The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-01-11

suffrage amendment Incorporates '
this oath in its provisi ms. Shall q
we, like Virginius, let out the life
blood OF the Federal Constitution I
with one hand, while, with the c
other, we support il? Let US, how I
ever, examine some OF the argu- 8
ments on tho other side.
First Ii Is said that IL the pro-
posed suffrage provision does not '
on its face discriminate against a
race the courts have nothing TO do
with the discrimination which re-
suits from its practical operation;
that though section removes the
educational qualification from a
great number OF whites, get il does
not from otherS, and though ii does
not remove it from n great number
of blacks, it does from Others.
IL there is any principle of con-
stitutioual law which may be con
sidered as established, so far as to
make 1t an axiom it is this, that
the constitutionality Of any law is
TO be determined, not by its form,
but by the effects of its operation. /
Indeed, to such an extent is this .
true, that we have the maxim,
"Nothing can be done Indirectly, I
which cannot be done directly"
And there Is not case which /
limits the States control over pri- .
waite right or limits the police
power OF the State by the inter-
state commerce provision of the !
| Federal Constitution, in the deter |
| Il 4.
not gone back of the face of the |
act, to the results which ensue !
from its practical operation. This
is so true, that it requires no cita-
| ton of authority. There is not a
case in our reports that does not
become an authority. There is
none in the United states Supreme
Court Reports / need only cite
Judge Harlan'S discussion in Mug
Ter VS. Kansas: "The courts are
not bound by mere forms, nor are
they to be misled by mere pretence
They are at liberty, indeed are I'M
der a solemn duty-to look at the
substance of things whenever they
enter upon an inquiry whether the
| Legislature has transcribed the
limits OF its authority" SO it may
be considered certain that the court
in constituting this section will dis
regard form and look at the sub
stance of things.
1t is said futher that under this
section some whites, not education
ally qualified will still be disfran-
chiSed. But how enthusiastically
,,ll l. I,
with those whites from whom the
disqualification is removed? This
is mere minor incident in the
great controlling purpose and effect
of this section, to allow the white
man disqualifiedly educationally to
vote, while the negro so disqualified
shall not. All but, say they, the
white man is segregated into
class by himself from his race, and
his former freedom from Servitude.
He mayeXercise the franchise there
fore, because better prepared for it,
than his negro cOnfrere of the same
class, educatiOnally. True, every
word of it. L have myself seen
men, white men, who could neither
read nor write, who were infinitely
| better prepared from integrity of
: purpose and honesty, to cast a vote
. than the man who was addressing
: them. Why? On account of their
race, on account of their heredity.
: And that is exactly what the
, fifteenth amendment forbidS any
state to make any discrimination
about. If it does not forbid that, it
, forbIds nothing at all. Again how
ever. the lineal descendants of neg
rOes who were free before 1885 have
, not the education qualification ap-
. piled to them. True again, but
= why? Simply because their ances-
;. tors We're free before 1885. Does
not the fifteenth amendment read
= in its last alternative, cor on &C
count of previous condition of SER
vitude?"
Would the gentlemen who have
announced their fixed conviction
that section is constitutional, in
;, sist that the last alternative applies
only to those who.have been them
selves slaves? Would they limit
this constitutional amendment to
, this narrow plane. Alb, / suppose
, not. That would have been too
! easy solution to the suffrage prob
lem for them to have disregarded
it, in formulating the provision to
be submitted to the people.
But whatever these gentlemen
: may think about it, it is perfectly
q plain that the fifteenth amendment
! would carry about it its own death
. wound if it could be construed as
$ protecting only those who had
themselves been slaves. The argu-
t ment here, however, is exactly the
{ same as in the principle point, with
, only this additional matter. Is it
, possible to cOnstrue constitution
? al provision as strictly as the law
requires a criminal statute to be
, construed? All history and all ex-
perience show that it is not.
) Finally the advocates Of the con-
; stitutionality of section have this
, dilemma thrust upon them, either
, the fixing of the time therein,
January l, 1867, was arbitrary, or
} it was fixed with the deliberate
purpose. to DISTINGUISHING as few
"a 81