THE RALEIGH POT JANUARY 1900. JUDGE MlRPINON An Address Delivered Before the Zeb Vance Democratic Club in Asheville. Judge James lit. Merriimon's argu ment in behalf -of the proJsedamend iment to the constitution 'at thecoxiTt (house Saturday evening is presented In full "below. ..Seldom has an address of such a character been followed so closely and listened to 'with -such, in terest, and it. was very evident that the speech tmade -a deep impression on those who heard it. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Zeb Vance Democratic ..Club and was called to" order by Vice President John M. Campbell. . : . (Resolutions of thanks vere offered by iHon. Locke Craig to 'Senator Mor gan for Ibis splenaid speech in 'behalf of Anglo-Saxon rule recently delivered in the United States Senate. r These were unanimously adopted and a copy ordered sent to the . Senator , by Cilessrs. Craig and Brown, a commit tee for that purpose. - Jud ITIerrimon Speaks. T. J rr I i 1 1 3 Dfteentih amendment, on account or .race, color or previous condition , of , servitude;" but not convinced that this point is well taken, and still less ' '. satisfied that, ?if it were, it would avail tOL defeat the adoption of the amendment by the people, 'they pre- juu ' -uei, uvmS muuua, portance of the. powers delegated, .referred to the many political ques- lmTillg a3 little as possible to impli ftions which would have to be set- cati,n tied this year, those of finance, the 4 v f instruction is trusts, etc. However, the speaker ' fojber rule off construction is said, he would discuss only one ques en the constitution defines the ..tion, that of the constitutional amend- r ment, and would limit himself to its a excised the specin legal phase. Continuing, he said: ! ,1S . t prohibition The chief, if not the only issue, en-:nst legislative interference to add grossing the attention of the people ty ,the. editions pp. o7, G4. of -the "state at this time is thenro-5 ,A)?am ms autb0T saFs: haTe poseo amendment to the constitution fZTT J.ni off - the State in relation to suffrage a sta'tute e. declared -yoad be- -end eligibility to office. The amend- ; oPPwed.to .-a-suppose d 'general ment bU (been TMiblished in all the intenfc or spirit, which it is thought pie have ibecome familiar with its ? Provisions - - because, in the opinion of 'the court, it ..pro. sons. j violates fundamental rights or princi- Its adversaries base their opposi- pleSi if it was pagd in the exercise Ition upon the ground that it violates 0f a power which the constitution the fourteenth ffan'd fifteenth amend- confers. Still less will the injustice ments to the 'Constitution of the Uni- cf a constitutional provision authorize ted .States and present their objec- the courts to disregard it, or indirect- itions to the public , with a. double as- y ,t0 annnl it by con&rruing it away. Pct. It is quite possible that the people i They insist,, in the jflrst place, that mayf under the influence of temporary fit is repugnant to the :Gonstitution of pjudice, or mistaken view df public ithe United States for the reason that policy, incorporate provisions in their dt disfranchises the negro because he cliarter of government infringing as anegro, or, in the words of the upon the right of the dndi-vidual man itend to. be greatly alarmed less, the amendment of their " work when fifth section or Grandfather Clause," better counsels prevail. -Such provis os it is styled, might be declared un- i0Ils rwhen free from doubt must re constitutional and void, and the other ceive the same construction as any provisions lerc am xuiu - norve,.; suw uius tne poor wmte men or tne itare ae- It is incumbent upon -the friends of the proposed amendment to satisfy the people that if . adopted, it will be a valid part of the fundamental law 0,' au" X v7Tr ; BUT THIS INTENT IS TO BiE any provision of the (nsUtutbn of . FOUXI) INSTRUMENT IT the United 'States. If the advocates .t i of its adoption cannot do this it would be 'best for the Xeglslature . when i t meets, to repeal the act proposing the amemdment, and providing ifor Its sub mission to the people for their adop tion or rejection. " Let us then consider dispassionately the two? objections urged, and. see whether. there be any merits in them or in either of .them. As-stated in the outset the enemies of the amendment present their ob jection to its adoption with a double aspect. 'It will therefore be best in discussing it to divide the issue anto two: ' , 1. Will the proposed amendment, if adopted; be repugnant to the Consti tution of the United States? " 2. If not unconstitutional, as a whole, will the fifth section violate ithe Constitution of the United . States? . ...i . It has been "suggested that the Gen eral Assembly in passing the act pro posing the amendment failed to com ply with the usual forms of legisla tive procedure, nor has, any one, so far as 1 know, attempted to point to anything apparent upon the face of the act or proposed amendment -that lenders it obnoxious to any provision of the Constitution of the United States. As is commonly, understood, the contention is that the necessary effect of the amendment, if "ratified, will be the disfranchisement -Of the neigro, and, although there is nothing in the language of the -amendment to show it, yet nevertheless the courts (will hold that ithe manifest purpose is to deny or abridge the negro's "right tto vote, "on account of race, cojor, or previous condition of servitude," an'd that what is expressed lis a bald sub terfuge "a delusion and a snare." It is Unconstitutional. As St is my purpose to bea brief as possible I will take up at once the first of the question for discussion: 'Will the propsed amendment if adopted 'be repugnant