Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1868-06-18


stake? When an election is to be
carried right or wrong? When it is
question of their obtaining office
once more, and an opportunity again
to plunder the public treasury?
This question was well understood
by the convention of 1850. The
members of that convention on both
sides were largely made up of law
yers; lawyers who knew that the well
established rule of construction for
constitutions and statutes was that If
acords acre introduced into constitution
or st1tute, phich had receiced judicial
construction, those words were adopted
with the meaning given to them by
such judicial decisions. Such is the
law adopted in every country and by
all courts and by common sense.
The members of the convention well
knew this rule of construction and
what must be the construction given
to the new constitution, if the con-
vention retained in this particular
the language Of the old.
There were on this very question
three parties in the convention, one
was for striking out the word White,
an other was for inserting an express
clause that by white was not meant
every person having visible ad-
mixture of negro blood, and then
there was third party for adopting
the language Of the old constitution,
and thus leaving the question under
the decisions of the court, which
held that all persons were white, who
had more white blood than negro or
Indian. 1t was well und nderstood that
if the word white was struck out
Southern Ohio would vote in a mass
against it; and that if the visible ad-
mixture explanation was inserted,
then Northern Ohio would vote
against it. Either of these changes,
it was well understood, would defeat
the new constitution. Hence the
third course was pursued to leave
that question just where it was; and
the convention adopted in this re-
spect the language of the old consti-
tuition, every member well knowing
thatin so odoing, they necessarily adep-
ted the word white with the meaning
given to it by the old Supreme Court
We make this statement '------o
say, that epery member of that convention
understood that Jy that coarse persons
haUing more aohite than Indian or negro
blood aUould be entitled to cote. We
were well acquainted with the men,
bers of that convention and had an
opportunity to know the opinion of
all its members. The new Supreme
Court, therefore, when the question
came up again, decided just what
every lawyer, and man of honesty
and common sense knew they must
decide, that person more white
than black had right to vote.
Who is responsible for this state
of the law? The democratic men,
bers of the constitutional convention.
If they wished to exclude this class
of legal voters, why did they not so
amend the language of the old con-
stitution as to overrule the decisions
already made? The democratic
lawyers of the convention were well
aware of this rule of construction,
and that the court would be COM
PEELED to apply it, and yet they de-
liberately adopted the language of
the old constitution. These demo
Gratis of the convention are then re-
sponsible for this state of the law
and no one else; it is no Republican
constitution in this respect; it is the
work of the democrats themselves;
and they took this course as the only
means of securing the adoption of
the constitution of 1851.
The law Of last winter did not in
point of fact deny the right of this
class of men to vote; it did not say
that man having a visible admix-
ture of negro blood should not vote;
but with meanness, of which only
democrats, who sympathised with
Southern rebels during the rebellion,
and now seek to restore to them the
authority in a government they
sought to destroy, could be guilty,
they sought, while seemingly admit
ing their right to vote, to so accumu
late difficulties around the exercise
of this right as efectually to exclude
them from the enjoyment of it. If
the Legislature has power to pass
such law, than any party in power
could exclude every foreigner from
voting, by requiring him to produce
evidence of the marriage of his par
ents, or their residence, &C., which
no foreign citizen could obtain in
this country. If the legislature can
require one voter to prove by two
witnesses the marraiage of his par.
ents, and that they had no colored
blood, it can require it of all, and
especially of every foreigner, who
would be unable to produce such tes-
timOny and thus dpnrive tho foro;,,,,