1
V.
--"1
1 '
1,
E CAUCACIAU
PUBLISHED I VERT THURSDAY
BT TUB CAUCASIAN PtTBtlSHIWO CO
SUBSCRIPTION RATES.
CMK YXA&..
...11.00
BIX MONTHS...
; .so
THSHC MONTHS
, .16
- see -
Entered At the Fort Offioe 10 Raleigh,
N. c. M second-class mail matter
SENATOR MORGAN'S SPEECH.
The soeech of Senator Morgan ip.
the United States Senate on Senator
Pritchard's resolution in which he
proposed to discuss the constitution
ality of the proposed North Carolina
conttitntional amendment, was dis
appointing alike to those who favor
the amendment and to those who op
pose it. t What everybody expected
to hear from Senator Morgan was a
legal and constitntional argument:
first, as to the constitutionality of
Section 5 (known as the grandfather
clause); and second, as to whether
the Court would declare section 5
unconstitutional alone or declare' the
whole amendment unconstitutional
Bat, to the surprise of everyone,
the learned Senator refrained from
discussing either one these questions
the only questions at issue to be
discussed. It is clear that Senator
Morgan well knew that if. he at
tempted to defend the const ution
ality of the Section 5 by a legai and
constitutional argument that his
argument would be dissected and re
plied to, and he well knew he could
make no argument that could not
be successfully replied to. So dis
cretion was the better part valor
with him. and he refrained from
making such an argument. He de
livered a long speech but his only
reference to Section 5 was to express
an opinion about it and not to make
an argument. Anybody can express
an opinion about it and the only
reply to it is to express a different
opinion. It is evident to everyone
that the Senator's purpose was not
to make a legal argument bnt simply
to deliver a speech for circulation in
his campaign in Alabama. It is also
well known that his opponent for
the Senate, Gov. Johnston, does not
endorse his views, and the indications
are that Senator Morgan will be
defeated, and that Johnston will be
elected to the Senate. If the Sim'
mons red shirt mob in North Caro
lina ean get any comfort out of this
speech of Senator Morgan's, they
are heartily welcome to it.
COL. GLENN AND HIS INTERVIEW.
Recently Col. Bob lilenn was in
Washington. The Washington cor
respondent of the Atlanta Journal
sent an interview with Col. Glenn to
that.paper, in which he is quoted as
saying that the purpose of the propos
ed amendment in North Carolina is to
get rid of the illiterate voters of the
State. When Col. Glenn got back
home and saw this interview repro
duced in the North Carolina papers
he at once hastened to deny the in
terview or rather to say that he did
not tell the correspondent that he
was in favor of getting rid of the
illiterate vote, but only the illiterate
black vote. This is not the first
time that the Ransom machine politi
cians have been quoted just as Mr.
Glenn was quoted when interviewed
out of the State, and it is not the
first time they have hastened to
deny the interview when published.
It is a little strange that the repor
ters should quote all of them as
saying the same thing when they are
talking confidentially to them, un
less these reporters quote them
correctly. It is no doubt true that
Mr. Glenn did not intend his talk
with the reporter to be published
and it is also no doubt true that
what the reporter quoted him as
saying is what he thought whether
he said it or not, for he must know
that tne result of the proposed
amendment will be to disfranchise
as many white, as blacks, unless the
whole thing is declared unconstitu
tional. AN ABLE ARGUMENT.
Especial attention is called to the
sound and able argument made by
Hon. Frank Nash, of Billsboro, in
an article contributed last summer
to the Asbeville Register, which we
are glad to reproduce in this issue.
It should be read with care, as it
is an able legal discussion of the
proposed amendment. The Raleigh
Post sav8 that anything Mr. Nash
writes is entitled to "respectful con
liberation." We bespeak it for him.
Mr. Nash is a Democrat
Judcre Simonton has reversed his
3 1 1 Ant 4-1. a m 5 1 ar fav a si at a
UGvlOlUH UU UiO A CfcAA TV C J aA VBIDQOt
on the ground that the Federal
Courts are bound by the interpreta
tion of the State Courts -of local
statutes. Our State Supreme Court,
since the former dicision of Judge
Simonion, has decided the Corpora'
tion Commission has the power to
assess railway property. It will be
remembered that Judge Simonton in
former decision stated that the last
legislature, either through careless
ness or on purpose, omitted to give
the corporation commissioners the
power to assess railway proptrty,
and while this is true, yet our non
partisan Supreme Court held that
the old railway commission law was
not repealed by the last, legislature,
and that they had that power under
the old law and in spite of the at
tempt of the last legislature to re
peal it, 1
THK CASK OT O ORG I A A1TD NORTH
CAROLINA OOHTBAgTXD.