to the Constitu tion of the United States? No one will contend that there is anything in the Constitution, of the United States which forbids or pro hibits a State frornis icegulating the right to vote in its own way unless it be found in the XIV or XV amend- ments to that instrument. As was said in "Civil Rights Cases," 109 U. S., 23, the XIII amendment simply abolish led Rlaiverv. -i ik is important in the outset to get a clear understanding of the rules ofiSo, also, where a law is expressed in construction to .be applied to the 'plain and; unambiguous; terms, whether amendment, and in order to do this those terms are. general or limited, the we cannot do 'better than to resort to Legislature should be intended to the highest 'authorities upon questions mean what they have palinly ex of this character, aud in .this cbuntry pressed, and consequently no room is there is no Uiigher authority as a text writer than Judge Cooley and it will be conceded on-all. hands that there can ibe no higher authority than the Supreme Court of the United States, Juoge JOOiiey speaingox .me con- Btruction of a State, constitution, savs: "Nor is it lightly- to be infer - red tnataany portion of a written law ON 'THE AMENDMENT is . so ambiguous as to require ex- trinsic aid in its construction. Every such instrument is 4dopted as a whole, and a clause which standing by itself, might seem of doubtful import, imay!oa.se MeAdoo vs. Ben-bow, .t N. C., yet ' be inade plain Iby comparison ; foot of page 64, Pearson, Chief Justice, with other clauses or portions of thejga. "Here it. may be remarked, in same Jaw. It is therefore a rule of .putting a construction --upon an . .in construction that the whole is to be 'rument, the question for the court examined with a view to arriving atjis. not what the draftsman meant, but the true intention of each part. : "Effect is to be given, if possible, to the whole instrument and to every section and clause. , If different por tions seem to conflict the courts must harmonize them 'if wacti cable, and lean in fayor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which will make some idle and nugatory. This rule is especially applicable to written con stitutions, in which the people will be presumed to have expressed them selves in caref ul and measured terms, corresponding with the immense im- o " or upon principles that ought to be regarded as sacred and fundamental in a republican government; and quite possible also that obnoxious classes 'may be unjustly disfranchised. The remedy ffor such - injustice must, rest -.54 n.a nponie theimlvos th-ron?rh other. pp. T2, 73 "The object of construction as ap- efteet to the intent of the people peopie in adopting it. In the case bf all written law it is the intent of the law maker that it is to be enforced. wuijj.' . u. u jo ij uc irsuuutiu 'luai, lan guage has been employed with suffi cient preeision to convey it. Where a law issplain and unambigu ous whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the Legislature should, he intended tq mean what they have plainly expressed, and con sequently no room is left for con struction. (Possible or even probable meanings "when one is plainly declar ed in the instrument itself, the courts are not at liberty to search for else where. Whether we are considering an agreement between parties a stat ute, or a constitution, with a view to its interpretation, the thing which we are to seek Js the thought which it expresses. That which the words declare is the meaning of the instrument, and neither courts nor legislatures have the right to add to or to take away from that meaning." Sopreme Coart'i Lansnae. Now the 'Supreme 'Court of the Uni ted States have stated the rules in as strong, if liot . stronger, , language than Judge Cooley. In 'Lake County vs. Eollins, 130 U. S., at page 670, it is said: '"Why not assume that the tframers of the constitution, and the people wito yoted it into existence, meant exactly what it says? At the first glance its reading produces no impression of doubt as to the meaning It seems all sufficiently plain; and in such case there is a well settled rule which we must observe. THE OB JECT OF CONSTRUCTION APPLI ED TO A iCONSTI-TiUTION IS TO GIVE EF1FBCT TO THE INTENT ol its framers, and of the peopfe in adopting it. THUS INTENT IS! TO ITSEIiK; 'and' when the text of a con stitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, an .giving construction thereto, are not at liberty to search for its .meaning beyond 'the instru ment, "To get at the thought or meaning expressed in a statute, a contract' or a constitution, the first resort, in all cases, is to the natural signification of the words, in the order of gram matical arrangement in. which the fra mers of the instrument have placed them. If the words convey a definte meaning which dnvolves no absurdity ,nor any contradiction of other iDart3 of the ins'trument, then that meaning, apparent on the face of the instru- ment, must be accepted, and. neither ithe courts nor the Legislature have the right to add to it or itake from it. left for construction. There as even stronger reason for adhering to this rule in the case of-a Constitution than dn that of a statute, since the lattter (is passed by a deliberative body of siman numoers, a 'large proporaon or whose members are more or less con ! versant with the niceties of construe- tion and Mscilmination, and fuller opportunity exists for attention and revision - of such a character, while Yonistitutions, j '... , although framed , by the votes of the entire body of electors in. the State, the most of whom, are little disposed, evenlif they were able, to engage j dn such refinements.