The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-06-08

Republicans nave the
election law passed by the legislature
of 1899 as unfair and unjust, and even
have gone so far as TO say il is infa-
nous.
Viewed from the standpoint OF a re-
publican, who wishes all negroes TO
vote, whether entitled 10 do so or not.
convicts, boys IS, 19 and 20 years OF
age, and who think all things wrong
that stand in the way of this desire.
there is some truth in the charge; but
from the standpoint of a white man,
who thinks negroes not qualified ought
TO be prevented from voting, the charge
IS utterly false.
a comparison of the fusion election
law Of 1S95-'97 and the democratic Law
Of 1899 will show that each was framed
around one central idea, n that ali
the provisions of the law worked TO this
end. Under the fusion law the aim was
70 get every negro on the registration
books, whether entitled to go there or
not, and to make it impossible to get it
off when once there, while under the
democratic law the aim is to keep the
egro'S name off the book, unless it
ought to go there, and If ii gets there
wrongfully to enable you to get it off.
a brief statement Of conditions will
show that the democratic idea is right.
The fusion legislature of 1895 revised
the democratic laws and repealed every
part of them which interposed the
slightest obstacle to the registration of
any one who desired to register, wheth-
er entitled to do so OF not. 1t literally
threw down the bars and allowed any
one and every one who tool the oath
to register. Under this law no QueS-
tons We're permitted to be k and
no objection allowed to be made to the
free registration of every n whose
conscience would permit him to take
the oath. If the fusion Legislature had
stopped here it would have been bad
enough, but it did not stop here
Having removed every effective i'm
pediment to doubt, fraudulent and lille
gal registration, it adopted new and
unheard of measures to deter and de-
feat all attempts to purge the registra-
ton books of illegal names.
The right to challenge was not, in
deed, denied in terms, but a name once
on the books was SO safely guarded
that the right to challenge was prac-
tically made to no effect. Let us see
how this law proceeded to defeat the
right to challenge.
Before that, in North Carolina, when
a mans right to vote was challenged,
he was required to prove his right to
vote, and failing in this his name was
stricken from the registration books.
This rule had always, before 1895, pre-
vailed in North Carolina. The reason
of it was that it was easier for the
voter to prove his qualification than it
was for the party challenging his vote
to prove his disqualification. This rule
is based upon a principle of evidence
which is recognized in every court in
49, --@~1l
The act of 1895 reversed this well es-
tablished rule of evidence and requires
the challenger to prove a negative, to-
wit: the facts of the voters d~isqualii-
cation. This was the first obstacle
which tire Legislature provided against
purging the books of illegal registra-
tion. No one will say that fraudulent
registration ought to be permitted, and
no one will deny that it is the duty of
every honest citizen to object to UGH
registration, and that in SO doing he is
performing a high public duty and is
entitled . the aid of the state in his
effort to thus protect the integrity of
the ballet. The Legislature Of 1895
seems to nave taken a different view
of the matter. however. 1t threw OBJ
stacles in the way of challenging. 1t
required notice to be served upon the
party challenged, without making any
provision for paying the expenses of
the service, thus making it necessary
that the party making the challenge
! should do so at his expense. IL
required the challenger to prove affirm
atively the disqualification, but made
no provision for the payment of wit
nesses that might be for
that purpose, thereby requiring the
challenger to C the witnesses In
the best way he could, at his own ex-
pense. 1t will readily be seen that un-
der these conditions a fraudulent voter
was in very little danger from a chal-
lenge. This was the second obstacle
which the legislature of 1895 in~terpOSed
against purging the registration books
of illegally registered names. The third
obstacle that was interpOSed was even
more formidable than the other two. II
was the character and composition OF
the tribunal which was provided to try
and determine the questions raised by
the challenge. True, each of the three
political parties were given representa-
ton upon that tribuanl. but two OF
these parties were in close, cOmpac1
political affiliations. For all practica
purposes they We're but one party. Al
questions before this tribuanl of three
We're determined by a majority vote
It was, therefore, apparent that the de,
cision was left to a tribunal composed
of two members on n side and one or
the other-a strictly partisan tribuna
to decide a purely political question
The result of this law, framed, as W.
have seen, in the interest of fraudulen
registration and to protect that rag1s'
tration against every attempt to purg'
and correct it, as applied to the genera
election of 1896, vas just what nigh
nave been and was expected. Notwith'
standing the obstacles i~nterposed by
these provisions for h protection o.
illegal registration, many challenge:
We're made in that election, but every
/ body knows that, as a rule, especially
in the eastern counties, without an!
reference to the testimony, these chal
| lenges were decided against the chaI
lenger and in favor of letting the Eam'
remain on the books. Nc amount of tes'
timony showing disqualification was
as a rule, sufficient to satisfy thes'
partisan boards. There are instances
which have developed since the cleo
ton, in many OF the negro
where negro election officers nave beer
shown TO ave persuaded negros u
register, knowing them to have beer