Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1905-10-27
Measurements of the TazcwelI
Republican.
Editor the News:

prohibiting and Furnishing mtermnr-
riages between a white person and a
"NEGRo' is quoted, and then il is stat
Ell that at the legislative session OF
1S77-S this statute was amended so a.
60 substitute for the word NEGRO. the
words "OoLoRED PERSON" Then the
following statement is made,
"This change in the statut, was
made hy a DcmocraticLegislat aud
was approved 10y a Democratic Coy
ernor.'
$50, for the past twenty seven yetrs.
the mteunarrying of white persons and
negroes in Virginia has not only been
allowed hut has been invited and in
known instances practiccd. -"
At your repeated request have
consented 10 write a reply To this state
ment. While | have NO comment
whatever TO make upon the writer Of
the above for having arraigncd the
whole people and a whole Legislature
OF his own State and charged most
infamous thing for partisan political
purposes, yet / do want to say OF the
charge Itself that il is AisoIITEIN uN-
rRUE
The above statement quoted from
said editorial is not supported by "A
single decision of any court or statute
in this State, but ON the contrary il Is
expressly and in terms disprovcd by
every decision and statute on the sub
icct
Socially speaking all persons KNOWN
to have drop OF negfe hiaSd h their
veins are classed by the people 'of 'ibis
St't" Us negroes.
But in law there WAS a necessity. ~
course, (which is apparent to ANY intel
iigcnt man. of drawing the line some
where by which the legal status of
persons of MIXED blood could bc
liked. Such law was pissed
long before the war, defining negro"
60 be any person having one-fourth or
more of negro blood. We had many
statutes recognizing two distinct races
md "A person of mixed blood had to bc
either white CT "A negro, before the law
md il was obviously necessary to draw
the line So as 10 avoid mistakes ONE
FOURTH negro blood will always prove
itself and br known, whereas one
eighth might not: and il was obviously
wiser 60 permit n person who had ono
eighth of ncgru blood, but who to all
observers might be accepted M a pure
white person land form connection ~
such 10 retain his pRIAIA FAcIE white
status, than il would have been to
nave permitted this status to have
oeen questioned 90 the Shame of iuno-
.cnt parties who never knew of 30.
| would have supposed that the
writer of the words quoted, ia saying
that intcrmarIiagcs between whites
md negroes" was "allowcd" AMI .in-
vited" in Virginia, meant between whites
and negroes Of less than onc-fourth
II negro blood. because, for the rca-
sons stated. such marriages have al
ways been LsGNL. though never "mvit-
ID" in Nirginia However, the editor
Of the "Tazcwell Republican did not
intend 90 hc understood as meaning
such marriages ~ these. for he dis.
| tnctly says that the marriages he j.
talking about were "allowcd' and 'sin-
vitcd" by the democratic Legislature
of 1878, and have only been SO "ai.
lowed" and "invitcd" for "THE PAST
| TWENTY -SlNfN lEAitNs NiiltsS nibi
riagc between white persons and per
sons having less than one-fourth negr,
blood was legal even before the war
I'm addition To this, such marriages
are never spoken OF by any AUTHORITY
or intelligent and wcll-informed per
sons rs MARRIAGES BETWEEN THE RAcis
nOr are the countries which lcgaiz,
them ever libelled with the chargc q
"allowing" and "inviting" "miscogcna
ton" for they are legaliZcd from me-
ccssity, and because not to do -
might make void marriages cOntractc,
in good faith with supposed whit
person More than this, the reference
made by the "Tazcwcll Republican
TO the statute Of 1878, which prohibit
ed intcnnarriages between whites an,
negroes" was To show that sue
marriages HAD BEEN prohibited at on
time. and then il il stated that thc''Dcu
, ocratic Legislature" of 1878 CHANGE
this statute and ''ailOwed" and "invitcd
such marriages. So, it would seem 4
be utterly impossible 60 come To an
:. other conclusion than that the "TaZ,
well Republican" intended TO be III
4 derst0od as meaning Just what il sal
i'm the sentence quoted and by the us
: OF the word "ncgroes" in that senten'
: meant 10 produce the impression thi
marriages between whites and all 'n'
- oroes" were allowed and invited Fin Tn
state SINCE 1878 This statement
the "Tazewell Republican" i ha'
t said is absolutely untrue. ! desire
saw 10 the "Tazewcll Republican" tn
s the the statutes Of this State ha'
ALWAYS land do now prohibit an
. punish, marriages between whi
:. persons and negroes; that marriag
IS between white persons and pcrsoi
al having less than one fourth of negl
- blood, have ALWAYS been LEGAL i
reasons of necessity obvious TO al
= that the democratic Legislature
IN 1878 never changed the law as
in such marriages, except TO make the
"a felony in both parties, whereas pri
to that time il had only been me
'' misdemeanor in the white person; tn
ne the word "colored person" substitr
=. | ,,d Cor s.raorro'' nv the ~DemOcrai