Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-03-18

white in the Constitution, cannot be
understood in its absolute sense. for
I such complexion of skin does not exist
lin the family of men. The Circassian
is white, but dot perfectly SO. The
Frenchman is not SO white, and the
Spsniard is still darker than he. So
there are different shades among diff
: ferent races and mixtures Of races,
many of whom are represented in this
country. Hence, the term white, as
used in the Constitution, was indefi-
mite and gave rise to questions.
The first case in which the Supreme
Court of Ohio construed. or rather
defined, the word ,0hits, in its legal sense
was the case of Gray VS.. Ohio, "A o. r.
1851 at the December term, 1898. This
case arose under statute which rem
dered blacks incompetent as witnesses
against white persons. The plaintiff,
Polly Gray, who had visible admix-
ture of African blood" in her veins,
was held to be a white woman, because
her white blood predoninated.
The next reported case was that of
Williams VS.. School Directors, (Wright's
R. 237) which was decided in 1884, aud
in which the Court held that the chill
dren Of a white woman, by a man who
was three-quarters black. were white
children under the law then existing,
which excluded colored children from
the privileges of public schools. The
holding in the case Of Lane VS.. Baker,
! III o. r. 237l in IS43. is to a similar
effect. The case of Jeffers vs.. Ankey,
and Tucker VS.. Hawk. al o. R. 372.
376l decided in 1910, hold that under
the Constitution then in force, per-
son having a preponderance of white
blood is q white person, and may exer-
else the right of suffrage. The case of
Stewart VS.. Southland (l7 o. R., 402)
holds the same doctrine. These are
the principal decisions under the old
Constitution, and under laws formerly
existing, but now happily repealed, and
| am not thus particular in my refer
ence to them because | suppose Ssna-
tors to be unfamiliar with them, but
for another purpose. The leading and
the latest case under the new Consti-
tuition was that of Andrew VS.. Mill.
ken, 80. S. R. 56S) decided in 1850
In this case the construction that had
obtained to the word VkIe under the
old Constitution was given to the same
word under the new Constitution. The
reasoning of Judge Gohlson, who de-
liyered the opinion of the Court in that
case, is clear and conclusive.
As the constitution now reads, what
ever may have been the intention of
the trainers of that instrument, no 9TH
er construction is possible, either by
the force of precedent or reasoning
But, sir, it is evident from expressions
frequently occurring in the eonstitu-
tional convention of 1851, that the
/ members of that Convention intended
this word to be understood as it previ-
ously had, and subsequently, has, been
construed by our courts. When it was
suggested in that Convention that the
word white was vague and indefinite,
it was urged that this could not be, in
asmuch as this word had received
judicial construction for almost fifty
years, aud could not in the light of
that construction be misunderstood.-|
There is now" says Mr.. Worthington,
in that convention, mo question that
may with more safety be submitted to
any of our tribunals, from the Supreme
Court to the justice of the peace."-
. Debates Of Convention of O., &c.
Indeed, sir, there can be no doubt
/ from the debates in that convention, |
lf-SsaA sslsi0ts-{-Ssf1u0t- -InatSo-0Hs-.ss;za |
quotations and from the logic of cir
cumstances, that the trainers of the !
constitution intended the word to mean
as our courts render it. We must
either, sir, so conclude, or we must at |
tribute to them utter ignorance of the |
meaning given to this term and accept |
ed by all for almost the whole time |
during W hich the old cons titution was
| in force. Ifthat convention had taken /
the view of the authorof this bill, why |
did they not use the phrase pure ichits
blood or something synonymous to it -? |
l tell you sir, it is absurd and SANDER
Gus upon the good sense and intelli-
gence of that convention to attribute /
to them any view or intention Incom-
patable with the reasoning and hold
ing of the courts, of which they, of
course, had knowledge.
But it IS claimed that the Dred Scott |
case, by defining who are citizens Of the !
United States, and only such can be
voters in OHIO, settles the matter that |
our State courts are wrong. Dred Scott
was a person whose ancestors were of |
pure African descent" Consequently, |
/ deciding that he was not citizen, does |
not carry the authority that persons of /
mixed blood cannot be citizenS of the /
United States, and so this claim falls
to the ground. In some of the cases
I have referred TO, it is true the courts
were not unanimous, but the weight /
of numbers, as well as the weight of
reason, is upon the side Of the construc-
ton given unanimously to the word
white by the Supreme Court in the
last reported case. II was claimed, / /!
understand, the other day, by our
Senator elect, before the committee of
this body on Privileges and Elections,
that the trainers OF the constitution
intended to exclude persons of visi
bic admixture of African blood from
the polls, and really did so, except for
the misconstruction Of the courts. This
proposition IS, no doubt, claimed also
by the friends of this bill. 1 have been
thus careful to enumerate the most |
prominent of these decisions which |
were made by courts of varied political |
views, and also to pointo out some of the
reasons that support them, in order TO
show the futility of this claim, and |
that this bill, as said, does really un-
dertake, not only to override the Su- |
preme Court, but to change the true |
significance of the constitution, as it |
reads, and as it was intended to be un- !
derstood by the trainers.
Now, sir. it is the object, if under |
stand it, of'this bill to legislate down |
the authority Of this line of decisions,
and the force of this reasoning. and to |
give a new significance to the Constitu- !
ton. Has this Legislature the power !
to do this in the exercise of its consti- |
tutional functions? It is the province |
of the Legislature to enact laws, but |
those laws when once enacted can in |
nowise alter, change, or amend any
angle provision of our State Constitu- !
ton, either directly or in practical
effect, as this bill proposes. 1t is not !
in your power to punish q board OF
election officers for receiving votes de-
clared to be legal by our Supreme
Court, under the Constitution. You
may prescribe the manner in which |
elections shall be held-the questions |
to be put and answered, and the form
of the oath to be rendered in case of
challenge upon proper ground, but you
btrc co doi11 -, atfart ~