The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-30


 expression. though believe 1t to have been only the Impulse of the passing moment in each case, and that the shades of forgetfuiness should take 1t to their bosom and out of our memory. AS for these gentlemen who believe the grandfather clause to be unconsti- tutional. We know them to be brave men and true. Many of them have al- ready earned and are justly wearing the title of hero. When look on the empty sleeve of my friend from Mont gomery, Governor Oates. and recall the the memories of the long years dating back to my infancy. during which I have watched and admired his remark able career: when l remember the many deeds of patriotism which his life records, and I see him here in this hall contending like the true man know him to be for what he believes to be the right, I cannot, 1 will not, call his motives ill question. believe, however, that he and those holding with him are in error, and must, there fore. differ from them and oppose my vote against theirs. Their arguments may De reduced 10 !s.lree propositions:
 First-They say the 'grandfather' clause contravenes the genius and spir- 1t of cur institutions and destroys our republican form of government.
 Second-They say it violates the fifteenth amendment to the federal Constitution; and
 Third-That the whole of the tenn porary plan offered by the section is so mutually dependent. the one part upon the other. that the grandfather clause, which they assume to be uncon- stitutional. if left in the section' wiu render the whole section invalid: that the whole section will tall with 1t.
 The first of the two propo- titions contained in the nrst division of their argument, viz: that the clause violates the spirit and genius of our institutions. can nave no legal force whatever and may well be passed over without more than passing notice.S. There is no provision in the Federal Constitution compeliine the States to preserve the spirit ana genius of our institutions beyond the express or implied provisions or the Constitution itself; and 1t is so clear that it does not contain any provision which by any stretch Of construct.on could be said to protect and secure tnc spirit and genius of our anstltuuons In A manner like this granoiatneI clause that 1t would be an idle waste
 
 to you that it does not.
 It is almost equally clear that the clause does not destroy our repuoncan form of government. When the worst that can be is said of 1t. 1t Is simply the selecting by Us of closs pr our citiz, ns who shall vote and denying to other classes the right to do so. ms nractice is as old as the government itself. and was in full force when ootn inc articles of confederation ana tne Federal Constitution were frameo: anu has been continued in every statA or the Union ever since without ever pe- ing questioned by any one. The prac- flee is in fact one of the bedrock prin- oi,ies of our form of government; and. like other well established customs is a mart of the Constitution. written be- tween it's lines, to remain there 1or- ever or until removed by some amend ment to 1t.
 Does the fifteenth amendment remove it? Here comes the real tug or war. We know that it does not remove IL generally; for we have various express decisions from the courts Of last resort upholding the practice. It does seem to me that the opposition pracIlcahS yield the point insofar as the eonstltu, tionality of the defense Is questione1, by them when they admit the soauier ciarse to be constitutional. Tnese nronositIons are so firmly and thor oughIy settled that they cannot pc gainsaid by any one making any pre- tensions to being a lawyer:
 ,First-That the right to vote IS not a right or immunity. secured to the GIL izen by any thing in the Federal Coli- stitution preceding the ntteentn amendment: but is mere privilege which may or may not be conferred at the discretion of the government
 Second-That the right to confer up on the citizen the privilege or Wotlns was not conceded to the general SoV- ernment in the Federal Constitution as or;ginallv framed, but was reserved to the States;
 Third-That none of the amendments nrior to tfe fifteenth amendment in- terfered in any way with the apsolute right and power of control in the states of the matter of the right 70 vote.
 Fourth-That the matter of the qual- ifications of the voters was lett en- tirely with the States. with the singie exception that the Federal Const'tution adopted as is own the quallncatlons which each State might adopt as the qualifications of its voters; TOT electors and for representatives III the io"eA house of Congress; and,
 Fifth-That the fifteenth amendment did not directly confer the right to vote on any one, and did not interfere with the right of the States to fix and 1rescribe the qualifications of it's vot- CTS absolutely at their own will. Dy whatever arbitrary rule they might choose, with the single exception that the right to vote should not be denied to a citizen or abridged on account or his race, color or previous condition of servitude.
 The strongest argument offered oy the opI osition is that in which they insist that the grandfather clause creates a class of voters with slVeHi qualifications, and that these qualin- cations are such that the other classes cannot by any effort or through any possible agency attain to them. Ex- actly this Is true of the soldier provided for. The wars the fighting Tn "nlcn has qualified him where III the past. No man who did not then, can now 6pht in those wars. It is as imposslple to become a soldier now for the hrsI time in one of those wars as IL IS to Income the descendant of sucn solule.' Tf tbe argument is made that the qua4- itv of soldier was acquired by the m 1i,,idual character, whereas being oe- saandan+ of A soldier Is not, we an- s,yar that our suffrage plan is pros oactive to operate in future, and not kft,er n