Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1909-05-21
NOT TO TIE SOUTH

I'm the January number OF the !
Noith American Review Judge NJ. +. |
MONS, formerly associate justice OF
The court of appeals of The District
of Columbia, laid down the prov osi-
tion that the fifteenth amendment
to the federal constitution was in
valid and defended it in an aDle,
elaborate AID convincing exposition
The standpoint from which he rea-
s0ned principally was that the
2monimcut was IN reality no 1mCnd-
mon, at al, but an addition to the
constitution, and that while amend
mcnts may be enacted by vote OF
lhlec-fourtha OF The states in accord
nucc with the provision for amend
mcuts i'm article V OF The constitu-
ZION itself, yet IN addition TO tho
con titutioa cannot be made except
~ unanimous consent OF all the
.a.os. which the fifteenth amend
mcnt never received Further, he
20 forth that the amendment" in
point amcndc altered nothing H.
any previous clause or article Of the
organis law, thus being a travesty
on ANY purpose Of amendment and
noted in emphasizing the distinction
| between amendments AID additions
| 20 The constitution that the first ten
/ amendments to the original instru-
meat were proposed for adoption by
! inc act OF Sept %, 1883, under the
/ title of additions and amendments
In the current number of the same
publication Albert Il. Pnlsbury es-
says TO answer Judge Morris.
or the discussion the Richmond
News-Leader ably says:
The discussion is, of course. AGA
! donnie, seeing that we have album.
daut evidence hat the supreme
court has every disposition to avoid
passing directly on the issue of the
validity of the amcndcment. Nor do
SIC see any hing in particular to he
gained, even should that tribunal
meet the issue squarcly and decide
az Judge Norris contends. The Gf
0eonth amendment, which was lie
s.E-od by the lorthcrn malignants
TO rgsten negro domination in the
soUth in the interest of the Republi
can PARTY, and the penalizlng clause
or lAe fourteenth amendment, are
dead letters, and are destined to
! remain so. But the two articles are
! Interesting as illustrating the differ
ence between logic and special plead
ins, clear-cut constitutional argu-
ment and noundaring.
Mr.. Pillsbury, while charging his
! opponent with assumption, fails to
sustain the charge in a single ia
stance, and further weakens his own
position by glaring assumptions. the
lenunci@i ION of individual dogma and
"N-cathedra opinion, and showinp
! that he is inoculated with the virus
OF negrophilism and sectional ami
mostly. In closing his article. Mr..
! PiIlsbury expresses the conviction
| taat the fifteenth amendment will
never be annulled by judicial de
cree, but he continues, "the DO
Irical question will be a source OF
danger so long rs it remains unset
tied. In this latter view we con.
cur and as We haze indicated above
we see little reason to anticipate
that the supreme court will take
tognizance of the amendments va
lidity However, the political oues-
uon will not be a sou 'ce OF danger
20 the south but TO the north. &c
which, as we know, the negro prob
lem is being rapidly transferred.
And il per chance the amendment
after all, should be negatived by iu-
delay decision. the pressure and in
duencc and conditions forcing that
consummatiOn viii come from the
other side Of Mason and Dixon's
line. For her art, the south has
settled the political question as she
has the questions of social equality
and white supremacy.