The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-22
THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.

| Tol GoOu many years lnere nave
been efforts to get before the United
States Supreme Court the main ques-
tlons involved in the various devices
adopted by the Southern States for the
disfranchiscment of tho negro. These
efforts. however, have uniformly failed
the Federal courts assuming the mat
ters as settled to be political questions
nor revisablc by the judicial depart
ment. Recently, however, two diverse
rulings by Federal courts present the
possibility Of having the matter brought
on for settlement.
The State of Maryland has made
three efforts. to disfranchise the negro,
| The first was SO drawn that it would
also have disfranchised portion of the
natura6zcd citizens, and the people de
feated this by decisive majority. The
second effort seemed to include as voters
the white naturalized male citizens, but
| there were certain clauses which made
! 1T doubtful whether all naturalized
whites were included or not, aud SO the
people defeated that proposition. Then
the Legislature passed third PROPOSE
tion containing q .'grandfathcr clause
which applies to .colored persons only,
but this proposition was not to be sub,
mjtted to the voters until next year:
and the Legislature authorized in the
meantime grandfather clause
qualification for voters, applying to the
city of Annapolis. But previous to tho
recent election the Federal District
Court for Maryland, Judge Thomas II
Morris presiding, at Baltimore. held the
grandfather clause to be unconst:-
tutional. The Judge refused to give anv
weight to technical or alleged precedent
pleas. and ruled squarely that since the
Merchandising device was aimed at the
negro race, as race, II could not stand
in law. 1t is obvious that a law such
as the Maryland law. which provided
that none should vote except those who
had the right TO vote prior to January
who at that date had the right to vote,
established Il hereditary principle that
is absolutely repuGnant to popular in.
stitutions. IL makes a hereditary class
of voters separatac from the others. the
person claiming under such restriction
the right to vote, claiming such vote
not by reason Of his own qualifications
but by reason of his descent How
ever. Judge Morris held that the act
was plainly directed at the negro race
and so was an ipfraction of the Eff
tcenth Amendment To the Constitution
On the other hand. the grandfathcr
clause" in thc Oklahoma constitution
has been declared valid by the Federal
Circuit Court sitting in Guthrie. This
disfranc hised 10000 negroes at the re-
cent election. Judge John H. CotteraI,
IN his decision, made a strict inter
probation of the law. holding that since
negroes were not specifically mentioned
i'll the grandfather clause the
law was not obnoxious to the Fifteenth
Amendment. Judge Cotteral, il appears,
saw no objection to the creation of a
hereditary class of voters in this coun-
try. but ruled technically on the text
of tho law.
Now, here are two opposite decisions
in Federal courts on this grandfather
clause" restriction of the voting priv.
ilcge, 1t is TO be hoped that appeals
will be taken from both. go That the
question considered may be finally
passed upon by the United States SUI
preme Court. IL is certainly desirable
to have this matter settled by compe-
tent judicial Interpretation and ruling,
for aside from the practical question
involved in the disfranchisement of the
negro race by the grandfather clause -
ir different State constitutions there
is the vet deeper question of the at.
tempt to set mp by these constitutions
the hereditary principle In the enjoy
ment Of the rights and privileges of cit.
izenship in this country. That whole
hereditary idea is 40 directly opposed to
popular institutions, that we do not be-
lieve the courts Of America could pos
sibly hold il valid in case it were fairly
submitted to adjudication.
-@-------------------
CATALOGUE PRINTING