The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1871-01-04
Hon John BrannOn. General
j. j. Jackson, Judge
Thompson.
The DISTINGUISHING Amend.
ment, the Flick Amend
ment and the Reg
istratiOn Law.
The Duty Of the Democracy
Give US the Peace of a Republic.
WESTON, WEST VIRGINIA,
December LIST, 1870. !

Vic W wv '>'>'
had previously readit.
The substance of the propositions al
yoa make them is first, that the so
called DISTINGUISHING amendment to the
Constitution, purporting to have beer
adopted in 1866. is imperative and void
hcc,u-e The Legislature, by IN a. Which
wgs unconstitutional, did undertake &c
deprive a large number Of the qualltiec
votes from voting on the question.
Secondly, That the amendment called
The Flick Ameudmet, to undo this dis
franchising amendment, is unnecessary
becaue it seeks only to undo that which
is Woodland imperative.
Thirdly, If the amendment claimed
10 be elective, is in force and effect
that til, Flick Amendment cannot be
adopted because Of the failure to pub
lished i fully as directed by the Con7ti
tuition.
The difficulty have, as 10 your first
ia that al hough the Legislature, in
palpab'e violation OF the Constitution
did detlae that certain class Of per,
sons, VIII, were by the Constitution
entitled + vote. should not vote, yet
sad ame,dment was submitted to the
.'nualit;ed voters" When it was sub
mi;;ed it WAS the legal right OF all
Constitutional voters, to vote on the
question, Notwithstanding the uncOnsti-
tutional ENACTMENT of the Legislature.
II is true, We know, those who were in.
tended bv tue &C: to be denied the right
to vote, did not vote, yet they had the
legal right tdvote under the submission
OF said amendment to the qualified
voters, aud so the submission was
l.sallv mad, ard those who were
derived. did not save the question OF
heir right d vote; or TO have their
votes counted, and the submission
being lawful do not see that the
validity of tn. DISTINGUISHING amend
ment can now for the reason assigned
bv YOU, be quetioned. If the fact that
force, void enatmentS, or other unlaw-
full means were employed to prevent a
full vote of the, qualified voters upon
this question, ,ould' without a legal
saving of the question by the excluded
voters, operate tsrender void the act OF
those voting, we may well conjecture
the danger which would result from a
preccd dent of a mare legislative declara-
ton, that the act { those voting shall
be held void" ii such rule is to
prevail, Constitution subjected to the
caprice, incident to varying party sue
cess, would he mere rope OF sand.
1t is a widespread opinion that our
Constitution adoptf in 1868 was not
submitted, in fact, tdthe qualified voters,
or rather that from menace and force
only portion OF he qualified voters
were allowed to woe on it, and if the
Legislature can nudity or invalida'e
Tor such cause, it mg he said we have
no Constitution Apply the same rea'
soning, we would hav, no State and who
Of us would. desire togo back, subjects
of negro domination | feel assured
YOU would not | stould not. This
disfranchising amendment was legally
submitted and promulgated as part o.
the Constitution and Will be presumed
to have been regularly adopted until
the contrary is proved Omnid presu
muntur rite ct Soiemnitef esse dcta donec
prebetu in comrarium. What tribunal
is there to hear the prooland determine
whether it was open o the votes o.
only a part of the legal lvoters2 The
legislative department dos not decide
what the Constitution isl The court:
are constituted tor this purpose What
would judicial investi cat on disclose, i
it could be had2 Only that this amend
ment was submitted to tie qualified
voters" and that the legislature by 6
void enactment did sttemf to preven
a portion of the qualified voters" from
voting. No adequate proc can now b'
produced that sufficient number o
those who were intended to be reached
ever offered to vote II in the power o
the people or the Legislature to reacl
the question it would be lett to TIT
mere will of members to say a humble
sufficient to have changed the result
were excluded, when there night no
have been enough.
II YOU are correct in your first propo
sition, then the Flick Amendmen
would be useless--if the amendment o
1866 is not part Of the Constitution
then it would seem to be a useless ex
pendture of time to undertake to und'
a thing having no existence, and for
like reason a convention ior the pur
pose alone OF enfranchisement woul'
seem to be unnecessary. II, however
YOU should be in error in this, and
the amendment of 1866 is part of tn
Constitution, then ysur third sugges
ton is most worthy of investigation
This involves the inquiry whether exac
conformity to the directions OF the Con
stitution "a to the time and manner o
publication is an indispensable pr,
requisite, in order to validate the FheI
Amendment il submitted 10 and ratltie'
by the voters. You re'er to some au
thorities on this subject which, witt
your comments, would seem to sustain
your conclusion. | wish | had you
authorities and beg you to re-examin
them. | should think it is necessar
to conform to all requirements II
amending a Constitution in all such re
quirements as would. in their nature, b
inherent. This would be in harmon
with we'll settled rules Of law upo
such subjects. All departures from d
rections not apparent would not be in
quired into Such requirements ss ar
required to appear would have to B