Wilson v. Carter

Jones, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case arises under certain provisions of Article 33 of the Code of 1904, title Elections, prescribing regulations for the registration of voters and the correcting and purging of the registration lists. A prior reference to these provisions will conduce to a better understanding of the question here to be decided. Section 26 of said Article provides that “in the city of Baltimore there shall be a general registration in the year 1906, and biennially thereafter.

Before the November election, 1904 and 1905, and in the year 1907, and in every alternate year thereafter, the last general registration shall be revised by the Board of Registry in each precinct where such election was to be held,’and for that purpose a Board of Registry shall meet on the Tuesdays respectively seven, six, five and four weeks preceding the regular election in November and shall hold a session from 9 o’clock A. M. to 9 o’clock P. M., and names may be added on the registers in the same way, upon sworn application as in the case of a general registration, and all the same forms and requirements shall be observed.’’ Then, after prescribing what shall be done in case it shall appear that an applicant for registration has been upon the registries in any other precinct in the city of Baltimore at any ¹²² time since the beginning of the last general registration for such precinct before he shall be admitted to registration in the precinct in which his application is made, this section further provides, that “it shall be the duty of the Board of Registry, after the close of each session, to note for erasure from such registries the names of all persons known or supposed to be dead and the names of all persons who are suspected of being disqualified under sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the Constitution of the State, and the names of all persons who are supposed to have removed from such precinct and have not taken out removal papers and of all persons who are suspected to be otherwise disqualified as voters; and they shall before separating, make out a list'of all persons so. noted for erasure with the address as the same appears upon the registries. In making out such list said Board of Registry shall treat as persons suspected of not being qualified voters all persons against whom a sworn complaint is filed by any voter in the ward. ” The form of the complaint is then prescribed, after which the section proceeds as follows, “if a majority of the board know, or are satisfied that such complaint is untrue they need not note such name for erasure upless required by a member of the board. Said list shall be arranged under the following headings: “Disqualified voters,” under which shall be placed the names of persons suspected to be disqualified under sections 2 and 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution or otherwise; ‘‘Deceased voters,” under which shall be placed all who are known or supposed to be dead; “Removed,” under which shall be placed all who are known or supposed to have removed from their last address; on each day before separating said Board of Registry shall make out and deliver to two of their number of opposite politics a list of the registry addresses of all those whose names are in the registries of voters as qualified voters whom the officers of registration, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, have noted for erasure. The said two officers of registration to whom such list is delivered shall thereupon proceed in respect thereto ¹²³ as the provisions of sec. 21 of this Article direct, on each of the Tuesdays respectively six, five, and four weeks preceding the regular election in November.

The Board of Registry in each precinct shall, at the beginning of the session, receive the report of the said two officers of registration to whom the aforesaid list was delivered at the last preceding session and shall proceed in regard thereto as directed by the provisions of sec. 22 of this Article. The Board of Registry shall again meet for revision only, on the Tuesday three weeks before said election, and a session shall be held between the hours of 9 A. M. and 9 P. M. The Board of Registry at this session shall add no new names to the registries of voters, but shall proceed as the provisions of sec. 21 of this Article direct.” Section 21 provides that the officers of registration to whom the list of voters suspected of not being qualified, made up as prescribed in sec. 26, is “delivered shall, on or before Friday next following sign a notice and send the same through the mail duly stamped to the address as given in the registry of each person who is upon” said “list requiring such person to appear before the Board of Registry upon the Tuesday following, giving the time of such session and show cause why his name should not be erased from such registers;” and that “a similar notice shall also be served by said officers upon such person before the following Tuesday, and if he cannot be found at the place designated upon said registers, the notice may fie left there, if such place can be found.” Section 22 provides that, at the beginning of the session of the officers of registration to which those of the officers to whom such suspected list was delivered, are to make return of the service of notice upon the parties named on said list, said last-mentioned officers shall make affidavits as to the mailing of the notices sent by them, and to whom directed and where, and as to personal service upon such persons or as to the leaving of the same at the place of residence of such parties. If any person to whom such notice has been sent shall appear before the board of registry he is required to make affidavit in the form prescribed in said last-named section, and ¹²⁴ the Board of Registry is authorized to examine him touching his qualification as a voter and determine his right, by a majority opinion, to remain upon the registry of the precinct. If during the last hour of the session of the board any person notified to appear in accordance with the requirements of the statute has not appeared and shown cause why his name should not be erased from the registry, his name shall be erased “unless a majority of the board are satisfied of their own knowledge or upon competent testimony that such person is entitled to have his name retained” thereon.

