The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-05-15

1t Overtn.nS the Dred ocCtt oeciS:oh
by making all persons born within
the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction citizens Of the United
States That its main purpose was
to establish the citizenship of the
negro can admit of no doubt. The
phrase "subject to its jurisdiction
was intended to exclude from its
operation children of ministers, con-
suls of citizens or sujects of foreign
States born within the United States.
While it is true that the Supreme
Court has held that the lith amend
ment did not add to the privileges
and immunities of a citizen and that
no new voters were necessarily made
by it, it is equally true that it in effect
held that it increased the number Of
citizens entitled to suffrage under the
Constitution and laws of the States.
It also held that in the light Of the
history of the late amendments that
there was no difficulty in giving a
proper meaning to their provisions,
aud that the existence of laws in
those States where emancipated ne
o resided which grossly discrim.
mated against them as a class Was
the end to be remedied by :aem, and
::Asst by them such lsws are forbid
DON IF also fn}ly determined that a
citizen of a State is now simply a
citizen of the United States residing
in that State ; that his rights as such
are those hat belong to him as a
citizen of the United States, and
that they are not dependent upon his
citizenship of any State. do not de-
pend upon it's legislation and cannot
be destroyed by its power. As |
understand the decision Of the SUI
preme Court, they sustain the claim
of this plaintiff that the Courts Of the
United States. are open for the relief
of ~citizens-of the United States
whose privileges have been abridged
by the State in which he resides
Certainly they should be and will
surely SO hold until advised by that
Court that | am in error. From
these same decisions I find that
while the right OF suffrage is not a
necessary attribute of Federal citi-
zenship, that it surely is such an st.
tribute al is exempt from discrimina-
ton in the exercise of that right on
account of race and previous con-
2ition, and that while the right to
vote in the States comes from the
States. that the right of exemption
from the prohibited discrimination
comes from the United States.
While as a rule the rights Of a
citizen of a State are such as all
citizens O: the United States enjoy.
yet this plaintiff has also certain
rights under the Constitution of
South Carolina by virtue of the Act
of Congress of June %, 1868, which
was accepted and acted upon by that
State, in which it is provided that
the Constitution of said State shall
never be so changed as to deprive
any citizen or class of citizens OF the
United States of the right to vote in
said State who are entitled to vote
by the Constitution of the same,
recognized in said Act, except as a
punishment. for crime. The Consti-
tuition there referred to is one from
which have before quoted, the pres.
ent organic law Of that State
Are the registration laws of South
Carolina costitutional9 Do they pre-
vent the plaintiff and those situated
like him from exercising the rights
conferred upon and guaranteed 70
him. A registration law is not per
sc unconstitutional, but is the one
referred to in the bill! such as should
be upheld By the Courts? Does the
State of South Carolina by this legls
lation deprive the plaintiff of any of
the privileges to which he IS entitled
by the Constitution Of the United
States and of that State? Does it
deprive him of his liberty by taking
from him a right by which be can pre-
serve that liberty? Does it deny
him the equal protection of her laws
by enacting a system of registration
which does not protect but destroys
his rights? If it does d%isfranchlse
him, are not his liberty and his
property taken from him? lfit does
prevent him from voting 1T is shown
that he is duly qualified for dele
gates to the constitutional Conven-
ton mentioned in the bill, which
may SO change the organic law of
the State as to affect his life, his
property, his liberty, his franchise,
does it not do him a grievous wrong,
and by what authority? As peril
nent to this quote the words of MIR.
Justice Swayne in the Slaughter
House cases Life, liberty and
49,