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