The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1868-05-28
JACKSON G. H. OHIO THURSDAY, MAY %, 1863.

For If the act cannot be enforced, ac-
cording to its true intent and meaning,
without violation of the constitutional
rights of some of the citizens of the
State, It can not stand. The C0nstitu-
tion is the supreme law of the State,
and by it the General Assembly is
bound, and any enactment in conflict
with its provisions is q nullity.
Occupying the position of presiding
Judge of this Court, with this act Of
the General Assembly before me, and
the obligation imposed upon me to give
it in charge to you, ! have reflected
carefully, as to my duty, and have come
to the conclusion that my duty as such
presiding Judge would not be dischar-
ged by simply calling your attention to
this act in general terms, without Civ
ing you any opinion or direction as to
its conslitutionality. ] am not insen-
sible TO the fact that it may seem some
what indelicate and presumptuous for
a Judge of this Court to question or
pass upon the constitutionality Of an
act of the General Assembly and that
if l should mold the act to be uncon-
stitutional, difference in political opin-
ions between myself and the majority
Of the General Assembly will be thought
by some to have influenced me in coming
to such a conclusion. But however
much | may regret the, necessity, or
sincerly wish it had not arisen, the al
tentative being presented, of declaring
an act to be unconstitutional, which /
know to be SO, or giving it to you in
charge as a valid law, ] shall regard my
solemn oath, as Judge of this Court
and the Constitution of the State, and
declare all enactments of the Legisla-
ture in conflict with the Constitution
utterly null and void, Is this act un-
constitutional and void anu bound
to say that it is. That it clearly and
palpably violates the Constitution. As
you have observed by the sections Of
the act above cited, it is made the duty
of the judges of elections held under
the laws of this State, to challenge any
person offering 10 vote, having a dis
tinct and visible admixture of African
blood. A distinct and visible admix-
ture of African blood is made good
cause Of challenge by the act The OBJ
ject and purpose of challenge is, of
course, to exclude the vote of the per-
son challenged, if the ground Of chal-
lenge is sustained. In other words, a
challenge is an objection taken to per-
sons right to vote, upon some ground
or for some reason recognized by the
law as sufficient to exclude his vote, if
the objection is true, This act provides
that a distinct and visible admixture of
African blood shall be ground of chaI-
lenge. If a sufficient ground of chaI-
lenge, of course it must be regardedby
the judges of elections, if sustained, ms
a sufficient ground Of exclusion, for we
can not impute to the Legislature the
folly OF requiring a challenge 10 be
made, which would constitute, if sus-
tanned, no sufficient ground for exclu-
ding the vote challenged. / conclude,
therefore, that, under and by this act,
it was the intention Of the Legislature
to make the fact of a voter "having
distinct and visible admixture of Afri-
can blood good ground of challenge,
and, if sustained, of course a good
ground of exclusion of the vote chal-
lcnged. think I do not mistake the
intent in this regard, for it
will be observed that this is the only
ground OF challenge mentioned in the
act. % s4ya yf,7uqt,5i lsgii.'au f.rf w;
Yon will notice that, the ground of
challenge is not that the person offering
TO vote is a negro or mdlattO, but that
he has distinct aud visible admixture
of African blood. eAi io s5s53us sdj
1t is; well settled that under the Con-
stitution Of this State, a distinct and
visible admixtnre Of African blood is
not a sufficient ground of challenge or
exclusion, If tieperson offering toEvote
has an actual lpreponderance of white
blood. All persons nearer white than
black, are under the constitution Of
Ohio, white, however slight may be the
preponjerance of white blood, orhow-
ever "distihct and visible the admixture
of African blood.p- ltrs ytayir9q grw
by, section 4, article 8 of the Cen
stitution of Ohio, it is provided that
hevery white male citizen of the Uni
ted States Of the age OF ri years, who
shall have been aresidsnt of the State
one year next preceding the election,
and Of The county, townshipor ward in
which he resides, such time as may be
prescribed by law, shall have the quail
Of an eloctor, and be entitled
to vote at oil elections. ."1u1ag a3Hw
Section four of the same article pro-
Yides that .'the General Assembly shall
have power to exclude from the privil-
ege Of voting, any person convicted Of
bribery, perjury or other infamous
Crimc.''i 3Noa0ther cause is specified in
the Constitution for which the General
Assembly may exclude q 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 no
power to deprive him of .such'right.
Who, then, are white male citizens
in the constitutional sepsel This
ia readily anawarnd The