The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-27

in the government by the Use of his suffrage franchise for the good and the welfare of the whole people. and not for A fraudulent or sinister purpose. It is the obligation to perform such du- toes as may be entrusted to him oy tae ties as may be entrusted to him by the the benefit of the people, and nor for selfish motives, and to bear his burden of taxation. Is it uncertain In any respectY If it is, then so, too, is the qualifications that have been adopted by the entire United States bv which to determine the fitness of every for eigner for citizenship in the United States, for the provision Of the act of Congress that has stood for years, without criticism, either as 10 its valid ity or propriety. is that he must have lived in the United States five years. and must show to the satisfaction Of Judge, by his behavior. that he is man of good moral character. and Is attached to the principles of the Con- stitution, and we'll disposed to the well fare and happiness of the same. The same character qualification is there. A man that is admitted to citizenship in the United States must have a good moral character, and the man that is given the right of suffrage under this report must have a good character; the man that Is admitted to citizenship under the laws of the United States must be attached to the principles of
 the Constitution, and not merely at- tached to them, but must have shown
 by his conduct and behavior during the period of five years of his residence that he is attached to the principles of
 the Constitution. How can any man
 who doec not understand the duties and obligations of citizenship under that
 Constitution so conduct himself with
 regard to it as to show that he is at-
 tached to the principles. So. MT. Presi-
 dent, this is no new scheme. This Is no
 trick of the black belt to arrange
 fraudulent scheme by which to swindie
 the hill counties. It Is the adoption or
 a we'll known test, test applied py all
 the people of these United states. 10
 the right of citizenship, long before this
 race issue had arisen to plague any to
 annoy us. Besides that, way back in
 17s6. I think 1t was. Connecticut had
 substantially the same provision. At
 that time a man had to own a certain
 amount of property. and had to be of
 peaceable and quiet behavior. and in
 addition to that, had to he of civil con-
 versat.on.' Will my friends say that at
 that time there was probably a black
 belt in Connecticut .and that they eX-
 pressly got up the expression civil
 conversation" in order to get all of the
 negroes into the electorate ana exclude
 and defraud the white men of the hill
 counties?
 Why, MT. President. nobody ever
 heard any criticism of this Connecticut
 provision. Not only was that provision
 in the Connecticut Constitution. but
 identically the same provision existed
 in Vermont; afterwards 1t was provid-
 cd that a man must be of good moral character, and after he was admitted
 to the electorate. if he then walked scanoalously. or was guilty of a scan- dalous offense he was thrown out of the list That was walking scandal
 ously, and what was being guilty of a scandalous offense? Read the books as much as you will, you will not find
 where any particular class of people have taken this as 8 subterfuge for l defrauding anybody else. But you say,
 your registration Is all wrong" Well. that Is not without example.
 MT. Oates-Mr. President I do not | want to break the continuity of the
 discourse of the delegate. The very question of the constitutionality of
 this, or any similar measure under the Fifteenth Article has never been tested by the Supreme Court. Is 1t not left | for every lawyer to draw his own con- clusion?
 Mir. smith-From the discussion oi
 the Fifteenth .. Mir Oates-But not on the point. Tha was my conclusion.
 Mir. Smith-I believe the provision sa | report of the majority are ir
 their present association original and we have not yet had time fo' them by any possibility. to have
 reached the Supreme Court of the United States. or any other court | There is not, therefore, and there coult not possibly be any decision of tho | United States upon the questions here l involved, and I frankly admit 1t. There has never been any provision touch | ing any of these exceptions recently made in the Southern States. excep | in Mississippi and in Mississippi they | simply held that the provisions 1T | themselves. were not unconstitutional
 and that it had not been shown tha | they had been so operated as to eX clude the negroes on account Of race
 color. or previous condition, etc. Tha | that has arisen directly in any of tho Southern States. but the limitations O | the meaning of the term suffrage shall not be denied or abridged on ac
 count of race. color or previous condi ton of servitude. has been discussed | and defined in the slaughter house case. the Kruickshanks case, the Reese | case, the Williams case. and in Minol against Happersetts. and it is upor | those definations and our deductions l from those definitions under well SC 1 principles of law, that l draw one Sc | of conclusions as distinguished iron | another set drawn by the minority O. the Committee. The gentleman from Montgomery, however, has not draWr | his conclusions, so far as his argu ment indicates, from these decisions | He drew his from decisions upon en | tirely a different subject, providing en
 tirely different things.
 | MT. Oates-You don't cali them bS name. There are go many of us. | MT. Smith, could not call him ex Governor. That would not be definite
 l refer to Governor Jones. | Mir. Ferguson-I want to ask anoth
 CT question: If the right of franchise
 were conferred upon the early settlers of Alabama and their descendants will ask the gentleman if he would
 consider that a class distinction.
 MT. Smith--If. as 1 have said savera | times, on several occasions, you admit
 ted those descendants to vote. and ad | mitted nobody else. then that would | be saving the white man can vote, ant | the negro cannot. but If you do It 1T
 association with provision like oul