As stated In the last issue of the
Caucasian, the Atlanta Constitu-
tlan was appealed to by Simmons
and his machine to try to explain
away the action of the Georgia leg
islature In defeating the same dis
franchising amendment that Is
proposed In North Carolina. This
was a very hard task for the Con
stitution to perform, because the
Constitution published a full re'
port of the debate In which the
members gave as one of their rea
sons for voting It down that it was
unconstitutional, and the Const!
tutlon had endorsed the action of
tie legislature. All the Constitu
tlon could say was that Georgia did
not need this proposed amendment,
while it was satisfied that North
Carolina did, and this explanation,
as weak and impotent as it was.
was published by all the Demo
cratic papers in this State with
much relief and satisfaction so
desperate is their condition.
Now what are the facts ?
Georgia has over sixty counties
n which the colored vote is in
majority, while in North Carolina
there are only thirteen such coun
ties. Then how absurd It is to say
that North Carolina could need
this amendment if Georgia does
not need it? The fact is that there
s a desire on the part of the Sim
mons machine to disfranchise the
Illiterate white voters in North
Carolina, while there seems to be
no such desire in Georgia. There
are fewer illiterate white voters in
Georgia than in North Carolina, so
the adoption of the amendment
would be more dangerous in this
State than it would be in Georgia
NO PERMISSION NEEDED OR DESIRED
We notice that the Wilmington
papers have grudgingly and with
considerably growling and bad
humor announced that they wil
permit Senator Prltchard to speak
in Richmond county and Senator
Butler to speak in Wilmington
We suppose the meaning of this
declaration on the part of the Wil
mington papers Is that they wil
not try to incite a riot to prevent
the speaking. These papers, how
ever, need not trouble themselves
about the matter one way or the
other as far as Senator Pritchard
and Senator Butler are concerned
because they will speak in Rich
mond county or in Wilmington or
anywhere else, whenever they get
ready without any permision from
tne Wilmington papers and re
gardless of whether they oppose it
or not. All the red shirt mobs the
Simmons machine can organize
will not be able to prohibit free
speech in North Carolina, or to pro
hibit the fifty thousand majority
that is ready to bury them and
their methods from registering
their votes and having them count
ed. BUTLER'S LETTER READ.
KernersTllIe People Delighted In the Sen
ator'a Recent Article.
Asheville Gazette.
Keknersville, N. C, Jan. 11.
Nobody wants to read a stronger,
more forceful, more logical or a
more inspiring letter than that of
Senator Butler appearing in a re
cent issue of the Gazette. In that
he covored the whole ground and
left not a stone unturned regarding
the amendment question. Educate
the people of North Carolina with
such forceful arguments as therein
contained and the defeat of the con
stitutional amendment will be writ
ten 40,000. I read that letter, with
a gavel in hand, scoring the minute
points, to a company of listeners,
and each one, Democrats included,
breathed a spirit of exultancy that
the good old North State would
overwhelmingly defeat the meas
ure when the vote is cast. One
man said Butler would succeed
himself in the United States Sen
ate, another one remarked he
should do so.
More Abont
the Knntnckr
StnfieiB.
Ballot Box
Washington Post.
"Why did Messrs. Pryor and Ellis re
sign their positions as State election
commissioners r" asked a I'ost repor
ter of Mr. H. E. Billings, of Kentucky,
at the Normandie.
"Because they were heartily sick of
the job," was the answer.
"By refusing to transcend their au
thority and throw out the vote of Jef
ferson county, they made enemies of
the Goebelites, and neither did their
conduct please the Bepublicans, who
felt sure that those officials wanted to
compass the defeat of Taylor, and only
hesitated on account of the usurption
of power such a proceeding would in
volve. Besides there Is a great deal of
hard work and no emolument going
witn tne offloe of State commissioner,
the salary being only $200 a year. But
at all events, Pryor and Ellis did well
in refusing to carry out the radical de
mands of Goebel and his partisans.
Such a course would probably have led
to a revolution worse than the 'Bloody
Monday' that brought terror of Louis
ville in the days when the Know Noth
ing party was a factor in American
politics."
"White Supremacy."
Chatham Citizen.
Democrats want wbite supremacy,
they say. They do not want negroes
to hold office. Then why did they not
offer us an amendment forbidding ne
groes holding office P This would not
have been unconstitutional and would
not have disfranchised whiie men.
Why disfranchise white men, put ed
nested negroes above illiterate whites
and leave the negro cry and race prob
lem still in politics.
If the Baby U Cutting Teeth.
Be sure and use that old and neia
tried remedy, Mrs. Winblow'b Sooth-
ixg) Stbcp tor children teething. It
soothes the child, softens the gums,
allays ail pain, cores wind oolio and
is the best remedy for diarrhoea. 25 cts
per bottle.
' ' 1 1 : t " . . " !
Section 5 in Conflict frith ths
Federal Corstitation 1
ACC0R0INB TO RULES 00YERNIN6
COURTS IN REACHING CONCLU
SIONS. The Arcnment of tha AlftetUf or
ita
Conatltntlonalitr Analyzed and An
swered The Proposed Amend
ment not Candid and Hoaaat-
Editor of the Register:
"Written constitutions are the pro
duct of delioerate thought and the
words which express that thought are
crrstalized into strength, if ever
tnere is power in words, it is in tne
words of a written constitution."
Judge Elliott, of Indiana.
