Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-12
Observation-Disclosures IL, 1888.

An offence that Can't be Committed.
We are inclined TO the belief that the
Commercial gazette knows more now
than it did when some time ago it set ont
to show that State might be punished
for the unlawful acts OF few OF its citi-
gems. And with all due respect TO our
Cincinnati contemporary, We must add
that its contentious in that behalf were
not at all creditable to the fourth estate
When an acknowledged leader of Repub-
lican public opinion was so badly in
formed, what was to be expected OF men
whose reputation did not extend over
half so wide an area ? Let all this be as
1t may, that paper talks to us as follows :
BY the way, will the editor of the
Richmond DiSDatch sit down and read
the fourteenth amendment of the Consti-
tuition, and tell us whether he regards it
part OF that instrument ? Will lie sus-
tain its validity a? How does Virginia
stand on that to-day ?"
We always keep the fourteenth amend
ment (the whole Federal Constitution in
fact upon our desk, where we can lay
our hand upon it without rising from our
seat. We claim to be reasonably fa-
miliar with that Constitution, including
OF course all the amendments; and we
think We can say for the people of Vir-
ginia that whatever opinion they may
hold as to the irregular manner In which
the new amendments were Incorporated
into that instrument, they hold that they
1ccrG incorporated into il and constitute
now a portion of it. There are excep-
tons, of course, to our general state
ment.
The fourteenth amendment was rati-
fed by thirty-three States out of thirty
seven, including Ohio and New Jersey,
which subsequently rescinded their rati-
tication. SO that Mr.. HALsTEAD's own
State has done more than Virginia ever
has to throw doubt upon the validity
OF that amendment. Isn't it refreshing
to find an Ohio man asking how Virginia
stands affected towards an amendment
which his own State, by a solemn joint
resolution of her General Ass 3mbly, did
sll she could to discredit and render null
and void ?
The fourteenth amendment conceded
the right of every State to deny suffrage
TO any of her citizens. 1t proposed to
the southern States that if they would
agree to give up portion of their repre-
sentation in Congress they might de-
prive the negro of the elective franchise /;
and this was huge bride offered by the
Republican party to the whites of the
South. Nine of the southern States at
first refused to ratify the fourteenth
amendment, but afterwards ratified it.
That amendment is now construed to
apply to disfranchised whites as well as
TO DISTINGUISHED blacks, but it was GER
tainly not intended by its trainers to APP
Fly to any persons except negroes. This
was clearly proved by the language of
the fifteenth amendment, which was
framed for the purpose Of multiplying SO
much of the fourteenth amendment as
provided for allowing negroes to be dis
franchised; for the fifteenth amendment
reads:
"The right OF citizens of the United
States to vote shall not he denied or
abridged by the United States or by any
State on account OF race, color, or pre-
vious condition of seryitude."
That was only another way of saying
that no negro should be DISTINGUISHED
because he was a negro.
Now, If Mr.. HALsrEAD will reflect for
few moments upon what we have here
inbefore said, he must come to the con-
clusion that the negro vote cannot be
suppressed" by any State. Georgia |
cannot disfranchise negro because be |
is anegro-cannot deny" or "abridge"
his right 10 vote-and therefore il is I'M
possible that Georgia can incur the pen
atty which Dir HALsTEAD has insisted |
upon visiting upon her. Neither Geor-
gia nor any other State has the power TO
deny or sbridge because he is n negro
any negro's right 10 vote; and con-
sequently it is impossible for any State
TO commit ia the case OF negroes the
offence for which the fourteenth amend
ment provides that State shall be de-
prived Of portion OF its representation
in Congress.
We have answered Mr.. HALsTEAD's /
question. We are confident that he has
recently digested some constitutional
law; and we desire that no shall learn
more. Now, then, let him tackle the
main proposition we have advanced in
this article and show wherein it is
founded in error, or else confess that he
has been driven from his last position
and can and will no longer maintain that
States representation in Congress can
be reduced because Of any action that a
State can take in regard 10 negroes.
Let us repeat the proposition we desire
Mr.. HAIsrEAp to take under serious con-
sideration- II is that no State can pos.
sibly commit in the case OF negroes the
offence for which the fourteenth amend
ment provides the punishment of loss
OF part Of States representation il
Congress.
---------------------