The log cabin Democrat., 1912-07-25
DISCOVERS JOKER
 IN SUFFRAGE BILL
WILL DISFRANCHISE NONE
DR. D. Y. THOMAS SAYS PRO- POSED AMENDMENT IS
 "A HUGE JOKE"
From Saturdays Daily.

From Saturdays Daily.
 In a commune ation to the Arkan- sas Gazette pr. David Y. Thomas, former professor in Hendrix College, and now member of the University of Arkansas faculty, declares that the grandfather clause if adopted will effect no limitation on suffrage in Arkansas on account of absurdl- ties in the phraseology of the pro- posed amendment. The amendment itself is printed in another portion of this paper and it may be of inter- est to examine it in the light of Dr. Thomas interpretation. Dr. Thom- as writes:
 The amendment providing for the initiative and referendum contained clause which provoked a good deal of discussion when pending, and which was called the joker" because believed by some to be either mean ingless or absurd. The supreme court has accepted the former view and has declared it imperative.
 If this clause was a little joker, the pending suffrage amendment is one huge joke. The object of the measure probably is to d!sfranchise a good many negroes, and leave illIt- crate whites with the franchise. As a matter of fact, it makes no change in the present suffrage law and dis franchises nobody. The proposed amendment says that persons meet ing certain requirements described therein, one of which is the ability to read and interpret, or interpret when read to him, any clause of the constitution of Arkansas, shall be allowed to vote. It does not say that no others shall be allowed to vote and does not repeal the present suffrage article of the constitution. It does say that persons meeting cer- tain ancestral qualifications shall be allowed to vote, even though they may not be able to read the constitu- tion. But nowhere does the amend ment or the existing suffrage article say that persons not meeting the ed ucational test shall not be allowed to vote. Had the words, "and no oth- ers," been added after the descrip- tion of the enfranchised class, the end evidently aimed at would have been accomplished.
 As the amendment now stands it is worthless, for a man may qualify under it or the old provision, as he sees fit. I am not very much in favor of grandfather clauses on general principles, but if I favored them ever so much, l think that I should have to vote against this one because it is so poorly drawn.
 While writing on this subject it may be well to call attention to a popular misconception of the so-call- ed grandfather amendment. Most people think that it disfranchises the negro. It is not a disfranchising, but an enfranch;sing clause. Such amendments, when properly drawn, disfranchise certain classes, white, black, red and yellow alike, on ac- count of the lack of certain educa- tional and property tests. Then to prevent disfranchising the illiterate white man, a clause is added to the effect that no man who was voter in 1867 and no lineal descendent of such person who possesses the other qualifications, shall be disfranchised because of his inability to read and write Our pending amendment con- tains the grandfather clause, but the framer forgot to include the disfran- ,chising clause.
 DAVID Y. THOMAS.
 Fayetteville, Ark, July IS, 1912.