Newspapers / The Asheville Register (Asheville, … / June 30, 1899, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Asheville Register (Asheville, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
mimuffl ; . . . - - -"Jw - ' r - : : r -' - , , . g . iu n n i in i. i . . jr . - , . i ,a, , - .;L .. m :'id.-. . Hi: Vflktffc - : ,f v : . mm . mm ojiitc - toco .HiCL. injures ATi THE PARAGON." Come to fee us, whether you buy or uot. xou are always welcome. We bore to ef ve your ' Thp more you use uh, the better V are pleased. ''Phone 471 was put in for YOU to use. v ' i HE ' PARAGON. ; OPEN DAY AND NIGHT. V Private 'Phone-'2G0. Opp. PoitOfiice. Public 'Phone 471. The Largest Circulation of Any Paper in the Ninth Congressional District. VOL. 6. i " ; ' ' . : : ASHEVILLE,, H. C, JUNE 30, 1899. NO. 27. 'J:-,w Ill, SECTION 5 IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL i CONSTITUTION According to the Rules Governing Courts in Reaching Conclusions, AND IN THE LIGHT OF PAST DECIS IONS, THAT SECTION WILL BE HELD VOID. When in Need of GROCERIES of any kind, get! our prices before buying and we will try to . Save You Money A. I). COOPER, 32 S. Main St. FIFTY v SUITS ! AT ' - it ) Al w HALF $ PRICE. We have picked out fifty suits, Cassimers,Ohev iots, and Worst eds. Sizes, 30 to 42, that form erly sold at $5. to $18. They go now at 50c on the dollar. The. Arguments of the Advocates of Its Constitutionality Analyzed and Answered The Proposed Amendmsnt not Candid and Honest. Editor of the Register: ' "Written coustitutious are the pro duct of delrberate thought and the words which express that thought are crystalized into strength. If ever there la power in words, it is ia the words of a written constitution." Jude Elliott, of Indiana. "AIL regulations of the elective-franchise, however, must be treasonable, uniform and impartial. They must not hav for their purpose, directly or indirectly, to deny or abridge the Constitutional right of citizens to voce or unnecessarily impede its ex ercise. If they do tney must be de clared void." Cooley Constitutional Limitations, 602. The proposition laid down in my first article (to the Post) was this: When a general law is enacted, which, in restricting the suffrage, acts equal ly upon all races and colors and 're gardless of their previous condition, that law is omstitutional,though itdis franchises a greater number of blacks than whites, or whites chan blacks. fhis principle, however, does uot ex tend so far a,9 to permit the State to establish a merely arbitrary qualifi cation, though it doe? not in terms import a discrimination by reason of in truth? ij is such discrimination. So much the more would this be true, if the pro posed qualification was adopted with the intent to discriminate, by reason of race, etc. I proceeded further and argued that the-intent of Section 5, on its fa?e perfectly harmless, is to be, and will be, discovered by the Supreme Court, in this way : ist. ' By : considering the. political history of . the country which sur rounds and so is mingled with the Fifteenth-Amendment and Section 5. 2nd. By considering the effect of the adoption of said Section, upon that equality in the exercise of the suffrage which the Fifteenth Amend ment secures. Applying these rules of construc tion and interpretation, I concluded that Section 5 was plainly obnoxious to the Fifteenth Amendment, because its necessary effect was .to establish an educational qualification for ev ery former slave, or deBcendent of a formr slave, while expressly remov ing, it from all. or practically all, white men. Sinee that article was published, the Editor or the Morning Post, Mr. Simmons and Mr. Aycock have dis cussed the constitutionality of Sec tion's so ably and ingeniously that stood before the brief and sententious language employed can be compre hended in the relation its authors in tended." . McLean, J., dissenting, said, "I will now consider the relation which the Federal Government bears'to slavery in the States."' He, then, enters into a long histoiical examination of slavery in the : United States. He said further on: "It is refreshing to turn to the early incidents of our his tory and learn wisdom from the acts of the great men, who have gone to their account." Curtis, J., dissenting, after a long dissertation, without any remarks prefacing it, said, in preface, to the further discussion: "To determine which of these is the correct view, it is needful to advert to some facts, re specting this subject, which existed when tne Constitution was framed and adopted." Chase, Chief Justice., in discussing the