Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1867-10-23
who are Legal voters In ohio.

the election of General Hayes, on the
ground that there were several hun
d=ed, probably several thousand, col
ored voters who voted for him at the
late election. How they are TO legally
reject these votes in the final count, is
not readily perceived, when the ques-
ton is tested by decisions of the Su-
preme Court of Ohio, made in cases
involving the right to the elective fran
chise. On this point we quote from an
article in the S~teubenville Herald,
which furnishes all the facts necessary
to q clear understanding of the subject:
By the constitution of 1902, Sec. l,
Art. ", "An white male inhabitants
above the age of 81 years" were enti-
tied TO vote, and the Legislature never
had power to prohibit any "Ohite male
inhabitant" from voting except as is
given in sec. 4 of the same article
which authorizes the Legislature II ex-
clude from that privilege all persons
convicted of bribery, perjury and 9TH
er infamous CRIME" and with this ex-
ception no power is given to the Legis-
lature to exclude any male ~iDhsbitant
be he white or black. Now comes the
question, under this section of the con
stitution, what is the meaning of the
word white" who under that section
are "white male inhabitants" The
first decision as to the meaning of the
word white, +" was made in 1881, in the
case of Gray VS.. the State, reported in
4th Ohio 354. There a Democratic court
held that "color alone Is insufficient as
a test, and that Ga man of a race near
er white than mulstto should partake
of the privileges of whites" In WI
hanson Us. School Directors, de-, Wright's
reports, p. us, it was held 10y q Dem
ocratic Courtl that all nearer white
than black were entitled to enjoy every
political and social privilege of the white
citizen" In 1872 the case of Jefries
Us. AnkeHy ct al. was brought before the
Supreme Court. The Trustees of
Xenia township had refused his vote
on account of his color, hence the suit.
HIS counsel claimed under the article of
the Constitution referred to that JEFF
fries being in blood nearer the white
race than any other was entitled to vote.
The Supreme Court took this view of it,
and affirmed the principle IN the Gray
and Williamson cases, and adding mo
other rule could be adopted so intelli-
gible and 30 practicable as this" The
decision IN this case was rendered al the
December term, 1912. by Lane, Chief
Justice, and Judges Wood and Birch
ard concurred il the decision thus
making it the law of the State. Judge
Reed dissented. Judges Wood and
Orchard, were Democrats. As it took
three out of the four Judges TO make
a decision it may be fairly said that the
concurrence of these two Democrats
rendered it a Democratic decision
This is the point we made yesterday
and that we have sustained now, that
the decision which gave colored men a
right to vote is a Democratic deciSiOn.)-
But lest there should be any doubt
about the views of Judge Wood, we
refer TO another decision, that of ChaL
nlerS Us. &eDart, IL Ohio 3S6, where
Wood rs Judge, delivered the opinion
of the Court, saying, 1.-THE maiority. or
predominance of blood either black or
white carries with it conclusive cyl
dence of the qualifications or disquali-
fcations imposed, &C." As to the De-
of Judge Wood we never be-
fore heard it called in question. But
our neighbor says all these were old
decisions having reference to the old
Constitution and not to the new
Their bearing upon the new depends
upon the difference between the neI0
ann the old. By the old the franchise
was conferred upon "'all white male IN
ka6itants," by the new it is conferred
upon "every white male citizen of the
United States, de-" But we are not left
in doubt as to the views of the Su-
preme Court on this question. In 1859
the case of Anderson VS.. Mittiken and
was brought before the Court on
agreed state of facts. at was
on both sides that the father Of
plaintiff was q white man, and his
mother three-fourths white and one
black. 1t was also agreed that
he offered to vote and that the judges
refused his vote on account Of his cd
Of african hood, and for no 9TH
er reason" This was since the adop-
ton of the new constitution, 10 which
our neighbor refers. In this case,
Judge Gohlson, delivering the opinion
of the Court, says: 1--WE are unani
.ously Of the opinion that the deserip
ton Of persons, Of which the plain tiff
is one, were not deprived by the pres
emit constitution of the right to the
elective frenehise."- Ohio State Re
ports, page $50. This, then, is the in
depreciation OF sec. I, art. V. of the
new constitution, and the Legislature
aSn pass no law to change It. Under
the Interpretation given this section by
The Supreme Court, every male over q,
in whose veins tEaFe is more white
than black blood, is emitted to vote,
and the Legislature is poTeTisSl 70
Il gntil hat clause of the
constitution is changed. All
he words about what tie Legislature
viii do this winter to preyent Il, is a
mere exhibition ofignoIanee where no
smOuntQf wisdom was expected. ~