The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1893-03-30
READ AND YOU WILL KNOW.

267o and 1910 Of the Election Law. IN
a general sense, pointing out where
in the same would be improved by
the adoption OF the amendments pro
posed at the late session OF the Gen
sral Assembly. We intend to con
tinue the discussion of the law as il
is and as il 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do not publish another installment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 2676 further. No doubt there
was more injury 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
Chairman Simmons. He intended to
take the people unawares; and in
many counties, Notwithstanding the
efforts TO counteract his work, the
voters were unprepared, and his sub
ordinates, the registrars and election
offieers-all Democrats-gOt in their
fine work.
But the foundation of it all was
the deliberate decision of the Su-
preme Court of North Carolina, in
the case OF Harris VS.. Scarborough,
10 n. C.. Report, page 232. The
principle method of cheating, under
section 2676, was suggested to the
mind OF Chairman Simmons by that
decision.
The opinion of the court was writ
ten by Justice Avery. The law re-
fered to provides that "no registra
ton shall be valid unless it specifies,
as near as may be, the age, oceupa-
ton, place of birth place of resi-
dence of the eleetor and
full name by which the voter is
known" The Justice, in his opinion,
said:
cit was the duty of the elector
To MAKE THE ANSWERS AS SPECIFIC
AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES THEM, AND
THAT TAE REGISTRAR, IF HE READ THE
HEADINGS CALCULATED TO ELICIT THE
REQUISITE ANSWERS, CERTAINLY DID.
ALL THAT THE LAW REQUIRED OF
HIM."
So the court, in effect, decided that
If the answers were not specific, THE
RESPONSIBILITY RESTED UPON THE
VOTER AND NOT UPON THE REGISTRAR.
The court decided that it would not
be sufficiently specific for the voter
to simply give rs the place of his
birth, the State, (for instance, North
Carolina) in which he was born, but
that the COUNTY of his birth would
generally be deemed sufficiently def
nite.r
Perhaps the statute, enacted to do
mischief. might bear the construe-
ton given by Judge Avery; but the
injustice of its application to the in
dividual voter is made distinct by
the counter opinion, in the same case.
of Justice Clark. concurred in by
Justice Davis. OF course Chairman
Simmons took great pains not to
mention, in his circular. Justice
Clark's opinion, but was very care
full to let all the registrars and cleo
ton officers know the drift of the de-
eision of Justice Avery. Let it be
understood that no criticism is made
upon the Supreme court of North |
Carolina, except in so far as such
criticism may be made by Judges
Clark and Davis. Attention is called
to the language employed by them.
which may be called rather salty.
Said the minority constituting the
very same law:
1.-The response giving North Caro-
Una as the place of birth is indefi-
mite. But it was error in the court
20 hold, as matter of law, that PER
Sc this was the fault of the voter and |
inxalidated the vote given by him. |
Whether it was so, or not, depended |
upon the facts of the ease. If the reg
istrar, when such response was given. |
had asked for fuller and more def
mite response, AND THIS HAD BEEN |
REFUSED OR NOT GIVEN. then there |
would have been conduct on the part |
of the person offering to register |
which might be justly held as suffi-
eient proof to deprive him of the
right to vote. But the registrar is
the Office of the law. He is appoint |
ed 10 make the inquiries and set
down the replies. When. in response
to the inquiry as to heplaee of birth,
the Elector, IN good faith, and think
ing he had complied with all that was
required of him. responded North |
Carolina he was guilty of no DISC
besiienee of law which deprived him
of the right to vote. IF the response
was not sufficiently definite. the rep
Of the law, the registrar
dndy appointed, sworn and paid TO
perform the duty of taking the regis
should have asked the cleo
tor 70 respond more particularly. AND
II THE REGISTRAR FATLED TO DO so,
rHg NEGLECT OF DUTY WAS on THE
PART OF THE REGISTRAR. The elee-
tor might well be justified in taking
the aequieseence of the officer as a
that the answer was a
fun compliance with the require
nents of the law. ANY other view.
[ would seem, would make the regis
ration of voters not an impartial OBJ
seryance OF regulations TO protect the
ELECTORAL franchises and to prevent
rauds upon 1t, But WOULD FURNISH
WHEREBY THE trust
Nc THE UNwARY, THE USKILLED OR
rHE IGNORANT WOULD BIZ DEPRIVED
- THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGH1 OF
SxEReISIN6 THE RIGHT OF VOTING.