The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-02-15

applied uniformly throughout the
whole country unless the courts paid
some heed to tho different conditions
and different populations in the va
rious States.
In former part of his article in
the Post he very candidly, very prop
erly and very correctly enunciates
the following principles
"But if the effect of the provisions
should be to exempt all white per-
sons, or all free born persons, from
the educational test, aud should leave
only colored persons, or former slaves
and their descendants, to bear the
burden of the abridging section. then,
it seems to me, the legislative intent
would be so manifest, and the opera
ton of the amendment so clearly in
opposition to the letter and spirit of
the fifteenth amendment, that the
bridging section would be void. 1t
would violate the constitution as
clearly as if it had provided in ex-
press terms, instead of indirectly,
that it should apply only to negroes,
or to those who had been in previ-
Gus condition of servitude, and their
descendants. But if the exemption
is restricted in it's scope, and it not
only colored men and ex slaves, but
lQany other classes, sre left under
thSssll restriction of the abridging
secti,s i would seem that the
amendment is constitutional. The
abridgment of the rIstt to vote, or
more accurately, the faaafss=to ex-
empt from the operation of tn
Infringement, must not only include
all former slaves, but it must also
clearly and unmistakably be on &C.
condition of servitude."
These principles are correct. But
it seems to me that he errs greatly
in the application. If. says he, in
effect, the date January /, 1867, ex.
cluded only the lO4, 346 negroes from
the privileges of section 5. it would
be unconstitutional, but as it also
excludes 2,081 foreigners. it is con
stitutional.
| Now, from the inslgnificance Of
their number, it is apparent tina,
these foreigners could never make q
ripple upon the suface of North Car
DINA politics. They could. therefore
furnish no motive for section 5. They
could not affect the schemes of thu
Legislature in suggesting their sui
frage provision. They share none
Of the privileges of section 5, simply
from necessity aud not from q SCI
Ha- IiAarank
are the 104 346 negroes. So as thes,
are the only two classes who have
the educational qualification imposed
upon them, it is the negro who fur
nishes the motive and purpose ant
intent of section 5. His suffrag,
right is abridged on account of hi
previous condition of servitude o.
his race or his color, for if it had no
been for these, he or HE ancestor
would have voted in some one of tn,
States before 1867. With an educs
tional or property qualification, o.
both, applying uniformly upon al
citizens, it would be different though
every negro should be disfranchised
for they would be disfranchised no
on account of race, color or previouI
condition, but on account of thei
lack of proper education or sufiicien
property. More particularly Is thi
true thirty Eve years after they had
attained their freedom. And i
would make no difference what wa
|, the actual intent of the legislature
for the provision acting uniformly
upon all classes, the negroes woul(
not be dlsfranchised on account o.
race, etc. So the intent would bs
immaterial. But where an arbitrary
date is selected as in section 5, it i.
somewhat in the nature of a latent
ambiguity, and it requires both in
depreciation and construction to as
certain what it means. So the intent
there is material.
Both Senator Morgan and Senator
McEnery disregard these dlselne
lions. as does Mr.. Davidson of Ashe
vile; and just there Is the fatal de-
feet in all their arguments.
i OF course, as have said before
this intent is the legal intent inherent
in the section, its. IL interpreted II
the light of surrounding condition.
and history
/ / have seen nothing yet tn 1t ha,
in the slightest degree shaken my
very earnest conviction that section
5 is clearly unc institutional, and a
no honest nan. having taken ths
oath that with many others have
taken, and having this conviction
could vote for the amendment.
most decidedly will vote against it