Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1900-01-25

1a ONCE nolIe-. They insist that the
Ia" should say in SO many words
aadI 10 negro shall hold office" This
IS peculiar position for men to oo-
cnpy who are anxiously insisting that
every negro shall be allowed to vote.
Think about It; these men. political
Ded-te,lows with Senator Pr..-chard,
anu "no belong to g, class o, politi-
caans WHO nave looked TO the negro
Party for office. one Of them now hold
Ing the high office OF United States
senator by the negro votes. and who
hopes to be. reelected to that office
0nrough the negro vote. objeeting to a
democratic measure upon the ground
that II does not in express terms de-
priVe all negroes of the right to hold
o1icc' What is the milk in the COCO
anut? Is II that these white Republi-
cans and Republican Populists desire
that negroes shall be debarred from
office so that only white Republicans
and Populists can be put into office by
means 0f the negro vote? Neither Mr..
Butler EOr Mr.. NcIver. or any other
white Republican. will ever make the
people Of North Carolina believe they
are opposed TO the amendment be-
cause IL does not contain a provision
against the negro holding office Men
OF Buffers class are opposed to the
amendment because, and solely be-
cause it deprives them, as office-seek-
el"s, Of the negro vote. For the sake
Of office and political power these meT
are willing that the horrible condi-
tons that existed under negro gov
eynment in North Carolina between
1897 and 1898 should be continued
They care nothing abous the State
Patriotism is a sentiment unknown 10
them. They consider only their own
selfish interests and that OF their
party.
MR. BUTLER AND THE FIFTH SEC
TION.
Mr.. Butler discusses what would be
the result il the grandfather clause"
should DE declared unconstitutional
ma the rest Of the amendment he held
valid and operative. Bit why should
that clause be thought unconstitu-
ticnal? Surely it does not in itself de-
prive any che CT any right. Mr.. But
Ter says it contravenes the Fifteenth
mendment Of the Constitution Of the
United States. That amendment sim
nly says that the right Of a citizen to
vote snail not be denied CT abridged
on account os race, color or previous
condition OF servitude The grand
father clause" (ffth secticn) does not
deny or abridge anybody's right to
vote. On the contrary, quite the re-
verse. 1t says that the right OF cer-
tain persons to vote shall not be de-
MED. Standing by itself and consid-
ered separately this clause cannot
possibly be unconstitutional; and it is
hardly posi- bic that any court would
listen to al argument attempting to
show that this section by itself either
denies or abridges anybody's right to
vote. for it does exactly the reverse
Of that. Neither is section 4 consid-
cred by itself. opcl to the argument OF
unconstitutionality 1t simply pre-
scribcs an educational qualification,
that everybody admits the State
has {. right TO impose. Therefore
neither Of these sections. taken by it
self and considered the one apart from
he other. can possibly be unconstitu-
.ional The real question is this: Will
sections + and , tboth being constitu-
tional if considered separately, when
taken together and construed Jointly
as parts of Cne single scheme. con-
st9slIte an unconstitutional enactment?
Will the effect of the two considered
together be 10 deny the right o. the
negro 10 vote or account Of race color.
9r previous condition OF se~vitude? ?
Now If the court should hold that they
We're unconstitutional when considered
together. but that each considered
separately vas valid and operative,
the unccnst:cutional element would be
in the com bin4 ion Of the two sections,
and the infirm.tv would be IN both and
not distinctly either II the one or the
Other: and Of course both would have
. fall. Section neither ccnters any
right or takes away any right L Ger
t&in1v does no. deny or abridse any
oc1yS riglc for any cause. it is an en-
abling act not danypng CT 1br.dging z
set It simply maintains existing
rie.cs. So all that NJ. Butler has TO
.ay about wha.s might happsn in case
section ) should BE- held unconstitu-
tional is wind and fury without there
Beng any basis for the suggestion.
ILLUSTRATION.
To illustrate what We mean let Us
AXE the case Of a negro who cannot
real and write aad IS dissra nchlsed
lnae- section +; he raises the question
n court an j says section 1 directs that
c-1lv these wto can Rad and write
hill vcse: came. read and write;
I'D am dis:-ancnized y s7@lion 4.
pa- som. t-1er maa VINO would Ike
myself b l.SfranchiSed by section 4
IS admitted 10 suffrage under sectJn
Now i i no- nnccnsti tc-iona! u