The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-11-03
Ny Emmet O,Neal,

auction of Representation. FIaErant Violation of the Rights of the states. By Emnaet O'Neal. While much has been said in the press. and on the stump, about that provision in the platform of the Re- publican party which threatens a re- duction in the representation of the Southern States in the congress and in the electoral college. While its evi- dent purpose to revive sectional ani- mostly and racial strife has been de- precated.-no one has undertaken to give a careful and critical review of its meaning and legal import, or to call the attention of the country, to the fragrant violation of the eonstitu- guage this section of the platform seems harmless enough. for its sinis- ter purpose and unwarranted assault on the constitutionai rights of the would at first appear to be simply a declaration in favor of the enforcement of the two last amendments to the constitution of the United States. An however. will show that behind words of apparent harmless significance, turks the most dangerous and far reaching attack on the constitutional tempted since the days of reconstruc- tion.
 When fully understood. the conse- auences which would follow, If this declaration of the Republican party Is warranted by law, are so serious. so far reaching, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institu- tions, and so radical a change of the whole theory of the relation Of the State and Federal Governments to each other, that it we'll may arouse the serious apprehension of all lovers of constitutional government. Fms
 in the following words; "The Elec- l tive Franchise"
 I've favor such congressional &C., tion as shall determine whether by franevhise in any state has been un- constitutionally limited. and. if such Is the case. we demand that representa-, tion in Congress and in the electoral SUlas dueed as s directed by the constitution of the United States.
 What is meant by the unconstitu- tional limitation by special discrimina-
 Sn ss ny sf's s we % settled ahs thst tse constitution of the United States does not confer on the citizen the right of suffrage. The right of the State to regulate and control the suffrage of its citizens was older than the con stitution. Even in colonial times, the
 right to vote hnd been regulated by the several assemblies, and not by Parliament, and was not surrendered when the Federal Union was formed. As declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. "The right to vote in the states, comes from the states, but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the con- stitution of the United States. but the last has been."
 What is meant by this exemption from the prohibited discrimination. which the Supreme Court of the Uni- ted States, declares has been granted by the United tates. The answer to this question is found in the Fifteenth United States, which by express and positive terms prohibits any state from denying or abridging the rights of citizens of the United States to vote condition of servitude.
 As has been repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court of the United States the main purpose of the Fonrteenth zen-ship of free negroes, which had been denied in the Dred Scott case. and to make all blacks, born or natural ized in the United Ststes' citizens of ment declared that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall ''abrldge the privileges and immuni- ties of citizens of the United States" the supreme AOuTI UT bnlttu oNdltS has apparently decided that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges and immunities of cit izenship before the adoption of this amendment, that at the time of It's adoption, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the State or universal. and that neither the con stitution nor the Fourteenth amend ment, made all citizens voters" In other words. while this amend m1ent made the negro a citizen if did not make him voter. The further declaration in this amendment that NO State shall deny to any person within its Jurisdiction the equal pro-
 the Supreme Court of the United States had declared, to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as the special subjects for hostile and discriminating legisla- ton.
 Construed then In the light of these amendments and thSir construction by the highest judicial tribunal of the Republic, the clear meaning of the Re publican platform is demand that Congress shall determine whether any State has denied or abridged the right of a citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or pre- Vious condition of servitude, in viola ton of the Fifteenth amendment. If Congress should determine that such denial or abridgement of the suf-
 
 ther that the representation of such State shall be reduced by Congress in the Congress and in the electoral college as required by the Fourteenth amendment.
 The pertinent and important inquiry therefore is, has Congress the con stitutional power to reduce the repre- sentation of a State in the Congress and in the electoral college, If 1t should
 readh the conclusion that a State has denied or abridged the right of the negro to vote on account of his race. color, or previous condition of servitude?
 An answer to this important oues- tion requires a brief review of'the his tory and purposes of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Con stitution of the United States, as to both of which there is a general pop ular misconception.
 The Fourteenth Amendment.
 The Fourteenth amendment did not undertake to interfere with the rights of the States to regulate and control the suffrage of its citizens. If a State denied to the negro as a race the right of suffrage, the penalty i'm posed was a reduction of representa- tion in Congress and In the electoral college. The Fourteenth amendment instead of denying. recognized the right of the State to deny the suf- frage to the colored race by the impo- sition of a penalty for it's refusal. If States from denying to thenegro the elective franchise. 1t would have been unnecessary to provide a penalty for its refusal such a refusal would have been void. The authors of the amendment. as well as its supporters, had hoped and confidently expected that the penalty provided, would ore. vent any State from denying the negro