meaning of the term "direct tax" in the Federal Constitution, in Bank, vs. Fenno,8 Wallace, prefaced his re marks by these words: M We are ob liged, therefore, to resort to historical evidence, and to seek the meaning of the words in the use and in the opin ion of those hose relation to the government, and means of knowl edge, warranted them in speaking with authority." Fuller, Chief Justice, in delivering the prevailing opinion "in the Income Tax Cases and White, J., who wrote the principal dissenting opinion, both, in discussing the meaning of the tem -'direct tax," enter into long historical dissertations. Milieu, J., who, asa constitutional lawyer, is considered by some as sec ond only to Marshall,.' said in Ex Parte Bain of S. C, Rep., in discuss ing; the functions of a grand jury: "It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as in deed in all ot,her instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument." Bradley, J., in Hans vs. Louisiana, decided in March 1S90, reviews fully the history that surrounds the enact ment of the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Cooley, Chief Justice, (the author of Constitutional Limitations) in people vs. Harding,53 Michigan,said: "In seeking for the real meaning of he Constiution, we must take into onsideration the times and the cir- umstances under which it was framed.the general spirit of the timei and the prevailing sentiments among the people. .Every constitution has a history of its own, which is likely to be more or lesspeculiar.and unless interpreted in the light of this histo ry, is liable to express purposes which were never in the minds of the people when agreeing to it. This the court must keep in mind when called upon to interpret it." etc. etc. I call the roll of all these great names, Marshall, Taney, Daniel, Ca tron, McLean, Curtis, Chase, Fuller, Miller, Bradley, White and Cooley to examine more minutely the recent arguments for the constitutionality of said Section and show their falla cy in each instance. Tlie Editor, of course, shall be first: "The amend ment does not discriminate against the negro on account of his race, but because of hii disqualifications," says he on May 14th. But, if those dis qualifications are inherent in his race, the Fifteenth Amendment says that he cannot be disqualified on tha account. If he could, why this troub le? Disfranchise the negro, not b: cause he is a negro, but because he is. not fit to vote. That is j the logic of his editorial of May 14th. And the Fifteenth Amendment was iucor porated iu our "supreme law" just to meet such an argument as that. Again, in his issue of May 20th, he. says : "All who possess certain qual ifications, age, residence, educational, will be allowed to vote. This will unquestionably include a number of negroes, who, if they were uot slaves themselves, are immediate dosceud ents of slaves." - That is true, b;ut thatis Sec tion 4, which everybody admits is constitutional. When we come, however, to Section 5, we find the ed ucational qualification removed from the white man while it remains in full force and effect upon the foraier slave and his descendent. Is there any thing impartial in that? Is there any thing uniform in that? Does it act equally upon both races? If we cannot answer, Yes, to all these questions, then Section a is unconsti tutional. Again, in his editorial or juuettth," he ras somethiug to say about the District of Columbia, liut Congress there disfranchised every citizen, white and black alike, the law acting equally, impartially and uniformly upon both and all races, and that it had constitutional power to do so ap pears from Art. 1, Sec H sub-Sec. 17 of the Federal Constitution. So this comes within the principle enunciat ed ;in my first article and s?t forth in full above. JsoW I come to the denial of citi zenship to the ChiDse. The editori al of June 9th, as does Mr. Simmon's article of May 21st, states the posi tion of the Federal Government to wards the Chinessincorrectly. There neyef was a time from that a Chinaman could uralized. The words of zation Act bains ''The provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens, being free white persous." jn 1870 Mr. Sumner, in his universal and indis" cri minate love for all mankind, mov ed to strike out the word "white" in the Naturalization Act. His motion failed. In the 1S73 Revision, howev- rtr mini iiimwimm ARDN& ft Makes the food more delicious and wholesome ROVt BAKtNO WJWMR CO., HEW YORK. 1S02 to 1S73 ! tu become nai- he Xaturali- courts take into consideration the different circumstances, the different necessities,; different; history and dif ferent population of the different States. ' . Let 1112 illustrate. Mr. Simmons is going to make a topographical sur vey of the country jlew Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and North Dakota are ou a dead level. When he reach es North Carolina he is confronted by by butting crags, and beyond, in South Carolina. Mississippi and Louisiana, towering mountains. Will he pay any attention to them ? No, no, what is level in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Nort'i Dakota:. 