Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1871-03-28


sound mind, or a pGuper, or trh0 Is under
eoHUtetioH Of treason, felony, or bribery i,r an
election, or GohO has not been II resident cJ'the
STATE for one year, and Of the county in uchich
he offers to cote, for thirty dogs, merit proceed
ing such offer, shall Be permitted to U0te rhHe
such disability continues"
This section, common in substance, If not
in exact language, with the constitutional pro-
visions in the several States of the Union,
regulating citizenship ard the right to the
election franchise, was not sufficient to accom-
plish the ends and aims of the amiable radi-
cal party of this State. Something Lad to be
done to retain power. Prescription was quick
" resOrted to; and the amendment proposed
in 1865 and Enally adopted as part of the
constitution, in 1866, was the base of the rad
ical programme. That amendment is in the
following language; mo person lChO since HE
first day IF Jane, 1861, has giVen or shall
gre voluntary aid, or assistance to the TeteE>
lion against tie URited iStotes shall be a cifi-
zen Of this STATE, or be cHo,eeR to vote at any
election held therein, unless lie has UOlInteere4
INTO the military, or nGUGL serUice of the
United SAFES, and has been, or shall be Ion
orally discharged Mere7ronl."
II will be observed, that this amendment
not only deprives large class of our fellow
citizens for to democrats, they arc our fellow
citizens, the amendme0t Notwithstanding of
the right to vote, but declares them not Citi-
Gems of the State. AS to what position they
occupy, in point Of law, after having been de-
clared not citizens it is no part Of my purpose,
at this time, to discuss. We know as n mat
ter of Law and of fact that none but citizens,
have the right to the exercise of the elective
franchise.
The Joint resolution, proposing thin amend.
ment, adopted March LIST, 1865 and again in
1866, is in the following language, "HesolUed
by tie Legislature Of Vest TIrgiuia the
following as Or0p1sed as an amendment to the
constitution of Mis State, to be added AT RE
end CF the first section Of the third article
herecC TO BECOME PART OF THE SAID CON.
sTITUTION IcheH ratified according to the pro.
Uisions thereof" DC.
The amendment which is now proposed, is
simply substitute for Sec arc. 3 of the
constitution, and differs in no way whatever
with the original, except the word Ichite is
stricken out. It therefore, is Of the greatest
Importance for US to consider whether, or not,
the disfranchising amendment of 1866, is a
part of sec. l, art. 3, Of the constitution. If
it be not, then clearly, the only eject of the
present proposed amendment, is to strike the
VOID IchHe from our constitution and leave
the DISTINGUISHED in just the same position
they now occupy; unless it can be shown
that the DISTINGUISHING amendment of 1866,
will be repealed by implication under the rule
that subsequent act TepcGls all former cSc1
so far as they may be incosisteut Herewith.
1t will be noticed that the joint resolution
by which the amendment of 1866, disfran-
ehising portion of our people and declaring
them not citizens, was proposed, says that the
amendment is "to be added at the end of the
II nj no ~
part Of said constitution Now, to be added
at the end of sec. l, art. g, docs not mean
that it is to be added to the end of that Sec
ton, nor can it be implied. Neither the gram
matical, nor legal construction, can torture at
to mean 10, when taken in connection with
the whole sentence. We presume that Web
ster will be relied on as quite as good author
ity, as to the definition OF these two little
propositions, as the gentleman from Cabel,
(Mr. Furguson.) Webster tells us that, in
general, the word a. denotes nearness, or pres.
ence and that 10, denotes addition If this
be correct, then the Joint resolution proposing
the distranchising amendment, would read ITO
be added TcIr the end q! the lst, sec of the
Sd, art. thereof TO become part of said con.
stttutiOm." The general deEnitiOn of 4 word
must be understood, unless it be controlled by
its connection with others. The natural con,
language is, that the amendment of 1866,
was simply TO be added to the constitution
without any intention that it should become
part of sec. art. B. Bet we are told that it
must belong to some section. Allowing tina.
TO be correct, which we do not, VIC certainly,
woald not rely upon our enemies 20 make it
part of that section which would be most
beneficial to US. But it is not necessary, in
order to become a part OF the constitution,
that 1t should belong to and be part of any
particular section. suppose that as "Jef,
tersOn's manual has been the received au-
thority in the Legislature of this State, there
will be no disposition to reject it now. JEFF
ierson says, that ''the number prefixed to the
section o! bill is merely marginal indica-
tion, and no part of the text of a bill" If
this be correct in the case Of bill, we are at
loss to know, Why it should not apply to con.
stitutiOanl sections as we'll.
Mr.. Speaker: If it were the. intention of
the Legislature in proposing the amendment
of 1866, that it should become a part of sec.
art. B, why was it that the plain word to,
indicating addition; was not used instead of
the word at, which indicates "nearness; or
presence? Whatever may be the opinion of
others as to the construction Of the resolution,
proposing the amendmendment of 1866, can
aDy one deny that it contains, at least,
doubtful intention This being the fact, it
is the bOunden duty of the democrats. in this
House to look we'll to the measure which is
now proposed.
Must We rely upon q radical judiciary to
construe resolution, OF doubtful meaning,
at least, in favor of those whom they have, 70
the extent of their power, debarred from the
rights of citizenship? Is it the part of wisdom
to rely upon your enemies for favorable con.
structiOn where doubt existsY Let US not