The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-25

|of poets who makes tue x4<u<I eN4X U@ < the son on leaving his households ou4 after givfng much advice, ~fhts an0xS
 To thine own self be true. ana t nsse follow
 As the night the day, thou canst not
 then be false to any man.
 New these decisions of the Suprcm9
 Court of the United States none oG
 them have settled this question -none.
 I want to give very short space o<
 time to their consideration, and in or
 der that I may be brief. l have not
 brought the volumes here 10 quoto
 from. but have brief extracts. But tn
 the case of Marlborough, no u. g.. it tp
 simply declared that the Fifteenth Amendment was designed primarily to prevent discrimination against coiored
 men where the right to vote may oe
 granted to others. Now, there fs no that. Then, in the Cruikshank case-~
 why, there is nothing in that except this: They say. 'Inasmuch, therefore. as 1t does not appear in the co9nts of
 the indictment that the intentso the
 defendants was to prevent these par-
 ties from exercising the right to vote on account of race or color, 1t does not
 appear that 1t was their intent to in-
 terfere with any right granted or se-
 cured by the Constitution or laws cl
 the United States. We may suspect
 that race was the cause of the hcstti-
 ity but it is not so averred." That de~
 cision went off simply on . question of pleading--an insufficient averment In the indictment. The courts might sus-9l pect, but they could not decide whea 1t was not in the case.
 Now. in the Williams case, which c the latest, TO U. S.. it said: "rhe Con- stitution and laws of Mississippi arc not limited by their language or ef-s fects to one race. They reach the weak and vicious white man as well as tho weak and vicious black man. and what- ever Is sinister In their intention, f anything. can be prevented by both races by the exercise of that duty which voluntarily pays taxes and re- frains from crime. This is the premiee
 from which Judge McKenna. delty- ering the opinion of the court, drawn the conclusion as to the legality of tho Mississippi Constitution. He said; 'The Constitution and statutes of the State do not on their face discriminate between the races. and It has not been shown that their actual administrators was evil, only that evil was possible under them. and hence the Supreme Court of the United States have nos disturbed the judgment of the court below" s. F.
 That was--I win state 1t for the befe- fit of some gentlemen who may pe
 present who have not heard t--tn6 case of Williams who had been con- victed of murder. and an appeal taken to the Supreme Court of Mfssissippl 1t was over the clause in the Constttu- tion which provided that only quail fled electors were eligible as Jurore- That was the point. Now, I say shst the question has never been deciueo. It Is only a matter of inference Iron the cases which have been ad1udged as to what the Supreme Court of tne United States will decide. ! lay down this proposition by which I am govs erneS, and I believe that It Is sound law:
 To include a class as voters on grounds that are repugnant 70 the equality of rights and privileges that are the common heritage of the people if not it's letter. Now, would 1t ba constitutional? Suppose that this Con- vention was to declare, in favor or the negro race as voters, practically ex- cluding the whites. would that DO I think not. Such dis are not allowable by the Fifteenth Amendment. I have not tho clause admitting soldiers to the fran- chise, which I hope to do some time hereafter. But as to the clause admit ting descendants of soidiers-going back to the Revolutionary war and coming on down through all the wars to the Spanish war-the descendants of those who were soldiers are to be ad~ mitted to the franchise, if not disfran- chised by other parts of the Constitu- ton. and are residents of the state as prescribed. Gentlemen. there are two points of objection. The first is, I believe that is unconstitutional. That is. I am more inclined to think that more inclined to that view than am to think that 1t Is sustainable before the court. The object of 1t is whatl Among ourselves, why let down the bars not only for the soldiers. but the Of the soldiers? What ig if for? Is it not to let in nearly all white men, and isn't it to keep out the Isn't 1t in fact a discrimina- tion? If 1t be discrimination, then it is violative of that clause of the Constitution.
 While I would like never to have had the Fifteenth Article of Amendment. when you swear me to keep 1t, gentie- men, never have when I ever have felt my honor grip. I've let that be my border. When I feel that this clause is contrary to the oath I have taken, cannot support it. Even If 10 is matter Of douDt, would Eather not do 1t. It is not consistent. Such action would not be consistent with my oath to support the Constitution Of the United States.
 We pass to another point. insist that 1t Is not at all necessary. The way 1t Is now the gap is mighty nar- row and the gate is mighty near closed on the road that will admit any negro to the franchise. They would be very few and far between, like an angels visits. and even with- out this, the conditions are such that you would find eliminated from the franchise about three-fourths of them. Now. gentlemen, is it good to he radical in anything. or is 1t not best to be reasonable? We have Q race of people amongst us here, and am not one of those who concur in the opinion that there is a race-war on. Not so. Some claim that there is a race war that is as irrepressibie as was the conflict between free labor and slave labor as proclaimed by Lincoln. Not so. They say, "Oh. well. history shows that two races of people never did live in the same country long. The white race always drives out the colored and inferior race" Are we not people of the United States? Are we not Southerners who fought for four immortal years against four and half times our own number. and carried the flag of the Storm Graded Nation to victory on a hundred fieldsY Is 1t