Evening capital and Maryland gazette., 1910-10-29

All voters in Annapolis and Anne
Arundel county are interested in the
decision rendered yesterday in Bal
timore by Judge Morris, of the Uni
ted States Circuit Court, which says
in brief
THAT the grandfather's clause in
the Annapolis election law of 1908 is
void.
THAT the Annapolis law is valid
except as to the provision which
discriminates against negroes.
That the Fifteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United
States applies to all public elections.
That property qualification or
an educational test might exclude all
colored men without being open to
the objection Of discriminating on ac-
count of race or color"
No hope for the drafting of a valid
law that will disfranchise the negro
solely because of his race or color
will be found in an opinion hand
ed down yesterday by Judge
Thomas j. Morris, in the United
States Circuit Court, declaring
un constitutional and void the
grandfather clause of the Annapolis
election law, passed by the Legisla-
ture of 1908 and aimed at the negro
residents of Annapolis.
The opinion was rendered in the
suits brought by John B. Anderson,
William II. Howard and Robert
Brown, negroes living in Annapolis,
each of whom sued Messrs. Charles
E. Myers and Claude Kalmey, the
Democratic registers. for $4,000
damages for refusing to register
them. Besides deciding the grand
fathers clause of the Annapolis law
void, Judge Morris holds:
THAT the registers are not eX-
empted by their contention that they
were required to carry out the State
law. If the provision Of law under
which they were acting is void, it
affords them no protection.
That the Fifteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land
and applies to all public elections.
That the Annapolis law is valid
except as to the provision which
ulSCA a6GAnSb bAlS = "
Anyone who attempts to enforce such
provision does so at his known
peril.
"That property qualification or
an educational test, although negroes
might be disfranchised thereby, could
not be said to be a discrimination
| on account of race or color forbidden
By the Fifteenth Amendment"
After reciting the history of the
suits and the fact that they came be-
fore the court on demurrers to the
declarations filed by counsel for the
Democratic registers, Judge Morris
says in the opinion:
The first proposition urged by
the defendants (the registers is that
| the declarations are insufficient in law
because they do not allege that the
defendants acted willfully or mali
ciously in refusing to register the
Plaintiffs.
"It is true that in refusing regis
tration to 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 to refuse registration to the
plaintiffs; but in my judgment there
are two considerations which affect
this defense.
IF the provisions of the State law
under which they acted in refusing
| registration is void provision, it
affords them no protection. And if
by a valid law of the United States
right of action is given the plain
tiffs as a remedy for denial of regis
tration, then their right of action is
based upon such valid law and is pre-
ferable 10 it and is governed by its
terms.
1.-The consideration of the question
whether or not the provisions of the
Maryland law under and by virtue of
which the plaintiffs were denied reg
istration 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 +"
Judge Morris continues at length,
and considers the Fifteenth Amend
ment and the elimination of the word
white" from the Maryland Con-
stitution illegal. and cites a number
of cases. He holds the registers re-
sponsible and declares that:
1t is, therefore apparent that in
enforcing the discriminating provi-
sions of the State statute the regis
ters were doing and intended to do an
act forbidden by the supreme law Of
the land, and for doing what the
State statutes could afford them no
protection.
1t is suggested in argument
that if the clause in question of
the Maryland statute is by the
Fifteenth Amendment rendered in
valid the whole statute falls with it,
and the registers had no power to
register anyone under it. The
plaintiffs make no such allegation
or contention in this case. The law
is recognized as valid in all its pro-