All regulations of the elective fran
chise, however, must be reasonable,
uniform and impartial. They must
not have for their purpose, directly or
indirectly, to deny or abridge the Con
stitutional right of citizens to vote or
unnecessarily impede Its exercise. If
they do they must be declared 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 equally upon all races and
colors and regardless of their pre
vious condition, that law is consti
tutional, though it disfranchises a
greater number of blacks than
whites, or whites than blacks.
This principle, however, does not
extend so far as to permit the
State to establish a merely arbi
trary qualification, though it does
not in terms Import a discrimina
tion by reason of race etc., if in fact
and in truth it is such discrimina
tion. So much the more would
this be true, if the proposed quali
fication was adopted with the in
tent to discriminate, by reason of
race, etc.
I proceeded further and argued
that the intent of Section 5, on its
face perfectly harmless, is to be,
and will be, discovered by the Su
preme court, in thw way :
1st. By considering the political
history of the country which sur
rounds and Is mingled with, the
Fifteenth Amendment and Sec. 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 conclud
ed that Section 5 was plainly ob
noxious of the Fifteenth Amend
ment, because its necessary effect
was to establish an educational
qualification for every foimer slave,
or decendent of a former slave,
while expressly removing it from
all, or practically all, white men.
Since that article was published,
the editor of the Morning Post, Mr.
Simmons and Mr. Aycock have dis-
ussed the constitutionality of Sec
tion 5 so ably and ingeniously that
they have forced me to re-examine
the authorities, with a view to any
possible mistake that I may have
made. After such re-examination
I find myself confirmed in my orig
inal opinion. This opinion, how
ever, was formed at the time, that
Louisiana was discussing a simu
lar provision in its Constitution,
and I have not seen nor read nor
found anything to shake it, since.
It seems to be admitted on all
hands that if the above canons of
construction and interpretation are
correct ones, then Section 5 neces
sarily must be unconstitutional,
for they are the principal points of
attack.
I purpose to show, first: That
they are sustained by the very best
of authority ; and, second : To con
sider any new suggestions made by
tne gentlemen above mentioned.
and show their utter fallacy.
Mr. Simmons says, anent the first
canon above laid down: "Well, for
the sake of the argument, let us admit
it; although it must be confessed that
this would be a novel method of inter
preting a written constitution."
A novel method ! Let us see.
Chief Justice Marshall, in Brown
vs. Maryland, 12 Wheat, gives a
succinct, yet full account of the
difficulties that confronted the old
Confederation, to illustrate the ex
tent and force of the words in the
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
provision of the Federal Constitu
tion Chief Justice Taney, in the
Dred Scott case, says, in discussing
Art. 4 Sec. 3 and sub-sec. 2 : (I quote
his exact words) "A brief summary
of the history of the times, as well
as the careful and measured terms
in which the article is framed, well
shows the correctness of this prop
osition." He then proceeds and gives this
summary.
Daniel J., in the same case, con
curring, says :
"In the construction of pleadings
either in abatement or in bar, every
fact or position constituting a portion
of the poblio law, or of known or gen
eral history, is necessarily implied
It is what the world, at large, and
every individual, are presumed to
know nay, are bound to know and be
governed byw
Campbell, J., concurring in the same
case, said: 'I pass now to the evi
dence afforded during the Revolution
and Confederation"; and further,
"An examination of this clause of the
Constitution in the light of the cir
cumstances in wbich the convention
was placed, will add us to determine
its significance."
Catron J., concurring, said : Al
most every provision in that instru
ment (i.e. the Federal Constitution)
has a history that must be understood
before the brief and sententious lan
guage employed oan be comprehended
in the relation its authors intended."
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 historical examination of slavery
in the United States. He said further
on : "It is refreshing to turn to the
early inoidents of our history and
learn wisdom from the acts of the
great men, who Lave gone te their ac
count." Curtis J dissenting, after a
long dissertation, without any re-
marKS prefacing it. said In preface,
to the further discussion :
To determine which of these is the
oorrect view, it is needful to advert to
some facts, respecting this subject,
which existed when the Constitution
was framed and adopted."
Chase, Chief Justice., in discuss
ing the meaning of the term "di
rect tax" in the Federal Constitu
tion, in Bank vs. Fenuo,8 Wallace
prefaced his remarks by these
words: ' ' ' ' ""
"We are obliged, there fore, to resort
to historical evidence, and to seek the
meaning of the words in tne use ana
in the oplaion of those whose relation
to the government, : and means of
knowlege, warranted them in speak
ing witn autnoruy."
Fuller, Chief Justice, In deliver
ing the prevailing opinion in the
"Income Tax Cases and White, J-,
who wrote the principal dissenting
opinion, both in discussing the
meaning of the term "direct tax,"
enter into long historical disserta
tions.
Miller J- who, as a constitution
al lawyer, is considered by some as
second only to. Marshall, said in
Ex Parte Bain of S. C, Rep , in dis
cussing 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 indeed
in all other instances where construe
tion becomes necessary, we are to
place ourselves as nearly as possible
in the condition of the men who fram
ed that instrument."
