The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-24


or ahridgiag the negroes right TO vote
ION account of race. color or previous
condition OF servitudegN On the con.
trary, would net the court and eyer,s
intelligent person SEE that for every
ignorant negro affected by the amend
mtgnt in any way there would he from
70 10 uneducated foreigners affected
IN the same way. and would not the
court aud every intelligent person say
that the amendment was aimed at the
ignorant foreign vote of that State and
though the negro was affected thereby
I'M the same way MS the foreigner the
suffrage % neither was denied or
abrldscd ION account OF race, color OF
prcviolls condition of Seryitude." htit on
account OF presumed uniitneSs and mcnt-
al and moral dclnquencies, as we'll Us
because OF defective training and mad.
cquaFe education in the rcpublioma plin.
ciples of self-government, and would not
the court hold that such am amendment
10 New Aork's constitution was not only
constitutional, but justg
There are many States OF the great
West which have TO large extent
been settled since the close OF The civil
war, which, while having few ne-
SFN6Ss dkt idtSSAA 1SPuiAtNN ~ 'NfNiEll-
ers. In an OF these States, If the Su-
preme Court in constituting an amend
ment similar to ours should look TO tne
conditions of population, they would
say that the object Of such an amend
ment was to reach that element Of the
population which mad too recently set
tied there to have Invested themselves
OF the monarchical theories and prac-
tees wiiita they brought with them from
the old world. or to imbihe the demo
cratic principles of self-govemment upon
which our republic is founded and 1t is
absurd 10 suppose the court would say
such an amendment was uneonStitution.
al because forsooth the few negroes
who happened TO be living there along
with the great mass of unedueated for
eigners might not be able to qualify
themselves under the clause limiting tie
franchise 10 those who were entitled
to vote before time antedating his EN-.
ancipation.
lF CONSTITUTIONAL IN NEW
YORK, GOOD HERE.
If such law would be constitutional
in New York, or in any of the States
of the great West having large un-
educated foreign population, why would
ii not be constitutional in North Caro-
lima? Ii there is anything that is abso-
lntely certain it is that the Supreme
Court OF the United States cannot hold
that law which would be constitutional
in one State would be unconstitutional
in another. The Federal constitution APP
plies to every inch of territory in the
Union, ana if there be one State in
n a, 49, xtaElG,,
would BIZ constitutional ii would be
constitutional in all. If it We're c0mpe-
tent for the court to look TO political
conditions in constituting a constitution
al provision it would have to consider
the conditions iA every part Of the
country and not the conditions iii one
nook or corner of the country or in one
State of division OF State, else it might
ind itself by the application Of this rule
Of Interpretation deciding that Il law
constitutional in one part of the country
was unconstitutional iii another part.
This analysis shows no such rule o.
construction can be safely adopted by
the court OF last resort OF forty-Eiye
States.
1t is true we have not in North Caro-
lima today a very large foreign pose
lation, bat who knows when the tide
of foreign emigration may turn to oar
shores and quickly fill up waste places
as it has done III the great West in
the last three decades? The day may
come, anu in the near future. when There
may be more uneducated Foreigners III
North Carolina than ignorant negroes.
Nnen that day may come, il ii ever
comes, we cannot know, neither can the
Supreme Court If, however tine court
should look outside OF the amendment
aud take into consideration the motives
which led to its ratification and the
history OF this question of suffrage, we
have seen that it would be ample
ground t. support its constitutionality:
but ii : confidently affirmed that the
court in constituting this measure will
look only ut the written instrument and
will not ascribe to it any motive or
parpose which its language fails to dis
close. 1t is rule as old as jufisplu-
dence that the intent Of law and Of the
lawmakers must be gathered from the
language of the law and chat the courts
have nothing to do with amy motive Of
the lawmakers, which does not appear
from the context of the law itself.
PUBLIC POLICY.
The courts are frequently and proper
ly moved in reaching their conclusions
enc ..f at1or4f riIhtic uuiipV