constitution of
the United States does not prohibit a
| State from prescribing the qualifica-
tions of it's citizens as voters in
other than Federal elections. This
contention, as stated in the brief of
the counsel for the registers which
Mr.. Marbury elaborated, is this:
Allowing the broadest possible
construction, the right of citizens
of the United States to vote mention
ed in the Fifteenth Amendment,
which the States are thereby pro-
hibited from denying or abridging on
account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude, is the right to
vote at elections of a public general
character and does not include the
right to vote in corporate bodies
created solely by legislative will and
wherein such right is dependent alto
gether upon legislative discretion, as
in municipal corporations.
Mr.. Marbury made the closing ar
gument on the demurrer to the dec
Iarations in the suits of the negroes,
in each Of which claim of $4,000
damage made against the registers.
Mr.. Marbury, in closing the argument
for the defendants, spoke briefly
upon the proposition that the plain
tiffs could not maintain their present
actions without an allegation of mall
ice.
1T is admitted frankly" he said,
"by counsel upon the other side that
at common law no actions could be
maintained by,these plaintiffs against
the defendants without an allegation
of malice or willfulness.
Mr.. Marbury then discussed the
proposition that there was nothing
in the Annapolis law in conflict with
the Fifteenth Amendment; that is,
that the grandfather clause" is a
valid provision.
There is nothing in this provision
of the registration law" he said,
(Which denies anyone the right to
vote on account of race or color. 1t
has been said that this is but an eva
sion of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Now, this provision is either in con-
fiict with the Fifteenth Amendment
or it is not. Any law which may be
passed upon this subject must come
before the courts for adjudication,
and in determining the question of
its constitutionality, the difficulty in
so doing may arise as we'll from the
Fifteenth Amendment itself as from
any provision of State law.
THAT amendment is exceedingly
narrow in its operation. 1t had to
be made so in order to secure its pas
sage The extreme narrowness of
its meaning was pointed out at the
time of its passage through Con-
gress, and it was stated by number
of very able men when the resolu-
tions proposing it were under dis
cussion, that discrimination against
the negro upon other grounds than
his race or color would not be inhibi-
ted by the language of the amend
ment as it now reads.
"WheD the proposition to pass an
amendment which would prevent dis
elimination of every character and
put the negro upon absolute equality
with the white man with regard to
the right to vote was proposed in
Congress it was voted down"
May it please your Honor" Mr..
Marbury said, Il know how hard it
is to force ourselves to open the door
of the miud to argument against be-
liefs which are accepted by men at
large. We find that the hinges
have grown rusty and the door opens
very slowly. 1t is only a judicial
mind of the rarest type that is free
from this feeling" /"
Mr.. Marbury cited several cases
in question, among them an Alabama
case. Passing to the proposition
that the Fifteenth Amendment did
| not operate upon state eIecttons, out
was limited to Federal elections,
after quoting the language of the
Fifteenth Amendment, which is The
right of citizens of the United States
| to vote shall not be denied OF
abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color
or previous condition of servitude, "
Mr.. Marbury said:
I'm the Slaughterhouse cases, which
have been quoted at length hereto
fore IN the progress of this argument,
the Supreme Court held, while deal
ing with precisely the same language
in the Fourteenth Amendment, that
the words Citizens of the United
States, referred to citizens of the
United States in their relation to the
national Government and did not re.
fer to citizens of the several states
| in their relation to the State Govern
ments; in other words, that there is
a citizenship of the United States
and a citizenship of the states. anc
that they are distinct from each
other.
Therefore, when we find in thu