The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1910-11-05
THE GRANDFATHER"
ACTS WILL NOT STAND
federal Court Rules On Disfranchisement Schemes.
Hkton, As Well As Other Towns, Affected

lcTeu. lie court Helu tlldl ii tlie COlll-
plainant's contention was sustained
and the whole scheme declared void
there was no warrant OF law Tor reg
istering him at ALL
The plaintiffs make no such allega-
tion or contention in this case. The
law is recognized as valid i'll all its
provisions, ecxept the one which dis
eliminates and the Plaintiffs allege
that but for that discriminating clause,
they would have been entitled to regis
ter.
We are now to consider whether it
was a requisite OF good pleading that
the declaration should allege that the
defendant acted wiiully. maliciously,
iraudulently or corruptly in order to
render them legally liable in these
suits, which are brought to enforce the
statutory remedy given by Section 2oo4
and Section 1919.
1t is to he observed that there can
tc no right OF action under the FIJI
teenth Amendment and these sections
oE the Revised Statutes, un,css dis
elimination and denial was in pLrsu-
ance OF state law.
Therefore, il the defendants con-
tentions could be upheld, the defenuant
i'll such suit could always plead that
he did not act ma,icously or wilfully
or i'll bad faith, because he was acting
in obedience to the laws OF the state
The purpose OF Congress in these
sections is distinctly stated to be to
give right of action and an effective
safeguard against deprivation OF a
right by the enforcing OF a statute OF
the state, and when it says (Secton
1870 that Every person who under
color OF any statute OF any state, sub
jccts or cau""s to be subjected any
citizen OF the United States to depriva-
ton OF any right, privileges or mmuni-
ties secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party in
Jured in an action at law" what can it
mean but that the enforcement OF the
state law is in itself the wrong which
gives rise to the cause OF action: Now,
could it be made to appear that The
othccr appointed to enforce state law
was guilty Of malice in doing what the
state law commanded him to do?
The common sense OF the situation
would seem to be that the law forbid
Ging the deprivation or abridgemcht
of the right to vote on account OF race,
color or previous condition of sCivi; lde
beng the supreme law, any stale law
commanding such deprivation or
Gbrldgcment is nugatory and is not to
be obcycd by anyone; and anyone who
does enforce it does SO at his own
nari1 aud 1i,ll, a., o,,;,,,
Tor damages by the silnp'e act OF en-
forcing void law to the injury OF the
plaintiff i'll the suit, and no allegation
III malice need be alleged or proved
There are restrictions to the right
NJ voting which might, in fact, operate
to exclude all colored men which
would not be open to the objections
O1 discriminating OH account OF race
" co'or. As, for instance. it is sup
posab { that property qualification
might, in fact. result, i'll some local..
ties, i'll all coIored men being excluded;
and the same might be the result III
some localities, from an educational
est; and it could not be said although
that was the result intended. that il
was a discrimination on account OF
race or color; but would be rcferable
20 different test. But looking at the
constitution and laws OF Maryland
prior to January |, 1860, how can it be
SAID with any show oi reason that any
but the white man could vote then
and how can the court close its eyes to
the obvious fact that it is for that rea-
son solely that the test is inserted in
he Maryland Acts OF 1908, and is not
the court to take notice of the fact that
during all the 10 years since the adop-
ton OF the Fifteenth Amendment, col
Jrcd men have been allowed to regis
ter and vote i'll Maryland until the er-
actment of the Maryland statute OF
1908?
1t was primarily the right OF suffrage
which was to be protected as against
an yrcstrictiye legislation OF the states
which was the subject matter 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 deiensible. United States vs..
Reese o. L. C., 2I4-2IS.
APPLIES TO ALL ELECTIONS.
Referring to the contention that pro-
visions o fthe Fifteenth mcndment can
apply to only Congressional elections.
Judge Morris took occasion to say
that no such contention could stand
His opinion in part is as folows:-
1t is urged by the defendant that the
inhibitions of the Fifteenth Amend
ment against the denial of the right to
vote OF the citizens OF the United
States on account OF race or color
must be held TO apply only to the right
to vote at congressional elections, de
rived from the United States, and does
not apply to the right to vote at state
or municipal elcctiona given by the
state.
The Fifteenth Amendment was pro-
claimed March 80, 1870, and by act of
May 81. 1870. Congress undertook to