The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-25

 had heretofore exercised 1t, the control of suffrage ana place 1t completely under the control of Congress, that the country was not prepared to sanction 50 radical departure from the prac- tice of the government or to transfer to Congress the control of suffrage. / The entire Democratic party resisted 50 radical a departure and change and majority ot the Republican leaders were forced to agree to the views or the Democratic minority. In this work on constitutional history Thorp says,
 "The Fortieth Congress has been blamed by these, who call themselves Nationalists, because it neglected to perfect the work of reconstruction and putting the regulation of the elective franchise and of tie right to hold oihce wholly under the control of the na- tional government. He says the For. tieth Congress contained an unusuai number of men possessing wlde pc litical knowledge and experience III public affairs: it was not under the control ot the radicals though these were present in respectable numbers and frequently gave utterance to their political faith with such eloquence and power that their extreme views have become a great tradition iE our h's- tory. The controlling minds of that Congress well knew the 3iif1culty and dangers of attempting so radical a change in our political institutions as to give the national government the power to control the elective franchist and the right to hold off1ce."
 "The long established doctrine Of es.duary sta.e sovereignty checked ev- .ry effort of the Republicans to effect the innovation. For nearly hundred years that doctrine had gathered strength and at last had permeated ev- cry State Constitution. and every elec- ton law 1T the country. It was too firmly embedded In the political mind md in the political traditions of the people to be oblitcrated by 50 sudden a procedure as afl act of Congress Tn the form Of joint resolution which to become a part of the Constitution must be ratified by thrcefourths of the States. The Civil War, though pro foundly affecting the thought of the country had not prepared the public mind to accept so radical an innova- ton. The policy of the opposition was therefore clear. 1t could not defeat a suffrage amendment in some form but it might largely determine the form. Fully conscious of the practical value of the doctrine of residuary sovereignty In the States, it could compel the Re- publicans to so word their amendment as to recognize that sovereignty and thus practically continue to the States the right to regulate the elective fran chise."
 The history of this amendment shows that five substitutes for the Stewart resolution were offered, and defeated. Finally Wilson of MaAsachusetts of fered as a substitute that no discrimi- nation should be made in any State among the citizens of the United States In the exercise of the elective franchise or In the exercise of the right to hold office in any State on account of race. color. nativity, property, education or religious creed. which substitute was opposed by Sherman of Ohio, Conkling of New York. but by a small majority he Senate agreed to the Wilson amend ment. When the resolution was sent hack to the House a committee of con- ference was appointed, and the com mittee was unable to agree and it seemed as If the 18th Amendment was doomed to defeat. It is useless to con- slider the history of the deb2te further. The amendment was finally passed in it's present form, but only after repeat ed efforts had been made to so amend it as to make every citizen of a State 21 years old or upwards voter, not to be disfranchised except for crime.
 A review of these debates disclose the fact that there is a very general popular misconcept!on of the purposes and effects of the two amendments tr the Constitution. Hence when the Committee on Suffrage was organ zeh the first step taken was to appoint special committee to ascertain and re- port what powers the State Of Ala bama had under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to regulate and control its suffrage. Although among the members of the Committee were some of the most distinguished lawyers in the State, each member of the Com mittee. realizing the responsibility and gravity of the task to which we had been assigned. examined for himself the law and decisions on the subject. A careful examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court establish beyond controversy the following propositions:
 First-The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amend ment.
 
 add to these privileges and immunities but simply furnishes an additional guarantee for such as the citizen all ready had.
 Third-That at the time of the adop- tion of that amendment suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the State, nor was 1t at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citi- zens voters.
 Fourth-The Inhibition in the Four teenth Amendment that no State shall deprive any person within its jur;s- dictfon of the equal protection of the laws was designed to prevent any per- son or class of persons from being sin gled out as a special subject for dis eliminating and hostile legislation.
 Fifth-The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage. the right to vote in the States comes from the States. and has not been granted by the United States. The Fifteenth Amendment simply invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color or previous condition of servitude and empowers Congress to enforce that right by appropriate leg islation. ..
 sixth-The main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment as has often been declared. was to establish the cit izenship of free negroes. which had been denied in the Dred Scott case ized in the United States citizens of States