Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1868-05-14
The visible Admixture Lnw-Charged as
being Unoonstitutaonnl and Void.

GU Uue 0Tduu Jury vi tuc NouIbOl OOlh-
mon Pleas of Summit County. After |
reciting the provisions of the Visible
Admixture Law, he declares that If 1t
violates no provision of the Constitution
it must he enforced, and that If 1t does
violate the Constitutional rights of some
of the citizens of the State 1t cannot
stand. He then proceeds, 3" in accord
anoe with his solemn oath as Judge"
to discuss the question whether this act
is unconstitutional and void.
lie then shows that the intent of the
Legislature in providing that If any per-
son having visible admixture of Afri-
can blood, may be challenged, was with
a view to establishing q good ground for
the exclusion of the vote challenged
He then proceeds as follows:
You will notice that the ground of
challenge is not that the person offering
to veto is negro or mulatto, but that he
| has visible admixture of African
| Blood.
But it is we'll settled that under the
| Constitution of this State distinct and
visible admixture of African blood is
not sufficient ground of challenge or
exclusion, if the person Offering to vote
| has preponderance of white blood. All
persons nearer white than black are
under the constitution of Ohio white,
| however slightly may be the preponder-
ance of white blood, or however distinct
and visible the admiXture of African
blood.
BY section ], act 5, of the constitution
of Ohio it is provided 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 election and of the
county, township or ward in which he
resides such time as may be provided by
law, shdUhaUc the qualifications Of an
eiector and be entitled to vote at all
elections. "
Section 4, of the same article provides,
that, "the general assembly, shall have
:. power to exclude from the privilege of
voting, any persons convicted OF bribery,
perjury, or other Infamous crime.
No other cause is specified in the con-
/ stitution for which the general assembly
may exclude white male citizen from
, the privilege of voting. Every white
male citizen not convicted of bribery,
perjury or other Infamous crime has
the constitutional right to vote, and the
general assembly has no power TO deprive
} him of such right.
Who then are white male citizens in
the Constitutional sense? This question
Is readily answered. The word "white," )"
us used IN the Constitution, includes not
only persons of q mixed white, but also
all persons Of q mixed white and African
or Indian blood having ansactual pre-
ponderance of white blood. That this
is the true construction of the word white
7 as used in the Constitution has been eX-
pressly declared by the Supreme Court
, in the case of Anderson VS.. Mliikir
and others, 9th Ohio State Reports
50S.
f 1t is then decided that.tho word avhitt
in the new Constitution is used in the
, same sense as in the old Constitution
of African blood, If they have pre-
Y ponderance of white blood. Judge
: Gholson in delivering the opinion of the
Court, says: "Who should be deemed
white within the meaning of the Con
/, stitution ?" "This question, " he con
q tinues, twas answered by repeated judi
cial decisions under the old Constitution
1t was considered in view of blood O.
n rare, and the rule adopted to meet thu
"a obvious difficulty of u mixture of bloot
: or races was that the word white rae,
! must predomlnate. There was awhit,
: race and u black race and the obviou
! intent was to exclude the latter from th,
: elective franchise. If an inhabitant o
!, the State had an equal portion of tht
: blood of each race the exclusion still mp
q piled. But if he had largerproportor
II of the blood of the white race, he wa
II to be regarded as white within the mean
q ing of the Constitution.3 Gray vs.. tht
;. State, 4th Ohio Rep. 1858. Wright's Rep
+ $40, llth Ohio Rep. 372, do $40, do 3Sj
- 18th do 337; 18th do 402. Continuing
4 Judge Gholson further remarks tina
Il There was probably no word in th
l. Constitution of 1852, the meaning o
q which had been moro fully or authori
" lively settled by judicial construction
= than the word white MS connected will
the elective franchise. ,"
The Judge then proceeded to show b,
: citizens from the debates of the Con
1t stitutlonal Convention of 1851, that th
e. word whitein the new, was used in TIL
~ same sense rs in the old Constitution
and holdssuch construction to be SO wei
'e known and well settled, and so long act
q, cd upon and recognized as to be bindin
( and conclusive upon the Courts.
q Without citing further authorities W
- on this subject, lmay safely say to yo
ie that this much ls well settled, that 70
b., more than fifty years in this State un
to der the old and new Constitution tn
,o word white as used in connection wit
~ the elective franchise has been held b
~ our highest judicial tribunals to refer I
ie race or blood, and to include persons {
mixed blood rs we'll as pure whites.
A distinct and visible admlxture
ut African blood is not, therefore,.a a sulllc
n ent ground of exclusion from the priv
NJ leges OF the elector. That person oflel
ing to vote is negro or mulatto, ha
y blood, is sufficient ground ofexclusioi
ns But this act does not put the exclusio
o. upon the ground that the person cha
AZ lenged IL II negro or mulatto, no sue
~ fact Is required TO be established.
- The challenge and of course the excl
VI sion is placed solely upon the ground
sn q visible admixture of African blood.
ly IL Ii was the intent of tho Legislatu
o. In passing this act to exclude from Il
privileges of an elector any person ha
re Ing distinct aud visible admixture
~ African blood, without regard to the fa
~ whether lie has O preponderance
VI white blood or no, and 30 understai
~, 1t, then, In obedience to the constructlC
es of tho word white repeatedly declar,
nc by the Supreme Court, am bound
say to you that the net Is In conflict wi
the Constitution, and utterly nun al
lts void.
uo Judge Burke then amplfies his OPT
,o ion by giving several illustrations
10 show that "the act cannot bo enforc
according TO its spirit and provisio
,ur without depriving more or loss of tn,
OF constitutional rights" He conclud