Bradley, J., in Hans vs. Louisia
na, decided in March 1890, reviews
fully the history that surrounds
the enactment of the Eleventh
Amendment to the Federal Const!
tution.
Cooley, Chief Justice, (the author
of Constitutional Limitations) in
people vs. Harding, 53 Michigan,
said:
"In seeking for the real meaning of
the Constitution, we must take 'into
consideration the times and the cir
cumstances under which it was framed.
the general spirit of the times and the
prevailing sentiments among the peo
ple. Every constitution has a History
of its own. wbich is likely to be more
or less peculiar, and unless interpreted
in the light of this history, is liable to
express purposes wnicn were never in
the minds of the people when agree
ing to it. This the oourt must keep ir
mind when called upon to interpret
it." etc. etc.
I call the roll of all these great
names, Marshall, Taney, Daniel,
Catron, McLean, Curtis, Chase, Ful
ler, Miller, Bradley, White and
Cooley is this a novel method of
interpreting written Constitutions,
then?
2nd. The effect of Section 5 if
adopted. The cases wbich illustrate
this cannon come thronging upon
my memory as I write. There are
bushels 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 8tate by the
Interstate 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 operation."
In defining the limit of the police
power over tne private right, ail
the courts say that the act of the
Legislature which destroys a pri
vate right, must, to be constitution
al, be reasonably adapted to the end
desired, i. e. the public health, the
public morals or the public safety.
How can they determine the act's
reasonable adaptation without con
sidering its effects? I cite, howev
er, the following cases :
Judge Campbell, who was second
probably, only to Judge Cooley
among Michigan judges, says, in
Park vs. Press Co. Nov. 1888: .
"But we do not think the State con
trols the action, or is within the power
of constitutional legislation. This will
in our judgment, appear from a state
ment of its effects, if carried out."
In Henderson vs. the Mayor, etc., 92
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 reason
able effect."
So it may be considered certain,
that the same court will consider
the effect of section 5. Now consid
ering the history that surrounds
and so is mingled with the
fifteenth amendment and sec
tion 5, and the natural and rea
sonaoie effect or saia section, we
nnd tnat tnere is not a single ex-
slave or descendent of a slave or o
an ex-slave, who has not the edu
cational qualification imposed up
on him, while no white man, prac
tically, has it imposed upon him
"The right of citizens of the United
states to vote snau not be denied or
abridged bv the United States, or bv
anv State, on account of race, color nri
previous condition of servitude."
There is not a word in this 15th
amendment that has not been
forged in the fire of public opinion,
and by its authors welded into
continuty and strength. No, no,
Mr. Editor, there is no surplusage
in it. Can there be any doubt about
the unconstitutionality of section 51
But I promised, in the second
place to examine more minutely
the recent arguments for the con
stitutionality of said Section and
show their fallacy in each instance.
The editor, of course, shall be first:
"The amendment does not dis
criminate against the negro on ac
count of his race, but because of his
disqualifications," says he on May
14th. But, if those disqualifica
tions are inherent in his race, the
Fifteenth Amendment says that he
cannot be disqualified on that ac
count. If he could, why this
trouble? Disfranchise the negro,
not because he is is a negro, but be
cause he is not fit to vote. That is
the logic of his editorial of May 14th.
And the Fifteenth Amendment was
incorporated in our "supreme law"
lust to meet sucn an argument as
that.
Again, in his issue of May 20th,
he says :
"All who possesss certain qualifica
tions, age, residence, educational, will
be be allowed to vote. This will un
questionably include a number of ne
groes, who, if they were not slaves
themselves, are immediate descendents
of slaves."
That is true, but that is Section
4, which everybody admits is con
stitutional. When we come, how
ever, to Section 5, we find the edu
cational qualification removed from
the white man while it remains in
full force and effect upon the for
mer slave and his descendent. J.B
there anything impartial in thatf
Is there anything uniform in that?
Does it act equally upon both races?
if we cannot answer, Yes, to all
these questions then Section 5 is
unconstitutional.
Again, in his editorial of June
9th, he has something to say about
tne District oi Columbia. But Con
gress there disfranchised everv cit
izen, white and black alike, the law
acting, equally, impartially and
uniformly upon both and all racer,
and that it had constitutional pow
er to ao so appears from Art. 1. Sec.
8, sub-Sec. 17 of the Federal Consti
tution. So this comes within the
principle enunciated in my first ar
ticle and set forth in full above.
Now I come to the denial of citi
xenship to the Chinese. The edito
rial of Jane 9th, m does Mr. Sim
mon's article of May zist, states
the position of the Federal Govern
ment towards the- Chinese incor
rectly. There never was a time
from 1802 to 1873 that a Uhlnaman
conld become naturalized. The
words of the Naturalization Act be
ing ' The provisions of this Title
shall apply to aliens, being free
white persons." In 1870 Mr. Sum
ner, In his universal and indiscrim
inate love for all mankind, moved
to strike out the word 'white' in
the Naturalization Act. His mo
tion failed. In the 1873 Revision,
however,: this word was omitted.
