The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1899-04-18

sootb, I do not in d OBSERVER IN
saying to the people. Vote for the
amendment and then we'll have the
Supreme Court tell you what you
voted O T. am ;onf1en that if the
| constituClonali5V of q grandfather
clause is not clearly established. the
amend ment will be defeated. Igave
my reason for this belief in the state
meDt:
"'It is admitted that il the grand
father clause is unconsti5uti NAL the
educational qualification will apply TO
whites and blacks alike"
UOon this you comment as folio VS.:
Admitted by whomI We know
that it was not admitted by any Law
yer III the General Assembly As a
matter of fac5 there isu'G a f3dgollDg
lawyer In GneS5aGe VINO does not Know
that if the Federal Supreme Court de
clares the grandfather clause uDcon
constitutional, the whole act will De
declared unconstitutional. for they are
not euch provisions Is can De separa
ted. They ali stand or fall together. So
much tor that assertion
NV, the grandfather clause is con
tanned in section s of the proposed
amendment. D ,es the Observer mean
TO say that in declaring this section
unc institutional, the Supreme Court
would thereby nulllty the educational
qualification pres criOed for both races
IN section A which, it has declared, 10
constitutional
Why. the News and Observer itself
in an editorial January IL, 1899, de
clared in favor of the grandfather
clause, out added that the amendment
should be 80 framed hat in case this
was declared uDc institutional an edu-
cationel qualification would still re-
maIn-GO use it's own words, PRO
visions for restricting the suffrage of
the mass of ignorant negro voters "
Nothing in that about ''all the provls
ions standing or falling together "
I have taken it for granted that
you meant, an educational quallfca.
ton, you having previously declared
against a properly qualification. At
any rate I am now occupying the same
position the Observer then Occup ed,
although it now dispOses of it's argu-
ment OF three months ago with a cOn
temptuous wave of the hand in true
fl 'dgllng lawyer" style. Allow me to
quote an entire paragraph from your
editorial of Jan IL a:
"B 1t, no viewer strong the argument
in fav n OF the constICu5Ionaliry of the
Lou 8 ana plan, there is doubt whether
1t would be- upheld. l. is a doubt that
should give paus' TO those who believe
it the ideal plan In view of the douOte,
the plan should be 80 protected ss 70
MAKE SURE THAT 1T THE COURTS ANNUL
IT THERE WILL STILL REMAIN PRO Wis
IONS o RESTRICTING THE SUFFRAGE If
the mass OF ignorant negro Vote re-. rhe
ISSUE is too momeaGOus for Us TO take
any chance as to constiGutiOnality that
forethought aud prudence can avert,
and we feel sure that the very able
Joint committee charged with drafting
the amendment will shape 1T in SUCH
way as to m re it as perfect as human
wisdom can frame it,"
1t is unnecessary for me to call your
attention TO Gne tact that in this para
graph you clearly deny that all the
pr DIVISIONS were to stand or fall to
gether
should be very glad to have you or
some lawyer (no5 a 'f9dgling'O point
out in what respects the amendment as
framed fails 60 measure up TO the
standard set by you in the paragraph
just quoted.
Hoping that you will give this q
place | your columns, / am,
Very truly yours.
CLARENCE II POE
Associate E iiGor Progressive Farmer
This reply was printed in the earlier
editions of Sundays News and OOserv
er, together with the following rel lin
der on the part Of the editor of That
paper:
The quotation from the News and
O OBSERVER is consistent with our posi-
ton Knowing in advance that the
enemies OF White Supremacy would
take advantage of any weak point in
the amendment, we urged the com
mittee to 'snape it in such way al to
make it as perfect as human wisdo ON
can frame it. The committee did this,
consulted with the aOlest lawyers in
the States, and presented the amend.