Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-03-19
The Supreme Court of Ohio and
Visible Adm1xaure.


Mr.. HENRY M. ONDERDoNK, on the ground
that persons having distinct and visible
admixture of African blood are not white
male citizens of the United States, and con-
are not voters under our Consti-
tuition, the Radical press of the State have
raised an universal outcry. 1t is charged
that Senators, in disregard of their oaths,
have subverted the decision of our Supreme
Court, that persons having preponderance
of white blood are white a complaint
which comes with an i'll grace from the
party whose leaders openly proclaim that
decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States majority of whose members
were appointed by. President LINCOLN
against the constitutionality of the recon-,
struction laws of Congress, will have mo
more force than the resolutions of a town
meeting" What are the facts in this con-
tested case? Attorney General WEST, in
his argument with Colonel BABER, admit
ted that the Senate was not bound In its
action by the Interpretation of the Supreme
Court of the State as to,who were voters
under the Constitution any further than
as an authority and precedent entitled to
great weight ana consideration in settling
the point. Indeed, the Attorney General
was too chary of his reputation as lawyer
to deny this well settled rule in contested
election cases, laid down in CUsHING's law
and practice of legislative assemblies [pp.
256, sections 645, 64S]. sustained practically
by both the action OF Congress and the Re-
publican Legislature of Michigan. which
admitted to their seats all the members
elected by the, soldiers vote in that State,
after the Supreme Court, composed entire
ly. of Judges. of their own party, had de-
cided the soldiers voting law unconstitu-
tional. [Citations in contested case of BALD
WIN VS.. TRowBRIDaE, Congressional Globe,
first session, Thirty Ninth Congress, part
1, 1865 and 1866, PIP. sl4, s4l, s45
This point being then conceded, Sena-
tors acting in their judicial capacity were
bound to decide the oNEs-ONDERDoNK
case according to their conscientious belief
as to the facts and the law, after giving a
full hearing to both parties.
On the question of visible admixture of
African blood our Supreme Court, COM
posed OF the same judges, and at the same
term, December, 1882 laid down two
different rules: ~
1st. That children having preponder-
ance of white blood ''are not white in the
ordinary if they are in the legal sense
white" ivan Camp VS.. Board of Education
of Logan, o. s. R., PIP. Al and therefore
cannot be admitted into the common
schools organized for white children-thus
overruling all the decisions OF the Supreme
Court on that subject under the old Con-
-stitution. as clearly demonstrated by Judge
SUTLIFF in his dissenting opinion.
ID. They held, on the authority of these
very decisions, that persons having pre-
ponderance of white blood are white for
the purpose of voting, [Anderson vs.. Milli-
ken, O. 8. B., 56S] an Inconsistency which
destroys the entire force and weight of the
reasoning on which this last decision is
founded; for obviously a person who is
white for one purpose is white for all.
The attempt of the Court to establish a
hair-splitt distinction between the
words "black and mulatto" in the school
laws of 1s4s and 1872. as contradistin-
guished from the word 'scolored" in the
school law of 1858, is too transparent to
deceive anybody. They feared our people
were not yet educated up to receiving ne
gro children into the white schools. where
no political advantage was to be gained by
it, and, therefore, first administered the
sugar-coated pill of allowing mulattoes to
vote, whereby political advantage might
be gained. The Senate, therefore, if it
choose to regard either of these rules on
the subject of visible admixture, would be
manifestly right in selecting the one
founded on the popular and ordinary sig
nification of the word ''white," in
stead of the absurd and illogical
rule of preponderance, which the
conflicting testimony of physicians
and other witnesses in this case proved
to be impossible in its practical applica-
ton. Is it easier for Judges of Election to
determine. by inspection of appearance,
whether person has distinct and visible
admixture OF African blood, or whether he
has preponderapce of white blood, to-
wit, ififty-one hundredthsp Appearance
can determine nothing as to this matter,
which can only be settled by proof of par
entage and pedigree. 1t is notorious that
at the last election hundreds of illegal mu-
latto votes were polled under color of this
decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in
accordance with instructions from the
Radical State Central Committee at CoIum-
bus-a fraud easily perpetrated with facile
Judges of Election, because no questions
are prescribed in our laws to be put to an
elector challenged as unqualified on the
ground that he Is not sswhite male citi-
zen Of the United States" This defect the
present Legislature proposes to remedy,
and it remains to be seen whether our slaw
abiding" Radicals will insist on evading,
as far as possible, the provisions of our
Constitution, and the verdict of the, peo-
Pile of over $4,000 majority against Negro
Suffrage. SO. - y a9g
Z In the celebrated New Jersey broad seal
case in 1910, in Congress, it was unanimous
ly decided, by the committee of Elections,
composed of such men as TRUEMAN SMITH,
of Connecticut; RANDALL, of Maine; FILL
MORE, of New York; BORIS, of Virginia,
and Governor FRANK THOMAS, OF Mary
land, now a leading Radical member of
Congress, that mulattoes and those having
any visible admixture Of black blood were
not white male citizens Of the United
States, and the colored votes were struck
out from both the Whig and Democratic
polls, and House of Representatives, pre-
sided over by JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, made
no objection to the decision on this point.
Every department. Of the Government has
acted in conformity to this ruling. and,
therefore. the decision of the Senate of Ohio
is fully sustained in law by the weight of
aufhoritu -. -. -. = - y