Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1912-06-21
Fines Deal Blow To
Trick Ballots.
Caustic and Scorch-
ing Opinion.
Judge Rose Puts $50
Penalty OnCharles
County Election
Omcials.

Dealing a Knockout blow 70 trick
ball IS, Judge Rose "a the United States
District Court On Friday last fined John
E. Stone and John W. Miller, Demo-
cratic Election sure yisors OF Charles
county, $50 and costs each. and John
N. Dulany printer. s2l and costs.
AT The conclusion Of tha ease Dis
trics Attorney Hili said thai che action
meant death blow to the trick ballot.
and that il was the drst decision got
ten nnsIer the section since the estab.
lishmeat % the law in 1870. The Sup.
ersisors and printer were chaiged with
conspiracy and depriviug citizens Of
civil rights by means II trick ballo;s
10 Charles county.
Under the Indictment on which the
convictions were found ard IN which
the plea OF nolie eoniendeie was accept
ed, the Supervisors and the printer viii
not be deprived OF their citizenship and
other civil rights. Had they been forc-
ed to plead on another indictment that
had been found against them they
would have been deprived Of these
rights. Iuasmach as the Officials and
printer were men Of good standing, and
because the case was meant as test
csse aud blow al the trick ballot
throughout the State. sou,c lenieney
was exercised
Soon after Stone. Miller and Dulany
were indicted, more than year ago,
demurrer was filed. but Judge Ro e dis
missed the demurrer.
In passing sentence Judge Rose said.
1T has been stated that you have
been led to do what you did by the com
bined influence Of two motives First.
by youe conviction that persons having
African blood IN their veins should NOT
be allowed to vote, and second, bv
strong feeling Of partlsanship, which
caused you to do thing in the suppos-
ed interest CT a candidate of your polls
teal party which you would not have
Thought of doing for the furtheranee
Of any personal object Of your own.
This Court has nothing whatever to
do with the question whether the Con-
stitstionai provision prohibiting tile
abridgin mt Of the right OF suffrage on
the grtiiad of race or color should have
been adopted in the first place, or
whether it SHOULD now be repeated
IL Is not tor this Court 10 consider
whether thfre ever may be times and
places when a higher law requires con-
scief ttuus citizens to disohey and defy
statutory or constitutional aBactmsnts
All that can be said is that a doetri ae
which sanctions such disobedience and
defiance IS a very dangerous one, Il
leads to two very undesirable conse-
qnences. whether it takes the form OF
bringing john Brown 70 lIarper's Ferry.
an anarchist to bomb-thrOwing or an
advocate OF woman suffrage to window
smashing. In its essence ii is a sub
stituiion of the individual viii for the
law Of The land. The distinction BE-
tween it and anarchy is 10 practice not
easy to draw. Moreover. in point Of
fact it is seldom possible for those who
set out on conscientious grounds 70
break the law to preserve in the pro
cess quite the exalted posi- ion which in
their own minds they Intended crigi-
naliy to occupy
you very possibly thought Of your
selves as doing a heroic act. What
you, in fact, did, and all that you did
was, in TACT, to display a great deal Of
ingenuity in arranging ballot upon
which there were only four names, 50 as
to make it exceedingly diffieut for any-
one to vote for any candidate except
the one you wanted to see elected.
-Had there been no white men uni
duly affected by your arrangement o.
the Official ballot it would still remain
That there can be no higher obligation
upon any court than that Of protecting
the rigiis pf the weak and lowly. ~
Baltimore News.