'm ust be level in North' Carolina," South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana. That is MrSimnipus' idea of the general op eration of lle Federal Constitution. But that Constitution does not oper ate in that way. It would not be equal if it diil. It sees the crags and toweriu j, mountain tops and runs its line aoross; them, and not . through them. Aud thus it secure;s equality of operation, and only thin' could it se cure it. .The Thirteenth Amendment grants the; negro immunity from slavery ;- thje Fourteenth Amendment the equal enjoyment of civil rights; the Fifteenth Amendment exemption from discrimination in voting. Equality of right, equality of privil ege is all that these Amendments 89 cure. Section 5 creates an inequality in thai it, in reaiity, disqualifies slaves or the dascendents of slaves from voting, if they have not suffi cient education ; while every white man msy yote, regardless of his edu cation, atdd thus it runs through the crags ami mountain tops. I come now to what the Progress ive rarlner and tne : Editor re- g a r d a s t h e strongest point ma le, in favor of the constitu tionality of SacUou 5. They say first, the Editor : "Under the Miss issippi law the registrar is given ab solute dincfetion to say -whether a voter, though he can read the Consti- lon, understands its meaning or n,H. ilic possibilities- oi the abuse of thii kw were not taken into con- ideration '. bv the Court, certain!7, not unfavorably." See the Post of June 9th. : " Now.ace-the recital of facts and the conclusions of law in this extract rue? 1 think not. The Constitution of Mississippi rovides that "on and after January st, 1S92, every elector shall in addi- they have forced me toxe-examine U this a novel method, of interpreting the authorities, with a view to any written constitutions, then? ' oossible mistake that I may naye zna. l no enecc oi section o n anopt made. After such re-examination I ed. The cases which illustrate; this find mvaelf confirmed in my original canon come thronging upon my opinion.' . This opinion, however, was If you want a pick at this lot don't delay. Think of a $5 Suit for $2.50, an $18 for $9. We have other good values in Hats, Shoes and Furnishings. frrmd at the time that Louisiana was discussing a similar provision in its Constitution, and I have not seen nor read nor found anything to shake it, since. It seems te be admitted on all hands that if the above canons of construction and interpretation are correct ones, then Section 5 necessari ly must be unconstitutional, for they arethe principal points oi attacK I ouroose to'show, first : That they are sustained by the yery best of au thoritv:and, second: To consider ., .r -no-ar micro-nations made by the nnj - ' ' o nfi.m.n above ' mentioned, and show their utter fallacy. Mr. Simmons says, anent the first canon above laid down: "Well, for mQ .oVo nf t.h arcument.' let us ad memory as 1 write, There are busn els of them. I repeat what I wrote before: "There is not a case which defines the control of the State over private right, or limits the police power of the State by the Inserstate Commerce provision of the Federal Constitution, in the determination of which the courts have not gone back of the face of the act. to the results which may ensue from its practical ; operations." In defining the limit of the police power over private right, all the courts say that the act of the Legis lature which destroys a private right, must, to be constitutional, be reason ably adapted to the end desired, i. e. the oublic health, the public morals or the public safety. How can they determine the act's reasonable adap mit it; although it must be confessed tation without considering its effects? that this would oe a novei meiuuu ui x cue, nowever, me louwwmg COURTNEY'S Asheville N. C. nfArnmt n? a written constitution. . - x CJ A novel method ! Let us see. Chief Justice Marshall, in Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheat, gives a suc- ninntvet full account oftbedimcui- n.B thar oonfronted the old Confed- vw Judge