Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1883-07-10

POLITICAL AND CIVIL EQUALITY.-Un-
der the constitution the political and civil
(not sociaD rights of the races are equal,
and that instrument forbids that there
should be any distinction as to these rights
on account of trace, color, or previous con-
dition of servitude." This being so, it fol-
lows that if negro be appointed or elected
to any Office or selected as juryman for the
reason that he is negro, it is as much
violation of the Constitution as to refuse to
appoint or elect him to Office or to select
him as iuryman because he is a negro,
and if Cameron, Farr, and Blair elected
as no.doubt they did-the two negroes as
trustees of the School Board of Richmond
because they were negroes, they violated
the Constitution they swore to support.
That ''that is poor rule that won't work
both ways" is proverbial. If it be constl-
tutional to appoint or elect negroes because
they are negroes, then it is constitutional
to refuse to appoint them because they are
negroes.-jSpectator, July 3rd.
''The Staunton SPECTATOR argues that II
Cameron, Farr, and Blair appointed two
colored men as trustees on the School board
of Richmond because they were colored men
"they violated the Constitution they have
sworn to support" Even Bourbon stupid
Ivy Will dppICnOAll CAO AOS1Cdl SCuuOASS =
the City Council of Richmond appointed
nine white men as trustees of the ninety
white schools and fifty-six colored schools
of Richmond because they were white men
they violated the Constitution they have
sworn to support. Only last week the City
Council elected three trustees to vacancies
on the City School Board. All three OF
those elected were white men, and not only
this, but one was to supply the place of a
colored man. For this vacancy colored
man was nominated, but the righteous
Bourbons voted for and elected his white
opponent. Why? Because he was white
man. Thus, by Bourbon reasoning, the
Bourbons of the Richmond City Council
are periurers. You know, Mr.. SPECTATOR,
that is a poor rule that won't work both
ways "-Richmond Whig, July 7th.
1t will be observed that the Wing does
not controvert the correctness Of the propo-
sition of the SPECTATOR, nor attempt to re-
ply to the logic of the argument, but ad
mits, by implication at least, the correct,
ness of the former, and makes an appliea-
ton of the latter. Some of the Coalition
press having maintained that not to elect
negroes to Office was a violation ofthe Con-
stitution, the argument Of the SPECTATOR
was designed to show that if this were SO,
it was likewise violation of the Constitu
ton to elect them, if it were done for the
reason that they were negroes, the Con
stitution inhibiting any distinction On &C
count of Grace, color, or previous condition
of servitude." In word, to elect OF refuse
to elect any one because he is white OF
black, is a violation of the Constitution.
The Whiq does not deny that Cameron,
Farr, and Blair appointed two colored men
as trustees of the School Board OF Richmond
because they we're colored men, and We
maintain that if they appointed them fol
that reason, they violated the Constitution
they have sworn to support. The " hig,
assuming the conclusion to be correct, says
eff the City Council of Richmond appoint
ed white men as trustees because they were
white men, they violated the Constitution
they have sworn to support. and itassertt
that they appointed them for that reason.
We suppose they appointed them for other
reasons superior qualifications, character,
&c.-but agree that, if they appointed them
simply for the reason that they were white
men, they violated the Constitution as muet
as did Cameron, Farr, and Blairin appoint
ing two colored men simply because they
were colored men. We do not agree, ex-
cept for the sake Of the argument, that tbs
City Council appointed white men as trus
tees simply and alone because they wert
white men, as the Wing asserts but grant
ing this to be true, then SO far as the in
fraction if the Constitution is concerned
they are alike culpable ; but there is wid'
difference in the sentiments and motives
which controlled them-the Council
through partiality to their own superio
race, appointed achite men; and Cameron
Farr, and Blair, partial to an inferior race.
appointed colored men. The former
white men,-violated the Constitution tina
a0hite men might rule; the latter-whit'
men-violated the Constitution that cOl0ret
men might rule the former, were loyal tt
their race-the latter, traitors to it.
No ore has right to election to office OF
account of race or color, or any other con
sderation. But, if eligible, and the people
elect them or the authorized appointing
power appoint them to Office, they have thu
right to hold Office thus conferred.
The object of our article, commented up
on by the Wing, was to show that, if a
some of the Coalition press maintained, i
were a violation of the Constitution to re
fuse to elect negroes to office because the.
are negroes, that it was equally violation
of the Constitution to elect them because
they were negroes-that to discriminate il
favor of them was as much violation O
the Constitution as to discriminate agains
them-the Constitution inhibiting any dis
tinction on account of race, color, Or previ
Gus condition Of servitude. This was oul
proposition, and we defy the logic of the
Wing to controvelt it, and we defy Came
ron, FAIR, and Blair to justify their appoint
ment of negro trustees because they wer'
negroes.
SUDDEN DEATH.-Died, at the late resi-
dence of his diseased brother, DR.. Sager
(whO died few weeks ago. near Dayton
on Friday night, June Goth, 1888, Mr.. Sam
uel Sager. Mr.. Sager although he hat
been in i'll health for some time, died very
suddenly and unexpectedly. He retired t.
bed at his usual hour and in usual health
and was found dead in his bed the mex
morning. 1t is supposed that his death was
caused from heart disease. Appropriate
funeral services were conducted by the Rev
S F. SANGER and the remains Of the de