New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-06-07
TOTAL LOSS OF THE WORD WHITE"

TOTAL LOSS OF THE Word WRITE"
The full text of the opinion of the Supreme
Court in Neal agt. Delaware, which has now
been published, shows that the decision en-
braced point of widespread practical impor-
lance. 1t carries very far the doctrine that
the word white" in State Constitutions and
laws limiting suffrage, is to be deemed erased
-obliterated-by the Fourteenth Amendment.
No matter though the enactment stands on
the statute book unchanged; no matter though
it is brought into operation in some indirect
wav. not involving cOlOred mans vote a
limitation of suffrage by the word white
must be ignored. State officers as well as Fed-'
eral are bound to adopt this revised version.
To appreciate the bearing of this, one must re-
call that, before the peace and reconstruction,
very many of the States limited suffrage more
or less strictly to white persons. This was
directed in the State Constitutions and re-
peated in the laws regulating elections. The
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments pro-
hibitcd the States from excluding any
person from suffrage because of color
Obviously this prohibition was incOnsis-
tent with the word "white" AZ it stood
in the law-boOks of the States. A few Of the
States changed it in due FORM amended their
constitutions or revised their statutes, emitting
the prohibited word. Most allowed the old
text to stand unchanged conforming their
practice moro or less cordially to the new
order. And the suggestion has been made,
before this day, that the Federal amendments
of themselves erased =" white" from state
suffrage laws. The new decision confirms this
to the fullest extent.
The story Of Meals case il, that Dalaware's
Constitution, adopted in 1881, restricted suf-
frage to "frec white male citizens y; and her
jury law, enacted in 1913, confined jury duty
to qualified voters. Thus (bcfore the amend
ments), clearly, a colorcd man could not serve
on a jury. And these laws had not been
changed Except by the amendmcnts) when
about year ago, Neal, negro. was put upon
trial, in a Delaware court, for capital Of
fence. II soon became plain to his counsel
that the accused was not 10 have that chance
of having some persons of his own race drawn
on the jury which modern Federal law assures
to every coorcd man, and he demonstrated in
various forms, but was oycrTued; white
Jury was mpanellcd, and the negro was con
victcd.
The Supreme Court, being asked to review
these proceedings. has set them aside on the
ground that the Delaware Constitution, though
never formally amended. must be read and
administered, for all purposes, rs if the word
"whitc" were omitted. That word is in effect
oblitcrated by the Federal amendments, where
ever il il found inserted in a State COnsltu-
ton or law with the purpose of limiting suf-
frage. And COlorcd men must hc deemed quail
flied voters. not only when they come 10 the
poll, hiuging votes, but also when the qucS-
ton arises indirectly. as when the list of
"dualihcd voters " is compiled for drawing
Jurors under such a law a. that of 1913. The
officers could not he deemed authorized or
even directed by that law to exclude negroes
from the jury room without their knowing
it, the law was changed by the amendments.
II is a maxim that officers are to be presumed to
have done their duty and this gracious rule
would have led the court IA sustain the trial, ON
the assumption that the Delaware impanclllng
officers did i'm fact (as they should have done 10y
constitutional law include cOlorcd men in the
drawing, and that the reason why the jury con-
tanned only whites was that accidentally no
black men were drawn. But, on examining
the proofs, the majority of the judges found
reason Ia believe that the formation of the
white jury was not accidental that colorcd
men were excluded deliberately. Therefore the
proceedings were set aside.