Geo. S-Boutwellof Massachusetts,
made this revision. But it was
again restored to the Act by Con
gress, Feb. istn, iS7d. Mr. sum
ner, however, in isvu, did succeed
in incorporating the following
clause in the law," and the aliens
of African nativity and to persons of
African descent." In 1882 Congress
prohibited absolutely the natural!
zation of Chinese. But before that
time Judge Sawyer in the case In
re Ah Yup, 5 Sawyer, decided that
Chinese could not be naturalized.
See 39 Cent. L. I. 235. Nobody but
a free white person or an African
can be naturalized Section 8, sub
Sec. 4 of Art. 1 of the Federal Con
stitution gives Congress plenary
Dowerover naturalization and it
must not be forgotten that the
"citizens of the United States" of
the Fifteenth Amendment are those
born or naturalized la the United
States.
Now I come to the cases about
which Mr. Simmons makes such
an eloquent peroration. I wish I
could copy it but it is too long.
The cases are Foong Yue Ping vs.
United States. 149' U. S. 698, and
Lem Moon Sing vs. United States,
40 Cent L. I. 467. See 28 Am Law
Rev. p. 289 et. seq.
Congress holds the key that un
locks the door which prevents
aliens from entereng into citizen
ship in this country. When that
door is unlocked then they may be
come citizens, protected in their
civil rights by the Fourteenth
Amendment and in their suffrage
rights by the fifteenth Amend
ment. No 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, wor
can a Jap nor ' any of the yellow
races. We are either white or black
under our naturalization laws
There are no mixed colors among
them. See article of Mr. Lawyer,
40 Cent L. L. p. 106.
I come now to examine one of Mr.
Simmon's positions in which he
seems to have great confidence. I
quo io him :
"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 constitu
tional in our state ana would De un
constitutional in another. The Federal
Constitution applies to every inch of
territory in tne Union, and tnere be
one State in which such constitutional
provision would be constitutional, it
would be constitutional in all."
If Mr. Simmons had not written
this himself and published it over
his own sign-manual, I should not
have believed that he could have
written it, so much respect have I
for his ability. It is true that the
Federal Constitution applies to ev
ery inch of the several United
States. But how can it apply equal
ly and impartially and uniformly.
unless the courts take into eonsid
eration the different circumstances,
the differ nt necessities, different
history and different populatiaon
of the different States.
Let me illustrate, Mr. Simmons
is going to make a topograhphical
survey of the country New Harap
shire, Vermont, Maine, and North
Dakota are on a dead level. When
he reaches North Carolina he is
confronted by butting crags, and
beyond, in South Carolina, Missis
sippi and Louisiana, towering
mountains. Will he pay any atten
tion to them? No, no, what is lev
el in Vermont, New Hampshire
Maine, and North Dakota must be
level in North Carolina, South Car
olina, Mississippi and Louisiana.
That is Mr. Simmons' idea of the
general operation of the Federal
Constitution. But that Constitution
does not operate in that way. It
would not be equal if it did. It
sees the crags and towering
mountain tops and runs its line
across them, and not through them
And thus it secures equality of
operration, and only thus could it
secure it. The thirteenth amend
ment grants tbe negro immunity
from slavery; the 14th Amend
ment the equal enjoyment of civil
rights; the 15tn amendment ex-
emption from discrimination in
voting. Equality of right, equal!
ty of privilege is all that these
amendments secure. Section 5 cre
ates an inequality in that it, in re
ality, disqualifies slaves or the de
cendents of slaves from voting, if
they have not sufficient education ;
while every white man may vote,
regardless of his education, and
thus it runs through the crags and
mountain tops and not over them.
. I come now to what the Progres
sive Farmer and the Editor regard
as the strongest point made in fa
vor of the constitutionality of sec
tion 5. They say first, the editor:
"Under the Mississippi law the
registrar is given absolute discre
tion to say whether a voter, though
he can read the Constitution, un
derstands its meaning or not. The
possibilities of the abuse of this
law were not taken into considera
tion by the court, certainly not un
favorably. See the Post of June
the 9th.
Now, are the recital of facts and
the conclusions of law in this ex
tract true? I think not.
The Constitution of Mississppi pro
vides that "on and after January 1st
1892 every elector shall in addition to
the foreroine; qualifications, be able
to read any section of tbe Constitu
tion of this State; or he shall be able
to understand tbe same when read to
him, or give a reasonable interpreta
tion thereof,"
Is there anything arbitrary in
that? Does it not apply equally,
impartially and uniformly to all
the citizens of the State? If it does,
then it is not obnoxious to the 15th
amendment. Yet we find Mr Sim
mons in his article in the Post of
June 9th, and the "Progressive
Farmer," following its lead, saying
that "an absolute discretion was
conrerrea upon tne registrar- in
Mississippi. It is not correct. There
was no absolute discretion given
him, on the face of the proposed
Buurage provision, xiiere was
discretion given the registrar or
judges of election which they might
abuse. But until it was actually
abused to the detriment of the
" 1 Would Hot Have Catarrh for a Million Dollare"
Says Mrs. Carter Pe-ru-na her Safeguard.
