The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-05-07

Court OF the tnlteu states Ill the case
of Minor VS.. Happersett, has never been
shaken by any later decision of that
court or of any other court, either State
or Federal, so far as my own researches
90, from 1875 to the present time-near-
ly quarter of q century; but on the
contrary we find on searching the books,
that the very same doctrine of ConStitu-
tional construction was laid down by The
Supreme Court Of Massachusetts as far
back as 1880, in Robinson's case. III
Mass. 376 al Am. Rep. 239).
Robnson's case was where a Massa-
setts woman claimed equal rights with n
man to be admitted to the bar in that
State, because she was ''citizen of the
United States" She was declared by
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts
not to be entitled to any such right by
virtue of her citizenship. Chief Justice
Gray, who was then the Chief Justice
of Massachusetts, and is now one of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
of the United States, wrote the opinion
of the court in Miss Robinson's case
and in it cites with approval the case of
Minor VS.. Happersett, and among other
things. speaking for the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, says:
1.-THE word citizen when used in its
most common and most comprehensive
sense, doubtless includes women; but a
woman is not. by virtue of her citizen
ship, vested by the Constitution of this
Commonwealth. with any absolute right,
Independent of legislation, to take part
in the government, either as a voter or
as an officer or to be admitted 10 prac-
tice as an attorney"
/ might cite other cases along this line,
but until the case of Minor VS.. i1apper-
sett is overruled by the Supreme court
of h United States it may be taken as
settled Constitutional law, laid down by
the highest court of last resort, that
citizenship conveys the idea simply OF
membership of Nation. and nothing
more Then in the light of ju-
dicial determination the question
narrows itself simply down to
this: If white woman who
is citizen of the United States resid-
ing in the State of Missouri. is not crti-
tied by virtue of her citizenship only.
to the right to vote, how can a negro in
North Carolina claim the right by virtue
of his citizenship only, to vote in North
Carolina, the citizenship in both in
stances alike being the same: that is,
both alike being citizens of the United
StatesT
Now we have already seen that the
highest court has declared that the right
to vote is not right inherent in or be-
longing to mere citizenship but the right
to vote is one which must be conferred
upon the citizen" by legislation. And
here comes in the only restrictive or
prohibitory law on this subject to be
found in the Constitution of the United
States, and it is contained i'll the 18th
amendment:
1.-THE right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any
State on, account of race, color, or pre-
yious condition of servitude."
Does the proposed Constitutional
amendment to be submitted to the voters
of North Carolina deny or abridge the
right of any citizen to vote ION account
of his race, color or previous condition of
seryitudew Certainly and clearly no.
body can read the proposed amendment
and find in the language of it on its face,
single sentence, clause, word or sylla-
BILE which denies or abridges the right
of anybody to vote under it ION account
of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude" But on the contrary, Sec
ton / Of the proposed amendment starts
out with the broad provision, that ''Ey
cry male person born in the United
States and every male person who has
been naturalized, u years of age, and
possessing the qualifications set out in
this article, shall be entitled to vote at
any election by the people in the State.
except as herein otherwise provided"
And if the other sections are read en-
tirely through from beginning to end,
there is nowhere found the slightest ref
-erence to race, color or previous condi-
ton of servitude." So much for the lam
guage used in framing the proposed
amendment.
But somebody objects that the amend
ment proposed reads one way and is in
tended to operate another way. | reply,
what the operation and effect of the
proposed amendment is going to be is
quite different thing, and not the ques-
ton under consideration. What we are
considering now is, whether or not any
body who is a native born or naturalized
citizen of the United States" will be
denied on account of his.'race or color
or previous condition of servitude," the
right to vote, or will have his right to
vote abridged" by the provisions in this
amendment, if the same shall be adopted
by the voters of North Carolina at the
next election? This Constitutional ques-
ton is one for the courts to decide as a
judicial question. Constitutions gener-
ally merely lay down in concise language
the basic fundamental principles of gov
eminent, without undertaking to ex-
press reasons for them, such as mo
State shall coin money" etc. Read our
own State Constitution and you will find
only two or three provisions i'll the
whole instrument which set forth rca-
sons for their adoption, and even these
are brought forward from the old Bill
of Rights which ante-dated our first
State Constitution.
But since it viii be raised collaterally,