Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1900-03-29

ment strengthened the 1.-THE OF a hair:
The ffteentn amendment never pro
hibited the States from disfranch!s-
ing anybody on account OF
A CONDITION
which may have grown out OF slavery
as one Of its natural Or necessary re.
suits. We speak OF condition Of
servitude; and We know what that
means. We speak OF a condition OF
disfranchiSement. and We know also
what tha. means. Are they the sameo
Why. even an antiamendment poll
tician can see the difference. Let
them get out Of it if they can. Pro-
ceeding further. We see the pollaey OF
their argument fully exposed. In the
oft-quoted case OF Williams VS. Mis-
s:ssi ppi, the supreme court OF the
United States declared valid law re-
Quiring every voter 10 read and in
.erpret clause of the constitution
Coming from the supreme court of the
United States, this decision is certain.
ly entitled TO some consideration. But
when We remember that its validity is
admitted by such eminent authorities
on Jurisprudence as the anti-amend-
ment politicians, all doubt is removed
and we know It is good law. They
unhesitatingly decide off-hand. the
most intricate questions Of constitu
tlonal Interpretation with the un-
searchable wisdom o. an oracle and
! all the positiveness of Tagura. And
they have graciously issued a decree
allowing an educational qualification
for suffrage. to be constitutional. Then
the negroes were disfranchised in Ms
slssippi because they could not read
and interpret the constitution. They
failed to meet the requirements of the
law because they had been slaves.
Ignorance was one OF the conditions
which grew out of slavery. Now let
us take the argument that the fifth Sec
, tion Of the amendment denies suffrage
! to the negroes on account Of previous
condition Of servitude and turn on Il
the light OF the Mississippi decision.
! Why was the negro disfranchised ia
MISSISSIPPI? Because he was ignorant
Why was he ignorant? Because he
had been a slave. Let the supreme
court declared the Mississippi consti-
tuition valid. Why cannot the negro
vote under the fifth section OF the
amendment? Because he was not q
voter in 1861 Why was he not a voter
at that time? Because he had bee,
a slave.
| Furthermore there is in the act
NO UNCERTAINTY.
Its meaning is perfectly clear There
cannot be the slightest misunderstand-
ing as to what are the prescri bet
qualifications for voters. A school DO,
can understand it. Then how can The
CT l. !. 10
will be disfranchised by the amend
ment? How can they tell that ther,
is single negro voter in North Caro-
lima? In passing upon the consttu
tionality OF the measure, they are con
fined to what appears in the law itself
They cannot go behind the record
Where a law is plain and unam big
uous, there is no room left for con
structlOn and resort to eXtrinsi
facts will not be permitted to ascer
tain its meaning
Bartlett vs.. Norris. . Par. 266). Tn
same point was decided in Williams
case as was shown by Senator Morgan
in his recent great argument in tn
Senate. Therefore unless the suprem
court vitiates a principle which ha
been law for centuries and reverse
its own decision the fifth section i
constitutional. We have heard some
thing about hereditary suffrage be;n
'mOnstrous absurdity. Viewed from
the standpoint Of its results, wha
docs hereditary suffrage do in tn
present case? Confer on white me
and the sons Of white men the right I
vote. IS there anything absurd .
monstrous about that
But if the court should hold til
fifth section void. what consequence
would follow? Would the fourth sec
ton which preScribes the cd catona
qualification st2ndo Or would III
whole amendment fall 10 the grounf
Cnquestionabiy the latter; for the 81
preme court cannot
SUSPICIOUS INTEREST
in the ignorant white man. NAic
would have inspired the public vii
more confidence N their sincerity If
had been manifested earlier. One ant.
amendment organ goes far enough /
say that the Democratic party has al
ways been the enemy o. the il'iter4;
whites. Perhaps | should have d.
scribed the journal in question as a dii
ferent kind Of musical instrument
IS not an organ but j l.re. The pre
tense of the Republican leaders tha
they oppose the amendment for Ii
good Of poor and iIiitera'e whites d,
pears sufficiently ridiculous when y
recall that The ignorant negro vote
solidiv Republican while the ignorar
white vote. is largely Democratic 4
p. cording 70 Their s-atements they wal
TO detea- the measure beca il vi
disfranchise too many Democrats al
not enough Republicans-a propos
[ ton which might we'll make ne a
l thor OF the Book OF Lamentations ro4
with laughter and wring "a deris.y
1 shou. from the lips Of the Egyptia
! sphynx They claim 10 be actuatel 3
I. principle. out there - good reason .
I believe that they are really actuatA
BY interest. By protesting 70 protsf
: the ignorant white man while the
/ are secretly schem ng and contr.vir
9 20 crafty their own base selfshnes
a, the expense ot the State, they tGr-
isa a striking example o. the mos
aoomina5le hypocrisy. IL this Z