Campbell, who was probably, only to Judge cases second, Cooley among Michigan judges, says, in Park vs.PressCo,Nov!mber,1888 :"But we do not think the statue controls the action, or is within the power of constitutional legislation. This will illustrate thextent and j jn our judgment, appear from a state 18 Patton Aye oration. force of thelwords in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce provision of the Federal Constitution, Chief Jus tice Taney, in the, Dred Scott case, says, in discussing Art. 4,Sec. 3 and sub-sec. 2: (I quote his exact words) u a v. - i o f a n m m a r v. of the the times, as well as the careful and measured terms in K.ih th article is irameu, wen shows the correctness of this proposi tion." He. then proceeds and , -gives this summary. Daniel. J., in the same case, con fMirrinc. save: "In the constructing i.;.w.a oifhnr in abatement or n, hor vrv f at br Dosition consti F. M. LINDSAY . CONTRACTOR jFOR Plumbing, Steam, Ga, Hot Air, Ht Water Heating and Tin Roooflug Iron Work of all kinds. Jobbing promptly attended to. J. G. Lindsay will attendto tin work Ernest jsraeirforeBian of Plumh'ui Department Work guaranteed to give satisfaction ment of its effects, if carried out." In Henderson vs. The Mayor, etc., 82 U. S., the United States Supreme Court says: "In whatever language a statute might be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect." ! So it may ' be considered certain that the same Court will consider the effect of Section 5. Now considering the history that surrounds and so is mingled wjith the Fifteenth Amend ment and Section 5, and the natural and reasonable effact of said Section, we find that there is not a single ex slave or descendent of a slave or of an ex-slave, who has not the educa- tuting a portion of the public law, or tjonai qualification . imposed upon of known or general 1i8t1pryt1?gnCbeai him, while no white man, praetical- JhewoVTd at 'large, and every in- ly, has it imposed upon him. dividual, are presumed tcTknow nay, Tne rjKUt; Qf citizens of the United are bound to know and be governea atfttes to vote shall not be denied or by" abridged by the United States, or by Campbell, J.concurring in the same any State, on account or raca, co or ease said: "I pass now to?the evi- or previous condition of servitude." dencehtftorded during the Revolution There is not a word in this Fif- 51 .??f?55Kl5 ,i:"fIrh; teenth Amendment that has not been i. . ..nn.:nottn et fVila r1nA of Che rSnatUuti of the " cir forged in the fire of public opinion, teumstances in which the convention I anci by its authors welded into con was nlaced. will aid us to determine if, t d gtrenffth.- No, no, Mr, Us significance."- : . . ! Editor, there is no surplusage in it. Catron J, concurring, said : "Al-1 Can tnere t,e any doubt about the un- .EiSSStf'caSiiSSSi --",u'!10'8'eUon.6' ...... u" a " hi.tnrv that must be under- But l promised, in uiesecuuu F er, these words were omitted. Ge&r c1. Boutwell of Mass.,made this revision. But they were again restored to the Act by Congress, Feb. 18th, 1S75. Mr. Suinuer, however, in 1S70, did suc ceed in incorporating the following clause in the law, ';and to aliens of African nativity and tcJ persons of African descent." In 1SS:2 Congress prohibited absolutely the naturaliza tion of Chinese. But before that tithe Judge Sawyer in the case In re J Ah Yup, 5 Sawyer, decided that Chi nese could not be naturalized. See 39 Cent. L. I, 235. Nobody but a free white person or an Africau can be naturalized. Section 8, sub-Sec. 4 of Art. 1 of the, Federal Constitution gives Congress plenary power over naturalization, and it must not be forgotten that the "citizens of the United States" off the Fifteenth Amendment are those born or natur alized in the United States. i Now I come to the cases about wiiich Mr. Simmons makes such an eloquent peroration. I wish I could copy it but it is too long.JThe cases a're Foong Yue Ping Vs. United States, 149 U. S. 698, and Lem Moon Sing vs United States, 40 Cent. L. I. 467. See 2S Am. Law "Rev. p. 289 et seq. 