Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-05-20

but alleged that he did so in self-defenee.
THE court fined him S15, and ordered
HIM released from confinement.
james c. Sawyer was charged with the
murder of William Holcomo, who, it will
be remembered, was found dead some
time since in Vernon. Heplesd not gull
ty, and demanded as carly a trial as posi-.
BILE, as be desires an early and thorough
investigation of the matter.
In his charge to the grand jury, His
Honor, Judge Tuttle, made the following
very sensible remarks in relation to the
"Visibie Admixture law lately passed by
our Democratic Legislature. After a gen
eral statement of the provisions of the act
the Judge said:
1t seems to have been supposed that in
this statute the legislature undertook to
prohibit all persons, having a distinct and
visible admixture of African blood, from
voting. Its provisions undoubtedly i'm
pose very serious obstacles to the exercise
of the franchise BY ali such persons; they
doubtless tend 10 create in the minds of
judges of elections the belief that they are
prohibited from receiving such votes and
70 deter them from their reception; and
the act has further provisions which if
carried out, would place very serious
obstacles in the way of a suit 20 vindicate
the right Of any voter whose vote has been
wrongfully rejected.
A careful examination of this statute,
however, will show that the reception Of
the vote of any such person is not in
terms prohibited, except in case the party
challenged or any person Intercepted in
his behalf shall refuse to answer fully any
question therein prescribed, and the PEN
alties therein provided against receiv-
ing or giving the vote of such person
are only imposed when it is done soon
trary to the provisions of this act."-I
And it is possible that such q person, if
he be a white male citizen of the United
States, within the meaning of the Consti-
tuition, NAV be able to comply with all
these provisions affecting his right to vote.
The statute, it will be seen, constantly
assumes that tie mixture of African blood
in q person, partly white, may be distinct
" and yisibly demonstrated in the exter-
nal appearance of the person; and in tho
18th Section it Is provided that ''no chal-
lenge shah be regarded by the judges of
election where the person challenged has
no visible admixture of African blood
The statute clearly assumes that his right
to vote is still uncertain, that notwith-
standing this visible admixture he may
yet be able to show that he is a white male
citizen of the United States, and entitled
to vote; and several sections clearly
imply that the vote Of such a person may
be received BY the Judges of election con-
sistently with their duty.
But further, It is a well settled rule of
construction that, when there is q consti-
t%utional provision bearing upon the sub
iect Of any statute, that constitutional
provision is q rule of construction for the
statute, and the statute should receive a
construction consistent with the constitu-
tion if it can. And the rule applies not
only to the statute as a whole, but to each
provision of it, so far as 1t may fairly be
given an independent operation.
The Constitution of this State gives to
each white male citizen of tie United
States, having the required residence, the
right to vote. The distinction here In
tended is one OF race and not of color; and
by q long course of judicial construction
it is settled that sny person having q pre-
ponderance Of the blood of the prevailing
white race, is a white person within the
meaning of this constitutional provision.
In view of these considerations l think
the statute in question must receive 8 strict
construction in this respect, that it cannot
be made implicitly 20 prohibit all such
persons from voting, nor their votes from
being received, but that it undertakes to
establish certain rules of evidence and
modes Of enquiry, as to the right of such
person to vote, making the distinct and
visible admiIture the ground, not for re-
the rote, but for in%stituting the en-.
quiry.
Many of the questions required to be
put bear directly upon the fact only, and
not upon the degree of the admixture.-
Still l cannot say that in connection with
they may not bear indirectly upon
the question of the degree also. And the
mere policy, propriety or justice Of these
provisions, as well also of the motive
which may have influenced individual
legislators in their adoption, is for the
consideration of another tribunal than this.
Still it must be remembered that the
right Of the legislature to fix rules of
evidence must not, in the language of
Chief Justice Parsons, abe so exercised as
to cut of a clear, valid right" That
provision of this statute which enacts that
if any person Intercepted in behalf of the
voter, shall refuse to answer fully any
question as therein prescribed, the judges
shall reject the vote, is In my judgment
attempt TO exercise such q power, and
is unconstitutional and void. And if the
statute is to be considered as requiring the
vote to be rejected, Notwithstanding the
are satisfied of the right, In case the
voter shall decline to take the oath pre-
in Section 5, this provision is also
in my Judgment unconstitutional and
void, for the reason that the oath is one
which the voter may not be able to make
notwithstanding his right to vote is clear
and clearly proved. And no person can
be punished for voting, or for receiving or
for counselling, Or procuring any such
votes contrary to such provisions.
Other questions of constitutional power
may be suggested by the provisions of this
net, as also other questions of construction,
but 1 think them proper to be reserved
until q case may arise in which they are
presented.
Coal and Mining