The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-03-03
SOUTH'S ELECTION LAWS.
viii Not Sc Passed Upon by Congress.
Suffrage Statutes. Only for TIE
- Supreme Court.

A special 10 The Atlanta Constitu
ticn from Washington says: In pass.
ing upon the contest case OF Dantzlcr
vs.. Lever, involving representation
from the Columbia, South Carolina.
district, house elections committee
No. l refused to take into considera-
ton the constitutional questions which
the attorneys for the contestant raised.
This means that other contests:
which have no other basis than the
claim that the election laws or con-
stitutions Of southern states contra
vene the constitution of the United
States, will result in favor Of the sit
ting member. Certainly this will ba
the case If the present precedent is
followed, until the supreme court OF
the United States passes upon these
questions and puts q
quietus upon agitation.
The committee in its report virtual
ly says that the issues attempted to
be made before it belong properly 10
the supreme court, 1t holds:
If the house should unseat the con.
testee on the ground that no valid
election was held, Or could be held IN
the district under the present constitu-
ton and election laws o. South Caro-
lima, similar construction would re-
quire the house, In case OF contest, to
unseat all the members from South
Carolina and from most of the other
southern states, and that new elec-
tions could, not be held to fill the va
cancies until the respective constitu-
tions of these states had been chang
ed so as to comply with the recon
struction acts. The question, there
fore, is one Of far-reaching impor.3
tance. It involves in its outcome the
right of a very large number Of mem.
bers Of the house to their seats. But
the decision would have no binding
effect upon South Carolina except IN
this particular case. g - =
"a legislative body is not the ideal
body to pass judicially upon enact
ments of other bodies. We have IN
this country a proper form for the de.
cision- of constitution and other legal
questions. Any citizens Of South
Carolina deprived Of his right to vote
can apply for redresse to the proper
court and OH up to the supreme court
of the United States. A decision of
that court would be binding, but de-:
sision of the house would not be con-
sidered binding or in any way estab-
fishing precedent"
Dismissing the constitutional ques-
ton as belonging to another tribunal,
the committee decides that
There is nothing in the record or in
the case to sustain any part OF a
claim that The contestant, Dantzler,
was elected. It is indisputable that if
an election were held at all in this dis
trict, the contestee, Lever, was fairly
elected"
The decision OF the committee was
unanimous.
Mr.. Levers republican opponent was
A. D. Dantzler, wealthy old negro,
an ex-slay-, unable to read or write
more than his own name. At the elec.
ton Dantzler only received 167 votes
against 4,22C cast for Lever. Dantzler
alleged, however, that upward of 1000
negroes appeared at the polls and Of
fered to vote for him, but were pre-
vented from doing so. The evidence
showed that there was no real basis
for this clai1n-that, in fact, it was for
the most part imaginary