'Congress holds the key that un locks the door which prevents aliens from entering into citizenship in this country. When that doer is unlock ed thatti they may become citizens, protected in their civil rights by the Fourteenth Afnendment and in their suffrage rights by the Fifteenth Amendment. Nc Chinaman born in this country has ever been deprived of his "right to vote. If he was born elsewhere, the naturalization laws have no application to him, and he can never become a citizen. Nor can a!jap nor any of the yellow races We ar either white or blacK under our naturalization laws. There are no mixed colors among them. See Article by Mr. Sawyer, 40 Cent. L p. 106. ' ? ' I come now to examine one of Mr, Simmon's positions in wiiich be seems to have great confidence. quote him: I "If there is anything that is abso lutely certain, it is that the Supreme Court of the United States cannot hold that a law, which would be con stitutional in one State, would be un constitutional in another. The Fed eral Constitution applies to every inch of territory in the Union, and if there be one State in which such con stitutional provision would be con stitutional, it would be constitutional in all. j If Mr. Simmons had not written this himself and published it over hisown sign-manual, 1 should not nave believed that he could have written it, so much respect have I for his ability. It is true that the Feder al Constitution applies to every inch of the several United States. But how can it apply equally and impar tially and uniformly, unless the constitutionality. But how different is Section 5! Its unconstitutionality is apparent from its terms, interpret ed in the light of surrounding histo ry and in the light of its immediate and necessary effect. In other words, it cannot be construed or interpreted so it could be constitutional. It can not be administered so it could be constitutional. This being true, eith er the State or Federal court! would take jurisdiction in a proper case with the final decision in the United States' Sunreme Court. Now Mr. Aycock's remarks require notice only in two or three particu lars: His general remarks are ex cellent indeed, nearly , everything that he says and writes is excllent. I regard him as one of this most elo queut one of the ablest, the purest and honestest men in North Caroli na. Yet his article -shows even his incapacity to discuss Section 5 from the legal standpoint He gives as his first reason, why Section 5 is con stitutional, that all the lawyers in North Carolina, or nearly all, j whose opinion is worth a continental, say that it is. Yet why-is it, .if this is true, that none of the opinions, here tofore elaborately ! expressed, will bear the test of analysis and compar ison with deeided cases? Does not this show that these able lawyers are influenced more by jtheir desires and hopes than their judgment, j ! He says, secondly. that public opin ion has changed in regard to the ne gro and-negro, vote and this opinion has effected the court, i Does not Mr. Aycock remember the remark that a friend made to Wm. Wirt, when he came out.of the court houte after making as brilliant and as eloquent prosecution of j Aaron Burr as possible "Why did you not remind John Marshall that the pub lic demanded the conviction of Aaron Burr"? and Mr. Wirt's answer? j We may not have John Marshall's equals in ability on the Supreme Bench now but we do have his equals in character and in conscientiousness. Public'opinion,! that is what they put) there as a break-water against! If Mr. Aycock doubts this, let him get the Federalist and read it. But he says the Louisana Constitu tion has been in operation since Jan uary 1st, 1S97. Where is the Supreme Court there? Does not he know that there has been no general election in T.rmiaiana inrA tVit ulnntinn nf tlvat ion iu u;e lureKuiuK qujmictiuujjB. ur , - rin....m1. able to re k! any section of the Con- vuusluuuuu' wv&mu. etitution of this State: or he shall be abl-j to understand the same when read tt him, or give a reasonable in- erpretation thereof," Is there anything arbitrary irfthat? Does it not! apply equally, impartial ly and uniformly upon all the citizens in-1898? Does not he know that the members so elected do not meet their fellow members to form the Congress of the United States until next De cember? Does not he knowjthat a case was made up and submitted to one of the Superior Courts of said Write fop the free booklet: Rhymes for Thirtty Timea." o -i i -I Rootbeir tlriie Isfliere IHE CHARLES E. HIRES CO.. Philadelphia. Pa. Maker of Hire Condensed Milk. LETTER FROM ASST. ATTY-CEW. JAMES E. B0YD.1 The following1' letter, .which is elf explanatory, has been received by Senator Prittchard from Assistant At torney General James E. Boyd: Washington, D. C, June 24, 1899. Hon. J. C. Pritchard, Marshall, N. C.: My Dear Sir I am In receipt of yours of the 22d instant, enclosing clip ping from the Asheville Citizen to the effect thait I am reported by the Wash ington correspondent of the Greensboro Telegram as saying that the constitu tional amendment limiting the suffrage will be carried before the people and then the