Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-11-14
THnRr is very little chance Of making

'ts ooFtfS"b S'NV''sesot ~ SNH soee,st Cfssos
-----~A-
THERE is very little chance Of making
anything by discussing propositions with
u paper as reckless and unfair as the st.
Clairsville Gazette seems to be. We have
been not only willing but anxious, since
that paper meanly misrepresented the
notions and motives of Messrs. Cowen,
West, and Poorman in presenting the
votes of Lewis and George Ransom, at
the late election, to fairly and fully dis
cuss with 1t the legality of the votes Of
fered as well as the actions of the gentle
men whom the Gazette 80 cowardly de-
nounees. We have re- printed heretofore
everything published in that paper
touching the matter, so that our readers
might see whether we fairly meet the
points raised by it, but it has carefully
excluded from its columns everythingwe
have written and then misrepresented
us. 1t first declared we attempted to
force votes INTO the ballot-box "in the
face of the Constitution of Ohio"; and
then, when we showed, by frequent de-
CisiOtiS vi WIG OoNtct
that his declaration was not true, he at
tempts to weaken the force Of our argu-
ment by admitting that the Court had
decided as we claimed, but that this.mat-
ter had been changed by the convention
that framed the new Constitution, by
using the term "white male citizen"
instead Of "white male inhabitant," as
in the old Constitution. 1t was hardly
necessary to offer any argument or evil
dence to convince any man who had any
sense at all that the insertion of the word
citizen instead of inhabitant could not or
would not affect in any way the meaning
of the word "white," used in the same
sentence-and it was upon this word
white, and not upon the word inhabi-
tant, that the Supreme Court had placed
its construction-bu we showed conclu-
sively not only by extracts from the de-
bates in the convention, but by decision
OF the Supreme Court, that no change in
the meaning of the word white was con.
templated or made.
AS dodge to this clearly established
conclusion, the Gazette then affirms that
we held that the words inhabitant and
citizen meant the same thing. Now We
will give the editor of the Gazette, If ht
will insert our articles written upon this
controversy in his paper, the full pric,
charged by him for inserting the sam,
amount Of matter as advertisements, 4
he can find in any line, sentence, or para
graph in any of those articles any suct
declaration.
We aver that.the insertion of the wore
citizen did.not. change the meaning o
the word white" and that the wore
white in the sentence "white male In
habitant," means the same as 1t does IL
the sentence "white male citizen" W.
further aver that the term,' citizen of thu
United States" fhcludes.every free man
woman, and child, born within the limit
of the United States or naturalized unde
Its laws!
We aver that the Supreme Court Of the
United States never decided that negro
born free within the limits of the United
States was not "a citizen. Andwe furthe
aver that, under the Constitution Of thu
State of Ohio, as expounded by the Su
preme Court of the State, every free maj
of sane mind, native or naturalized, liv
ing within the State, who has acquired
legal residence, and has more Whit
blood than black blood In his veins, ha
Alright to vote, unless otherwise disqual
ified.
Toa fair discussion of these proposition
we challenge the editor of the Gazette
on the condition that neither part.
shall write more than one column eacl
week, and that the articles writer
pro and con shall be published In botl
papers at the same time. And We will
furnish the editor of the Gazette with
copy ofour article Oh Saturday preceding
its publication, he to furnish us copy @
his article on Tuesday morning preced
ing Its publication.
--------s- s-------