The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-07-23

selfgovernment? IL the Federal Gov
eminent enforces that amendment in
violation of the rights of the States,
let it be done by the friends Of the
measure and the advocates of CONSOLE
dation. If it is valid as a part of the
Federal Constitution, the neg1oaa, by
virtue Of it and by the act of Congress
to enforce il, will vote, just as long as
usurpation and power abused can per-
petuate thatproyision and trample upon
the rights of the States. But let not
the white men Of West Virginia be
parties to the degradation Of their
State, to the destruction of their liber-
ties, to this great wrong inflicted upon
their own race. If the Fifteenth
Amendment is what every Democrat
and true friend of selfgovernment be-
lieves it to be a usurpation, why give It
an implied recognition by so amending
the State constitution as to extend the
right of suffrage to the colored race by
voluntary State action? Why will its
advocates insist on striking out the
word white? They tell us that the
Flick Amendment does not enfranchise
the negro. Then why insist upon it.
If enfranchised without such amend
ment, why clamor for change in your
State constitution in this respect? Do
they mean TO insist that the white peo-
pie of West Virginia shall voluntarily
grant the right Of suffrage to the negro?
But for the supposed adoption of the
so-called Fifteenth Amendment, where
is the Democrat who would advocate
the Flick Amendment? Who among
them would be bold enough to advocate
negro suffrage?
If the only purpose Of the Flick
Amendment is 10 enfranchise the dis
franchised whites, why enlarge it so as
to compel the State to enfranchise the
colored man? Is it not because ii
recognized the validity of the Fifteenth
Amendment-that monstrous usurpa-
tion-that attempts to destroy the exls-
tence and integrity OF the States and
our matchless form of government?
Say what you will, the Flick Amend.
ment not only recognizes and affirms
the validity of the Fifteenth Amend
ment, but it ratifes and confirms the
act OF the Legislature that pretended to
give the assent of the sovereign power
of the State to that amendment, and
places the State in the attitude of vol
tarily enfnnchising an inferior race.
But, say its advocates, negro suffrage
(the Fifteenth AmendmenD is fixed
fact and we cannot help it. Do they
mean that usurpations are to be per
petual, and that the people are TO tame
" submit TO them and make no effort
to reverse the DEGREES of a deSpOtic par
tisan majority? That they are to stand
idly by and with folded arms and sealed
lips suffer the constitution OF their coun-
try and their free institutions to perish?
Are we as Democrats to turn our backs
like towards on the traditions Of the
past and suffer constitutional liberty
and the right Of selfgovernment to be
buried beneath the heel of tyranny and
fraud? Fixed facts - Usurpations,
tyranny and oppression arc fixed facts
only so long As their infamous authors
have the power to continue them. The
day is coming and is not far distant
when the slumbering Sampson-the
American peoplc-rouscd from ar al
most fatal sleep, will burst the shacklcs
that now fctter their free limbs and re-
store with more than original splcndor
the constitution of orr country.
But the advocates of the Flick
Amendment insist upon its adoption as
the only speedy and ettectual method of
enfranchising the disfranchiscd Let
now look at this. Suppose the next
Legislature should be Democratic
body, and that it should adopt proper
registration law, requiring the registrars
to register all who claim to be qualified
voters, abolishing the voters, test oath
and restraining the now unlimited power
of the several Boards of Registration,
forbidding them to strike from the
list of registered voters names of those
who are supposed 10 be DISTINGUISHED
for giving aid TO the rebellion unless
charges setting forth the grounds Of
their disqualification are lodged with
the Board and legal proof (by which |
mean the record of their conviction)
adduced of their guilt. How many Of
the disiranchised men III this State
would he deprived of the right OF sut-
frage? The honor Of the State would
not he stained nor our distranchised
fellow citizens restored TO the right of
suffrage by diShonorable means, nor
would the Democratic party he COM
United as particsps criminis to the great
est outrage ever sought to be perpetrated
the destruction of the right of sell
government. For having inflicted
negro suffrage upon the people, and for
the consequent decentralization and ruin
that will follow, let the Republican
party alone reap the shame and infamy
of their acts. He denied that the
couse above proposed would be revoIu-
tionary, but legitimate, peaceful and
certainly the most speedy means of Oh
tanning the end sought.
THE AMENDMENT OF MAY sd. 1866.
Inregard to the DISTINGUISHING amend
ment to the State constitution, Mr..
Davis denied that it disfranchised any
one per Sc. The disability imposed is
clearly punishment for the commits
sion of the offense named in the amend
ment. He supposed that there was no
question that the acts enumerated in
the amendment constituted an otfense
and very serious one, nothing less than
treason. 1t lie a well settled principle Of
law, too old to be now controverted that
no man..can forfeit or he deprived OF
any right against his consent, but for
the crime mourning the forfeiture
Crimes are defined to be ielonies or
misdemeanors, and are acts committed
or omitted in violation Of some positive
law. Your State constitution more than
once refers to trial by jury as the mode