The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-19

the CIVIL Ri8nt5 CoSrs " o-0., snes the term did not include civil rtghts. It was decided In the Slaughter House cases S waii.. that it meant equal jus tice in the courts IL wss held sGsin
 In strander v. W. Virginia, Rives v.
 Virginia, both in 100 U. B., in Neal V. Dela ware, i0s U. $, Bush Kentucxy. i01 U. S.. and h 0ibson v. Mississippi, fS2 U. s., that 1t is unlawful to limit jury duty to one race because t was said 1t was unfair to submit the
 property rights of one race entirety to the determination of the other In eev-
 eral of these cases expressions are
 used, which at first glance and with
 out due consideration. might seem to combat the position take. If you VIII
 read these decisions and carefully con-
 slider them, you wiR find that tho su-
 preme Court of the United States. In no single instance yves talking about any
 thing except civil rights except where
 they were discussing the right to vote;
 and when they were discussing the
 right to vote. they spoke ef It as po-
 Iiticai and not as . civil right. Now.
 then, not one of these decisions, except
 some that am going to make refer-
 snce to now, have any reference what
 ever to the right to hold cfiice. Let me
 call attention here to another thing.
 You will find these same words privi-
 leses and irnnunities in Section ', Ar-
 ticIe ". of the Federal Constitution.
 They were, therefore. in the Federal Constitution eighty years before the I4th amendment was adopted. AZ Tar back ss i7s7 these words received judi ciai interpretation by the Supreme Court of Maryland. This was done Tn
 the, vase of Campbell vs. Morris. liar
 GAvAnfV~ five YeArA Afterwards that case was followed by the Supreme Court of California in the case of van Vaihcnberg v. Brown. .ss Cal, and later in Lyons v. Cunning
 ham, 66 Cal: and the same principie is held both In Blank v. Pausch. lIS H. Nnois. and Laurent v. Kansas. Kan sas. I cali attention to the principle decided there which has ever since been
 maintained and never departed from by
 the State Courts. by the Federai
 Courts. or by the Supreme Court or
 the United States that suffrage and of.
 flee are political rights and as l VIII show YOU a State has a right to dis pose of it's oftices as 1t pleases. In the case of ex parte Virginia, 100 U. s., Justice Field delivered q strong dis senting opinion in which he coincided
 with the preceding decision in each one of these cases have mentioned and in which he held that the right to vote and to hold office were polit- ical and not civil rights; that the l4th amendment was intended to protect civil rights only and that each State had the right to prescribe the quaiifi- cations of its of1cers. and but for the 18th amendment 1t would have the right to regulate who should cast ball. lots. He decided in there. and 1t has been decided by numerous decisions. that but for the 18th amendment, the State could preclude the negro from voting. In spite of the 18th amendment we can prevent him from holding cffice in this good State. In the case of Boyd V. Nebraska, 14s U. S., and in l the case of Wilson v. North Carolina. | 16e U. S., and in the famous casesAof Taylor v Beckham, 17s U. g.. the case | which almost overturned Kentucky, 1t l was distinctly and emphaticaily decid- ed by the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States that a State has the right | to prescribe the qualifications of its officers. The same thing was in sub- stance decided in the case of Biacker 1 V. McPherson. 14s U. S., where the people of Michigan undertook to elect their electors by districts and the Su- 1 preme Court of the United States up- held the law on the ground that 1t was
 a State ofYice, and that the State of | Michigan had the right to regulate 1t.
 Now. Mir. President, so much for the
 law on this question, What about the
 policy? I have heard it said that we ought not to put this In the C. nsti- tution. Why not7 That we ought not
 to put 1t in here because it shows too 1 plainly that our purpose is to keep the | negro out of Alabama politics. Now,
 MT. President. how much palmer do We
 want 1t? Isn't every letter and every l line of the report of the Committee on Suffrage to that effect? Haven't we
 said to the people of Alabama upon
 the musings that this Is what this Con-
 vention is for? Are not the people waiting to hear how we are going to provide for disfranchising the negro? ? Our purpose is plain. It is not denied | by any man upon the floor of this Con- vention or in this State. You must re- | member that the State of Alabama never adopted the 18th amendment. It was forced upon us by the other States l in the Union. The negro was forced
 upon us as he was forced upon other l Southern States. We have the right.
 then. to make our protest against 1t in such manner as the law allows us and ] we have undoubtedly the right, as my i distinguished friend. the Chairman If 1 you, under the law, to deprive the ne- | gro of holding office in Alabama. MT.
 President. have heard 1t said at vari- ous times in the Committees and upon the floor of this Convention. that the | putting in or the leaving out of some 1 provision would endaager the ratifica- ] tion by the people of the instrument
 we shall frame. do not know as to
 the truth or falsity of these fears but
 think I know what the people of the l Black Belt will say ag to this and what the people of the other parts of
 Alabama will say to a provision which
 excludes the negro from holding office
 Put this amendment into your Consti-
 tuition. 60 with 1t to the people. and
 argue 1t before them. It will matter
 little as to what else we may put fin
 there. Every city and town will be
 aroused with interest and enthusiasm every hillside and valley will be ablaze The white men of Alabama of all ages an dthe youth who casts his first vote whether they live in a city or on a
 farm: whether they live in the Black
 Belt. the Wire Grass or the hill coun-
 ties will hasten to the polls and by
 their ballots will say to this Conven-
 tion. we'll done.
 MT. sollie-Mr. President and gen. tlemen of the Conventions: I regret
 that this important question has made its way into the Convention by way oi
 amendment, for the reason that the question involved is so momentous that delegates can scarcely discuss 1t with
 in the ten minutes allowed. Yet shal
 seek to say what l have to say within