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

question for the court Is, not .if!e 'ie
craftsman meant. but what the words
Of the instrument mean. 1t sometimes
happens for this reason that the drafts
man is less to be relied on than almost
any person To conStrue an lnStfument
whether il be a constitution, statute.
deed or will" This was said by the
Chief Justice in 4 case involving tie
construction of provision OF the Con
Stitution of the State.
1t may be thought that l have stated
these rules at too great length. but
think the Importance OF the subject under
discussion iustitieS ME In calling 2tttn
ton 10 these well settled rules, and !
undertake to say that if these rules are
applied to the proposed amendment.
there is not possibility of its ever bein:
held by any court before which the qucs-
ton may be presented that there is
word, a sentence, Il clause or a section in
il that can be construed to deny or
abridge the right to vote of any one ION
account Of race, color, or previous con-
dition of servitude " and l expect to
show that the amendment is absolutely
to all inters and purposes valid and
constitutional
CITIZENS AND VOTERS.
l wish in the first place to show that
the XIV amendment Of the Constitution
Of the United States, while it was in
tended and had the effect to confer
citizenship upon the negroes, did not
undertake to confer upon them the
right to vote, nor did it undertake to
protect them in that right. The SUI
preme court of the United States, in
the slaughter House Cases y in dis
GUESSING the effect of this amendment
said that 1.-THE distinction between
citizenship of the United States and
citizenship of a State is clearly recoS-
nized and established. Not only may
man be citizen Of the United States
without being 4 citizen of q State, but
an important element is necessary TO
convert the former into the latter. He
must reside within the State to make
him a citizen Of it, but it is only neces-
sary that he should be born or natur-
allied in the United States TO be a citi-
zen of the Union"
The court then, after stating the dis
tinction between the privilege and i'm
munities of citizen of the United
States and citizen of q State, pro-
ceeds: I'VE think this distinction and
its explicit recognition in this amend
ment of great weight in this argument,
because the next paragraph of this same
section. I" s. speaks only of privi-
leges and immunities of citizens OF the
United States, and does not speak of
those of citizens Of the several States.
The argument, however. in favor of the
plaintiffs rests wholly upon the assump-
ton that the citizenship is the same. and
the privileges and ilnmuunities guaran-
teed by the clause are the same.
THE language is, NO State shall
make or enforce or abridge the priv
ileges or immunities Of citizens of the
United States 1t is little remarkable,
if this clause was intended as protec-
ton of u citizen of State against the
legislative power of his own State, that
the word citizen of the State should be
left ont when it is so carefully used, and
used in contra distinction to citizens of
the United States in the very sentence
which precedes it. 1t is too clear for
argument that the change in phraseology
was adopted Understandings and with 4
purpose. OF the privileges and i'm
munities of the citizen of the United
States and Of the privileges and inn
munities of citizen of the State, and
what they respectively are, we will
presently consider: but we wish TO
state here that ii is only the former
which are placed by this clause under
the protection Of the Federal Constitu-
ton, and that the latter, whatever they
may be, are not intended to have any
additional protection by this paragraph
OF the amendment"
Now the next clause of the amendment
which is considered by the court in these
cases is ms follows: Nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law,
nor TO any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law" and
there is nothing in the language Of the
court which intimates that this clause
has any application whatever to ques-
tons like the one under discussion. The
court i'll these cases enumerates many Of
the privileges and immunities of Il citi.
zen of the United States, such as thu
right ito come to the seat of government,
TO assert any claim that he may have
upon that government, to transact any
business he may have with it, to seek
IT'S protection. to share its offices TO en-
gage in administering its functions.
He has the right of free access 10
its seaports through which all operas
tons of foreign commerce are conducted,
to the sub-treasuries. land offices and of
courts Of Justice in the several States.
to demand the care and protection Of
the Federal Government over his life,
liberty and property on the high seas, or
within the jurisdiction of Il foreign gov
eminent, to peaceably assemble and pc
tition for redress or grievances, to use
the navigable waters of the United
States" etc.
Now the right to vote is expressly
held by the Supreme court Of the United
States in the case OF Minor VS.. Happier
sett, p Wall, 162, to be not a privilege
! or immunity of a citizen of the United
States. The opinion in that case is
closed as follows:
Being unanimously of the opinion
that the Constitution of the United
States does not confer the right Of
suffrage upon any one and that the Con-
Stitution and laws of the several States
which commit that important trust to
men alone are not necessarily void. We
affirm the Judgment of the court below
which WAS the Supreme Court of the