Section 24 provides that “any person who feels aggrieved by the action of any Board of Registry in refusing to register him as a qualified voter, or in erasing or misspelling his name, or that of any other person on the registry, or in registering or failing to erase the name of any fictitious deceased or disqualified person, may at any time, either before or after the last session of the Board of Registry, but not later than Saturday next preceding the election, if in the city of Baltimore —:-file a petition, verified by affidavit-if the cause of complaint arises in Baltimore City, in any Court of Baltimore City, setting forth the ground of his application, and asking to have the registry corrected.” The proceeding upon such petition is then prescribed, and in a subsequent part of the section it is provided that “exceptions may be taken to any ruling of the Court at the hearing of any such petition, and appeal allowed to the Court of Appeals as in other cases” —such appeal to be taken within five days. Section 36 provides that “any person who feels aggrieved for any of the causes mentioned in section 24 - which may have arisen in the course of a revision of the registration lists,” “may file a petition as provided for the first general registration,” and that the same proceedings shall be had thereon. On the 4th day of November, 1905, the appellant in this case filed in the Court of Commón Pleas of Baltimore City a petition alleging that he is a qualified voter of said city; that Henry Apsley who is registered as a qualified voter in the 14th Election Precinct of the 4th Ward from 119 South Fred ¹²⁵ erick street is not a qualified voter entitled to registration in said precinct; that on the ioth day of October, 1905, being one of the days provided in Article'33 of the-Code for the registration of voters in the city of Baltimore, between the hours of 9 o’clock A. M. and 9 o’clock P. M., one Charles H. Tim-merman being one of the members of the Board of Registry for said precinct submitted to the said Board of Registry the name of Henry Apsley who, he suspected, was not a qualified voter of the said precinct, and who was then upon the .registration books of the said precinct as a qualified voter; that said Timmerman requested said Board of Registry to place the name and address of said Henry Apsley, 119 South Frederick street, upon the list of suspected persons of the said precinct who are not qualified voters therein; that the said Board of Registry “improperly and illegally refused to.place the name and address of the said Henry Apsley * * * on the list of the suspected persons of the said precinct. * * and refused to take any action whatever respecting the name of the said Henry Apsley;” and prayed the Court that the name of the said Henry Apsley may be stricken from the registries of said election precinct. Upon the hearing of the case upon the foregoing petition by the Court below evidence was taken and, on behalf of the petitioner, the Charles H. Timmerman, named in the petition, was produced as a witness and testified that he was one of the officers of registration for the election precinct mentioned in the said petition; and after stating that he was serving as such officer of registration on the ioth day of October, 1905, was asked if “a suspected list” was filed on that day and answered that there was and that the same was filed by him.

This list was produced in evidence and contained about one hundred and fifty names — among them beirig that of Henry Apsley, mentioned in the petition, appearing as registered from “119' S. Frederick St.” The list was arranged with headings— “Name,” “Residence,” “Cause of Disqualification,” and under the last-named heading and opposite to the name and residence of Henry Apsley, appeared the words “building burned down.” ¹²⁶ This witness then, upon being asked if he had “any other information about the suspect voter except the fact that the house giving his address was destroyed” answered, “The house was destroyed, and this is all I have. That is all I know, that the house is destroyed.” The other testimony of this witness as to the list was to the effect that he had not made it up; that it was handed to him in the morning of the ioth October, 1905, about half past 11 o’clock by a Mr. Tapscott; that the office of the registers was in a tent at the corner of Market Space and Lombard street; that Tapscott did not come in the tent but gave the list to witness outside of the tent; that he filed it at 20 minutes of 9 o’clock, P. M. on the day mentioned with the Board of Registry — the other three members of the board all being present and the board being in session; that at 9 o’clock he “asked them whether they decided who should serve the notice — they said I hadn’t taken-it up and I told them I would take it up, that was twenty minutes of nine; I said myself, I would take it up. ” Nothing further appears as having been done by the Board of Registry with respect to the list in question The list was not sworn to by any body. Upon this evidence the Court below held that it was not sufficient to require the Board of Registry to put the name of the party, Henry Apsley, on the suspect list and to this the appellant excepted. This is the question made by the petition and has been argued as the substantial question in the case.

After some further testimony not necessary to have particular mention the Court ordered the petition dismissed. We agree with the construction which the Court below gave to the law here drawn in question. The law is to be treated as having meaning and substance; and it is incumbent upon the Courts, as it is upon all officials administering the law under the sanction of their official oaths rather to be careful that the spirit and purpose of the law are observed than to be astute in finding reason's to support methods that may be adopted to evade its provisions. “The general object^of the registration law is to secure every qualified voter the right to vote in his ¹²⁷ proper district, and to prevent disqualified voters from voting.” Baltimore v. Fledderman, 67 Md. 161 . Purging the registration of disqualified voters is in the interest of the qualified voter as being designed to secure the effectiveness of the latter’s vote.

The care of the law is, throughout its provisions, for