The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1893-04-18
READ AND YOU WILL KNOW.
Wilton, y c.

Last week we commented upon the
operations of sections 2671, 1874, 2675
and 2776 of the election law, in a gen
eral sense, pointing out wherein the
same would be improved by the adop-
tion Of the amendments proposed at
the late session Of the General Assem-
bly,. We intend to continue the dis
cussion Of the law as it is and as it
would be if amended, from week to
week in the Caucasian. We do not
publish another installment this week,
for we wish to ventilate section 1876
further. No doubt there was more in
jury done to the people, in the election
of 1892, under this section, than under
any other of the whole law.
Reference has been frequently made
to the secret circular issued by Chair
man Simmons. He intended to take
the people unaWares; and in many
counties, notwithstanding the efforts
to counterac6 his work, the voters were
u~nprepared, and his subordinates, the
registrars and election omcers-all
Democrats-got in their fine work.
But the foundation Of it all was the
deliberate decision Of the Supreme
Court of North Carolina, in the case Of
Harris VS.. Scarborough, 40 n. @. Re
port, page 232. The principal method
of cheating, under section 1876, was
suggested to the mind of Chairman
Simmons by that decision.
The opinion Of the court was written
by Justice Avery. The law referred to
provides that mo registration shall be
valid unless it specifies, as near as may
be, the age, occupation, place Of birth,
place of residence of the ~electOr. x X
and full name by which the voter is
known" The Justice, in his opinion,
said:
1T was the duty of the elector to
make the answer as specific as the
statute requires them, and that the
registrar, if ne read the headings cal
culated to elicit the requisite answer,
certainly did all that the law required
of him."
So the court, in effect, decided that
if the answer we're not specific, the re,
sponsibility rested upon the voter and
not upon the registrar. The court de-
cided that it would not be sufficiently
specific for the voter to simply give as
the place of his birth the State, (for in,
stance, North Carolina in which he
was b-rn, but that the county of his
birth "would generally be deemed suf-
fciently definite"
Perhaps the statute, enacted to do
mischief, might bear the construction
given by Judge Avery; but the injus,
tice of its application to the individual
voter is made distinct by the counter
opinion, in the same case, of Justice
Clark, %concurred in by Justice Davis.
Of curse Chairman Simmons took
great pains not to mention in his circu-
lar Justice Clark's opinion, but was
very careful to let all the registrars
and election officers know the drift Of
the decision Of Justice Avery. Let it
be understood that no criticism is made
upon the Supreme Court of North Car
DINA, except in so far as such criticism
may be made by Judges Clark and
Davis. Attention is called to the Ian.
guage employed by them, which may
be called rather salty.
Said the minority Constituting the
very same law:
'The response giving North Caro-.
lima as the place of birth is indefinite.
But it was error in the court to hold,
as a matter of law, that per Sc this was
the fault Of the voter and invalidated
the vote given by him. Whether it
was so, or not, depended upon the facts
Of the case. If the registrar, when
such response was given, had asked
for a fuller and more definite response.
and this had been refused or not given.
then there would have been conduct on
the part of the person offering to reg
lister which might be justly held as suf-
fcient proof to deprive him of the RIGHT
to vote. But the registrar is the office
of the law. He is appointed to make
the inquiries and set down the replies
VIII n, in response to the inquiry as to
place of birth, the e~lector, in good
faith, and thinking he had compiled
with all that was required of him, re-