The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-03-15


Mr.. Henry G. Hester said In vo-
ting On this measure IN It's earliest
stages have expressed my opinions
10 IL. fearing that It Is an uncertain
and dangerous experiment which may /
possibly defeat the main objects for /
which this convention WAS called"
DR.. II. Dickson Bruins said: Il desire |
10 be recorded as yoeing against Ordi- /
nance No. POS, because | believe il 20 /
be indefensible in reason, law, or NOR
ais, vote no because, although have !
friends in The opposition in whose in |
tegri.y have the fulleS,. confidence, ! :
believe they have been misied into chat /
they VIII soon regret vote no be- /
cause, whether unconstitutional or mo-, 4
in the light o. legal technical know t
edge Il is undoubtedly so in the light 4
G, common sense, because this crii- !
nance. while ostensibly ostentatious!y /!
pretending to qualify the suffrage, con- f.
tains a section i.inat will admit men TO
the electorate in spite of every disquai-
ificatiCn: because while pretending 70
exclude all but legally n1olralized for
eigners, II expressly permits, Through
the intervention Of an interpreter, the
registration CT Americant?) citizens IN
every isrg1a in the world. l vote no
because il incorporates in this organic
law the un-Amer5can doctrine that a
man shall be a voter because his father
CT grandfather once possessed that
right | vote mo- because the ordinance
while providing in Article II a summa-
ry process by which persons excluded
from registration may appeal Ter red
ress to the highest court OF the State.
and that withcui. cost, it denies by eX-
press provision Incorporated by the
same PROCESS formal amendment OF JUS
LITIGATION against The permanent roll
Of unqualified voters, while granting Il
against THE roll CT voters qualified by
reason Of property or eiiucatiCn l vote
NO because, while admitting the prin-
ciples OF poll tax, 1T gives the Shallow
and wi.hhClds the substance on benefit
fCr two years by a unique exception TO
the time of the effect Of this constftu-
| ton, ! vote TO because | believe thai
| that ordinance, No. 205, as now written
| violates justice, law, and morals, and
| have faith that every such violation
| inexcrably evolves in the fullness Of
time it's own punishment upon the VIC
| lator be it a man, party, or q State >
!
| gentlemen. ! desire to record my vote
against the entire bill (2O5) for the toi-
| lowing, among either reasons:
Il consider that certain sections OF
| the bill are gIarintgly unconstitutional,
undemoc1tatic, and rn-Annerlcan. We're
| | alone in my opposition ito this bill,
AMI particularly to section ,, Woulo
| have remained silent and not nave
| Uttered another word on the floor 81
| this convention, for the reason that
| would have considered that was In ef-
rCr; but when l consider the fact THAI
both of our Senators in washington
and many of their associates, condemn
in uIlmeasNIred terms said section anC
declare that our representation IN Con
gress and our Presidential electors
might be jeopardiZed, and when fur
Their consider the fact THAT a majority
of the members Of this very convention
have openly expressed their dissatls
faction to some and were induced u
vote for some only On the ground o
expsGLency, cannot but take dssu;
with the majority and urge that the
adoption OF said sections will wori
great INJURY to the State at large an
eventually cause the disruption o. th'
Democratic party in Louisiana, be
cause it discrininates as between tn
, whites and the blacks-the white
against whites, and the native-borl
citizens agains. foreign or naturallze
, citizens
l desire now to reiterate briefly TIL
arguments that have repeatedly ur
ged against the obnoxious section
and which are as follows:
1t is now proposed to allow any NAL
citizen the right of voting VINO wa
: on january i, 1867, or at any date pa'io
thereto, entitled to vote under the con
+ sstitution or statutes of any State. OF tn
United States wherein he. then resided
! and to the son or grandson Of any sue
= pelsslGsaiiTfs -
II Now, Mr.. President, the mantle:
n purpose or motive OF this clause is
7 discriminate in favor of the whites an
against the blacks; because 1t Is vel
= known fact that Cn January l, lS6
a the blacks were not voters in LouSSli
ma. and only the whites were eleator
= IF this be SO, ut is clearly made TO deDi
y the blacks as class of citizens Oftf
10 United States from the right Gu su
If frage, and in this manner violates tn
o fifteenth amendment of the Consuc
" ton of the United States.
!. But I am told that certain States
the United States had granted to Il
# blacks the right of voting prior to sa
o. date. and therefore this section do
n moi. discriminate againsI. that class.
the prohibition of the Federal ConEf
"a t,ltion was limited to the color line tn
), argument might be conclusive, but t
a authors of that amendment did n
n stop there; they added the words, "pl
n yious condition of servitude."
10 Why is it that the blacks were allo
a. ed to vote in certain States and we
# denied that privilege in others? 1t
V. simply because some few Northe
of States considered them citizens fix
n the date of their emancipation a
he others denied them THAT right, a
nv why? Simply ON account CT their p
IL yioms condition Of servittrde. 1t is |
nd TENT, therefore, that you are disicrir
,r- Mating against certain colored citize
ON in the very teeth of "a constitution
GO provision Of the United States Senta
Ira and you thereby render not only Il
tic section liable Ito a serious attack,
the whole suffrage clause for the reas
n that if one brick in the edifice be
.tv therein that it may all fall from I'll
itb inherent defect.
re- But am told Mr.. President, that
vi must not be concerned as to the
. 7 fects of laws; that law may be
nal constitutional in it's effects, but may
In nevertheless valid. This would !
questionabIy be true if the motive
m purpose was constitutional.
IN But, Mr. President, under what com
rim tuition or statutes of the State OF l.
IN isiana, or any other State, prior to II
LIST. do the majority wish to stand? Gle
,od " mot under the constitution OF !
me and the laws passed hereunder,
the reason that Congress by act
ose March 2, 1867, declared that mo lt
ca State government CT adequate pro-
rtv tion for life CT property existed in
the Southern States and thereby set az