- The simplest and most -obvious interpreja. trou of a constitution, if in itself senisi: ble, is the most likely to be thait nieant by the people in its adoption.',. . Words are fche common signs 4hat man kind make use of tq declare their in tentions to one another; and when the plainly, distlnctlv and "oerfectlv. we UhaVe no occasion to have recourse5 to any other means of mteroretation." 'In our Swn Supreme Court, " in the what ithe words of the 'instrument mean. It sometimes happens, for this reason that the draftsman is less to. be relied on ' than almost any person to construe an' instrument, whether it be a consti tuition, statute, deed - or will." This was said by the Chief Justice In a case involving the construction, of, a provision of the Oonsititu'tion of the State. ' ' -' It may be thought that I hare stated' these rules at too great length, but I think the importance of the subject unier discussion jus bines me in calling attention yto 'these well settled -rules, and I undertake to say that if these rules are applied to the. proposed amendment, there is not a possibility of its ever being held by any court before which the question may be pre sented that there is a word, a sen tence, a clause of a section jn ti that can be constructed to deny or abridge the right to vote of any one "on ac count of race, color, or previous con dition of servitude;" and 1 expect to show that the amendment is abso lutely to' all intents and purposes valid and constitutional. Citizen and Voters. . j - I wish in the first place to show that the XIV aanen'dment of the Constitu tion of 'the United States, while it was intended and had the effect to confer citizenship upon the negroes, did not undertake to confer upon tnem, tne right .to vote, nor did it undertake "to protect them an that right. The Su preme Court of the United States, in the 'Slaughter House Cases," fin' dis- oussing the effect of this amendment said that "The distinction betweeen citizenship of the United States and citizenshap of a State is clearly recog nized and established, sot only may a man 'be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State,, but An lTriinoirhflnt ilnent. is necessarT "to convert the former into the tattter&e must reside within the State to make him a citizen of dt, but it is only neces sary that he should be born or. natur alized in the United States to. be a citizen of the Union." . - The court then, after stating , the distinction between the privilege and immunities of a citizen of the United (States and a citizen of a State, ; pro ceeds: "We think this -distinction and its explicit recognition in this .amend- ment of sreat weierht in this argu ment,- because the next paragroplof this same section, speaks only' of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and . does ... not speak' of those of citizens of the sev eral States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly upon the assumption that the citizen ship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the. same. "The language is, No State shall make or lemforce or abridge the priv ileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remark able, if this clause was intended 'as a protection of a citizen of a State asrainst the legislative power of bis own Stat et that the word citizen of the State should 'be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contra distinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which pre cedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology ..'was adopted understandingly and with purpose. Of ; the privileges and im munities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and am munities of a citizen of the State, and what they ; resepctively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here 'that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitu tion. and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this para graph of tne amendment. - Now the next clause of the amend- Lment which is considered by the court in these cases is-as follows: "Nor shal any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due pro cess of law, nor. to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro tection of the law;", and there is noth in": in the language of the court which intimates that this clause has any ap plication whatever to questions like the one, under discussion. The court in these cases enumerates many of the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States, such as the right "to come to the seat of gov ernment, to assert any claim that . he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may, have with' it. to seek its (protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. "He has the right of free access 9 its seaports through which all opera tions of foreign commerce are con ducted, to the sub-treasuries, land of fices, and of courts of justice in the several States, to demana tne care and protection of the Federal govern ment over, his life liberty and prop erty on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government to peaceably assemble and petition for redress or grievances, to use the navigable waters of the United States," etc. Now the right to vote is. expressly held by the Supreme Court of the Uni tea states in tne case or Minor vs 'Happersett, 21 Wall., 162, to be not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; The opinion in that case is closed as follows: "(Being unanimously of the opinion that Jhe Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of! suffrage upon any one and that the Constitution and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void. We affirm the jrigment of the court below," which was the Supreme Court of the State of .Missouri, that a woman was not guaranteed. the