The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-07-25
From the Charleston. Courier.l
The Flick Amendmeut-AF raud.

About the first OF March, 1870, 8
shrewd and leading Republican of West
Virginia boosted that the Democrats o.
the Legislature who had voted for the
Flick Amendment had been tricked
! because if adopted it would not effect
the acknowledgements Of the white men
of the State. The remark lead to some
investigation of the subject. That i'm
vestigation points clearl y TO the conclu,
sion that the Republicans intend, in the
event of the adoption OF the Flick
Amendment, to hold and have their
courts decide that this Amendment does
not affect the DISTINGUISHING clause OF
the Constitution, but that its only effect
is to erase the word white from the
Constitution. In the last number OF
the Courier an able correspondent called
public attention to this in brief and con-
else terms. We deem the matter
worthy OF further notice Js.l- gf.F
The Flick Amendment is proposed to
he substituted for section one, article
three of the Constitution, and reads as
follows:
"rhe male citizens OF the State shall
he entitled to vote at all elections held
within the election districts in which
they Respectively reside bm III pr. On
who Is a minor, or OF unsound mind,
or Il pauper, or who is under conviction
OF treason, felony or bribery in an cleo
ton, orwho has not been q resident Of
the State for one year, and Of the conn
CIV in which he offers 10 vote for thirty
days next preceding such offer shall be
permitted to vote while such disabil-
ity continues. ans.
Section first of article three of the
: Constitution, for which the above is
proposed to be substituted was as
originally enacted identical in words
with this Flick Amendment, except
that it had the word "white' before the
words male citizens" Therefore to
substitute the Flick Amendment for sec
ton first of article three as it originally
stood would merely strike the word
white out of the Constitution The
question then arises, Has section first of
article three been altered since the Con-
stitution was adopted 4? And ifnot, how
could the Flick Amendment restore
( the ballot to our disfranchised citi-
zenS? To the first of these questions
Radical court would say mo and
to the second it would say that the
Flick Amendment did not reach the
ease OF DISTINGUISHED rebels. Its ground
would be that the DISTINGUISHING clause
is no part of section one OF article three
of the Constitution, and therefore could
not hc affected by the substitution ofthe
Flick Amendment for sand section.
Turning to the law OF the case, it would
find on page "a of the Acts OF 1865 The
Joint resolution Of the Legislature pro-
posing an amendment TO the Constitu-
ton, DISTINGUISHING all who voluntarily
aided the rebellion. That resolution
SAYS that this DISTINGUISHING clause " is
proposed as an amendment 10 tie C1n-
eft,tion of this State mot to section one
of article three to he added at he end
of the first section OF the third article
/ thereof, to become part (not of section
one of article three butt cf said ConSti-
fut;on when ratified according to the
provisions hereof" This, a Radical
court would hold, left the first section
of article three intact, being merely
equivalent to amending the ,Consti-
tuition by lacking on an additional
clause, in the mode adopted in amend
ING the Constitution Of the United
States. Therefore. the court would
hold, as the DISTINGUISHING clause
was not part of section one of article
three, being added at tie eVd, after the
conclusion of said section, added gener-
ally TO the Constitution, not TO the
section specifically, the substitution of
the Flick Amendment for said section
first of Article three, would leave the
DISTINGUISHING clause in full force and
effect. The Court would lie strength
ened in this position 10y the proclama-
ton Of Governor BOrcmam declaring
the result Of the vote on the disi'ranchi-
sing amendment That proclamation,
citiag the words Of the DISTINGUISHING
clause, declares it to be part mot of
section one OF article thrce) but of the
Constitution Of this State, To be added
al ne r,,d Of The first section OF the third
article thereof. The Legislature and
Governor agree that the DISTINGUISHING
clause is no part of section one article
three, because both agree that il is to
be added to the Constitution al he end,
or after he completion, of said section.
\ Radical Court would probably com
plete it, reasoning hy recurring TO
the language of the resolution
submitting the Flick Amendment To-
the people. viz: THE following is pro-
posed As an amendment to the consti-
tuition of this State substituted for Sec
ton one Of article three thereof, (of which
the DISTINGUISHING clause is no part
and to become part of the said consti-
tuition when ratified according to the
provisions thereof
Complete the substitution and we
have: The male citizens of this State
(instead of the white male citizens of
this State) shall be entitled to vote at
all elections held within the election
districts in which they respectively re-
side but no person who is minor, or
or unsound mind, or pauper, or who
is under conviction Of treason, felony,
or bribery in an election, or who has
not been a resident Of the State for one
wear and of the county in which he
offers to vote for thirty days next pre-
ceding snch offer, shall he permitted to TO
vote while such disability continues.
That's what is put in. Now, what is
taken out? 4 clause identical with the
above with the qualifyingword white
In brief, the net result is the erasure oil
the word white. Is there no further
alteration? None. We have substl,
tute,l the Flick Amenpment for the sec
ton first Of article three Of the Constitu'
ton and there we stop, What becomes
of the DISTINGUISHING clause? HrematNS