The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-09

laws that are supreme within Il State, il
can not create or adopt a constitution FOR
Il State.
CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE.
The following questions bearing directly
ON this discussion are settled: In Minor
vs. H;ppersett (21 Wallace. 1922 it is
decided that citizenship &c the United
States does not carry with it the right
Of suffrage and that the Constitution
Of the United States does not confer
the right of~Sul1rage upon any one That
power belongs to the constitution and
laws Of the States.
In the case of United States VS.. Reese
(92 L. s.. 204l it is held that the fiji
teenth amendment to the Constitution OF
the United States does not confer the
right of suffrage, but it invests citizens
of the United States with the right OF
exemption from discrimination III the eX-
ercse of the elective franchise on ac-
count of race. color, or previous condi'
ton of scrvitItde and empowers Congress
to enforce it by appropriate legislation.
The power of Congress TO legislatc at
all upon the subject of voting at State
elections rests upon this amendment and
can be exercised by providing a punish
mcnt only when the wrongful refusal tc
receive the vote of Il qualified elector IS
because of his race. color or previous con.
dition of servitude.
Tn United States VS. Crrlikshank co.
II. S.. $40 il is held that the Government
of the United States, although it is
within the scope Of its powers, supreme
and beyond the States, can neither grant
nor secure to its citizens rights or priv.
leges which are not expressly on by im
plication placed under its jurisdiction. AL
that can not he so granted or secured are
left to the exclusive protection of tho
States.
The duty of protecting all its citizens
in the enjoyment of an equality of rights
was originally assumed by the States. anC
it still remains there. The only ohliga
ton resting upon the United States is tC
see that the States do not deny the right
In Ex parte Marlborough 110 L. =. page
66J) the Supreme Court says
This new constitutional right was
mainly designed for citizens of African
descent The principle, however, that thu
protection of the exercise of this right
is within the power Of Congress is as
necessary to the right Of other citizens tC
vote as TO the colOred citizen and to the
right in general as To the right TO be pro
tected against discrimination
ION THE FACE OF THE LAW
In Williams VS.. Mississippi go L. :.
213) the Supreme court holds that 1.-THE
discrimination that is violative of the
Constitution as amended must appear or
the face of the State law or by neces
Sary intendment from it and not from
the manner in which the State law Is
administered"
In all these decisions we find thai
Congress alone can exercise the power
to protect the negro against dlscrlmlna
ton in respect of the right to vote, anc
that its power under the fourteenth anC
fifteenth amendments is confined TO this
sole purpose.
1t must also be such a discrimination ~
appears ON the face of the law that 4
complained Of, and must relate alone II
race. color, or previous condition or ser
yitude. 1t is not enough to invoke tht
interference of Congress that such DIS
elimination is possible. or even probable
under the administration of the law. II
must be found in the legal construction
of the law and ir its legal effect. II
this view Of the law that governs II
these matters the decision in the Miss
issippi case is conclusive TO show that the
text of the Louisiana constitution rs no
n legal discrimination against the negro
on account of his race, color. or his pre-
yious condition of seryitude, and the ac
is valid against the power of Congress
to interfere with 1T.
FUTILITY OF "RESOLUTIONS."
The necessity for interference 10y
Congress does not appear on the race
of the Louisiana constitution. and Con
gress can not create that condition prece.
dent to its action by a mere declaration
such as is called for i'll the resolution OF
the Senator from North Carolina. The
contemplated action of North Carolina
being the same in substance with that
already taken by Louisiana, it is unjust
to those people. and will he in vain. that
we illuminate resolutions of the Senate
against them To alarm them into the
further surrender of their rightful SOY
ereign powers.
| assume, therefore, that 10 right tC
vote is vested in or confirmed TO any
person by the fifteenth amendment. eX
cept in the special instances mentioned i'll
Yarborough's case. and Congress can re
fuse to ride down a provision III state
constitution which denies to Negro
the right of suffrage to the same extent
that they could refuse to Interfere II
suffrage was denied to a white man be-
cause he is white: and such refusal puts
it beyond the power of any other tribu
nal to Interfere Congress represents the
will Of the people. and its majority
vote is conclusive, as the verdict of the
people. while it stands unreversed.
AN OPEN QUESTION.
Ii is by no means Il forced Interior
ence or conclusion drawn from the
text of the fifteenth amendment of the
Constitution. or from its close correspon
dence with the like provision i'll the four
teenth amendment, or from the circum
stances attending its adoption in Con
gress and its ratification by the requisite
number of States, that it was intended
TO rake the entire subject of negro suf
frage from under fixed rule of a con
stitutiOnal guaranty and to leave it OF
the footing of Il political question, to be
determined by the votes of the people
as experience and a wise public policy
may require.
CONSTITUTIONAL MISTAKES.
,s,.,4n L. ! 10 fa,