The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-11-07
REPUBLICANS IN A HOLE.
No Escape from the Lost Election Law
or h Proposed Franchise Amend-l
ment-A Strong Letter from Ex-Con-i
gresham settle.

Hon Thomas Settle, ex-repub.ican|
member of ongress from the Fifth
North Carolina district. addresses the
following letter on the new election
Law and the proposed franchise amend
ment to h state constitution to Hon.
r Z. Linney, member Of the republic
can state executive committee:
Greensboro, ". c., November ).
Hon r z. Linney. TaylorsviAe. N g.
Ny dear Linney:-As chairman of the
last republican state convention, n as
q N OF the present state
committee. n one of the aoleSt Law
yers and logicians in the state, l VEN
ture, as a fellow republican. to address
you with this letter. hoping that you
will en1ighten me as to certain practi-
cal objections to the proposed opposi-
ton OF the republican party, as an or
~ganization, to the adoption of the con-
stitutional amendment now before the
people
At a recent meeting of the executive
committee in StateSville / am Informed
a resolution was passed authorizing the
chairman of the committee TO employ
counsel, and take the necessary steps
to test the constitutionality of the cleo
tio law passed by the last legislature.
How can this question be brought be-
fore the courts? They win not enter
tain a Hypothetical or theoretical case
and l 40 not know any persons having
authority to submit a case agreed"
Suppose, for the sake of argument,
we admit the republican executive COM
mit.ee a bring a quo warranto or sue
out an injunction against the persons
composing the State Board of Elec-
tons OF what practical benefit will
it be? Even if the courts should en-
terrain such an action, and should de-
eide the election law unconstitutional
in part. or in toto, of what benefit will
it be to the republican party?
You cannot get a decision Of the su-
preme court ON the question before Feb
ruary next, and if they should hold the
act unconstitutional would that decis-
ion evive the old law (Acts 1S95-1S9O
The present law did not repeal these
acts The repeating act was passed on
the 26th, of January 1899, and the pres
ent law became operative on the 9TH,
of March 1899; SO hat between these
dates we had no law governing eleo
tfons whatever The old law repealed
on the 26 of January-an interval with
no law on the books governing the sub
iect-a new law passed March 9th, and
the new law declared unconstitutional
by the courts, do you the old
law, Acts 1S95-1S97, will be revived?
I So, SllI1 Vi Nuid pClICIlI - IL IN
Legislature, by resolution, is to meet
in June next, and would Immediately
pass an election law similar TO the one
we now have, under which the election
in August following would be held. be-
fore you could test its
ty. So that after all your labor you
would land substantially in the same
position you are now in.
[ am not the champion of or the apol-
noi-t for the nrpSPnf election law. 1t
is not such as 1 would like, but it is
before us, speaking in the emphatic
of a condition. and not in
the lurid ~eloquence of a theory"
Now as to the constitutional amend
ment. Assuming that it will be rati-
fed. and | think that it is a reasonable
assumption, how will you test its co =
stitutiona1iUy? You cannot get a de-
cision of the courts on the question IN
a contest for a seat in congress-, or q
seat in either branch of the general as
sembly of the state For by the con-
stitution of the United States, ard "
the state, each of these legislative
bodies is made the sole judge of the
election and qualification of it's own
members.
There are practical difficulties in the
way of raising a question in a contest
for one of the j~udgeships, which pre-
cludes that method. The judges are
voted for by the electors OF the entire
state; and it is probable that those per-
sons who are declared elected will get
the face of the returns by at least To-
600 or 90, 900 and the difficulties of prov
ing tina number of votes
cast for the incumbent are mou
able If you undertake to raise the
question in a contest for some Other1
constitutional state office, such as
clerk of the superior court, sheriff or
register of deeds, you are still in a po-
sitiOn scarcely less embarrassing III
the majority in favor of the
should be small enough to warrant an
attempt to overcome it, how would you
proceed? You might show by the va
rious registrars of the county certain
persons, white and colored, registered
under the so-called grand father"
clause. but you must show for whom
these persons voted. The best evidence
of how a person voted is the oatn or
the election himself, but as that class
Of voters can neither write or read,
how can they swear for whom they
voted? They deposit their OWN ballots
in the boxes and it is a remote possi-l
bility that any Of the judges or the
election will be able to swear how they
voted
Aside from these practical difficulties
there is another feature OF
the matter, l apprehend has not recelV-
Ell IEdluIS dIo "ISS ~ - /
those who would commit the republi-
party to a policy of opposition to
the amendment The chief appeal we
now near is addressed to the unlearned
white voter, and is that he will be dis
f~ranchised because the grand father
clause will be declared u~nconstitu-
tional by the T How? If it is
brought before h courts, it can only
he so lone by such a contest as / have
spoken Of above, and for such a contest
the republican party would have to-
sponsor. If the courts then were
TO decide it unconstitutional, who would
be held responsible for disfranchlslng
unlearned white people? Mani
the republican party, sponsor
for the sui The democrats protected
franchise by a provision in the
amendment, and the republicans strike
down, leaving the balance OF the
amendment standing.
who hits Billy Patterson"
l am aware that 1 have been much
--.x.;-al h- cano Pnr my ofriruda on