The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-04-07
CASE WITH
The COURT
no Fears as to the Outcon1e Of
the Argument III. Virginia
Suffrage Suits.
TWO BRILLIANT ARGUMENTS
Tie States Counsel Argucd the
Case Oh It's Merits as Well
as Jurisdiction.

Attorney Gcncra, Anderson and MT.
Frank w. Christian, who Represented h'i'e
State Board OF Canvasscrs IN tho arsu-
3mont Of tho Jones-Selden suffrage cases
before tho Supreme Court of the United
states Monday and Tuesday, have re-
turned to tho city. Tho case mas Deo''
submitted, and tho court VIII hahd uo"n
Its opinion Mt q later sitting
rho argument Of tho case BY counsel
was given close attention by the JUS
tices ana several Of them asked ques-
tons the trend Of which indicates to some
extent their views in advance Of the
opinion to lie handed down. justice
Holmes wrote the opinion OF INC co ~.
In Tie Jackson w. Giles case, from Alh-
bamu, in which similar questions were
involved The opinion Is adverse 70 ing
contention Of tho petitioners IN that caso.
Several Of tho other Justices are oll
record in cases involving the same or SIM. SIN,
liar issues. Justices Harlan. Brewer ana
Brown asked many uucsblons. az o.
which were promptly answered. w '1'o
counsel for this state.
THE ARGUMENT.
Mr., Wise, counsel for tho negroes,
opened the argument Monday III sEcech2
OF two hours and forty minutes. MhJor
Anderson, attorney general Tor TINS otato.
smoke for fifteen or twenty minutes athat
dnv before adjournment. and resumed
and closed his argument on the folloW'Es
}day. Mr.. Christian followed tho attor-
new general in an argument that was
condensed and conclusive and IN the
opinior of lawyers who heard It abso-
lutely unnnswerable. Mr.. Wise closed
Tho argument In a speech OF twenty MIN
utes, Both Mr.. Christian and Major
Anderson were warmly congratuiatcu ny
tho bar and the laity on their argu-
ments.
Mr. Christian contcnded that II the pc
titioners had been wrongcd the remedy
was in IN action at law for damages
against the election or registration OIL
GERS so unlawfully and wrongfully de-
priving them Of their rights, but the
burden Of proof that they had been so
deprived and by whom was upon them
not upon the defendants. Tho speaker
argued with closeness and clearness the
general and special question Of jurisdic-
ton, contendng that the court had no
turlsdictior in the case. which presented
q political and not a legal question.
MAJOR EANDERSON'S POSITION.
Attorney General Anderson argued tho
case broadly on It's merits, defending tho
Virginia Constitution against all charges
of discrimination II. violation OF the Fif-
tenth Amendment, which was tho only
ground on which the United States could
| have jurisdiction. Granting for argu-.
mcnts sake that tho court asserted 1uris-
diction ha showed from the opinion IT.
the case OF Williams VS.. mississippi, IN
which all the questions involved were
! thoroughly threshed out by this court.
| that there was no violation Of the amend
ment to tho Federal Constitution. Ono
Of the most striking phases OF the argu-
| ment Of Major Anderson was his answer
| to tho charges of Indebtedness In tho
language OF the Virginia suffrage clause.
| In this he quoted at some length from
| the suffrage clauses Of the Constitution
| OF other States and showed that sew
| eral of them prescribed qualifications
| as condition of suffrage that were very
much broader ard more Indefinite than
| the Virginia provision. Among those
| quoted was that OF Connecticut. Idaho
| and other States. Some of these made
the morals of the applicant for reglstra-
| ton ground for excluding him, and others
prescribed that the prospective voter
must be a quiet and peaceable man. The
| purpose Of this argument and quotations
| from other Constitutions was to show
| that II tho Virginia Constitution was la
| bio to maladminiStratiOn, those OF many
| other States land some OF them have
| stood for many years. are very much
moro liable to this objection. Nowhere
| In tho Virginia suffrage clause was there
any discrimination on account of race
or color, or OF former servitude
The opIrion OF the court may be handed
down In a few days and 1t may be many
weeks before 1t will be promulgated
Virginia lawyers have no misgivings as
| to tho outcome of the case.