Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1910-12-10


white from ali State Constitutions
and laws iu fixing the qualifications
of voters has been fully recognized
by the Court of Appeals OF Mary
land in numerous cases. SchaefIer
ys. Gilbert. q Nd. &c. Switzerland
VS.. Norris. "a Nd. 326; Hanna rs.
Young. 81 Nd. 17s: Pope VS.. WI.
liams. 9S Nd. 50.
IL is therefore apparent that in
enforcing the discriminating pro
visions or the state statute. the reg
, isters were doing and intended 20
do an act forbidden By the supreme
law OF the land, and for doing which
the state statutes could afford them
no protection
Judge Morris continues:
To ia suggested in argument that
. u the clause in question OF the
| Maryland statute Is. by The FIJI
teenth Amendment. rendered invalid
the whole statute falls with IN ana
/ the registers had no power TO rex.
I lister anyone under &C.
This was held i'm Giles vs. Harris
lN9 L. s., f75. where the complain
ant alleged that the whole reristra-
don scheme Of the Alabama Con.
! sutution was a fraud on the Consti.
tuition of the United States and void
and asked the court iu an equity
suit 90 SO declare. az the same time.
/ asking the court 10 decree that the
complainant Doe registered. The court
held that n the Complainaut's con.
tention was sustained and the whole
scheme declared void. there was no
warrant OF law for registering him
al ALL
The plaintiffs make no such allie
cation or contention in this case
The law is recognized as valid i'm an
its provisions except the one which
4 discriminates; and the plaintins al
lcge that but for that discriminating
clause they would have been entitled
TO register
The above argument and state
ment OF facts disposed OF the effort
Of the defendants 20 have the entire
election law declared invalid II tho
contention relative to tho unconsti
tutionalIty OF any section OF a Va
sustained. The able jurist continues.
We are now 20 consider whether
II was requisite OF good pleading
that the declaration should auere
that the defendants acted wilfully
maliciously, fraudulently or corrupt
~, In order 20 render them legally
liable To these suits which are
brought 10 enforce the statutory
remedy given by Section 2OO4 and
l Section 1879.
IL is 20 be observed that there
can be no right OF action under the
Fifteenth Amendment. and these
/ sections Of the Revised Statutes IN.
3 less the discrimination and denia
was In pursuance OF a state law.
Therefore. II the defendants' con.
tention could be upheld. the de-
PENDANT in such a suit could always
plead that he did not act maIiciously
or wilfully or IN bad faith. because
ne was acting in obedience 20 the
laws OF the state.
The purpose OF Congress in these
sections Is distinctly stated 10 be To-
i give right OF action and an efec,
tive safeguard against deprivation OF
a right by the enforcing OF a stat.
ute OF the State: and when II SAYS
(Secticn 1879 that every person
who, under color OF any statute OF
! any state. subjects or causes 10 be
subjected any citizen of the United
/ states to deprivation OF any right.
! privileges or fmmunities secured bv
/ the Constitution and laws. shall ba
! liable TO the party injured IN an ne
tton at law" what can Il mean but
Z that the enforcement OF the State
law is OF Itself the wrong which gives
rise to the cause OF action9 How
could II be made to appear that the
/ oricer appointed TO enforce a State
law acted was guilty or malice in
doing what the State law commanded
him7
| The common sense OF the sltue-
ton would seem to be that the Law
forbidding the derivation or abridg.
ment Of the right to vote on &C
count OF race or color being the SUI
preme law, any State law command.
ing such deprivation or abridgemen
Is nugatory and noe to be obeyed by
any one; and any one who does en-
4 !,
and is made liable TO an action for
damages by the simple act OF enforc.
Ing void law to the injury OF the
plaintin in the suit, and no allega-
tion OF malice need be alleged OF
proved.
The above statement of the Law /
too plain and convincing for furthe
comment. He says:
, There are restrictions of the
right of voting which might, in fact
operate TO exclude all colored men
which would not be omen to the OBJ
lection OF discriminating on accoun
OF race or color. AS for instance
II is supposable that a property
qualification might. IN fact. result
in some localities, in all colored men
being excluded; and the same might
be the result. in same localities
from an eduraffCna1 tacfs opd 4,