The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-02-15
Mr.. Nash Replies to Mr.. Bushels Argu
mont as to Section 5.

IT. Nash Replies to Mr.. Bushels Argu-
ment to Section 8.
The gist of tnat argument, it seems
o me. is this: Ssction S would be
'lainly tional if it imposed
he educational qualification upon
x-slaves or their descendants alone,
nut as it applies likewise to other
classes (Which he specifes) it is con-
The first class he men
ions are foreigners who had not
7oted before 1867 and their descend
lnts; the second, residents of the va
:ious territories. He illustrates his
position in this way. I copy what
ne says because therein is the answer
to bis whole subsequent argument:
"To illustrate. let US see what
would be the effect of q provision |
Identical with the proposed amend
ment, if adopted by another State.
In North Dakota, for instance, there
is large foreign population, many
of them we'll educated Scandinavians,
living in communities of their own,
and many of them unable to read or
write the constitution in English.
There are very few negroes The
number of white free-born persons
who would be excluded by the edu-
cational test and not admitse by the
exempting section would be many
times greater than the number of
negroes. Could 1t be seriously argued
that in Minnesota the few negroes
who were affected had their right to
vote abridged on account of their
rsse, color or previous servitude. At
the risk OF tSresome repetition, let it
be kept in mind that NOT only must
the right to vote b. ehridee but It
must be abridged on account OF race.
color or servitude. And if the amend
ment would not be adjudged invalid
in Minnesota, can it be unconstitu-
tional in North Cardinal AS it
seems to me, the fact that the
abridgement or failure to exempt
from the operation of the abridging
section applies to all foreign born
citizens and their descendants, unless
the ancestor was naturalixed before
1867, is a decisive answer to the po-
sition that the educational qualifica-
ton is prescribed on account of race,
color or servitude."
There are two controlling fallacies
in this ar9ument-1st,t that the con-
stitutionality of section is not to be
determined by the conditions as they
are in North Carolina; but upon con-
ditions that might by some remote
possibility be in the future.
I'd. That if section should be con-
stitutional in North Dakota or Min
nesota, it would be in North Caro-
lima.
propose to confine myself to a
refutation of these ideas, and l will
admit at the outstart that section
would be constitutional SO far as the
negro is concerned in both those
States, and for the same reason that
Mr.. Busbee gives, that is, that the
numb Der of alien voters in those States
CSC, 314, two-thirds of all the voters in
North Dakota, and 221 1909, not quite
two-thirds again, IN Minnesota) is SO
large in comparison with the negro
vote Goo in North Dakota, 1909 in
Minnesota) that here could be nc
color for the contention that these
negroes would be disfranchised on
account of their race. color or previ
Gus condition of servitude. Then, il
would appear upon the face of sec.
ton s, interpreted in the light of sur.
rou nding conditions, that the disfran.
chisement of the negro was . mere
minor incident to the great CONTROL
ing purpose to disfranchise the alien.
Now let us apply this principle (Mr.
Busbee admits that it is a correct
one) to conditions in North Carolina
Taking the census of 1890 as basis,
as / have done heretofore, and there
are 100 ,346 negroes of voting age in
the State. Let us knock of 5000 OF
these as negroes who were not slaves
or are not descendants of slaves, and
this leaves 1O4,346 negroes in the
State to whom section will apply.
There are 2 O81 men of voting age in
the State OF foreign birth. Some Of
these, of course, voted before 1867;
how many it is Impossible to esti-
mate, SO 1 let the figures stand. ]
/
white men in the State who could be
put in Mr.. Bushels second class,
that is, those born in the District OF
columbia or any of the Territories,
who themselves, or any of their an
cestors, have had an opportunity to
vote in any of the States; but let
| them 90 to balance the foreigners
who voted before 1867. Now the
date January l. 1867. was adopted
for some purpose. Was it to apply
an educational qualification to for
eignersf If so, why not adopt the
LIST Of January. 1884 or 1891 Why
60 back to that particular date if ii
we're not that thereby the education
al qualification should be applied to
every ex-slave or descendant of such
slave-104 346-while it is removed
from $50 600 white men aed left in
force on only DOL foreigrersi
1t we apply, then, the princi. les
which We applied to North Dakota
and Minnesota to North Carol. ma. il
is not perfectly apparent that the
great controlling purpose of section
IS here is to disfranchise the negro
because he is q negro, with the dis
Reimbursement of q few foreigners az
q mere minor incident. S1if sec,ion
5 would u constitutional Ia the first
two States, 1t must necessarily be un.
constitutional in this State.
Mr.. Busbee is too broad.mlnded q
man and too excellent q lawyer to
indulge in the plddling tt at appears
in the question, "Aud il the amend.
ment would not be adjudged invalid
in Minnesota, can it be unconstitu.
tional IN North Carolina 9"
The 10Th Amendment could not b