- & V
MRS. LESLIE CARTES, THE GREAT
Mr. Leslie Carter, probably the mwt
prominent actress in America, says the
following of Pe-ru-na:
MP-ru-na is sure to prevent a cold.
It will stop a cough be for it be
comes settled. It cures all catarrhal
affeotlons like magic. No money could
tempt me to be without this remedy for
even a day. It is just the remedy that
all women need, especially such women
that are exposed to the vicissitudes of
climate, as I am.
I never neglect an opportunity to
recommend this remedy to my f iBde.
It la America's greatest remedy for
America's greatest enemy, catarrh and
catarrhal affections. I woald not hav
eatarrh for a million dollars, and as long
as I have Pe-ru-na at hand to promptly
oheek the slightest symptoms of its
approach, I feel perfectly safe from this
disease.' N. Leslie Carter.
Mrs. M. Dooley, Mount Airy, Haber
sham county, Oan In a recent letter save :
I suffered five years more or less with
eatarrh of the stomach and pelvic or
gans. I tried a good many remedies of
my own, and bought medicine from a
toetor that was highly recommended,
although the medicine did me no good
whatever. Finally, I concluded to sub
mit my case to Dr. Hartmaiu. I wrote
him, and he readily advised me. I
bought some Pe-ru-na, and a few days
after was taken with la grippe. I took
Pe-ru-na and Man-a-lin and I can say
without a doubt that it has entirely
relieved me of all my ailments. I feel
better and stronger than I have In many
years. My ap
petite is all
right, I have no
symptoms of
mv former trou
bles remaining
I am able to do
my usual work
w ithout fatigue,
and have every
reason to be
lieve that my
health la the di
rect result of the use of Pe-ro-na and
blacks, there was and could not be
any unconstitutional exerciso of
authority by the State. See Wil
Hams vs. Mississippi, 1DU. llns
is illustrated by the two cases,
Strawar vs. West Virginia, 100 I'
8., and Exparte Virginia, 100 II. S.
In the case first mentioned, it was
held that a State law confining the
selection of jurors to white persons
was in contravention of the 11th
amendment ; and second, that the
action of the State officer investod
with the power to select jurors, ex
cluding all colored persons from
the lists, was also repugant to Its
provisions.
Strong, J., in the first case, says:
"The words of tbe amendment, it is
true, are prohibitory, but they contain
a necessary implication or a positive
immunity or right most valuable to
the colored men the right of exempt
ion from unfriendly legislation aga-nst !
th-m distinctly as colored, exempting I
from legal discrimination lmplyirg
inferiority in civil society, lepfsening
the security of their enjoyment of the
rights which others enjoy, and dis
criminations which are steps toward
reducing them to a subject race."
Now, as a general rule, when a
State statute or constitutional pro
vision, construed in one way is ob
noxious to the Federal Constitu
tion, aod in another is not, the Fed
eral Courts await, if possible, the
construction of the State Supreme
Court, for if that Court so cor st rues
the statute or constitutional pro
vision, that its opposition to the
federal Constitution is avoided,
why, then, there is no Federal ques
tion. That is exactly what the Su
preme Court of the United States
did in WHiams vs. Mississippi.
Sup. There is nothing unconstitu
tional in the terms of the Missis
sippi suffrage provision ; there is
nothing unconstitutional in its le
gal effect. It may be construed so as
to maxe It unconstitutional. It mav
be administered so as to make It un
constitutional. Butth case i'self,
has not been presented in the aspect
consequently there Is nothing before
the Supreme Court impugning it
constitutionality. But how differ
ent is Section 5! Its unconstitu
tionality is apparent from its terms,
interpreted in the light of surround
ing history and in the light of its
immediate and necessary effect. In
other words, it cannot be construed
or interpreted so it could be con
stitutional. It cannot be adminis
tered so it could be constitutional.
This being true either the State
or Federal court would take jur
isdiction in a proper case with the
final decision in the United States
Q.tt rvj-k-v-. srfana-
Now Mr. Aycock's 'rem arts re-
quire notice only in two or three
particulars: His general remarks
are excellent indeed, nearly ev
erything that he says and writes is
excellent. I regard him as one of
the most eloquent, one of the ablest,
one of the purest and honestest
men in North Carolina. Yet his
article shows even his incaoacitv
to discuss Section 5 from the legal
standpoint He gives as his first
reason, why Section 5 is constitu-
tional, that all the lawyers in
North Carolina, or nearly all, whos
oDlnlon is worth a continental, sav
that it is. Vet whv U it. if thu
is true, that none of the opinions,
heretofore elaborately expressed,
will bear the test of analysis, and
'
ACTRESS, OF SEW YORK CITY.
Man-a-lin, without wbich I should have
been dead bv this time. There Is no
medicine that can equal Pe-m-na and
Man-a-lln. I find it a sure cure for all
catarrhal affections; as for la Rflppe
there la no other remedy that ean com
pare with it. I can scarcely find worda
to express my gratitude for Dr. Bart-
man's eood advice and kindness to
me.
