Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1900-02-22
WHITE SUPREMACY
how 1t Will Be Made Per-
manent
81 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
A Conversation Between a Business
Man and a Farmer--No Properly
Qualification.
8Y CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ltoncluled From Last Week 1

Farmer That seems to be 90 It
not only does not deny anybody the
right to vote but il seems to me rather
10 confer upon certain persons the
right to vote
Business Man: That is it exactly.
But let lis, in this connection. examine
SECTION T. That is the only section Of
the amendment that bridges the ne
groes' right 10 vote, as you will see BIZ
reading 1t. That section does not al
low any negro to vote unless he can
read and write. That is clea-
Arrangement of the general right to
vote; clear denial of the right to
vote to all negroes who can not read
and write; but the denial is because OF
the lack of education on the part OF
the negro; because he cannot read and
write. not on account OF his race. color
or previous condition. So that We see
by reading the two sections that 1t is
not the 5th section which denies or
aorldges the right OF negro to vote.
out 1t is the 4th section. and the 4th
section denies and abridges his right,
not because of his race. but because
he does not possess certain educa-
tional qualifications, which the State
has perfect right. as everybody ad-
mits, to impose. Now then, we have
seen that neither Of these two sections
violates the Constitution OF the United
States when taken separately. OF
course, therefore, if when taken to-
/ gether they should violate that Goa
stitution, the unconstitutional element
would be in the combination of the
!. two and not in either taken separate
! ly, and of course both would have to
i faI together
| Farmer: We'll. really. that seems
20 be clear from the reading OF the two
! sections. Now l would like to ask you
| Il there is any probability Of the two
sections taken together being held TO
, be unconstitutional?
Business Man: None in the worli
! | am not a lawyer. but / have talked
with great many able lawyers about
this matter and I have read pretty
much all that has been about it. and
I find that every lawyer Of any stand
ing who has investigated the amend
ment has :eached the conclusion that
it is constitutional. | know some law
yers who thought it was not consti-
tutional when they first read it, but as
soon as they investigated II they
changed their minds. | understand
that our amendment is copy OF the
Louisiana amendment, and that that
was prepared by two of the creates,
lawyers the South has produced, after
long investigation, and that they pre-
pared 1t SO that it would not be open
to valid constitutional objections.I
know Butler and Pritchard say that it
, is unconstitutional. But neither OF
them has any reputation as lawyer
Indeed, one Of them has just got his
license. Senator Morgans opinion
upon this subject, it seems to me,
ought to be accepted as settling this
question. He is regarded as the big
gest man the South has produced since
the war. and is the ableSt lawyer in
the United States Senate. and he de-
clared in a speech delivered in the
Senate a few days ago that he had
carefully investigated it and it was
clearly constitutional In fact he said
the Supreme court OF the United
States had already. in Il case from
Mississippi. decided practically the
legal principle involved in favor ..
the constitutionality Of the amend
ment All this talk about the amend
nent being unconstitutional is cimply
to scare the people. Have not you no.
ticed every time the people want 70
enact into law any great reform. the
opponents Of the people raise the
question Of its constitutionality II
the people, we're to listen to these
denlagogues they would never change
their laws il any important particu-
lars
Farmer: i never took any stock
in the suggestion that the Grandfather
clause would be struck out OF the
amendment. and the educational clause
would be kept in. becauee II was al
WAYS plain 70 me that whoever voted
for one OF these sections would have
TO vote for the Other. and that {, il
was not for the 5th section the people
would not vote for the amendment at
all. and that the court would see tina.
/ the people voted for the amend Omen:
with the 5th section IN Il, and i. i
should strike that out i would be fore
ing upon the people al Amendment 10
/ their constitution, which they did not
vote for and never would have vo,et
FOR But the Republicans are trying
/ 20 .righ,ea the people by telling them
! that the presen- Republican Supreme
| Cour- o. this State viii have the de-
/ Gliding o. tbs mater. and, they VIII de-
eide !. WI the Republicans. / always
( thoIg'1t th@1 when a question about
nse Cor ss..u-ton ~ the United States
w2s =, be settled that he Supreme
Cur . the IaEad States was the
0-iv coe-. that could settle Il; IS that
re. 80"
Bsls .aess Naa: Why. certainly.
a rc entirely right about that The