Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1915-06-22

oils who refused to register them.
The court held that these election Of
ilg.als could not ignore the potency of
the fifteenth amendment In wiping
cut ui state coUst buttons the word
white as 4 qualification for voting.
in the Maryland case the courts de-
,isiou established the point that the
fifteenth amendment applies alihe to
municipal Us well Us to federal cleo
tons.
Discussing the Oklahoma cases,
Chief Justice White said the suffrage
amendment TO the state constitution
first fixed a ~literacy standard and
then followed Ii with a provision Gre
atiug d standard based upon the con-
ditiou existing on January /, 1855,
prior to the adoption Of the fifteenth
amendment and eliminated those
coming under that standard from the
inclusion in the l~iteracy test.
The court had difficulty, he said, in
finding words to more clearly demon
strate its conviction that this action
Of the state reCreated and perpetu-
ated the very conditions which the
fifteenth amendment was intended TO
destroy than the language used in the
amendment.
No Exclusion for Race.
at is true continued the chief
Justice, that IL contains no express
words of an exclusion from the stand
ard which it establishes of any per
son on account of race, color or pre-
yious cosdition of seryitude pro-
hibited 10y the fifteenth amendment,
but the standard itself inherently
brings that result into existence since
il is based purely upon a period OF
time before the enactment of the fif-
teeuth amendment and makes that
period the controlling and dominant
test of the right Of suffrage.
"In 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
mcut was adopted and the Contiuu-
ance of which the fifteenth amend
meut prohibited, proposed 10y In sub
stance and effect, lifting those Condi-
tons over q period Of time after the
amendment to make them the basis
Of the right TO suffrage conferred In
direct and positive disregard OF the
fifteenth amendment. And the same
result. we are Of opinion, is demon
stratcd by considering whether II Is
possible to discover any basis of rea-
son for the standard nus fixed other
than the purpose above stated.
Based on Amendment.
we say this because We are unable
70 discover how unless the prohibit
tons Of the fifteenth amendment were
considered the shghtSt reason a
afforded for bJsing the classification
upon = period Of time prior to the III
tenth amendment Certainly IL can
not be said that there was any pc
Culiar recromanCy IN the time named
" hlCh e~uEeudered attributes affecting
the qualification 70 vote which would
not exist az another and different pc
rod unless the fifteenth amendment
was in view
The chief justice had prefaCed this
statement by 4 development Of the sr-
Eument that the restriction imposed
by the fifteenth amendment on the
power OF the states over suffrage was
coinctdeut with the limits Of the
power itself He also set forth the
principle tina, while in the true sense
the fifteenth amendment gives no
right Of Suffrage, 1t was long ago
recognized that In operation its pro-
hihition might measurably have that
effeCt-that Is 20 say. that as the COM
uand OF the amendment was self
executing and reached without legs
ldtiye action the conditions OF dis
elimination against which IL was
aimed. the result might arise hat as
= consequence Of the striking down
Of a discriminating clause a right Of
suffrage would be enjoyed BY reason