The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-07


 we'll ss the dissenting justices. admit that, if disfranchisement were for any other cause. on any other account. than one or sll of those specified in the amendment, it would not conflict with constitutional restrictions. But the question, in either case, was not how this cause. as fact, was to be ascer- tained. or by wii0in, Congress or the courts, or what 1egislation was redIi- site to provide such means of ascertain ing 1t. or was appropriate to enforce the amendment, but the legislation which Congress had actually passed was invoked to confer the right claim ed; and the effect of the decisions fVse that such legislation was sufficient to do so. Tn Neal vs Delaware, the sole question was the right of negroes to De jurors in the State of Delaware. The Fourteenth Amendment had made them citizens; but that alone, as all the cases hold, did not, of itself. give them the right to be jurors any more than to vote. But Congress. as au- thorized to do, to carry that amend ment into operation by appropriate leg islation, had enacted. by the act ap- proved March 1st. 1875. that no citizen, otherwise qualified, should be disquail- fled from serving as juror or any State, on account of race, color, or pre- vious condition of servitude.. Assum- ing that Congress had power to pass this law. and deemed its legislation ap- propriate, then its enforcement was the only matter involved in the Neal case.
 Ex parte Marlborough, no U. s., pro- ceeds on the same reason of decision. Congress deemed 1t legislation appro- priate to the Fourteenth Amendment. that it should protect those it had thereby made citizens from intimida. tion and violence in the free exercise Of their rights or privileges. or of voting where they were permitted by law to do so. and imposed certain penalties for violation of such legislation. The court was simply called on to enforce this legislation, and did so. In neither of these cases was it necessary to de- eide that the negro could not be dis franchised. But in both 1t is con- ceded that, If his disfranchisement is for any other reason, no matter what, than his race, color. or previous con- dition of servitude. 1t would be valid.
 If then our constitution should say. 1t was done "on account of the necessi- ty of preserving a republican form of government in this State," and which can only be done by pure and honest elections, where would the Federal courts have the authority or find the evidence, to say this assertion was un- true, or that 1t was done 'on account of either the race, color, or previous condition of servitude" of its negro citi- zens? Congress might undertake to do so. but this would be upon grounds of policy, not as construction or judicial determination.
 Why then should our convention hesitate? This will be the last chance, for many a day. to secure us honest and good government. The conven- tion cannot avoid or evade this duty of limiting the elective franchise to the whites. Anything short of this will not be ratified by the people; and they do not lok favorable upon masks or subterfuges. Let it be done openly, boldly and ccnscientiously. Let the reason for it be stated; and by it's truth and the courage of our people it will stand. With the simple plan of the identification of the vote of white man. and the right to each voter to prepare and use his own ballot. as ory forefathers did, We can once more have fair elections in this State. With less than this, the free. white American citizen will not be content.
 Observer.