republicans will gain more white votes than they, will losejfolored ones by the amendment. I wish to say that the statement ac credited" to me Is a fabri cation ; from beginning to end. I have never spoken to the Washingtoa correspondent of the Greesboro Telegram, knowing him to be such, about this or any other mat ter. In truth I diJ not know : the Greensboro Telegram had a Washing ton correspondent. So far as my views about the amend ment are concerned, they are well known to you and to every other per son with whom I have spoken upon the subject. You will well remember (that we frequently discussed this matter whilst you were in Washington, , and we entirely concurred in our opinion that the second 'section of the amend mentthat is, the portion of It which undertakes to establish hereditary suf frage, and thus confer the right upon persons who are excluded under the general qualification clause is un constitutional and inoperative, and that the most that could be expected from the courts (in1 case the amend ment is adopted by popular vote). In passing upon Its validity, would be the decision that the state had the right, t under the constitution of the United J States, to prescribe general qualiflca-r tions for electors which did not dis criminate against a person on account of his race, color or previous condition of servitude, but that any effort to so modify them as to make them apply to one class and Inoperative, as to anofher, would be a direct violation of the con stitution of the United States. I did hot, however, set about to glvo an 'opinion upon the amendment, for T cannot very well see how there can bi any disagreement among lawyers who have given the matter7! serious thought and are disposed to be; frank in giving expression .- Ha conclusions. I do not believe that the courts will permit that to be done Indirectly which the const; tution of the United States f orlr.ds to be done directly, and i If the amend ment proposed in North Carolina Is adopted and can- be. piit jnto effect as it la written, the result will bi simply that thsrt part of the constitution of th United States "which forbids discrim ination In conferring or denying th right of suffrage will be absolutely rworthless, and the end accomplished will be that which the! language of th? constitution, If it meanj pnything.at all, intended to prevent. Yours very illy, i JAS. K. BOYD. tail: BUCKLEN'S ARNICA SALVH. The beet salve In the world for Cuts. Bruises. Sores, Ulcers. Salt Rheum. Fever Sores, Tetter, Chapped Hands, Chilblains, Corn8,and all Skin Eruptions, and posi tively cures Piles, or no pay required. It is guarantee! to give perfect satisfaction or money refunded. Price 25 .eat ner bo:. For sale by T. C- Smith and W. C. Carmichael. i - i Educate Vonr Bowela With Caacarets. Candy Cathartic, cure constipation forever. 10o, 25c. It C C C. fail, druggists refund money. J. W Norwood, President E.. R i.TTCAs,; Cashier. .10 Ft E L U E RIDGE NTIONL gNK, i ASHEVIUUE. N, G. Gurantees to all customers Promptness, Accuraey anc. Absolute Se curity. We respectfully solicit your business, and will grant every accomydation consistant with SOUND BANKING. SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES FOR RENT. obnoxious i tb the FifteenthVAmend ment. ' Yet we find Mr. Simmons in his article! the Post of June 9th, and the "Progressive Farmer," following its lead, saying that "an absolute dis cretion was conferred upon the reg istrar" in Mississippi. It is not cor rect. There was no absolute discre tion given him, on the face of the proposed suffrage provision. There was a discretion given the registrar or judges! of election which they might abuse. Jut until it was actu ally abused to the detriment of the blacks, there was and could not be any unconstitutional exercise of au thority by the State. Sea Williams vs. Mississiii, 170 U S. This is il lustrated ty the two cases, Stranded vs.. West Virginia, 100 U. S., and Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. In the case first mentioned, it was held that a State law confining the selection of jurors to 'white persons was in con travention of the Fourteenth Amand- ment ; and second, that the action of the State officer invested with the power to select jurors, excluding all colored persons from the lists, was also repugint to its provisions. Strong, J., in the first case, says: "The words of the Ameudment, it is true, are' prohibitory, but . they con tain a necessary implication of a pos itive immunity or right most valua ble to the colored men the right of exemption from unfriendly legisla tion against them distinctly