The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-30

only. and the Federal government can uot confer it: and the State may pres scribe any qualification or select any class 1t chooses. provided 1t does not deny the privilege to any one on ae- count of his race, color or condition or Bervitude. Then the clause is nos op- iectionable because it is arbitrary or because 1t creates voting class. Does 1t do these and exclude the negro on account of his race. color ar previous condition of servitude? We insist that it does not. To begin with.. large number may vote under the clause. Much has been said about the per centage included on the one hand ana excluded on the other between the whites and the blacks. I do not De- lieye that the respective percentages are of so much value in the argument In my opinion, if a substantial num- ber of each race is included In the clause that ends inquiry, and the iaW vill' be upheld. independently Of the other considerations 10 which l ~ish later to call your attention.
 MT. Beddow- Imoev that the gentie- mans time be extended until ne can finish his speech.
 Leave was granted.
 Mr. Sollie--For a long time staggered around about this proposi- ton. and 1t seemed that the whole ar gument ended with it. could see no escape from the proposition that II the practical effect of the clause was to include practically all white men and exclude practically all negroes. 1t would fall under the fifteenth amendment. And I do not share in the view or some of the very able lawyers on our side which set entirely at naught the Chinese queue case and the others read by the opposition. Nor do I understand that the gentleman from Montgomery, Governor Jones. asserted or believed that these cases were conclusive as aijudications directly ou the matter in hand. I think they fully understood that they were rendered on different propositions from the fifteenth amend ment. Ithink they read them as being general declarations of legal principles upon kindred propositions and that py analogy of reasoning they applied to our case. I feel the force of them-l and 1t is not enough to remove ny doubts entirely to know that these de- cisions were made upon the fourteenth amendment or on the Bill of Rights. 1T the principles of construction there laid down would apply to our case it does not matter that they happened to be enunciated in a different case. do not think they apply. however. very forcibly to the fifteenth amendment. But grant that the clause does exclude practically all negroes. Must 1t follow that they are excluded because of their race, color or previous condition Of servitude? say it does not. and if the exclusion is not on either of these ac- counts 1t would be all right to exclude every mothers son of them.
 Let's review the wars. There were far ty, oAvsto of tr11A of the Revolutionary War; yet some of them fought in it. am told. Some of them fought in each of the Indian wars, and in the war of 1912, and a large number fought in the war be- tween the States. And it is worthy of note that the language of the soldier" clause is, "who fought" and that the descendants clause simply requires . that they shall be lawful descend ants of soldiers. There is nothing said about lawful enlistments; and l dare say the committee had in mind Those negroes who, being body guards pt their masters, actually fought in the wars without being enlisted as sol- Hers. If there Is doubt on that point, l should like to see 1t so changed as to include Governor Oates's negro, Bill, the body-guard. When the descend ants of all these in all these wars are considered. who will say they do not constitute a substantial number?
 Now. MT. President, and gentlemen of the Convention, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the clause does exclude practically all the negroes, I will ask you If it does so because they are negroes or because they and their fathers did not fight in the wars? If they had fought, would the clause ex- rlude them? Was their failure to fight |, Il, aAsT pr to their condition of servitude; or was it due to the fact that they were not citizens, and did not owe to the Government the same duty to defend 1t that its citizens owed? l submit, gentlemen, that we cannot know with that degree of certainty, which 1t Is the rule for courts to demand before set i ting aside the solemn enactments in the organic laws of a State that the exclusion of the negro in the clause Is on account of his race, color or previ- ous condition of servitude; and that the history from which the opposition draw their conclusions does not point with unerrlng or even ordinary cer- tainty to those conclusions, and that 1t leaves the matter shroudea in doubt.
 Why there was no law, civil or mili- tary. which forbade the negro should fight if he wanted to in any of the
 
 out mourning any pains or penalties or violating any law. If he did not fight, t was either his own fault entirely, or was due to the whim or caprice of his master, who might or might not allow the negro to fight, as he and the negro might agree. There was no irrevoca- ble law or condition preventing the ne- gro from fighting. The conditions were such that fifty or fifty thousand might have fought in each war. and the Government would have had no right to raise its voice for or against 1t. Furthermore, we have other races than the negro who were at one time not | citizens, and whose ancestors did not l fght in any of the wars, but who are | themselves now citizens. Possibly a Sfew of some of these races may be the descendants of soldiers; but hardly enough to be a substantial number. Now. let's ask ourselves whether these also are excluded on account of their race, color or previous condition of ser vitude. They are not negroes and were never in serVitude in this country Yet they cannot vote under the grandfather clause Then we have a number of different races all excluded from the privilege of voting by the same clause. One race steps in and says the history of this country shows that l was a slave: and this law is bad because 1t excludes me on account of my race, color or previous condition of serVitude. The others cannot object on the servi-