right to vote by the 25IV amendment. The. Supreme Court said further in this " case: "By article IV., section 2, (Constitution U. S.) dt is provided that 'the citizens of each State shall be en titled to all the pTTvileiges and im munities of the citizens in the several States.' If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizen of each State must be entitled to vote in the several States precisely as the citi zens ' there. This is more than" assert ing that they may. change their resi dence and become citizens of the State and thus be voters. It- goes to the ex tent of insisting that while retaining their original citizenship they may vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. . And again, by the very terms of 'the amendment we have been considering (XIV), 'representa tives shall be apportioned among the several 'States according to their re- ispective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, ex eluding Indians not taxed, but when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States t is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State; being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of Ithe United States, or in any way abridged, except for partici pation in the rebellion or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citi zens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age dn such State.' Why this, if it was not in the pow er of the Xegislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? .nd if suffrage . was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine, the operations of the lim itation to male inhaibitants. Women and children are, as we have seen, persons.' They are counted in the enumeration upon which apportion ment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters, because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclu sion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been se lected to express the idea here indi cated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens. And; still again, after the adoption of the XIV amend ment it was ' deemed necessary to adopt the XV as follows: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged, by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.' The XIV amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privi leges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage ' was one of these privileges or immunities why amend the constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, etc? Nothing ds more certain than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the foxtm of amending the constitution to protect a part.". (It was held in Duncan ts. Missouri, 152 U. S.; 3S2, that the "privileges and iimmunities of the citizens of the United States protected by the XIV amendment are such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the Federal government, and granted or secured by the 'Constitution." Saffrage Not Conferred, (But as a direct, positive and enn- phatle authority that the XIV amend ment, so far as the constitutionality of the proposed amendment to the State Constitution is concerned, has no possible application, I call your attention to the case -of the United States vs. Reese, 92 U. S., 217, where it is held: ' "The XV amendment does not con fer the right of suffrage upon any one. It prevents the States, or -the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over an other on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Be fore its adoption this could be done. It was as. much within the power of a State to exclude citizens of the Uni ted States from voting on account of racej etc., as it was on account of age, property or education-. Now It is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Pre vious to this amendment, there was no constitutional guarantee aganst the discrimination; now there ds. It follows that the amendment has in vested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is within the protecting power of Congress; that raght is ex emption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color or previous con dition of servitude. This, under the express provisions of the second sec tion of the amendment, Congress may enforce by appropriate legislation. - " It is only when the wrongful refusal at an election is because of race, color or previous condition of servitude, that Congress can interfere for its protection." The XIV. amendment was declared to be a part of the iConstitutiion of the United 'States on the 21st of July, 18G8; the XV amendeanent did not be come a part of the constitution until March 30, 1870. Therefore under the decision just cited it was within the power of the Legislature of any State from the date of the adoption of the XIV amendment to that of the. adop tion of the XV amendment to ex clude citizens on account of race, etc. This would not have been so, of course, if the XIV amendment affect ed the question in any way what ever. I may therefore with perfect confidence .take the position here that unless the opponents of .the proposed amendment to the constitution of the State can show from what appears in the amendment itself, its effect, if adopted, will be to exclude the negro from .voting on account of race, etc.. in Violation; of the XV amendment their objections are groundless. There is no claim or pretence that any other portion of the constitution of the Uni ted States lhas anything to do with the question. But it may be as well to say that it has been repeatedly decided by -the iSuprame Court of the United States that the prohiibi tion s contained In the first 1 twelve amend imenrts. to the Constitution of the Uni tea States were not designed as limi tations for the State governments