The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1912-10-03

rounded as aimed to disfranchise
the voters who will not cast their
ballots as the bosses at the election
demand.
This same vicious and absurd
provision page 18, Sec. 10, Incl,
provides that if the voter shall have
removed from the precinct in
which ne was originally registered,
ne must obtain transfer from
his former precinct to his present
voting precinct and he must pro-
vide additional proof to- the regis
trar, by his own affidavit and the
sworn testimony Of two other wit
nesses-the same two witnesses
must have paid taxes for the pre-
cedlng year-that he, the voter, is
entitled to- register and vote in that
particular precinct.
Page q, Sec. %, line "a: 1t fur
ther provides that the registrar
must post the names of the per-
sons found on the old registration
books who in their opinion, must
be dropped from the books, and
such names shall be dropped, even
though the voter should still be a
resident of that precinct and en-
titled to vote therein, unless the
voter appears before the registrar
and qualities -, 20 his right to reg
lister, in which event the registrar
may again place his name on the
books.
Page 12, line13: And it fur
ther provides that no voter who
has been registered for any election
precinct, until the expiration Of
five years from the date he has so
registered, except by transfer Or.
as heretofore set out 4.
Page 16, Sec: AZ: If the voter
has been unable to pass these many.
distractions ana pitfalls placed IN
his path, his final and last remedy
is an appeal to the circuit court,
and from there to the supreme
court Of the state Everybody
knows that court proceedings are
very slow and very expensive, and
If the proceedings were completed
in time, the cost in money, time,
Ienergy and distress would equal the
average man s wages and worries
for a year, and in most cases deter
him from claiming his right of suf-
ferage.
This a summary with comment,
.of the vicious French Disfranchise-
iment Bill passed by the Democrat
nc House in the regular session of
I1911 and failed to pass the Senate
by a strictly party vote, Is Demo-
Gratis voting for it and the Is Re-
publicanS voting against it. This
was a party measure, put through
.under the direction of the party
bosses, Watson and Chiffon. A
more damnable crime against the
rights Of the men of West Virginia
to cast their ballots was never at
tempted.
In the extraordinary session of
1911, the disfranchisement crime
bobs up again, this time not in the
shape of a registration law, but Of
"a so-called primary election law.
This was a party measure and was
defeated by strict party vote in
the Senate, Is Democrats voting
for it and Is Republicans against
it. 1t too, was sponsored by that
busy little disfranchiser, fim-ham-
er and legislative confidence man,
Mr.. French. 1t is full of vicious
sections, as was the French Regis
tration Bill Of the regular session.
Page Is, Sec. 13: Provides that
each voter shall sign "qualifca-
ton" in which he has to agree to
many things, stipulated in the bill,
and which the election commission
may desire to make him agree to,
before he may be allowed to cast
his ballot 1t provides, page II
line II, that if he is blind or has
suffered the loss Of both hands, he
may be assisted in making oGt his
ballot but if he is so unfortunate
IS to have been deprived in his
early life Of an opportunity to
learn to read and write he is dis
qualified from exercising the rights
granted him by both the Federal
and State Constitutions.
Page ID, Sec. 12: If the luck
less victim haSn t been caught by
now, it here provides that if the
voter be challenged by one Of the
commissioners Or any other voter