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


! proposition, we apprehend, does not come
within the rule. The proposed amendment
simply re-enacts Sec. ! Art. III, with the ex-
ception of the word l0hite. Can it be claimed,
with aay show of reason, that striking out
| the word t1hite eDfranchises white men by
producing an inconsistency Can the reas.
sertion of fact extinguish the fact as it pre-
viously existed If not, then certainly, this
cannot be construed as q subsequent act, be-
cause it is a mere reassertiou of that which
previously existed? In other words, BY this
proposed amendment, Sec. 1.-Art. 8 of the
Constitution of the State, with exception of
the word ichite, is simply reasserted, word for
word. The reasscrtiOn of one provision of
the Constitution, most assuredly, cannot rem
der nall and void another provision which is
coexistent with it.
1t has been said that We must look to the
intention of the Legislature in order to give
this amendment its proper construction. 1t
is true, that when uncertain and ambiguous
language occurs in a law, that We are neces-
sarIIy driven to the intention of the law
maker. In this case, neither bad grammar
nor uncertain language is used, or claimed to
be used. 1t therefore, must be construed
strictly. That we can 60 behind the Jaw to
the intention OF the law. maker, when the Ian
guage is plain and explicit, hope, there will
be none SO foolish as TO claim. Let us see,
however, something about the intention of
those who framed this proposed amendment.
In doing SO, we willingly lay down the gen
eTal principle, sustained by the most eminent
authorities, that constitutional provisions are
construed literally to effect the intention of
their framers." We hold that the amend
ment which we are nov asked TO support was
originally proposed in the Legislature of this
State with the sole view OF conforming our
State Constitution to the so, called Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. This intention hot only appears upon
the face of the amendment, but when viewed
in connection with the political sentiments of
its originator and his coadjutors, together
with the facts existing at the time of its in
ception, is made plain and undeniabIe. The
Fifteenth Amendment, giving the negro the
ballot, had been forced upon the whole coun-
try by Radical fraud and prose -iptiou. The
word Ichite yet remained in the organic lay
OF our State. Radical loyalty, gladly yielding
to the central power at Washington, imme-
diately took steps 10 strike that word lchitc;
and that alone, from our Constitution, and
now We are dealing with the measure by
which it is to be accomplished. We know
the man (Flick) who is the author of this
amendment, and We know too his political an.
tecedents. No character OF prescription
against our people has been too vile for his
ready support. Nothing that could accom-
plish the neiarious designs of RaGicalism, has
been left undOne by this Wheeling type of
Radical loyalty. Can it be presumed that it
was his intention, in framing this amend
ment, to strike down, at a single blow, the
entire work of years that he had assisted in
perpetrdting Upon the people of our State p
Can it be presumed that he aud his associates
are conscienceNstricken at the result of their
political Enavery, and are now willing to make
amends FOR theft past conduct We think
not. They are as bitter in these, the DAYS of
their adversely, as they we're in the days of
their prosperity. The liberal construction of
constitutional provisions being applied, only
TO effect the intention of their trainers, and
the intention appearing upon the face of this
Amendment, ard by the acts of those who
originally proposed it, being clearly to simply
strike the word 'chjte from our State Consti-
tuition, it cannot be construed to effect any
other purpose than that intended.
Mr.. Speaker: The fact that the Flick
amendment is Radical measure, is suffi-
cient, in itself, to array the Democratic party
in opposition to it. Especially so, when we
have the power OF selecting and providing the
means by which the great object Of enfran-
chising the DISTINGUISHED may be accom-
plished. l, Tor one. did not come here with
the expectation OF seeing the Democratic par.
ty dictated to by Radical, played out Gov.
ernor. One too, who has executed, in the
most rigorous manner, the foul aud obnoxious
registration laws which disgrace the Code of
our State. Examine his message, and you
will find that while he advocates this amend
ment, he enters into an argument against the
I IL
the evils that affiict our people, a Convention
that will frame Constitution in conformity
with their rights and interests.
During the month of June last, the demo,
craEc State Convention met in this place, for
the nomination of State officers. The ma
iority of the committee on resolutions, re-
ported the following resolution as part of the
platform Of the party: "ResoLved, that the
radical party, hdOing forced negro Suffrage
itpOn the people Of the State, and ar, nor pre-.
semting them to UOte qualifications, heIdtherein,
ire tgit not oppose the proposed amendment to
the Constitution Of Mis State. because 1t pro,
poses to strike out me lrOrd WHITE, but lcW
support The proposed amendment, because ii
proposes to enfranckise ticenty.fre thousand
'ohHe r:eH ;7ho are 'toio depriCed of all par
ttcipation IN The eEectiUe franchise Of this
STATE" This resolution was the subject of an
animated and heated discussion in that con-
vention, and was voted down and stamped
with the seal of contempt 1t was unworthy
the Consideration of the democratic party, and
it vas so decided. With what Kind of pro,
priety then, do men, calling themselves dem
ocrats, come here, and advocate this same
measure? I have always understood it to be
the principle of democracy to yield to the ma.
iority. l cannot understand, upon what
principle democrats can Join hands with rad