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

he same view that | now hold. The
etter is as follows:
Washington, d. c. March II. 1898.
10 the TimesDemocrat:
In answer, | say that section 5 is
grossly unconstitutional ! have sub
mitteI the same to some of the ablest
Democrats OF the Senate, who are able
constitutional lawyers. They all con-
cur in my opinion, that if adopted, the
effect will be to lose our representa-
tiCa in Congress and in the electoral
vote of the State. S. ID. McENERY.
The Senate will remember that when
asked the Senator II he did not write
that letter and If me was not then OF
the opinion that the amendment was
grossly unconstitutional" he replied:
Yes, sir, when the constitutional
convention was i'll session ! was tele-
graphed to know what was my opinion
OF this section ). l replied to that tel
egram that in my opinion It was un-
Constitutional. / then received another
telegram, after its adoption. to know
If. when 1t was attacked, ! would de-
fend II in the Senate OF the United
States. To that telegram replied that
| would
So, Mr.. President, take it that the
Senator's speech was simply delivered
IN response to that pledge to attempt
o defend the grossly unconstitution-
ar thing ifhis State should unwsely
adopt IT,
REPLY TO SENATOR MONEY.
The Senator from Mississippi CMr.
Money!, II | remember correctly, cited
only one authority in support OF his
contention that section is cOnstitu-
tl0nal, and that was the Mississippi
case in which the Supreme Court sus-
tanned the constitutionality of the Mis-
sls'Sippi suffrage amendment: but the
decision of the court in that case IS
not in the least in point, but applies to
an entirely different constitutional nro-
vision. What does the suffrage provis-
ion of the Mississippi constitution pro-
vide?
| happen not to have an official copy
on ohe constitution OF Mississippi, and
thls extract Is taken from a magazine
article. but it provides that
On and after January I, 1892. every
elector shall. in addition to the fore
going qualifications. be able to read
ana write any section Of the consti-
ton of this State, Or he shall be able
TO understand the same when read to
him, or to give a reasonable interpre-
tatiOn thereof.
IhlS provision, as is readily seen
| creates no privileged class. 1t does not
confer the right to vote upon one class
ana deny 1T to another, but it provides
an educational qualification which an
plies to all classes alike 1t is similar
TO section 4 OF the proposed amend
ment in North Carolina, which every
body admits is constitutional. To make
the Mississippi suffrage provision like
the North Carolina amendment il
would be necessary to add another sec
| t1on Following the section | have lust
read. which would exempt a class
that is, those who voted or whose faith
! erS and grandfathers voted in 1867 OF
| before from the provisions of the
mississippi constitution. But the Mis-
! slsslppi constitution contains no such
/ provision. The court, in passing upon
the suffrage provision of the Mississ-
| lppi constitution, stated that it was
clearly constitutional unless the STATE
| court should so construe that p14oyis.
ION or unless its provisions should b.
| administered in a way to violate tbf
| fifteenth amendment by DENYING the
former slaves and their descendants
| the right to vote as conferred upor
otehr citizens. In short, as the cour,
said in Williams VS.. Mississippi, iy
passing upon the same provision
! there was nothing unconstitutional il
the terms of the Mississippi suffrage
! provision nor was there anything un
constitutional in it's legal effect. The
/ court did not say, however that i
might be construed 50 as to make i
| unconstitutional and that it might p.
administered with an evil eve and a,
unequal hand so as to make it uncon
stitutional, but the court went on fur
ther to say that the case as it was pre
senced to the court did not show tha
either had been done; therefore tn.
court upheld its cGnstitutionality.
But how different with the propose,
amendment in North Carolina. wher,
the mississippi educational provisio,
| Is qualited by section 5. In this cas-,
the uneonstitutionality of the grand
father section is apparent from It
terms when interpreted according I,
the rules / have referred to-that is. /,
the light Of the history of the time
and in view of the immediate and nee
essary effect. So the Mississippi case
instead OF being authority to supper
section ., are strong and direct author
ity the other way. Mr.. President
section of the proposed amendmen
can not be so construed or interprete,
as to make II constitutional. 1t can no
be administered so as TO make it con
StitutiCnal. 1t Is unconstitutional a
1t stands on Its face and by its neces
sary effect. by every rule of construc
tion that the court has ever followed,
REPLY TO SENATOR MORGAN.
When the Senator from Alabam
CMr. Morgan) delivered his speech O,
this question, sat near him and pai
the closest attention. On account @
his reputation as constitutional law
yer / was very anxious to hear hir
and curious to know what kind of ar
gument he could advance or wha
hitherto undiscovered opinion of th
Supreme Court he could adduce I
maintain the constitutionahty of sue
a thinly yelled subteTfuge as section
But for once l was doomed to disar
pointment when listening to the Sena
ter from Alabama. He did not al
tempt seriously to discuss and angu
the constitutionality of section
Clearly he is too wise and too good
lawyer to put himself on record wit
argument that would not bear the tes
of analysis and comparison with de
cided cases.
So he contented himself with e,
pressing an opinion that the MISSES
ippi cases applied to section 5 an
then devoting all Of the remainder {
his speech to q discussion Of the dar
gers of reconstruction and using hig
sounding phrases about the magnttud
of the difference between the Angl<
Saxon and the African. The same
true in this respect Of the speeches {