The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-05-15

- HOW SIMPLY CltlZel Ol LHe CuILeo
States residing in that State; that his
rights as such are those that belong to
him as citizen of the United States,
and that they are not dependent upon
his citizenship of any State, do not de-
pend upon its legislation and cannot
be destroyed by its power. As | un-
derstand the decision o. the Supreme
Court, they sustain the claim Of this
plaintiff that the courts of the United
States are open for the relief Of cltl-
zens of the United States whose privi-
leges have been abridged by the State
in which he resides. Certainly they
should be, and l will surely so hold un-
til advised by that court that | am IN
error. From those same decisions l
find that while the right of suffrage is
not necessary attribute of Federal
citizenship, that it surely is such an
attribute as is exempt from discriml-
nation in the exercise of that right on
account of race and previous condl-
ton, 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 citlz-
en- of a State are such as all citizens of
the United State enjoy, yet this plain
tiff has also certain rights under the
Constitution of South Carolina, by
virtue of the act of Congress of June
III 1868, which was accepted and act
od upon by that State, in which it was
provided that the Constitution Of said
Shall never be so changed as to
depgge any citizens of United States
of the right to vote in said State who
are eatitled to vote by the Constitution
of the same, recognized in said act, ex-
cept as punishment for crime. The
Constitution there referred to is one
from which I have before quoted the
present organic law of that State.
THE MAIN QUESTION.
Are the registration laws of South
Carolina constitutional? Do they pre-,
vent the plaintiff and those situated
like him from exercising the rights
conferred upon and guaranteed to him:
\ registration law is not per Sc uncon-
stitutional but is the one referred
to in the bill, such as should be up.
held by the courts. Does the State OF
South Carolina by this legislation de,
prive the plaintiff of any privileges to
which he is entitled by the Constitu-
ton of the United States and of that
State? Does it deprive him of his liber.
ty by taking from him right by
which he can preserve that liberty:
Does it deny him the equal protection
of her laws, by enacting system OF
registration which does not protect
but destroys his rights? If it does dis.
franchise him are not his liberty and
his property taken from him? If:it
does prevent him from voting Gt is
shown that he is duly qualifed) for
delegates 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 dc
him a grievous wrong, and by what
authority? As pertinent to this quote
the words of Mr.. Justice Swayne in the
slaughter house cases: Life, liberty
and property are forbidden to be taken
without due process of law, and equal
protection of the laws is guaranteed tc
all. Life is the gift of God and the
right to preserve it is the most sacred
of the rights of man. Beyond that line
lies the domain Of usurpation and ty-
rany. Property is everything which
has an eXchangeable value, and
the right of property includes the
power to dispose of it according to
the will of the owner Labor is prop,
erty, and, as such, merits protection.
The right to make it available is next
in Importance to the rights of life and
liberty. 1t lies to a large extent at the
foundation of most other forms OF
property, and of all solid individual
and national prosperity. Due pro
cess of law is the law as it exists in
the fair and regular course of admin,
istrative procedure. The equal pro,
lection of the laws" places all upon a
footing of legal equality and gives the
same protection to all for the preserva.
ton of life, liberty and property and
the pursuit of happiness. >
It is not my intention at this time
to state in detail the requirements and
effect of each section of said reglstra-
ton law, but simply the result that !
reach after a careful scrutiny of them
all, aided as ! have been by the ex
haustive analysis of the same made by
counsel.
THE CERTIFICATE UNwARRANTED.
Ifind no warrant in the Constitution
for the certificate required by the
registration law to be Issued to the
voter, the production of which IS tc
be required at the polls or his vote
is to be rejected. This is not registra-
ton which is simply the entering on
the books or lists of voters the names OF
those qualified under the Constitution
to vote, but it is an additional require
ment to those mentioned in the Or
eanic law, Tot intended, am con,
strained to believe, to facilitate the full,
free and legal expression of those en-,
titled to exercise the right Of suffrage.
Such recruitment is unreasonable.
burdensome and harrassing, and clear.
ly it impedes and abridges the right OF
the constitutional voters of the State
to cast their ballots. The additional re-
quirement that the voter moving from
one place to another in the same
precinct must surrender his old and
secure a new certificate is with
out reason, and vexatious. While
the mode prescribed for securing
a renewal thereof in case of loss Is
so cumbersome and peculiarly strin-
gent that it likely fulfills its 90,
iect in deterring the ordinary voter
from making the effort. The registra-
ton of voters closes on the first day OF
July preceding general election,
which is held in November following.
What possible reason is there for this
unreasonable course: During tie
four months preceding an election
the OariOd voters generally devote tC