as color- 1 ft Special Sale on ! s II of the State ? Tf it does,:then ft is not gtate which decided that said suffrage Amendment was unconstitutional, and that said case unless it has been bought off, is now pending in the Su preme Court of that State? Good round, sounding words go a long way, but after all, they are noth ing slse. The great trouble with Sec tion 5, is that it lacks candor, it lacks honesty, it lacks fair dealings. And yet these gentlemen, its authors, fond ly hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will trample the Fif teenth Amendment and with it their oaths in the dust, because the people demand it. It is a fond hope, based on air, thin air, and so will never find fruition. , Now all these good, round, high sounding phrases in Col. Cowles' and Mr. Aycock's article would do very well if our suffrage amendment stop ped at Section 4, though, I, myself should have insisted upon a property qualification in the alternative, 100, $200, or even 300. j As a matter of fact, as early as 1891, I became a follower.of Mr.Tillman, of South Carolina, not because I agreed with him in his national politics, but because he said he would put suffrage in South Carolina, on a sound, ration al, honest, constitutional basis, and I knew he had both the power and the inclination to do so. I voted for him in the August primary 1892. j The re sult has iustined me. Tne boutn fa Midsummer fabrics. v Colored Lawns a n ft VI Dimities that were 8 1-3 cents 10 cents, IB 1-2 V cents and 15 cents JJy for VvK J. i- w to close, arid they ed. exeipting from legal discrimina- Carolina suffrage provision has run JSil0; CJfyi the gauntlet of the United State. Su- pre LUC (jUUll, n J- auon iv " ' " - we are different in North Carolina, eniovmeiit of the rights which othars eniov. and discriminations which are ateps toward reducing them to a sub ject race. ' - Now. as a general rule, when a - f . State statute oT constitutional pro visionconstrued in one way is ob noxious to the Federal Constitution, and in", another is not, the Federal Courts aw'aitif possible, the construe tion of the State Supreme Ceurt, for if th2t Court so construes the statute or constitutional provision, that its opposition to the Federal Constitu tion is avoided, why, then, there is no Federal question, That is exactly -what tbe Supreme Court ef the Uni ted States did in Williams vs. Mis sissippi. Siup. There is nothing un constitutional in the terms of the Mississippi suffrage provision; there. is nothing unconstitutional in its le gal effect.! It may be construed so as to make ijk unconstitutional. It may be administered so as to make it un constitutional. But the case itself, has not ben presented in this aspect consequently there is nothing before the Supreme Court impugning its We are not candid, we are not hen- est, we are not courageous . We must use paraphrases, we must use a great cloud ot words, which fool; nobody who has two grains of common sense and then sit back and hope that we may fool the greatest and ablest court in the world by all this nonsense. I Frank Nash. Hilliboro, N. C. June 24th, 1899. t r closing fast, too. Musquito Netting 5 cents a yard. are W i W ! V! ! Al for W AJ Good Summer Vests ' i; for 6 cents, and the best . silk taped ever seen for viy V j 10 cents. hi Large Stock aS Lariifts and Chi riren s mmmm B m m U M WIS Try Allen's Foot tase, A nowder to be shaken into the shoes. At this season your feet feel swollen, nervous and hot, and get tired easily. If you have smarting feet or tight shoes, try Allen's oot Ease. It cools the feet and makes walking easy. Relieves corns ana bunions of all pain and gives rest and comfort. Try it today, bold by all druggists, grocers, shoe stores aud general storekeepers everywhere. Price 15c. Trial packe free. Address, Allen S. Olmstead; Le Roy, N. Y. ; Hats t 1 far If) ofints n-n I that w will be sold regar dless DIBEOTOB - W. J. SLAYDEN, JAS. A. RURROUGHS, G.A.Norwood, E. R. LUCAS, 8. P. McDIVITT J. W. NORWOOD. ERWIN SLUDER, Asst. Cashier. HOUSTON MERRIMAN, Book-Keepe White Lawns frdnx to the finest. Val Laces as low per yard. The 5c W as 1c X host n stock of Embroideries f : ever shown in the city, W A special lot Hamberg Edges at 5c and 10c yd- o Fans and Parasols. The best stock of Chil-. $ dren's Parasols in the city. . i& Fine Piques Linen Goods and Covort s. tW FOR GOOD GOODS GO TO Tlie Bon Marclae Wolf Bldfl. Asheville, NX. i . - f. - .- uas a j - j
The Asheville Register (Asheville, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 30, 1899, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75