Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1902-01-30
THURSDAY. JANUARY 80. 1902.
the INCONSISTENT RICHMOND NEWS.

sparkling newspaI e., and we always enjoy
perusing its columns; but it is Thoroughly
inconsistent in the treatment of the work
of the Constitutional Convention. some
times inconsistency may be of such I'D
aggravated nature that insincerity is sus'
pected. The News has formerly been
sharp critic OF the Convention, and even
now, at times, INDUCES in sarcastic para
graphs at its expense; but it will not per-
init other Democrats to do as it has done'
and plays the part of scold when speak
ers or writers assail the Convention.
In its issue of the 2Srd inst. the News
has an editorial, one and a half columns
in LENGTH. which is critical and sarcastic
review of speech made at Winchester,
Va, by Mr.. X. E. Byrd, a distinguished
LAWYER, and citizen of that place. we
have not seen Mr.. Byrd's speech, when
was made to an audience of 500 people,
but from what we can gather from the ed
itorial of the News it must have been
scathing review of the work of the Conven'
ton. 1t seems that the News constituted
itself a champion to defend the Conven'
ton from the assaults of MIR. Byrd, and in
its eager desire to establish "the wisdom
and propriety Of the Conventions action
30 far" it has been guilty of an inconslst'
ency that deserves attention. After ridl'
culing Mr.. Byrd's criticisms Of the Con-
yention for making such serious changes IN
the ancient Bill of Rights, for abolshlng
the county courts, and for the new sections
on the public schools, the News takes him
seriously TO task for his disapProval Of the
proposed new suffrage laws. The News
says:
"Both suffrage propositions are spoken
of as appalling The understanding test
is said to be eglading and Illuminating,
although why man should find it degrad-
ing and humilaling to be asked to explain
a clause of the Constitution we are not
told"
Then the News says:
"As we have said, the speech Of Mr..
Byrd, of Winchester, may fairly be taken
as representing the best opponents and
extreme critics of the conventions work
can do in attacking it and the worst they
can find to say against it. We think we
have summarized MIR. Byrd's remarks
fairly. We do not think anybody can
find in them one point to cause doubt OF
the wisdom and propriety of the Conven'
tons action so far"
We are astonished that the Richmond
News rhould assail any one for criticislng
or denouncing the understanding clause"
1t must have forgotten what it has said
about it. We VIII refresh the memory OF
the News. lit will examine itsIfles, it
will find that in its issue of Friday, Sep
TENDER 9th, 1901, there was leading
editorial under the head: 'The Suffrage
Article" In that article there was the
severest criticism of the understanding
clause we have seen.
The News said:
"The chief and the highest purpose OF
this Convention is to save our State and
people from the necessity of election
frauds, which are disgracsftd, degrading
and demOralizing "
"This clause proposes to use fraud to
avoid fraud, transfer dirty work from
election managers and clerks to commits
sioners of registration. Swindling negroes
il dirty work. Many officers who are
otherwise honorable men have done it,
believing it to be necessary for the protec-
ton of the Commonwealth from negro |
rule, but no man with right instincts will
do it if he can avoid it. Under this clause
our judges will he brought into the nasty |
business. They will be expected to ap |
point commissioners of registration who
will solemnly swear to do exact justice and
will then discriminate in favor of the poor |
and illiterate white man and against the
negro.
with the 'und Outstanding clause we
say to certain of our own people, inciud-
ing our judges: 'Nullify the Fifteenth
directly by violating your
Oaths of office and discriminate on account
of race and color after you have sworn not
to do co.
"Tbe difference is between doing
thing boldly, openly and honestly and I'm
der at least color of law, and dong it hyp-
ocritically and feloniously and in violation
of law"
Now, if Mr.. Byrd could have said any
thing more severely critical of the under
standing clause" than the above from the
Richmond News We would like to see
what it was. The News should certainly
not arraign Mr.. Byrd for calling it ode
grading and humiliating." Has the News
changed its mind as to the enormity Of the
clause?
If the News is not satisfied with what
we have quoted from Its columns to show
that it has done Mr.. Byrd, and others who
have criticised the convention, rank injus-
lice, We will recall other and further
|