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

RALEI(
| the Other two Senator'S. W.nt legal
| argument they essayed 10 put forth
seems to indicate that they are infu-
enced more by their desires and hopes
chan by their Judgment. Their
speeches would no doubt be fitting in
a campaign where "nigger" was to be
| the slogan and race prejudice must be
aroused in order to prevent the calm
| and deliberate consideration OF argu-
| ment and to Danish reason and to en-
throne in It's stead passion and preju-
dice; and, whether so intended or not,
this will be the chief use to which
their speeches will be put in the COM
ing campaign in North Carolina But
| submit that such a discussion of the
difference between the Anglo-Saxon
and the African does ont seem fitting
in the United States Senate when
great legal and constitutional question
Is under consideration, and surely,
their authors could not expect such
speeches to be listened to with much
patience should they attempt to deliv;
er them before the greatest and ablest
|
tiOnal question was being considered
| for adjudication.
WHAT THE LAW JOURNALS AND
| GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
YERS SAY.
| Mr.. President. the adoption Of this
novel scheme of attempting to evade
the fifteenth amendment In Louisiana
and the proposed attempt in Norm
| n i,,a
attention from the legal profession
and the law journals. / have On my
desk the Harvard Law Review of De-
cember, 1899, which contains an able
and thoughtful article by Amasa NJ
Elton ON this queJtion, to which ]
have already refeTred. After reviewing
the whole question at length from
legal standpoint, he contends that the
court must necessarily declare section
5 unconstitutional. He himself ex-
presses doubt as to the wisdom Of the
adoption of the fifteenth amendment
but calls attention to the fact that this
ms nothing whatever to do with the
constitutionality of the proposed suf-
frage amendment.
number OF other law Journals have
discussed ii, and so far as l have seen
not single che has attempted to up
hold its constitutionality. / have a
copy of the current number of Law
Notes, with a comment upon the
speech delivered by my colleague, in
which the editor takes the same posi-
ton. he editor also cites the opinion
of Mr.. William D. Guthrie, of the New
York bar, as a good constitutional au-
thority.
MIR. Guthrie was one of the distin-
guished lawyers associated with Mr..
ChOate in arguing the income tax cases
before the Supreme Court. and is re-
cognized as one of the abIest constitu-
tional lawyers in the United States.
In his law lectures on the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments he refers to
and discusses Me constitutional amend
ment of Louisiana and the proposed
one in North Carolina is like t. He
declares, commenting upon section S,
the grandfather clause that it is a
travesty of constitutional Justice /
do not put my hand just now upon the
extract from Mr.. Guthnles lectures, in
which he declared the proposed consti-
, tutional amendment is a travesty of
constitutional Justice, but I will ask
permission to put It in my remarks.
| Inc I0lGIISat 10 Is as lClIOWS.
; This travesty OF constitutional jus-
, tice ought to be brought to the test IN
the Federal courts at the earliest pos
sible moment. If such a provision can
be sustained as within the power OF
the States to regulate the qualification
of voters, the result ought to be the
, diminution of Lorisiana's representa-
, ton in Congress and in the electoral
|
negro vote.
: Ex-senator Edmunds, who is recog,
nized as cine of the greatest, if not the
greatest. living constitutional lawyers
y, has declared section 5 of the Louisiana
O amendment unconstitutional, and he is
also of the opinion that section would
, fall and tl.tt the remainder of the
, amendment would stand. But I viii
: discuss that feature of the question il
, | a few minutes.
= In this connection | also call atten
tion to the recent action of the Geicrgif
= legislature in voting down similar
= amendment by the overwhelming ma
y jointly of 1877 to 3. In the debate tn,
: members took the position that sectio1
= ) was not only unconstitutional, bu
:. that it was an unmanly subterfuge
- | was anu WdIS 1lOL necessary.
= have condensed the debate on thi
- question before the Geofgia legislature
= as published in the Atlanta papers
: and will ask permission Ito put 1t int
. the Record as part Of my remarks.
= | ask permission to put the extract
= from that debate in my remarks be
y cause I think the Senate and the eoun
: try ought to see the argument, the lie
Il gal opinions, and the doubts expresse'
that influenced the Georgia Legislature
in repudiating this dangerous uncan
j. did, and unmanly scheme
= THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND
MENT DISCUSSED BY THE
GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.
The Atlanta (Ga) Constitution Q
6 November 80, 1899, giving a report O
- the legislative proceedings said:
: '"The only voice raised in defense o
the measure was that of it's author
. who made an able, though ineffectiv
y argument, while half dozen leadin
Il members of the House took the foo
in protest against the passage of tn
bill, which they pronounced an Opel
. and admitted discrimination agains
= one class of citizens in the State. Afte
. the previous question had been called
:, shutting off debate on the issue, an ef
!, fort was made to lay the bill on tn
y table, partly out Of Difference to it
~ author and in view OF the stubborn op
position with which 1t met, as well j
% the certainty that it would meet defea
if put on it's passage. The main lin
of opposition to the Hardwick bi
brought out in debate was against tn
grandfather clause.
"a Mr. Copeland, of Walker, addresse
n the chair He said: If l properl
d understand this measure, it is radica
of unjust, and unfair l am in favor {
v no amendment to the constitution c
m change in the law that does mot NEE
r with the approval of the qualified vo
&c ers Of the State, and | am satisfied ths
le the people of Georgia would not an
TO 0eyer have given their approval to s