The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1893-04-20
ROWLING NOT ARGUMENT.

ROWLING NOT ARGUMENT
For weeks we have been yentilat-
ing the election law. We have been
showing up its nnfairness as inter
preted and used by the Democratic
machine In the last campaign. Dur
ing the time not single paper in
the State, that We have seen, has even
tried TO answer single argument We
have produced against the law, or
single charge We have made. We
thought probably they were shutting
their eyes to the truth and were too
prejudiced to even read it But it
now turns out that they have been
reading what we said, but seeing that
they could not answer it, they have
kept quiet. As a proof of this We
note the fact that when We quoted
from the majority decision of the
Supreme Court, as delivered by JUS
tice Avery, and the minority opinion,
as delivered by Justice Clark, on the
registration clause of the election law,
in the case of Harris VS.. Scarborough,
they raised howl. They then saw
their opportunity to appeal to preju-
dice without producing arguments
and trying to answer our arguments.
The North Carolinian wines about
US splitting venom at Justice Avery
and stabbing him in the back and
such rot. If that paper had wanted to
be fair, why did it not reproduce our
editorial and let the people judge for
themselves. Wequoted the language
of the decision SO that the people
could see whether or not we were
right. We are induced to think that
the Legislature that passed the law
is more at fault than the court in
passing upon the law. In fact, since
we have begun to investigate the mat
ter, we have discovered that the Su-
preme Court formerly, in the case Of
PEBBLES VS.. Commissions of DAVE
county, construed the election law,
and that their decision did not please
the politicians, SO they demanded
that the legislature amend it so as to
override the Supreme Court, and
when the present law was passed the
Legislature no doubt intended that
the Supreme Court should decide on
the registration Gf the matter came
up as the court did decide it. As
to Judge Avery, we have much more
confidence in him than some of our
Judges. We have known him to
take the side of the people in more
than one matter on political ques-
ton. But to revert to the decision
from which we quoted, if the courts
is right then it shows that the law is
very bad one and should be amend
ed. The North Carolinian wants to
know why we did not have it amend
ed when we were in the Senate in
1891. If we could then have seen
the abuses and frauds which have
been committed in its name, we would
have fought to have repealed or
amended it as hard as we fought to
pass the Railroad Commission and
have all corporations to pay taxes as
private citizens do. But the law is
something like John Sherman's can
thrust law" 1t was passed appa-
rently to suppress trusts, and the
politicians and partisan papers so
told the people. But the real object
of the law has just now, after mauy
years, come to light when Judges
Kicks and Taft made their decisions
the other day under it against labor
and In favor Of trusts. The real
hidden unfareness and meanness of
the election law did not show itself
till the last election. But the man
who drew the bill was preparing for
just such frauds when the immen-
gency should arrive, as was commit
ted last November.