The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-06-26
REJECT GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT TT
is INVALID IN OKLAHOMA -.
CASE.
Highest Tribunal Rules That Suffrage
May not Be Based on Conditions
Existing Prior to Time OF Adoption
OF Fifth Amendment to Constitu.
tiOn-Important Race Decision.

preme court, in what is considered
one OF the most important rare decis.
ions in history, today annulIed as un-
constitutional the Oklahoma constitu-
tonal amendment and the Annapolis.
Nd, voters qualification law restrict
ing the suffrage rights of those who
could not vote or whose ancestors
could not vote prior to the ratification
of the fifteen amendment to the fed
eral constitution.
Chief Justice White. a native of the
South and a former Confederate SOL
dier, annonced the courts decision.
which was unanimous, except that
Justice McReynolds took no part in
the case
BY holding that conditions that ex.
listed before the fifteenth amendment.
which provides that the right to vote
shall not be denied or abridged on ac-
count Of race, color or previous con-
dition Of servitude. could not be
brought over to the present day in dis
regard Of this self executing amend
ment, 1t is generally believed that the
court went long way toward invali-
dating much Of the socalled grand
father clause" in constitutions of
Southern States.
The immediate effect Of the courts
decision was to uphold the conviction
of two Oklahoma election officials who
denied negroes the right to vote In a
congressional election, and to award
the Maryland negroes damages from
election officials in Annapolis who re-
FUSED to register them. The court
held that the Oklahoma election off,
cials could not ignore the fifteenth
amendment in wiping out of State con-
stitutions the word white" as a quail
ffication for voting. In the Maryland
case, the courts decision established
the point that the fifteenth afnsnd-
ment apples to municipal as well as
to federal elections.
Discussing the Oklahoma ease.
Chief Justice White said the suffrage
amendment to the State constitution
first fixed a literacy standard, and then
followed it with a provision creafifik
a standard based upon the condition
existing on January 1, 1866. prior to
the adoption of the fifteenth amend-
ment, and eliminated those coming
under that standard from the inclusion
in the literacy test.
The court held that this action re-
created and perpetuated the very con-
ditions which the fifteenth amendment
was intended to destroy.
1T is true" continued the chief
justice, that it contains no express
word of an exclusion Of any person
on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, but the stand
ard itself inherently brings that re-
suit into existence.
I'm other words. We seek in vain
for any ground which would sustain
any other Interpretation but that the
provision, recurring to the conditions
existing before the fifteenth amend
ment was adopted, proposed to make
them the basis Of the right to suf-
frage. And the same result. we are of
the opinion, is demonstrated by con-
sideration whether it is possible to
discover any basis or reason for the
standard thus fixed, other than the
purpose above stated"
The chief justice had prefaced this
statement by development of the ar
gument that the restriction imposed by
the fifteenth amendment on the power
OF the States over suffrage was coinci-
dent with the limits of the power it
self. He also set forth the princi-
pie that while in the true sense the
fifteenth amendment gives no right"
OF suffrage. 1T was long ago recog-
nized that in operation it's prohibit
ton might measurably have that eff
fect; that is to say, that as the COM
mand of the amendment was self-exe-
cutting and reached without legisla-
tive action the conditions Of disc, imi-
nation against which it was aimed, the
result might arise that as a conse-
quence of the striking down of a dis
eliminating cause a right of suffrage
would be enjoyed by reason of the
generic character Of the provision
which would remain after the discrim-
ination was stricken out"