Pomeroy weekly telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy, Meigs County, Ohio) 1860-1866, 1860-02-28

tiers there, and improving the country
A man by the name of Hustn bough
seven thousand acres of warrants tn
other day, and has gone West to locat'
them. 4. B.
Constituting the Words s.VVhite NAL
Citizens of the United States' in the Sec
ton OF the Constitution Relating to tn
Elective Franchise.
No. I19. Alfred J. Anderson VS.
Thomas Millikin ct al. Error to Court
of Common Pleas of Butler County.
GHoLsoN, j.
This was an action brought by the
plaintiff against the defendants, judge:
of an election, for the refusal ofhis vote
1t was submitted by the parties to the
Court of Common Pleas of Butler county
upon an agreed statement of facts, show
ing: "That the father of the plaintiff
was a white man without any admix
ture of African blood, that the mother
of the plaintiff is mixture of three
fourths white and ne-fourth African
blood, that neither the plaintiff or his
mother ever were slaves or held as such
that the said plaintiff for twenty-five
years last past has been resident of the
second ward of the city of Hamilton, in
Butler county, in the State of Ohio, ano
that in all respects he was at the time o.
the election hereinafter referred to, 6
qualified voter at said election, in said
ward, unless disqualified on account Of
the admixture of African blood, as afore
said. That on the fourth day ofNovem
Der, A. D. 1856, the said plaintiff, at the
polls of the said ward, offered to vote
for electors of President and Vice -Presi
dent of the United States, and that said
defendants being then and there the
judges of said election, refused to receive
the vote of said plaintiff on account Of
his admixture of African blood, and fol
no other reason" The statement further
showed that it was agreed: "that the
said defendants were not actuated by
malice or ill-will in the refusal of said
vote, but supposed themselves to be in the
line of their official duty, and that if the
law of the case is with the plaintiff upon
the facts as herein agreed, he shall re,
cover only nominal damages ~
The case having been heard upon the
agreed statement of facts, the Court Of
Common Pleas rendered judgment fol
the defendants, to which the plaintiff ex,
cepted. And to reverse that judgment
a petition in error has been filed in this
Court.
The Constitution Of 1902 contained
the following provision as to the persons
entitled to the exercise of the elective
franchise: ain all elections, all vhite
male inhabitants above the age of twenty
one years, having resided in the State
one year next proceeding the election:
and who have paid or are charged with
State or county tax, shall enjoy the
right of an elector; but no person shall
be entitled to vote, except in the county
or district in which he shall actually re-
side at the time of the election" Cart
4, Sec. 1.) The of the word "white, u
in this section, necessarily excluded those
inhabitants of the State, though other
wise qualified, who were not white, and
called for a determination of the ques-
ton, who should be deemed "white, -
within the meaning of the Constitution?
This question was answered by repeated
judicial decisions. It was considered in
view Of blood or race, and the rule
adopted to meet the obvious difficulty OF
mixture of blood or races, was, that
the blood of the white race must pre-
dominate. There was white race and
a black race, and the obvious intent was
to exclude the latter from the elective
franchise. If an inhabitant Of the State
had an equal portion of the blood of each
race, the exclusion still applied, but if
he had a larger proportion of the blood
of the white race, he was to be regarded
as white, within the meaning of the Con
stitution. polly Gray VS.. The State
4 Ohio Rep. 353; Williams VS.. School
Directors, Wright's R. $40; Jefries VS.
Ankeny, II Ohio r.. 372; Thacker VS.
Hawk, IL Ohio, 376; Chalmers VS.. Stew,
art, II Ohio, 1856; Lane VS.. Baker, l.
Ohio, 237; Stewardvs. Southard, II Ohio
1922
There was, probably, no word in the
constitution of 1902, the meaning Of
which had been more fully and author.
itatively settled by judicial construction
than the word "white, as connected
with the exercise of the elective fran.
chise. And, undoubtedly, at the time
of the adoption of the constitution Of
1851, persons coming within the descrip.
tion above stated, in whom the blood Of
the white race predominated, and who
were in other respects qualified, hal :
right to the exercise of the elective fran.
chise. The first section of the fifth
article of that constitution provides that
every white male citizen Of the United
States, of the age of twenty-one years
who shall have been resident of the
State one year next preceding the elec
ton, and of the county, township, FOL
ward in which he resides, such time as
may be provided by law, shall have the
qualifications, of an elector, and be en-
titled to vote at all elections And the
question presented in this case is
whether it was the intention Of that sec
ton to deprive the persons above de
scribed of right which they had before
enjoyed-and of a right so valuable anc
highly priced as that of an elector?
In any ordinary case-in any case il
which feeling and prejudicedid not entel
as elements to disturb the Judgment, nj
one would probably claim that a mos
important right once enjoyed, and
necessarily, in its nature continuous
was abrogated and annulled, unless th'
intent to do so was clearly and explicitly
expressed. Argument and inference
from the use of doubtful and indefinite
terms would not be deemed sufficient
We trust that, without influence from
any prejudice we might personally feel