in reference to their own citizens, but exclusively upon Federal power -Senator Pritehard, the jvery head and front of the opposition to the proposed amendment, concedes that there is nothing in section five which in so many words declares .that those of African descent shall I not be enti tled to -vote. His objection to it is that If contains "a, provision V which attempts to confer the right of Suffrage , upon, those whose ancestors were entitled to vote in the year 1867," and from this he concludes that it "can only be construed as an ' effort to exclude all citizens from the enjoyment of that right who were not entitled to vote in that year." These positions of the 'Senator are utterly without foundation. In the first place section five does not confer the right of suffrage upon those whose ancestors were entitled to vote in the year 1867 without qualifica tion, but they are still left subject to all the qualifications of the preced ing sections, except the educational qualification. And his other state ment that this provision can only be construed as an j effort to exclude all citizens from the enjoyment of the right to vote who were not entitled to vote in that year, is further from the truth than the other. Again he says: "It is an historical fact of which the courts will be com pelled to take judicial notice that in the year 1867 the colored people were not entitled to vote." It is true that they were . not entitled to vote in North Carolina, but it is not an his torical fact that they were not enti tled to vote in any other State in the Union, and the fifth section exempts from the educational Qualifications all male persons who were on Jan uary 1, lbb, or at any time prior thereto entitled to vote under any of the laws of any of the States of the United States." , Prltchard Contradicts Ilimselt Again the (Senator contradicts him self emphatically when he admits in his Statesviille speech' that "there are about 50,000, negroes in North Caro lina who can read and write and who would be entitled to vote in the event the proposed amendment is adopted, provided they can pay their poll tax on or before the 1st day of March." The truth is the speech of the Sen ator is an admission that if the pro posed amendment ds construed accord ing to the well settled rules which I have already stated there is nothing in it that conflicts .with the XV or any other amendment or provision of the constitution. Illis policy is to have (the courts cons true it according to historical facts, as he contends these facts to be, and not according to the uniform and immemorial rules of construction. There can be no doubt that of the Senator and those who agree with him- can prevail upon the courts to hold, an inquest over this proposed amendment and call wit nesses and prove facts, and decide according to the, facts they shall be able to prove, and without regard to the plain meaning of the language of the amendment itself, the amendment will be declared to be unconstitution al But the courts will never I do any thing of the" kind. ' Look at the question from any standpoint you may, the conclusion is inevitable that the negro's right to vote is not denied or abridged on ac count of jhis race, etc., but only be cause of the disqualifications enumer ated in the several sections of the proposed amendment. Under the fifth section the negro stands precisely upon the same foot thlat every other man stands who was not a citizen of the United States on the 1st of January, 1867. He was not a citizen at that time and was not a citizen 'until he was made such by the XiIV amendment. 'Why sec tion five should be held to discrimi nate against him and not against the thousands of others in this State who were not entitled to vote and whose ancestors were not entitled to vote on the 1st of January, 1867, it as im possible to see. . The opponents off the amendment had just as well say at once, .for their whole argument comes to that at last, that, when the courts get hold of this question, and especially the courts in whose hands they propose to place dt, they will decide that the fifth section affords proof positive that the preceding sections, prescrib ing qualifications, were a (fraud. There is no other way for them to get along. In the case of 'Williams vs. Missis sippi, 70 U. S., 213, a question like the present one was 'before the Supreme Court of the United States, and it quoted ifrom a decision of the 'Su preme Court of .Mississippi as fol lows: "Within the field of permissible ac tion under the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution, the conven tion swept the field of expedients to obtsruct the exercise of suffrage by the negro race. By reason of its pre vious conditions of servitude and de pendencies this race has acquired ' or accentuated certain pecu'h'arities of. habit, of temperament and of charac ter which clearly distinguish it as a race from the whites. A patient, do cile people; but careless, landless, mi gratory within narrow limits, without forethought; arid its criminal mem bers given to furtive offences rather .than the robust crimes of the whites. Restrained by the Federal Constitu tion from discriminating against the negro race, the convention discrimi nates against its characteristics and the offences to which its criminal members are prone." And the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States . commenting on this lan guage of the Supreme Court of Mis sissippi says: "'But nothing tangible can be deduced from this. If weak ness were to be taken advantage of, it was to be done within the field of permissible action under the limi ta tidns imposed by the Federal: Consti tution, and the means of dt were the alleged characteristics of the negro race, not j tne acuninistraxion ox tne law by the. officers of the State. Be sides, the operation of the constitu tion and always is not limited by their languaga to one race. They reach weak and vicious white men as well asf weak and vicious black men, and( whatever is sinister in their intention, if anything, can be prevent ed by -both, races by the exertion of that duty j which voluntarily pays taxes and refrains from crime." Prltchard makes ?ieir Laws, t en 1 1 ' -w-k i 1 1 - l-t s - ijaenaior rxiccuara quotes iruua mis . case as follows: "It cannot be said therefore that the denial of the equal protection; of the law arises primarily from vthe constitution and laws of Mississippi, nor as there any sufficient allegation;, of ' an e vil and " di scrim ination of th em , etc.". . ".. ': '!'