The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1894-05-03
THe EFFECT OF TIE OeCis ca

THE CAUCASIAN asks Il u -ap-
prove the dec's sion Of the Supreme
Jourr that MI ks it the fault - the
.oter if the Registrar fails 10 regis
.er the voter I ght when h. dos not .
refuse TO give the proper inforna-
ton /
ave would not anProve such 3 de- ,
cision if such one we're made; but
We do not understand cha; any such
decision las ben na4r. And We
think We Know what dec. ion has
been mr.de ''-NeNs-O -, ryer-C hron-
icle, April 18th.
For the bered, # Capt. Ashe and
the public We will quote again from
fhe decision of the Supreme Court.
at was the duty of the elector TO
make the answers as specific a the
statutes requires them, and that the
Registrar, if he read the headings
calculated to elicit the requisite an
swers, certainly did all that the law
required IF him"
IHE CAUCASIAN contends that
the above decision makes it the fault
Of the voter who has not refused 10
give the proper information) If the
Registrar fails to register MIN right
Judge Clark and the la,r judge
Davis botn held the same opinion.
We quote the following from their
protest which they filed against the
majority decision Of the court. The
case before the court was where vo-
ter IN answer to the question where
he was born said North Carolina"
The Registrar did not ask him for
the county but simply pat down
North Carolina" and then on the
day of election he was challenged
because the county was not given.
judges Clark and Davis dissent
ing from the opinion of the majority
of the court said:
"The response giving North Car
DINA as the place of birth is indef
mite. But it was error in the court
to hold, as 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 register
which might justly be held as suffi-
Gent proof to deprive him of the
right to vote. But the Registrar is
the office of the law. He is appoint
ed to make the inquiries and set
down the replies. When, in response
to the inquiry as to the place of
birth, the Elector, in good faith, and
thinking he had complied with all
that was required of him, responded
North Carolina he was guilty of no
disobedience of law which deprived
him of the right to vote. If the re-
Spouse was not sufficiently definite,
the representative of the law, the re-
gistrar duly appointed, sworn and
paid to perform TIE duty of taking
the registration, should have asked
the elector to respond more particu-
larly, and if the registrar failed to do
SO, the neglect of duty was on the
part of the registrar. The elector
might well be justified in taking the
acquiescence of the officer as a rep
resentatiye of the law that the an
swer was full compliance with the
requirements of the law. Any other
view, it would seem, would make the
registration of voters not an impair
tial observance of regulations to pro-
tect the ELECTORAL franchises and to
prevent frauds upon it, but would
furnish opportunities whereby the
trusting, the unwary, the unskilled
or the ignorant would be deprived of
the constitutional right Of exerciS-
ing the right of voting"
This is pretty strong language to
come from two members of the Su-
preme court in disapproval which
amounts to condemnation of the ac-
ton of majority of the court
They say that the decision makes
it the fault of the voter, if the Reg
istrar fails to register the voter right,
when he (the voter has not refused
to give the proper information. They
also say that such a decision instead
of regulating the registration pro-
tectjDg the election franchises, actu-
ally furnishes opportunities for
fraud and corruption. Can Capt.
Ashe SHOW tina: Judges Clark and
Davis were wrong? If he does not
then THE CAUCASIAN has establish
ed its case.
SUGAR COATED POISON