Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-12-04
UP TO SUPREME COURT
To Determine Constitutionality Of
Maryland Election Law.
WHOLE SOUTH Is INTERESTED
Probable. Effect in Case Fifteenth
Amendment Is Found Invalid
is. Being Discussed.
Special Dispatch to The Star.

Special Dispatch to The Star.
BALTIMORE, Md, December 3.-The
Supreme Court of the United States will
shortly be called on to determine the
constitutionality of the Annapolis election
law, recently declared void by Judge
Thomas J. Morris. in the United States
circuit court, because it contains a
grandfather clause" incorporated for
the purpose of DISTINGUISHING the negro.
1t had been understood that the case
would be appealed to the Supreme Court,
but the first definite announcement Of
the intended action was made today by
Attorney William Marbury, who, with At
torney Ridgely P. Melvin of Annapolis
and William J.. Rawls, represents the
defendants to the action.
A few days after Judge Morris handed
down his opinion counsel for the de-
PENDANTS held conference and agreed
on the appeal. AS 1t is impossible, how
ever. to take the case to the Supreme
Court on the decision. which concerned
solely demurrers in the declaration, the
attorneys were forced to wait until final
judgment had been entered for the
plaintiffs.
In overruling the demurrers Judge Nor
ris ordered the defendants to plead over.
This was done last week, when a general
issue plea was filed. The case PROBABLY
will be taken up again during the COM
ing week. \ formal trial will be held
and judgments found for the plaintiffs
for the amount Of damages the suffered
in not being permitted to register. Then
the appeal will be taken. The trial VIII
be held before Judge Morris and jury.
This will be done in order to let the
july determine the amount of damages
to which the plaintiffs are entitled.
Lawyers Deeply Interested.
published many lawyers have discussed
the probable effect of final ruling on
the law by ,..e Supreme Court. Whether
the decision. should it affirm the opinion
of the court of first instance, would in
validate some Of the DISTINGUISHING
amendments already in force in several
southern states is a question that has
been given attention.
The effect on the south of q finding
that the fifteen, h amendment to the Con-
stitution. on which the action was based,
is invalid. also has been discussed.
1t is pointed out that an affirmation of
Judge Morris opinion would in no way
interfere with the states which have
adopted amendments having educational
or property qualifications, as he held these
provisions not to be in conflict with the
fifteenth amendment. Democratic law
yers have stated that the Supreme Court
can affirm the decision, find that the fif-
teenth amendment is unconstitutional OF
that the amendment applies only to cen
gressio nal elections. If the fl st We e
done the southern states would have the
right to adopt amendments with educa-
tional, property or poll tax qualifications;
if the second. they would be + ee to dis
franchise the negro as such; and if the
last, they could disfranchi e him as far
as state elections are concerned.
Important to Several States.
In any event. the action of the Supreme
Court will be of the greatest Importance
to those states that have adopted. are
considering the adoption of, disfranchis
ing amendments.
The present case arose from suits in
stituted by John b. Anderson, William
IL. Howard and Robert Brown. negroes,
against Charles E. Myers and Claude
Kaimey, the democratic registrars, for
600 damages for refusing to register
them. Counsel for the plaintiffs filed
demurrers. on which argument was made
before Judge Morris. The plaintiffs are
represented by former United States At |
torney General Bonaparte and Edgar II.
Cans.