The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-02-09
ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE AMENDMENT.

carefully may be understood by mos
persons capable of reading plain Eng.
llish. 1t is not an article TO be simply
Iquoted from, butsshould be read in its
entirety. 1t is only some two columns
long, and it is yet full of thought
worthy of attentive consideration.
He sets out to find whether a man OF
sense, character and consciousness
may vote for the amendment, and if he
will iolat in doing so the oath taken
ito support the constitution of the Unit
ed States. We think he W this
Ilucidly, and with u reference to rea-
son. He makes no wrench upon Ian
Iguage and offers no Pigment of the i'm
Iagination for argument, and does no
violence to the construction of plain,
ldirect language. He insists, as all
able lawyers insist. that a state has a
perfect right to prescribe IN education
AL qualification 70" voting, but it must
not seek by this method to violate the
constitution of the United States by
Iabridging the electorate by reason of
trace, color or previous condition of SER
lvitude. Hedoes not quote authorities
and decisions as other able men have
done, but confines himself to an exam
~ination of the proposed amendment in
connection with constitutional law.
That the states are the sole power in
the matter of state suffrage is too plain
to be misunderstood. Other states, and
in the north, ave acted upon this clear
understanding and adopted educational
restrictions upon the elective franchise
Massachusetts, rich, prosperous and
with rare educational facilities, have
excluded voters by applying an edu-
Icational test. So have other states, We
believe. Mr.. Busbee is frank to say
that IF the two sections, the abridg-
ing and the eXempting sections, when
taken together, have the effect of
abridging the right to vote of the ne
gro, or the ex-slave only, then 1t would
seem absurd to contend that the light
was not abridged on account of race or
previous condition of s~ervitude.' That
is no doubt sound, correct. But is that
the effect? Mr.. Busbee says:
Some states require educational
qualifications, others require, or did re-
quire, a property qualification, some adj
init women to full participation in vot-
ing and holding office. If North Caro-
lima should permit boys of 15 to vote,
or should dcbar from the ballot
lall who could not read Greek,
the people of the state would have the
right to make objection. The state
has the right to prescribe an educa-
Itional qualification, n to exempt from
its operation those who have long ex-
Iercised the right to vote and the chill
dren n grandchildren of such per-
sons, without necessarily infringing the
federal constitution.
But if the effect of the provisions
should be to exempt all white persons,
or all free-born persons, from the edu-
lcational test, and should leave only
colored persons, or former slaves and
their descendants, to bear the burden
lof the a~bridging section, then it seems
Ito me that the legislative intent would
Ibe so manifest, n the operation OF
1.-THE amendment so clearly in opposition
to the letter and spirit of the fifteenth
amendment, that the a~bridging section
would be void. 1t would violate the
constitution as clearly as If had pro-
Iyided in express terms, instead OF indl-
lrectly, that it should apply only to ne
groes or to those who had been in a
lpreyious condition of ~servitude, and
their descendants. But if the eXemp-
Ition is restricted in its scope. n II
mot only colored men and eX-slaVes,
but many other classes are left I'm
der the full restriction of the abridging
Isection, then it would seem that the
amendment is constitutional. The
abridgment of the right to vote, or
more accurately the failure to exempt
from the operation of the Arrangement,
must not only include all former slaves
but it must also clearly and unmiStak-
ably be on account of their race, color
or previous condition of servitude."
That impresses Us as frank and
manly. Hereditary suffrage does not
violate the constitution however, when
it does not interfere with the rights and
-. -tA4- A1nnt1r- Mr. sP1C-
bee. we'll illustrates the case with North
dakota and Minnesota with their great
foreign population, and but few ne
groes. He says:
The number of white free-born per-
Isons who would be excluded by the
educational test would be many times
Igreater than the number of negroes.
Gould it be seriously argued that in
Minnesota the few negroes who were
AFFECTED had the right to vote abridg-
ed on account of their race, color or
previous servitude? At the risk of
Itiresome repetition, let it be kept in
mind that not only must the right to
vote be abridged, but it must be abridg-
ed on account of race, color or Servi-
ltude. And if the amendment would not
be adjudged invalid in Minnesota, can
lit be unconstitutional in North Caro-
lima? AS it seems to me, h fact that
the abridgement or failure to exempt
from the operation of the abridging
section applies to all foreign born cttf-
lzens and their descendants, unless the
~lancestor was n~aturalized before 1867, is
"a decisive answer to the position that
the educational qualification is pre-
lscribed on account of race. color or SER
lvitude. If a lineal descendant of La
Ifayette, an accomplished French and
herman scholar, a naturalized citizen
of North Carolina since 1865, should
present himself for registration he
would be rejected unless he could read
the constitution in the English Ian
lguage."
He also calls attention to a fact to
be remembered-that the only person