The peculiar ilia to which women are
subject are often very dangerous. It
frequently happena that, the victim
lives far from competent medical ae
sistance. What
shall she do?
She is not
wealthy enough
to go to some
distant city for
treatment, and
cannot procure
skillful assist
ance at home.
This is what ebe
should do : write
Dr. Hartman,
Columbus, O, tell him the whole story,
and he will do the rest. Mr. Margaret
Fiete, Wilcox, O. write : " I extend
my sincere thanks for the good advice
you have given me. I do not believe I
would be living now if it were not for
you. I had suffered with hemorrhage
for four months and the doctors could
help me but little. They operated on
me three times. It was very painful,
and I only obtained a little relief. Aa
long aa they worked at me, the hem
orrhage stopped; but Just as soon ai
they close! the door it would com
mence to Cow again. I was so weak I
could not turn in bed. At last my
neighbors began to speak of patent
medicines. Then I applied to Dr. Hart-
man. I did not know whether he could
help me or not; but I followed his ad
vice and only used three bottles of Pe-
ru-na. Now I am well and aa strong as
lever was."
Every woman should have Dr. II art
man's free book to women. Address
Dr. Hartman, Columbns, Ohio.
comparison with decided rases?
Does not this show that these able
! lawvers are Influenced more bv
their desires and hopes than their
iiidrmPnt.
He says, wcondly, that public
opinion has changed in regard to
the negro and nefrro vote and this
opinion has effected the court.
Does not Mr. Aycock remember
the remark that .1 friend made to
Wm. Wirt, when he came out of
the court house after making as
brilliant and as eloquent prosecu
tion of Aaron Burr as possible
"Why did you not remind John
Marshall that the public demand
ed the conviction of Aaron Hurr?"
and Mr. Wirt's answer?
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 conscl
entlousness
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.
Hut he says the Louisana (insti
tution has been In operation since
January 1st, 1897. Where is the
Supreme court there f Does not he
know that there has been no gen
eral election in Louisiana since the
adoption of that Constitution, ex
cept for Congressmen In 18i8
Does he not know that tbe mem
bers so elected do not meet their
fellow members to form the Con
gress of the United States until
next December ? Doee not he, know
that a case was made up and sub
mitted toone of the Superior courts
of said State which decided that
said suffrage Amendment was un
constitutional, and that said case
unless it has been bought off Is now
ponding in the Supreme court of
that htate 7
Good round, sounding words go a
long way, but after all, they are
nothing else
Tbe great trouble
with Section
- that it lacks can
dor, it lacks honesty, it licks fair
dealing. And yet these gentlemen,
its authors, fondly hope that the
Supreme court of the United States
44 The testis
the Cheapest
tf
Experience teaches that
cood clothes ivear lonaest.
good food gives best nutrition,
and a good medicine that
cures disease is naturally the
i best and cheapest Hood's
&irS3.pziTlll3L IS the DCSt TtlCal-
i cine money can bay, because
it cures njhen all others fail.
Poor Health "HjJ poor health for
ytiLTs, perns tn shoulders, bck jtnd hint.
xutth const&rd htsdjuche, nervousness ni
no Appetite. Used Hood's StsjlpaHIU,
gjuncd strength And cm tuork hard sH
day; eat hezrtuy and -sleep tzelL I took
' because it helped my husband to xuhom
d ga've strenath.'
" Mrs. EL J. Giffels,
Moose Lake, I&nn.
3(ccti SaUafmlifg
m Hood" nil fore Bvrr tll : tfe aoMrrhattng aaf
$oly catttartto to takf fhtk Hooi't BanaaaiillaT
wui "KTuin Amend
ment and with It their oaths ia C
dust, because the people danT
It ism fond bope,baed on air tn!
air, and so will never find fruitio
Now all these goods, round. hM.
sounding phrases in Col. i o,
and Mr. Aycock'a article would d0
very well If our suffrage ani.Dd.
ment stopped at beet ion I. thuell
I, myself should have InsUtM upoj'
a property qualification in th aj.
ternatlve $100, $200, or even $.v
As a matter of fact, as earlv a.
1891, I became a follower v.
Tillman, of South Carolina, nt bw
cause I agreed with him in hi n.
tional politics, but becaufr he vtli
he would put suffrage in s.JtB
Carolina, on a sound, rational, hoo.
est, constitutional ha!, tnj
knew be had both tbe po.r a&g
the Inclination to do so. 1 v,,?
for him in the August primary .
Tbe result has justified me. Th
South Carolina suffrage. pn .!oa
has run the gauntlet of the 1 nited
States Supreme court, as I kn.wtt
ould.
But we are different In North (,.
olina.
We are not candid, we an- not
honest, we are not courageous. W.
must use paraphrase, we raut u
a great cloud of words, which f.ol
nobody who has two grains.:,,.,
mon sense, and then sit bJit-k and
hope that we may fool the gr- ,t
and ablest court In the world bj
all this noasense.
