The Holt County sentinel., 1895-05-31
Not Violated,

The question of state rights" has
been revived in Sou tn Carolina by the
issue of the restrain ing order OF Judge
Golf, United States judge. prohibiting
the state election commissioners from
executing a state law providing for the
calling of a constitutional convention.
The direct purpose of the law was two
fold. for the assembling of state con.
vention to draft new constitution and
to disfranchise the colored vote, SO as
to prevent it from taking part in elect
ing delegates to the convention.
Governor Evans has made no secret
OF the second object, anu has frequently
declared that it was for the purpose OF
maintaining the ascendency OF the
whites in the political affairs OF state.
1t is easy to understand and to sym
pathise with tho sentiment in the south
which is opposed 20 neogro supremacy
in politics. The white people OF the
north woulG feel the same way about
the matter under the same circum-
stances. But the mistake that South
Carolina is making in her attempt to
solve the problem, is that she is seeking
to dlsfranchise all colored voters solely
oa account Of their color, and in direct
violation of the letter and spirit OF the
federal constitution.
Ordinarily, under the federal constitu-
lion, the question OF suffrage is one for
state determination; that is, whom the
separate states invest with the rights OF
suffrage becomes q voter in the choice
of president and vice president or Q!
representatives in congress. 1t was
foreseen in 1866 that, under the peculiar
conditions that the war left the former
slave states, an attempt would be made
to disfranchise the blacks, as q class
and TO prevent this unjust discrimina
ton the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution OF the United States was
adopted, and it was that guarantee that
the United States court was called upon
to enforce by a restraining order.
II South Carolina wishes t.
eliminate the illiterate an(
mischievieus Negro vote from her poll
tics. there is way for her to do SO with
out violating the constitution and in
vlting federal intervention. She ha:
full authority to Xix the qualifications o
voters in such q manner as to shut on
that element of her population. Thu
only Limitation is that she must no
make distinction OF race, color or pre-
vious condition of servitude. She is re
auired to treat all citizens alike, to i'm
pose the same restrictions upon bot
whites and blacks; and II she is reall
desirous to get rid OF ignorant and vena
voters, she can not reasonably object {
this stipulation. 4 black voter
no worse than a bad white one; at least
the mere fact OF his color should nc
count against him and in favor OF fh
white man who is equally Objectionable
except as to the mere point OF compile,
ion. She can establish educational an
property tests which would dIsfranchIs
practically all citizens whose use OF th
ballot is likely to be inimical to th
peace and welfare of society. Her pows
in that respect is complete and supren
The fact is, however, that she does nj
wish to dsfranchise white voters on an
account, but only black ones Jon accour
OF their color,
The question OF estate rights" is clea
" subordinate to the jurisdiction col
ferred upon the government by thi
amendment. II is too late to raise TIL
question now, because il was fairly ar
openly settled IN 1866. The court siu
ply did its duty in protecting the RICH
OF a class Of citizens OF the state
South Carolina against an attemptt
usurpation, and should be commends
for its courage in favor OF the right, al
she Ia sadly mistaken il she suppos
the government will permit her to car
out a project which involves the idea
state to suspend or nullify vital pr
vision OF the constitution,