The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-12-15

the uual rights OF negroes, TX IL snouIo
be ascertained that the greater num-
Der of offenders were negroes. Inc
law would be the avenger or crime.
and not a tyrant who abridged the
rights of color. The law would De
wholesome, just and righteous. operat-
ing impartially on all who should come
under its condemnation. What TX the
law-maker knew that IL would reach
more negroes than white people? Their
color would not cause their punishment
but their crime. Should IL be alleged
that the law-maker hated negroes,
would that invalidate the law Would
not its validity depend solely on n
competency of the law-making power
to pass it. But there Is no necessity
OF discussing this question further.
h decision OF he supreme
court of the United States in Williams
VS.. Mississippi puts an end to all con-
troversy. The constitution OF Missis-
sippi contains a disqualification of ne
groes and similar TO hat proposed in
the amendment. The court says: Re
strained by the federal constitution
from discriminating against the negro
race. the convention discriminates
against its characteristics n the Of
fences to which its criminal members
are prone. But nothing tangible can
be deduced from this And the con-
%stituiion Of Mississippi was determined
to be valid-l7o L.. s. r.. page 80.
Some uneasiness has been expressed
lest Section 5 OF the amendment may
be declared void. while Section 4 is
sustained. 1 IA ~endeavored TO show
hat they are both valid. But any
alarm about the separation OF these
sections is needless. They are both
parts OF one complete system: without
both OF them standing together the e.
feet and significance OF the system
would be destroyed. BY them IL is de-
clared who are entitled 10 the suffrEse;
that is to say. those who can read and
write and those who have voted for
thirty years and their lineal descend
ants. These two classes compose The
body of electors. Now does not every
body see that IL IL an absolute CONTRA
diction Of their meaning TO say that
only one OF these classes shall be in
cluded in the body OF voters II a
court OF Justice is ever called upon to
construe this amendment IL will be It's
duty to ascertain its meaning. Since
justice was first administered on earth.
no court has ever decided that an In
strument designating two classes
means to designate only one OF them.
Suppose a man should state n his
will that his property should be divid-
ed between his two sons, John and
James. Is there any system az leger
demain and chicancry by which this
will can be tortured into meaning that
only one of the sons should have the
property? If one OF these sections
should be construed TO be valid and the
other invalid, the whole amendment
hould be set aside as null and void.
Because in it's mutilated condition IL
would not fulfill the purpose and in
tention OF those who adopted Il. And
to establish such a mutilated amend
ment would be making an addition to
the constitution for the people essen
TALLY contradictory to the one which
they had adopted for themselves. Moth
ing so preposterous is possible. or all
instruments, it is most necessary hat
constitutions adopted by popular vote
should receive the meaning intended
according 10 ordinary Methods OF
thought by persons engaged in the or
binary business of life. In State VIZ.
Mace, 5 Maryland, page 35l. IL is said:
Although IL is a we'll recognized
canon of construction that where lc-
gal terms are used in a statute they
are to receive their technical meaning,
unless the contrary plainly appears to
have been the intention of the legisla-
ture, the principle, however. does not
apply to the Interpretation OF the or
ganic law, which is TO be construed
according to the a~cceptation OF those
who adopted Ii. as the supreme rule of
conduct both for officials and individ-,
uals." In Banded VS.. Isaac, l3 Mary
land, 223, the court says: The words
in such an strume (the constitu-
tom ought to be taken in their ordi-
nary and common acceptation, because
they are presumed to ave been so un-
derstood by the trainers, anu by the
people who adopted IT," See also Man
ly VS.. State, Z Maryland. 147.
Though long resident beyond the lin
its of the state Of North Carolina, 1
am connected with many OF it's citiz rs
by the tenderest ties OF kindred aft c.
ton n friendship. l TAX deep in
terest in whatever concerns the well
fare and happiness OF it's people. I
know that they are worthy OF the
choicest blessings which Heaven ever
bestows on mankind. They deserve an
administration OF public affairs which
shall comprehend in it's social and DO
litical benediction whatsoever things
are true, whatsoever things are hon
est, whatsoever things are just. what
soever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things
are OF good report; IL there be any
virtue n IL there be any praise" I
most fervently hope that the people OF
the state may adopt this most wise,
just and salutary amendment. and
secure good government 10 themselves
and their posterity forever and for
ever.
VIM. SHEPARD BRYAN.
November q, 1889.
Judge Bryan was for many years n
membe OF the court OF appeals IN
Maryland, and is regarded as one OF
the ablest lawyers In that state. He Is
a native of North Carolina. "A brother