The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-28

their respective numbers. counting the
whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed, but when
the right To vote at any election for the
choice OF electors for President and Vice
President of the United States :
Is denied TO amy of the male inhabitants
OF such State. being twenty-0nc years OF
age, and citizens OF the United States, or
| Ill any way abridged. except for partlci-
patton in the rebellion or other crimes.
the basis OF representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion (which the
number of such male citizens shall bear
to the whole number OF male citizens
twenty-one years Of age in such State
''Why this, if it was not in the power
Of the Legislature TO deny the right of
suffrage to some made inhabitants? And
if suffrage was necessarily one of the
absolute rights of citizenship, why con-
| fine the operations of the limitation to
male inhabitants. Women and children
| are. as We have seen, persons Ihey
are counted in the enumeration upon
| which appo1'tionmellt is TO be made, but
| if they were necessarily voters because
I of their citizenship unless clearly eX-
cludcd. why infict the penalty for the
| exclusion OF males alone? Clearly. no
| snch form of words would have been Sc
| lectc,1 TO express the idea here Indicated
| if suffrage was the absolute right OF all
citizens. And still again, after the adop-
| ton of the XIV amendment 1t wa
| deemed necessary to adopt the Nv as fol-
| lows: The right of citizens of the Uni
| ted States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color or
| previous condition Of servitude.' The
| NV amendment had already provided
| than no State should make or enforce any
law, which should abridge the privileges
or rmm,nties Of citizens OF the United
| States. II suffrage was one of these PRIV
| ileces or immunities why amend the con-
| stitution to prevent its being denied Oh
account of race, etc? Nothing is more
certain than that the greater must M
clut!e the less. and if an were already pro
tected why go through with the form OF
amending the constitution 10 protect Il
part"
| 1t was held in Duncan vs. Missouri.
! 152 l.. S. $50, that the privileges and
/ imnlunities OF the citizens of the United
! States protected by the NV amendment
| are such as arise out Of the nature ana
essential character of the Federal Gov
ernment. and granted or secured 10y the
/ Constitution.
SUFFRAGE NOT C0NF'FnkEp.
! Bat as a direct. positive and emphatic
/ authority that the NV amendment, Sc
so far as the constitutionality of the pro-
posed amendment TO the State Constitu-
ton is concerned, has no possible appll
cation. l call your attention 70 the case
of the United States VS.. Reese, ~ L. 3,
217. where it is said:
] THE Nv amendment does not confer
the right OF suffrage upon any one. II
prevents the States. or the United states,
however, from giving preference. In THIS
/ particular. 10 one citizen of the United
States over another on account OF race
color or previous condition of servitude.
Before its adoption this could be done.
1t was as much within the power of 4
State to exclude citizens of the United
States from voting on account of race.
etc. as it was on account Of age, property
or education Now it lis not. If citizens
of one race having certain qualification