The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1868-05-28

used In the same sense as in the old
Constitution, and includes persons hav-
ing mixture of African blood, if they
have preponderance Of white blood.
Judge GhOlson in delivering the opin-
ion OF the Court says: "Wbo shonld
be deemed white within the meaning
OF the Constitution This question:"
he continues, "was answered BY re-
peated judicial decisions under the old
/ Constitution. 1t was considered ia
view of blood or race, and the rule a.
dopted to meet the obvious difficulty Of
a mixture Of blood or races was, that
the white race must predominant. There
was white race aud black race, and
the obvious intent was to exclude the
latter from the elective franchise. If
an inhabitant OF the State had an equal
portion of the blood Of each rase, the
exclusion still applied, but if he had
larger proportion OF the blood Of the
white race, he was 10 be regarded as
white within The meaning of the Con-
stitution." Gray VS.. the State of Ohio,
4th Ohio Rep. 1858. Wrights Rep. =,
$40 1lth Ohio Rep. 379, do. 376, do.
$50, 18th do. 237, 18th do. 4O2. Con-
timing, Judge Gholson further remarks
that, "There was probably no word in
the Constitution of 1909, the meaning
of which has been more fully aud au-
thoritively settled by judicial construc-
ton than the word white as connected
with the elective franchise"
The Judge then proceeds to show by
citations from the debates of the Con-
stitutional Convention of 1851, that the
word white in the new was used in the
same sense as in the cid Constitution,
and holds such construction to be go
well known and settled and so long act
ed upon and recognized as to be bind
ing and conclusive upon the courts.
Without citing further authorities
upon the subject, / may safely say to
you that this much is well settled, that
for more than fifty years in this State
under the old and new Constitution, the
word white as used in connection with
the elective franchise, has been held by
our highest judicial tribunals to refer to
race or blood, and to include persons
of mixed blood as well as pure whites,
if the white blood actually predomina-
ted
A distinct and visible admixture of
African blood is not, therefore, suffi-
cient ground ofexclusion from the privi-
lege of an elector. That a person offer
ing to vote is negro or mulatto,( IA half
blood is a sufficient ground of exclu-
sion; but this act does not put the ex-
clusion upon the ground that the per-
son challenged is negro or mulatto.
No such fact is required to be estab-
lished. The challenge, and of course
the exclusion is placed solely upon the
ground Of visible admixture Of Afri-
can blood. aala azlaal
| If it was the intention of the Legis-
lature, in passing this act, TO exclude
from the privilege of an elector any per-
son having a distinct and visible admix-
ture of negro blood without regard to
the fact whetherlhe has preponder-
ance of white blood or not, and | SO un-
derstand it, then in obedience TO the
construction of the word white repeat
edly declared by the Supreme Court, l
am bound to say that the act is in con-
tlct with the Constitution, and is null
and void. sffs..-ss... { t-afi
Can any more favorable view Of the
act be taken7 Can it be considered
simply as an act to regulate the exercise
of the elective franchise of all persons
of mixed white and African blood, and
intended simply to exclude those only
in whom there is no prepoDdefance of
white blood7 Such a construction of
tile act is forbidden by the fact that no
such test is furnished by the Begisla-
ture, Bat can it be so considered and
enforced without depriying any citizen
Of Ohio of bis constitutional rightsl /
think not. Take a person one eighth
black and and dseven- eightiIs white born
lin this State, ofparepts who wereney
.er married, be would, of course, have
distinct and visible admixture of At
rican blood, and would be clearly enti-
tied 10 vote under The Constitution; but
if this act is5o be enforced, be con d
net vete, because he could not prove
as required by the act that his parents
were married. Let us suppose again;
A person seveh-eightlIs white, who
could answer satisfactorily all the qdes-
lions prescribed in the eiirst section of
the act, and produce two credible wit-
nesses who could answer satisfactorily
all the questions required 10 healswer-
ed by them, aud having thus sele5fly es-
tablished the fact that he'was d white
male citizen. and entitled torVote, ,rstill,
if his parents died while he was yet an
infant, be could not take the oath pre-
scribed by the fifth section, and bis vote
would be excluded, and not because he.
failed to establish the faetthat no was a
white male citizen, bnt because he could
not SO swear from a kpoyledge both
of his parents aud pedigree" " never ha-
wing had any knowledge, to bis recol-
lection, Of either q hfa -st''h "a'
Many other illustrations might be
made which would show that this act
can not be enforced according 10 its let
ter aud spirit without deprymg more
or less citizens Of their constitutional
rights. New grounds of exclusion, I'M