The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-28
JUDGE MERR|M0N'S
GREAT SPEECH
tContinued from 10th Page.


within the field of permissible action
under the limitations imposed by the
Federal Constitution, the convention
swept the field of expedients to obstruc'
the exercise of suffrage by the negro
race. BY reason of its previous condi-
tions of servitude and dependencies this
race has acquired or accumulated certain
peculiarities of habit, of temperament
and Of character which clearly dlstln-
guish it as race from the whites. y
patient, docile people; but careless, land
less. migratory within narrow llmlts,
without forethought and its crlmlnal
members given to furtive offences rather
than the robust crimes of the whites.
Restrained by the Federal Constitution
from discriminating against the negro
race. the convention discriminates against
its characteristics ard the offences to
which it's criminal members are prone
And the Supreme Court of the United
States commenting on this language
of the Supreme Court of Mississippi
says: But nothing tangible can
be deduced from this. If weak
ness were to he taken advantage OF.
it was to be done within the field OF
permissible action under the limitations
imposed by the Federal Constitution, ana
the means Of ii were the alleged charac-
teristics of the negro race. not the ad-
minstration Of the law by the officers
of the State. Besides, the operation or
the constitution and laws is not limit
ed by their language to one race. They
reach weak and vicious white men, as
well as weak and vicious black men,
and whatever is sinister in their inten-
ton, if nything, can be prevented by
both races by the exertion of that duty
which voluntarily, pays taxes and re-
Trains from crime"
PRITCHARD MAKES NEW LAWS.
Senator Pritchard quotes from this
case as follows:
1T cannot be said therefore that the
denial of the equal protection of the law
arises primarily from the constitution
and laws of Mississippi, nor is there any
sufficient allegation Of an evil and DIS
eliminating administration OF them, etc.
The Senator then says that the case
in question was decided solely on what
appeared in the constitution, and that
there was no evidence that there mad
been an evil administration of Its pro-
visions. Suppose there had been an evil
administration of its provisions, how
could that make q law which was con-
stitutional unconstitutional? 1t could
only subject to punishment those who
had been guilty of the evil administra-
ton and redress the rights of those who
had been injured.
Again the Senator quotes from the
case: Though the law itself is fair ON
its face and impartial in appearance,
vet if it is applied and administered with
an evil eve and an unequal hand so as TO
practically make unjust and illegal dis
elimination between persons in equal
circumstances material to their rights the
denial of equal justice is still within the
prohibition of the constitution.
No one denies this. But what is 1t
that is "still within the prohibition OF
the constitution Certainly not the
law; but the denial of justice under the,
law. The law will not be overthrow
because bad men undertake to admins
ter it in such way as to deny equal
Justice to all men subject to said law.
And here the Senator, as if he thought
he had scored a strong point asks: "Will
any one deny that the proposed amend
ment is capable Of being administered
with an evil eye and an unequal hand!'
WHY should any one deny such
thing? The thing for the Senator and
his friends to do is to wait until the
law has been adopted and become
part of the constitution, and those charg-
ed with it's administration have begun
to administer it without an evil eye and
an UNEQUAL hand, and then it will be their
turn to take a hand and put stop to
the administration of it with an evil
eye and an unequal hand" But the
Senator and his friends are afraid to
wait. They know that, although the
law may be capable of being administer
ed with an evil eye and an unequal hand,
rs might any other law, it is also capa-
BILE of being administered with an evil
eve and an unequal hand, and if It's
administration should be characterized
hy equal Justice to all their occupation
would be gone, their mouths would be
closed. No court has ever held that
law was void simply because those who
might happen to administer it might do
so with an evil eye or an unequal hand.
The distinction is clearly drawn IN the
Williams case, where 1t rs sald: 10
make the possible derelction of the off
GERS the dereliction of the constitution
and laws the remarks of the Supreme
courts of the State are quoted as to their
intent. 1t cannot be said there
fore that the denial of the equal protec-
ton of the laws arises primarily from
the constitution and laws of Mississippi.
There is nothing in the Constitution OF
the United States nor of any State that
authorizes a court to declare law void
(which is not UNCONSTITUTIONAL, merely
because those charged with the admins
tration of the law are guilty of wrong
doing.
Moreover it is not within the juriS-
diction of any court to inquire into the
motives which prompted the Legislature
to pass a valid law, or a law which IS
valid upon its face The rules of con
struction already laid down fully sustain
this position and as | have already said.
| now repeat that neither Senator Prit-
chard nor any opponent of the proposed
amendment has any hope whatever that
any court will ever declare it unconsti-
tutional on account of anything that the
law contains. If it is ever declared I'M
constitutional at all it will be only when
the courts make out of it what the Leg
islature did not make and make its Ian
cuage mean what it does not mean. If
II is DosSible for court to do this then