Frank N a ii.
llillsboro, X. C, June 24th. v..
POU'S CM.1PAIGN AFFIDAVIT.
ONE OF -HIS METHODS F
FOOLING VOTERS IX Tilt:
LAST CAMPAIGN.
BE MARIS AFFIDAVIT THAT A I'Kof.
OSITION TO DISFRAKCIIIKE St
OBOES AND ILLITERATE WHITES
WOULD NOT RECEIVE A I..!.r
DEMOCRATIC VOTEK IX THF. tlrtl
LATURE AND DEXOUNCK THOSK
WHO MAKE THE CHARGE AS HKlI
INO rALSELT AND TRYING TO FOOL
THE PEOPLE.
From Caucasian Oct. IV.
The following affidavit made
by
James II. Pou, ex-Cbalrman of the
State Democratic Executive Com
mittee, during the last campaign.
will be interesting reading, our
readers will remember that when
ever and wherever it was charged
In the last campaign that if tb
Democratic machine nnder Sta
tions got control of the State, that,
they would offer a scheme to dis
franchise illltterate vote, that the-
charge was Indignantly denied and
denounced by every Democratic
speaker as being Infamously false.
ren Mr. Simmons, the Iemocrat
lc State Chairman, Issued an offici
al statement to the voters of the
State, branding every euch charge
as false In to to; saying that that
campaign lie bad been charged.
against tne Democratic party be
fore, and that the charge was now
so old and so false that no on
would believe It-
Mr. James II. Pou, the ex-( hair-
man of the State Democratic Com
mittee, in his speeches made the
same declaration, uut it seexna
that in one of his speeches In Moors
county, some members of his audl
dlence expressed doubt of tbe truth
of his indignant denial, and called
upon him while upon theatand to
know if he would make an affida
vit to that effect. lie publicly
agreed to do so, we are Informed.
The result is the affidavit below.
made at Raleigh, dated Oct. 1 4th.
1898. It will be noticed that Mr.
Pou, shrewd, slick and cunning as
be is, attempted to word bis afflda
vlt so as not to say explicitly what
he had said publicly on the stump,
and yet at the same time, to say
enough to make it appear that bla
affidavit had made good his cam
paign dtdaratlos, and fool the vo
ters Into accepting his statement
and voting for the machine.
The following la a true copy of
the affidavit:
State of North Carolina, i
County of Wake. (
James H. Pou, being duly sworn
deposes and says :
"I have ntver said that. If the
Democrats regained 'control of the
State, they Intended to dlsfrxncblh
the negroes and Illiterate white vo
ters. 1 never have said anything
like this, and I know that such Is
not the intention of the Democrat
ic party. I have never heard a sin
gle Democrat give utterance, to
such a sentiment, and I do not be
lieve, If such a proposition comes
before the General Assembly, that
It would receive a single Democrat
ic vote. I believe that a majority of
the uneducated white voters of
North Carolina are Democrats. Tbe
Democratic party is appeal In to
them for aid in preserving wbite
supremacy in the center west and
In restoring It In tbe Eastern part
of this State. Tbey are responding
to our appeal, and to repay them for
their aid with a dlsfrancblMement
of their votes would be folly and
Ingratitude Indeed. The man
who makes these charges know
tbey speak falsely, but their cam
paign this year is run upon the
Idea that the people of North Car
olina would rather believe a false
hood than the truth, and they
would rather bear libels upon lbs
honored dead than to er rrgu-
ments based upon truth.
Sgned
Jam is II. For.
Sworn to and subscribed before
me tbU October 1st 1898.
SlgnedJ
Geo. W. Thoxfwo,
Notary Public
! Notarial Seal,
Geo. W. Thompson,
( Niarj PuMie, )
Ealeigh, N. C.
Two fire eent J&eum'ttarT
rav
tnue stamps attached.
A THOUSAND TONGUES
'Could not express tbe ratrfare of
Annie E. Springer, of 1125 Howard
st, Philadelphia, Pa.. who ate foaad
rhat Dr. King's New Discovert for
I Consumption bad completely rurrd
ber of s hacking otgh that for many
j ears bad made life a burdn. All
other remedies and doctor eoeid give
ner no nejp, omi sDe aajs of tLia Rojal
Core it soon removed tbe pais is
my chest and I can now a -ep avondl ,
something I can acarclT remember
doing bet ot e. I feel like sotted nr its
praise tbroogbtout the Univerae
Bo will every one wbo tries Dr. King's
New Discovery for any troubla of l be
Throat, Cheat or Lnnga. price ftOa.
and $1.00. Trial bottles free at Drag
Worst; sTsry botUssaraceaed.
u
3
C
i
Be
mt
Pr
tai
ro
ha,
by
tal
He
rei
ta
la
did
to:
pn
1
th
f
aU
8
v
4 a
r
tfcl
tui
lit
rat
at
rs
as
1
acx
ti
sal
S
on
r
I
i
B
H
lb
Di
k
t
J
a!
hi
it
M
Pi
V
I
B
b
ft
u
St
t
c
c
a
I
ft
- ' v..