. .- :. ' i The 'Senator then says that the case in question was decided solely " on what apoeared in the constitution. and that there was no evidence that there had been an evil administration of its provisions. Suppose there had been an evil administration of its pro- visions, now coum mat niase a jaw. which was constitutional unconstitu tional? It could only subject to pun ishmen't those who had been guilty of the evil administration and redress the rights' of those who had .been in jured. . - Agaih the (Senator quotes from the case: "Though the law itself is fair on its face .and impartial in appear ance yet if it is applied and adminis tered withr. an evil eye and an une-. qua! hand so as to practically 'make unjust and illegal 'discrimination be tween persons in equal circumstances material to their rights the denial of equal justice d-s still within the prohi bition of; the constitution." No one denies this. Ikit what is it that as '"still within the prohibition of the constitution?" Certainly not the law; but the. denial of justice un der the law, ;Th-e law : 'will not. .be overthrown because bad men under take to administer it in such a way as to deny equal justice,, to mil men subject to said law. And here -the Senator, as if he thought heha-cT scor ed a strong ;point asks: "Wall any ; one deny that the proposed, amend- .TY- -r-T" -4- Z -V Vvf! -v 1; 1,-. 5 J J. with on evil eye and an unequal hand?"- lWhy should any one deny such a thing?. The thing fori the Senator and his friends to do is' to wait until the law has been adopted .and became a part of the constitution, and those Mouu. lj iu.iijiiiio litri at wim an ev-H eye and an unequal hand, and Hum it 'will be tfheir turn to take a liand and put a stop to -the administration of it "with an evil eye and an un equal ..hand."- But the Senator and his friends are afraid to wait They know that, although the law may be capable of being administered with an evil eye and an unequal hand, as imight any other law, if is also capa ble of being '.administered with an evil eye and an unequal hand, and ir its administration slhould he cliurac terized by equal justice to all, their occupation would be . gone, their mouths 'would be closed. No court has ever held that a law was void" simply because those who might happen-to administer it might do so .wi th an evil eye or an unequal , hand. , The aistinjction is clearly drawn in, the. Williams case, - where -it is said: iVTo miake -the, possible dereliction of the officers the dereliction of the ?eon stitution and laws the remarks of : the Supreane .( Courts of the State are It cannot be said therefore that the denia of the. equal protection of the laws yarises primarily from the con stitution and laws', of- iMississippi." There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States nor of any State mail auidiouiies -a court xp aeciare a law void (which is not unconstitu tional), merely because those charged with the administration Of .the law a.re g-um'jf vi wrong uoing - Moreover dt is not iwilhin -fmcl uiwiiji -va. A u J VOU1 U IA7 JilU U I IX? .1 11 LJ the motives which prompted, the Leg- siJature to pass a valid law, or a la w which is valid upon its face. -.The rules of construction already laid down fully sustain this position, and as 1 have already said, I now repeat, that neither Senator Pritc hard nor any opponent of the proposed amend ment has any hope whatever that any court will ever declare it unconstitu tional on account of anything that the law contains. If it. is Wer declar ed unconstitutional at ' all it will bo only when the courts make out of it what the Legislature did not make, ati-1 make its- language mean what it doi!? not mean If it is possible for a. court to- do tliis then there is a chance for the enemies of the aa'ic-nd-ment, and only then. , . . . The Fiftli Section. I will now take up the second issue: 2. Jf not unconstitutilonal as a whole, will the fifth section violate the con stitution or the united states The contention is that if the fifth section should be held to be-jin con flict with the Consti tution of t lie United States thousands' of poor White men who cannot write would be de prived of the right to vote. : ' This is not the first time in the world's history that the expression of deep concern for the poor proceeded from- an unworthy motive. ?s ineteen hundred years ago Judas Iscariot Si mon's son, affected to be -highly of fended because a . pound of ointment of spikenard was devoted . to a sacred use that he did not approve of, and he demanded to know: "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?" ' (But ;. ' . "This he . said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag and bear what was Such was the judgment pronounced upon this arch traitor and hypocrite by One who knew him well, and no one who knows the men who are us ing this argument to ifrishten the iz- (Continued on 3rd page,jk