The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-16

hand or under lt8 contrOi, fto fndlntdin a high school for colored children, and fused to do it. the consequence would be that they would be compelled to do it."
 There is a great difference between restraining a Board from carrying on a school and flinG>a bill requiring the Board to divide the funds. The inti- nation here is very. legal. one. that if this bill had been filed against that Board to require them to divide the fund equally. and 1t appeared that they had not gotten their snare Of 1t, why, the court would have sustained the case and that Board that was appro- priating this fund for high school of sixty would have been compelled to distribute that fund equally. There is no doubt about 1t in the world, and 1t Is just as plain cut proposition as was ever presented to any court. Now, this next case was the North Carolina case, and I am surprised that an attorney would look so little into the merits of decision. He said this to you In the Pruett case of North Carolina. The court refused to inquire into the con- sistency of the statute with recent amendments to the Constitution of the United States, but the court added, now bear with me" 1t is not every distinction depending upon the race or color that came in conflict with the Federal Constitution. but only when 1t produced inequality of rights and when this is the result the State legislation from which it flows is rendered in- operative. Now. he tries to impress this Idea upon the delegates here in as much as I the court declared that it would not consider a question as to whether 1t was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendme mt or not, and. therefore, you must infer that the court, if the case woud arise under his proposition would not inquire into it. | Now, MT. President and delegates or the Convention. this was the question. The North Carolina case was precisely the case he has here. Here it is. Sec I tion 4. The assessment thus leVieo and collected from taxable property composed of white persons shall be ex- pended in aiding to keep up the public schools in said district for white chil- dren of both sexes between the ages or and 21, and the assessment levied ana collected from the taxable property composed of colored persons shall De expended in aiding to keep up the pup l lie schools in said district for the col ored children between the ages of 5 1
 tion, and the gentleman who last ad- dressed you.-I do not see him in his seat-had summed out on that ques- tion. We'll, now, there it. is just in his own language. The very statute he would here have you adopt. It has been up before the Supreme Court Of the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that 1t was in violation Of thel Consu- tuition of North Carolina, and, there fore, null and void. and then 1t said and not till then inasmuch as this statute ts null and void under the Con- stitution of North Carolina, 1t Is un- necessary to consider whether 1t Is Tn violation of the Fourteenth A"eno- nent not that the court would not h- ouire if there had been a provision con t,arv to the Constitution of North Car olina. Afterwards it would go on ana see if it was in violation of the -Four teenth Appointment. But what IS tne use of it, if it is in violation 1l your , own Constitution? There Is the Ia" so clear that there cannot be any mis-
 M MT. Ashcraft-win the gentleman permit a question?
 MT coleman-Yes. sir; anything or this proposition if the gentleman VII give me time.
 MT Ashcraft-Does the gentleman state the Constitution of North Caro' lima on this subject and the Constltu
 ton of the United States are the sdin' thing? , ,,r,
 Mr Coleman-No; I said this cour' declared 1t was in violation of the Con
 stitutjon of North Carolina, and. there
 fore if would not consider whether + was in violation of the Fourteehtr Amendment. There was no use Tn go ing that far: that is what the decisloI holds. and 1t holds nothing elsei tha
 is the whole cream of it.
 MT Ashcraft-The gentleman don
 say that I have miequoteo. quo'e' from the authority
 MT. coleman-Yes, you quoted from the decision like the text "top-not como down" and when he preached his ser
 mon sainst people of proud and mgr iooks and when he was called upor to show where his text was in th' Rihle he got it and 1t read this way
 ct those on the house top not come down" You have just taken out top
 not come down." You don't take tn' law. ,..os +n,
 MT. Ashcraft-I say l submitted th' quotation on a fair basis.
 Mr Coleman-Yes. and I have reae if from this decision. There Is not shadow in this proposition. Do vol
 think a convention of the intelligence of this one, and of the many~states il the Union .s,
 MT. Sanford (Pike)-1 move tnat th'
 time of the gentleman be extended te'
 minutes. ,-, 4,,,,,
 has not expired. .,,,,
 not hesitate thirty-four hours 1T IL Wa
 our privilege to derive benef1ts iron
 the taxation that is proposed in thl'
 amendment. We would never let t g.
 out from the State of Alabama II
 was in our power to make approprla
 tions for our benefit without doing I
 at once. But it is the Fourteenth
 Amendment and decision after decision
 that ties our hands to the law
 and if any such law as that proposed
 hv the minority was enacted It woulc
 ba declared unconstitutional. not only
 hv your own State. but by every tri
 bunal that had Jurisdiction of it 1T
 inc United States. it is so palpao'J
 ir violation of law. The other decision
 referred to was the case commented unon by General Jones. need not dt more than read to you the condensed
 statement of the law:
 An act of a State Legislature Au' thorizinR a municipal corporation tC levy a tax for the benefit of public
 schools within it's limits. hut directing
 that the tax collected of the whlt' neople should be used to sustain public schools for white children only, anc
 the tax collected of the colored people e.,