The Pensacola journal., 1907-05-04

that part OF the 10TH amendment
which prohibits = state from denying
to any person within its jurisdiction,
the equal protection OF the laws. Ref
| erence to the case of Strander VS..
West Virginia, 100 u. S. Rep. SOB, will
verify the correctness of this aSser-
ton.
Il do not know to what extent the
proposed amendment was discussed
in the senate. have seen but one of
the speeches delivered on it and that
was in its favor and was mainly an
elaborate compilation of information
going to show that the 14th and 18th
amendments were illegally adopted.
The senator who made that speech, it
is true, expressed, in the outset OF
his remarks, his belief that the su-
preme court of the United States will
hold that the 18th so-called amend
ment is not part of the Constitution
of the United States; that it was
neither cOnstitutiOnally proposed, nor
constitutionally ratified and at the
close of his speech, he declared again
that he firmly believed that the SUI
preme court of the United States
would sustain his position.
''But surely, to induce acquiescence
by members of the Legislature in
face of many decisions by that court
through long series of years, in
which decisions it discussed those
two amendments, and defined and
limited their scope and application,
without once even limiting at a queS-
ton of their validity, there must
have been something more persuasive,
SOME argument more convincing than
the mere ipse diXit of the author of
the extraordinary proposition.
1T is true that the direct question
of the validity of those two amend
mentS has never been presented to
the supreme court of the United
States, but this fact does not leave us
uninformed as to its views thereon. In
the case of Strander VS.. West Vir-
ginia, mentioned a moment ago, that
court held that the law of West Vir-
ginia which excluded negroes from
serving as jurors in the courts. of that
state, was in conflict with the 14th
amendment if it had even a suspicion
of its validity, could it have rendered
that decision, without. at least sug-
gesting the doubt?
I'm the case of u. S. VS.. Cruikshank
| 80 u. S. 542, that court said: In L. S.
VS.. Reese just decided, we hold that
| the 18th amendment has invested the
citizens of the United States with
new constitutional right, which is ex-
emptiOn from discrimination in the
exercise of the elective franchise, on
account of race. color or previous con-
dition of servitude. From this it ap-
pears that the right of suffrage is
not a necessary attribute of national
citizenship, but that exemption from
discrimination in the exercise of that
right, on account of race etc, is. The
right to vote in the states comes from
the states; but the right of exemption
from the prohibited discrimination
comes from the United States. The
first has not been granted or secured
| by the constitution of the United
| States; but the last has been.
I'm the case of Z. S. VS.. Reese, %,
| u. S. PA, that court said: The 18th
amendment does not confer the right
of suffrage upon anyone. 1t prevents
the states, or the United States, how
ever. from giving preference in this
particular to one citizen of the United
States over another. on account OF
race color or previous condition of
servitude. Before its adoption this
could be done. 1t was as much with
in the power of a state to exclude citi-
iZens of the United States from voting
on account Of race etc, as it was on
account of age, property or education.
Now it is not. Previous to this amend
ment there was no constitutional
guaranty against the discrimination
now there is
! In Neal VS.. State of Delaware 1O3,
/ U. S. $40. that court said: Beyond
question the adoption of the 18th
amendment had the effect, in law, 10
remove from the state constitution. or
render imperative that provision
which restricts the right of suffrage
! to the white race
In eX parte Yarbrough. 40 L. S,
! 651, that court said: In all cases
where former slave-holding states