Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-11-02

OecIlOn ~ u IhcsOOOS VI HAkAA~- -@''
reads as follows:
every person having one-fourth or
more negro blood shall be deemed col
ored person, and every person having
one-fourth or more Indian blood shall be
deemed an Indian"
Mr.. Werth must also admit that this
section prior to 1S65-66 had the word
negro or mulato therein and that the
Democratic Legislature of 1866 sub
stituted therefor the word colored, max
ing the section read as above quoted.
Mr.. Werth does not deny that the de-
cision of the Supreme Court Of Appeals
of Virginia in the. Mcpherson case,
rendered by Democratic Court OF Ap-
peals, was made to conform to Sec. 4s
of the Code; and that decision was as
follows:
"a marriage between a white man
and woman Of less than one-fourth
negro blood, even though it be one drop
less, is legal. "
Mr.. Werth must also admit that Sec.
8 of the Code Of 1873 reads as follows:
"Any white person who shall inter-
marry with negro shall be confined in
Jail not more than one year and fined
not exceeding one hudred dollars. F."
Then he must admit that this section
of the Code was wiped out of existence
by the gentlemen who revised the Code
knownas the Code of 1887. The revis-
| ion committee was composed of Waller
r. Staples, E. C. Burks and ]. W..
Rely. The two first were ex-judges Of
the Court Of Appeals and Major Rely
was afterwards made member Of that
court. These three revisers Of the
Code left out Of the revised statutes
Sec. 8 Of the Code of 1873, and substi-
tuted therefor the following: .''
eff any white person intermarry with
a colored person, or any colored person
intermarry with a white person, he
shall be confined in the penitentiary not
less than two nor more than five years. !"
This change in the statute was IN
tended to make it conform to Sec. 49
and to the decision in the Mcpherson
case.
In our editorial of the 26th ult. we
published the two last named Acts and
said:
"These two last mentioned Acts or
statutes settled eonclusively who is a
colored person in Virginia and made
miscegenation legal in the State, Tatify-
ing and confirming the decision Of the
Court of Appeals in the Mcpherson
case"
We also said:
Thanks to the Democrats we have
had legalized intermarrying of white
persons and negroes in Virginia for the
past twenty-seven years"
a
Mr.. Werth denies the correctness Of
this conclusion and asserts that even
before the Civil War the statute law
permitted the intermarriage of white
persons and negroes Of less than one
fourth negro blood If his contention
be true, why the necessity of changing
the statute law as was done in Section
40 and also as was done with Section 8
of the Code of 1873?
Mr.. Werth says in his paper that:
Socially speaking all persons known
to have drop of negro blood in their
veins are classed by the people Of this
State as negroes"
He then proceeds to claim that the
Legislatures and Courts Of Virginia
have been able to perform miracle by
transforming a person who is socially
and racially negro into white person,
30 that the negro with less than one
fourth negro blood can legally inter-
marry with persons Of whole white
blood. And this he contends is not
miscegenation. The photographers de-
fine miscegenation as an amalgamatiOn
of the races.
Now, to what race does negro with
less than one-fourth negro blood be-
long? Mr.. Werth says that such per-
son is socially negro. and. therefore,
he must be racially negro. Miscege-
nation is purely a sociological question
and miscegenatiOn is revolving be-
cause It violates the laws Of society and
is shocking to racial instincts. Then,
is net any law, statute or judge-made
La which allows man who is socially
&..d racially a negro to internarry with
one who is socially and racially white