Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1894-03-16
CALLED TO THE FRONT
AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR
INGRAM.

Mrs. Bennett, of Kentucky. calls
Which She Holds IL Not I'm Ac.
cOrdance With Our National Con-
stitutiOn.
To THE GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON:
/, write to you as l shall to the Gov
ernOr OF every State in the Union, TO
call your attention to the fact that
Congress has subverted our Govern
ment by authorizing black men to
vote for State officers, the constitu-
tions and laws "to tie contrary notwiM-
standing," in the act which is not
made in pursuance OF the 18th amend
ment OF our National constitution.
AS the Judges OF the Supreme Court
OF the United States have declared in
their Slaughter-House decision, the
Nth amendment OF our National con-
stitution contra. distinguished citizens
OF the United States from citizens of
States when it is said, "All persons
horn or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United
States, and the State wherein they re-
side"
So the right 10 vote for Sta'e officers
is the right of citizens of the States to
vote. since the constitution of each
State conferred the power to vote for
its State officers upon persons residing
within that State, and upon no others.
While the right to vote for federal Off
GERS is the right of citizens of the
United States to vote, since our Ma
tiOnal Constitution confers the power
to vote for federal officers upon per-
sons residing in every part OF the
United States, and not upon those re-
siding within one State alone.
And the 18th amendment of our
National Constitution does not forbid
any State to deny the right of citizens
OF the States to vote to any person on
account OF color, but simply says" the
right OF citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State
on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude."
And Congress did not authorize
black men to exercise the right of cit
liens OF the United States to vote for
federal officers in the act entitled Gan
act to enforce the right OF citizens OF
the United States to vote in the sew
eral States of the Union," but author
ICES them to exercise the right of cit.
liens of the States to vote for State
officers. That is, it authorized black
men to exercise one right in the name
of another.
have asked Congress to repeal this
unconstitutional act under which the
State officers OF every State in the
Union are now being elected, but vet
think that the best way perhaps in
which constitutional government
can be re-established in this country is
for the Governors Of our States to ap-
peal 10 the Judges of the Supreme
Court of the United States for protec-
ton against the further encroachment
of this act.
The Judges of the Supreme Court of
the United States protected black men
in exercising the right OF citizens of
the United States to vote for members
OF the United States House of Repre-
sentatives in the several States of the
Union in their Yarbough decision of
1884; but do not think that these
gentlemen have ever been asked to
pass upon the Congressional act au.
thorizing black men to vote for State
officers.
And some OF the Judges of the
Supreme Court OF the United States.
since rendering the erroneous Virginia
| Miner and YArbough DECISIONS have
had time to realize that no State ever
could deny or abridge the right of
persons to vote for any officers that
our National constitution had con-
ferred upon them, as its 18th and 18th
amendments insinuate it could; while
majority of them have died, and
their places upon our Supreme Bench
have been filled with other men.
No other State ever could deny or
abridge the right of citizens of the
United States TO vote for members of
Congress as the Judges of the Supreme
Court of the United States evidently
thought it could, both when they rem
dered their Virginia Miner decision of
1875, and their Yarbough decision of
1884; because the rights of citizens of
the United States are those privileges
or immunities which are derived from
our National constitution, as the
Judges OF the Supreme Court held in
their Virginia Miner decision, and our
National constitution has always been
the supreme law of this land, "anythinq
in the constitution or law of any State
to the contrary Notwithstanding" as
its sixth article expressly declares.
1t was the right of citizens of the
State to vote for State officers that the
Legislature of New Jersey took away
from black men and women in 1907,
after they had exercised the right for
about 81 years, by adding whiteness
and masculineness to the list of quail
ifications requisite for electors of the
New Jersey House OF Represen tatives,
and not the right of citizens of the
United States to vote for members of
the United States House of Repre-.
sentatives in the State of New Jersey,
which black men and women had ex-
ercised for only about Is years.
Neither could any State ever dis
qualify black rnen for exercising the
right Of citizens of the United States
TO vote for members of Congress by
prescribing wilderness as one of the
qualifications requisite for the electors
of State House of Representatives, as
some persons may have imagined.
Because, IS the Judges Of the Su.
preme Court of the United States
cay in their Ysrbough decision,
"The States in prescribing the quail.
iications of voters for the most
numerous branch of their own Legisla-
ture, do not do this with reference to
the election of members OF Congress
nor can they prescribe the qualifica-
tions for those 60 nomaine."
It was our National Constitution
and not the State OF New Jersey that
required the black male electors OF
members OF Congress to have white
ness before voting for members of Con.
gress in New Jersey after the Legisla-
ture of that State had added wilderness
to the list of qualifications requisite
for electors of the. most numerous