Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-03-02
HAS NEGRO ANY REMEDY?
Alabama Disfranchisement Not Within
Federal Jurisdiction.

| Federal jurisdiction.
Washington. March IA decision of
the utmost Importance, as affecting
the efforts of certain Southern States
to deprive negroes Of the right OF suf-
frage. has been handed down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jackson
| w. Giles against the Board of Regis
tration of Montgomery county, Ala,
dismissins the case for want Of juris-
fiction. no federal question being in
| VOlved.
| Giles failed to comply with that sec
ton of the new constitution known as
the ''life clause" and which provides
that applicants for registration must
be able to explain their whereabouts
for the twelve months preceding the
| election. Registration. having been
refused him, Giles brought suit against
the Board Of Registration in the State
| courts, carried his case to the State
Supreme court. and in each instance
relief was denied. He then applied to
| the federal courts for writ Of manda-
mus to compel the Board of Registra-
ton to accept his resignation. and car
| ried this case to the Supreme Court of
| the United States. Justice Day deliv-
cred the opinion for the court, with JUS
tice Harlan alone dissenting.
I'VE are of the opinion" said Justice
Day. in part, that the State court de-
cided the case for reasons independent
of the federal right claimed, and hence
its action is not renewable here. In
the case for a writ of mandamus, the
same attack was made upon the action
of the State Of Alabama in adopting
and enforcing the provisions of the
State constitution which it was charged
were adopted for the purpose Of dis
franchising the negroes and permitting
white men only to exercise the elective
franchise. We do not perceive here in
the mandamus case that the decision
of the State court involved the adjud-
ication claimed under the federal con-
stitution against the appellant. 1t de-
MES tn. relief by way of mandamus,
admitting the allegations Of the petit
ton rs to the illegal character of the
registration. authorized in pursuance
of the Alabama constitution. This is
ground adequate to sustain the deciS-
ion, and wholly Independent of the
rights set up by the plaintiff as secured
TO him by the constitutional amend
ments for his protection.
ut is apparent that the thing COM
planned of, so far as it involves rights
secured under the Federal Constitution.
is the action of the state of Alabama in
the adoption ard enforcing of con-
stitution with the purpose of excluding
from the exercise of the right of
suffrage the negro voters of the state,
in violation of the Fifteenth Amend
ment. The great difficulty of reaching
the political action of the state through
remedies afforded in the courts, state
or federal. was suggested by this court
in the case of Giles Harris. Now. it is
perfectly well settled that unless
federal right has been set up and de-
MED in the state court, we have no
right to review it's decision, and after a
very careful examination af this
matter. and Il due appreciation of the
gravity of the charge made as to the
political action Of that state, we see no
ground to distinguish it from the uni
vcrsal rule as applied in this court
affecting writs of error of this kind. In
reaching the decision that the present
writs of error must be dismissed. the
court is not unmindful Of the gravity
of the statements Of the complainant,
charging violation Of a constitutional
amendment which is a part of the
supreme law of the land; but the right
of this court to review decisions of the
highest court of q State has been well
settled, and is circumscribed by the
rules established by law. We are of
the opinion that plaintiffs in error have
not brought the cases within the
statute giving to this court the right OF
review. The writs of error in both
cases will therefore be dismissed"
In the opinion Of those who have
attempted to analyze today's decision
1t confirms the belief that the
difficulties attending any attempt to
secure the Intervention of the Supreme
Court of the United States to secure
for the negro citizen of the Southern
States the right Of franchise are in.
surmouutable. To some the. sugges-
ton of Justice Day that plaintiffs in
error have not brought the cases within
the statute giving to this court the
right ofreview' is regarded as holding
out ray of hope, but most Of those
who have given any thought to the
matter maintain that, In view OF
similar previous decisions OF. the
Supreme Court denying jurisdiction.
notably in case brought against the
State of Mississippi there is little use
for disfranchised negroes to appeal to
the Supreme Court Of the United states
for relief. 1t should be added, however,
that sufficient time has not elapsed to
permit of more than a. cursory review
of today's decision, and it may be pos
sible that Justice Days suggestion
may be found to convey more than
appears on the surface.