Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-10-31

NEGRO VoTING.-The Belmont Chron-
fcle comes to the relief of the gentlemen
who attempted to shove into the ballot
box here negro votes at the close Of the
election, In long article reoiting certain
decisions of the Supreme Court as an
excuse for their conduct. There is no
doubt from what occurred at the polls
throughout the State, secret instructions
had been sent to every precinct to poll
the negro vote at the close of the election,
notwithstanding the people were called
upon to cast their ballots for or against
this proposition at this same election. -
The Old Constitution of Ohio, declared
that every white male INHABITANr of
the State should have the privilege of the
elective franchise. The Supreme Court
of Ohio decided under that clause that a
person having more white than black
blood was entitled to vote. The Ohio
Legislature to rebut this decision decid-
ed that no man having visible admix-
ture of African blood should vote. And
II wouldseem that the Convention which
framed our new Constitution determined
to place this matter beyond question by
saying that every white male CITIZEN of
the United States, beinga citizen of Ohio,
should have the right to vote. The Su-
preme Court of the United States have
decided that negro Is not q CITIZEN of
. thC ~ nitcu tb III tlB lhce OF
this plain provision of the Constitution
of the State of Ohio and the decision of
the supreme Court of the United States,
Brinkerhon,an Abolition Supreme Judge
or ONO, has decided that u negro having
drop more OF white than black blood IL
white man, and under that decision
the Abolltionists have been voting the
negro, wherever they had the Judges of
the election.
The above is the reply Of the Gazette
10 our article of last week commenting
upon its mean Misrepresentation OF the
actions and motives OF gentlemen who,
In the desire to fairly represent their an
tagonists, are, certainly, very much his
superiors. If the editor of the Gazette
had published our article, as we do his,
In order that his readers might see how
thoroughly he fails to answer or con-
trovert Its points, We should not further
trouble our readers with notice Of him
or his weak effort. He dare not, how
ever, allow his readers the privilege OF
reading the arguments and statements
on both sides, and by comparison decd-
Ing upon the right or wrong of his decla-
rations.
The only truth In the above article Il
contained In the statement that "The
Supreme Court of Ohio decided under
that clause defining who should vote
that person having more white thar
black blood was entitled TO vote"
the gentleman had only went one stel
further, and told his readers that tn,
Supreme Court Of Ohio had also decided
that In this respect there was no differ
ence between the Old and New Constl
tutions, he would have disposed of tn,
whole controversy but, as defence +,
his miserable1 misrepresentation upoI
this subject, he prefers to resort 10 furthe
falsehoods and .misstatements. II h.
knows anything, he ought to know tina
the law passed by the Legislature on tn
subject Of "visible admixture" was nc
passed while the Old Constitution wa
In force at all, but was passed April :
1959-eight years after the New Const
tuition was framed-and could not hay
been passed "to rebut this decision" .
FAR as 1t was applicable to the Old Coz
stltution. This visible admixture La
was passed by the Democratic party, n,
''to rebut this decision" but TO overru