Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1903-10-01

CRIMINAL case the equal protection of the
law with other persons within the iuris-
oictlon of the state by which 1t is enacted.
Iof ne has constitutional right to a trial
by jury of his peers and that jury
from which all those Of his own race have
oeen intentionally excluded is not jury
of his peers and that therefore such law
Is unconstitutional and void.
we come now to the last of the trio
the fifteenth amendment which is some
times enormously referred to as the source
OF negro suffrage, but as matter of fact
there is no clause in the constitution of the
United States that confers upon any per-
son the right to vote.
This power is left with the several
states, subject only to certain restrictions
which are found in the fifteenth amend
ment and which are that the right of citi-
zens of the United States to vote should
not be denied or abridged by the United
States nor by any state on account of race,
| color or previous condition of servitude.
Prom this it is evident that this amend
ment does not give to any person right
to vote, but only protects that which he
already has; and it should also be noted
that this amendment does not even pur-
port to prohibit the taking away of this
right of suffrage; hut. that the only thing
which this fifteenth amendment purports
to do is to prohibit both the United States
and the states from denying or abrdging
the right of citizens of the United States
to vote on account of race. color, or previ-
Gus condition of servitude and therefore
so far as the fifteenth amendment is CON
cerned the United States or even any state
may legally and constitutionalIy disfran-
chise any citizen within its jurisdiction, so
long as said dsfranchisement Is not on
account of the race. color. or previous ser
vitude Of said citizen, and since this is
true in order to determine the legality of
the Acknowledgement of the negroes by GER
| tain states in the light of the fifteenth
amendment. we must first determine the
| reason for said Acknowledgement. and
whether it he one of the three upon which
the fifteenth amendment declares that it
can not be legally based
| lone of the axioms of the legal profess
| sion is that man is presumed to intend
| the natural and probable consequences of
| his acts and no one denies that the natur-
al and probable as well ms the actual re-
| suits of the enforcement of the grandfather
clause or even of any franchise amendments
recently adopted by certain of the south
ern states is to disfranchise the bulk of
the negro voters of those states and at the
| same time to preserve intact the right of
franchise to all white voters in those
states regardless of the education or prop
| erty which the negro voter is required to
4 possess and 1t is therefore reasonable to
| infer that this disfranchisement of the
/ negro alone is because he is negro, be-
| cause he Is black and because he has pre-
i viously been Il slave.
| but fortunately for us we are not con-
| fined to differences and conclusions in this
| so important a matter: for the rules of
! construction of constitutions and statutes
4 allow us to look behind the letter of the
1 law into the real facts into the acts and
/ declarations of the trainers and advocates
thereof at and about the time it is enacted,
70 nj a
taining the real reason of the disfranchise-
4 ment of the negroes in the states mention
ed we shall be compelled to conclude that
while it purports to be for want of edu
cational and property qualifications it is
| in fact because of their race, color and
previous condition.
4 For example YOU will note that in almost
all of these franchise amendments there is
after the educational and property clause
| something which corresponds to the fam
Gus grandfather clause of North Carolina
which exempts from all these requirement!
4 all those who or whose fathers or grand
4 fathers were voters on January 1. 1867.
Chief Justice fancy. who wrote thu
4 opinion in the bred Scott case. was himsel
a slave holder, and that was away back il
1856 almost ten years prior to the enuncjl
ton of the Emancipation proclamation; blu
even in that early day there were on TIL
bench such men as Justices McLain an,
&, Curtis who dared dissent from that unJus
opinion. Let us remember that In the jim
Grow car cases not the rights of the negro
but the duties of the railway company t.
white men were before the court for deter
mination: moreover, i have such abiding
, faith in the principles of law which under
lie this great question, and such implicit
: faith in the ability and integrity of the su
prelne court as it is now constituted that
7 firmly believe that when the matter il
: properly brought before 1t the suprem,
j, court Of the United States will speak ant
in tones that have no uncertain sound
y proclaim that all such enactments whethe
I eneouched in a statute or constitution o
Il a state or in statute of the United State
eli are unconstitutional, Illegal void and of n,
: effect
ocTosER's FROST RECORD.