The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-01-18

blacks, there was and could not be
any unconstitutional exercise of
authority by the State. See vii
liams VS.. Mississippi, 10 U. s. This
is illustrated by the two cases,
Strawar VS.. West Virginia, 100 L..
S., and Exparte Virginia, 100 q. S.
In the case first mentioned, it was
held that State law confining the
selection of jurors to white persons
was in contravention of the l4th
amendment and second, that the
action of the State officer Invested
with the power to select jurors, eX-
Guiding all cOlored persons from
the lists, was also repugant to its
provisions.
Strong, j., in the first case. says: :
"The words of the amendment, it is
true, are prohibitOry, but they contain
a necessary implication of positive
immunity or right most valuable to
the cOlored men-the right Of exempt
ion from Unfriendly legislation against
thsm distinctly as colOred, exempting
from legal discrimination implying
inferiority in civil society, lessening
the security of their enjoy ment of the
rights which others enjoy, and dis
crini nations which are steps toward
reducing them to a subject race"
Now, as a general rule, when a
State statute or constitutional pro-
vision, construed in one way is OBJ
noxious to the Federal Constitu-
ton. and in another is not, the Fed
eral Courts await, if possible, the
construction of the State Supreme
Court, for if that Court so cor strues
the statute or constitutional pro-
vision, that it's opposition to the
ederal Constitution is avoided,
why, then, there is no Federal quas-
ton. That is exactly what the SUI
preme Court of the United States
did in Williams VS.. Mississippi.
Sup. There is nothing unconstitu-
tional in the terms of the Missis-
sippi suffrage provision; there is
no thing unconstitutional in its le-
gal effect. 1t may be construed so as
| to MAKE it unconstitutional. 1t NAV
be administered so as to make it un-
constitutional. But tn case itself
has not been presented in the aspect
consequently there is nothing before
the Supreme Court impugning it
constitutionality. But how differ
| emit is Section 5! Its unconstitu-
tionality is apparent from its terms
interpreted in the light of surround.
log history and in the light of its
Immediate and necessary effect. In
other words, it cannot be construed
or interpreted so it could be con-
stitutiOnal. 1t cannot be admins.
tered so it could be constitutional
This being true either the State
or Federal court would take jur.
isdictiOn in proper case with the
| final decision in the United States
Supreme court.
Now Mr.. Aycock's remarks re.
quire notice only in two or three
| particulars: His general remarks
| are excellent-indeed, nearly ev.
erything that he says and writes is
excellent. l regard him as one oi
the most eloquent, one OF the ablest
one OF the purest and honestest
men in North Carolina. Yet his
article shows even his incapacity
to discuss Section from the Legal
standpoint He gives as his first
reason, why Section 5 is constitu-
tional, that all the lawyers in
North Carolina, or nearly all, whose
opinion is worth continental, say
that it is. Yet why is it, if this
/ is true, that none of the opinions,
heretofore deliberately expressed,
will bear the test Of analysis and