The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-01-10
A SECTIONAL MEASURE.

Now, Mr.. Speaker, the State of North
Car olina which has been so greatly mis-
represented here, in my judgment, has
not denied the right to vote on account
of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. 1t has prescribed reasonable
qualifications Chief among those is the
educational Test, the test that Massachu-
sets. Wyoming, Connecticut and other
STATES have. | think that there is Bit
ter sectional spirit in the Crumpacker
proposition and the records OF this body
will show it. The gentleman from In
diana (Mr. Crumpacker), in his original
bill that truly represented his purposes,
instead of decreasing increased the rep
resentation of Massachusetts, and de-
creased the representation of four South
err States. The Congressional Directory
showing the vote by which members of
this House were elected, shows that in
the State of Massachusetts in 1898 there
were only twenty-five thousand votes cast
in each Congressional district, while in
the State of North Carolina there were
in each district cast sixty-six thousand
votes. In the State of Pennsylvania
there were cast only twenty-nine thou
sand votes III each district, in the State
of Maine eighteen thousand in Vermont
twenty-one thousand, and in Rhode Island
nineteen thousand in North Carolina
thirty-six thousand Now if the gentle
man from Indiana had dealt with Massa-
chuSetts as he dealt with North Carolina
instead of increasing the representation
OF Massachusetts he would have reduced
her representation from thirteen to six
or in about that proportion.
But, Mr.. Speaker, if you believe that
the conduct of Massachusetts and North
Carolina falls under the operation of the
fourth section of the Fourteenth Amend
ment, how should you proceed? The only
possible way for fair men to reach the
proper result would be to find out in
the first instance. matter which these
gentlemen on the other side have not
fully considered, whether any mans vote
is denied; second, whether the Fourteenth
Amendment IN that respect was not COM
pletely merged into the Fifteenth Amend
ment, and then finally. if he concludes
against us on those propositions, it would
be his duty to find out exactly how many
people of North Carolina could vote un-
der our laws when they became effective
and how many would be legally refused
the right to vote. The gentleman will
tell you when he considers these ques-
tions that there will not be a thousand
white men IN the State of North Carolina
who will fail to continue to vote if they
so desire. He will tell you that it will
not be to exceed fifty per cent of the col
ored population who will be prevented
from voting, if they so desire. He will
find that the reduction in any event could
only be in the proportion of about fifteen
nf Ia lot ion
But instead of those just figures, the gem
tleman presented bill which reduced the
representation of North Carolina to FIVE
members. cutting off four out of her
nine, while at the same time he put
UP the representation of the State of
Massachusetts to fourteen instead of her
present number of thirteen and yet every
one who can qualify under the law of
Massachusetts, can qualify under the
North Carolina Amendment.
QUALIFICATION NO DENIAL
"A qualification, Mr.. Speaker is some
thing that is attainble. If a State should
say that a man should not vote who had
red hair or blue eyes, since the color of
his hair and eyes are fixed that would
be cutting of his right to vote; but when
you prescribe a reasonable qualification
that is attainable-and / am but giving
you the definition of qualification that
Mr.. Sumner gave in the Senate-when
You prescribe an attainable thing it be-
comes a mere qualification of right that
still exists in the voter. While, if you
deny the right on account of color the
black man can never become voter. If
you deny the right to vote to blue eyed
men a blue-eyed man can never become
a voter. These would not be qualifiea-
tons. They would be denials and abridge-