Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1928-03-31
BARRING NEGRO DEMOCRATS
HERE

BARRING NEGRO DEMOCRATS
HERE
The Richmond, Va, Times-DhS
patch publishes in its issue o.
March 2Srd a most interesting com
munication from that brilliant, YER
satile correspondent, Mr.. Earle
Lutz. He says;
State and city Democratic leaders
are making preparations to resist
threatened court action by Negro
voters who want TO participate IN
the mayoralty primary on April 3
The Negro voters rely on the de-
ciSon of the United States Supreme
Court which declared unconstitu-
tienal the Texas election law limit
ing participation in Democratic
primary to whites.
Murray Hooker, chairman of the
State Central Democratic Commit
tee; E. NJ. Mcclure, chairman of
the City Democratic Committee;
Wilmer L. O'Flaherty, member of
the city electoral board, and Rich
mond Lacy, ,Tr., assistant City At
torney, yesterday conferred with
Assistant Attorney General Leon NJ.
Bazile in regard to the threatened
suit. No specific action resulted, it
was stated.
If this communication had
stopped there. it would have been
all right. but it did not He con-
tinues:
A comparison OF the Texas law
which was declared invalid and the
Virginia primary law shows wide
variance. So carefully was the Vir-
einia law drawn, it is believed that
its constitutionality will be upheld
if the Federal court is called to
pass upon it. After the conference
Yesterday, Mr.. Hooker declared him
self well satisfied with the situa-
ton.
We do not know of an attorney,
who appeals to the court, be it
State or Federal, who does not for
the time being assure his client
that he is we'll satisfied with the
situation. Certainly, Mr.. Murray
Hooker, who is chairman of the
State Central Democratic Com
mittee and who is also a politician,
is not the one to give ,ut an in
dividual opinion upon this all I'M
portant subject. But what is the
wide variance between the law
adopted by the legislature of Texas
and the one adopted by the legisla-
ture of Virginia? Let us see. Mr..
Lutz says:
The Texas law specifically bars
Negroes from participation IN a
Democratic party primary.
The Virginia law does not deal
with a particular party, nor does it
specifically bar any race. 1t gives
the parties the right to make their
own rules and regulations.
The Texas law attempts, on the
part of the State, to discriminate,
whereas the Virginia law itself does
not discriminate in any way, If
there is discrimination at all, it is
on the part of the individuals MAX
ing up the Democratic party.
1t is admitted that any law, which
bars Negroes from participating in
a legalized primary is unconstitu-
tional.
The State of Virginia defrays the
expense of these party primaries
and accordingly primaries become
a part of the State election ma
chinery and are subject to the
fundamental rules. rights and
privileges of a regular election. In
Texas, the law provided and uncon-
ditionally specified that no Negro
should be permitted to participate
in Democratic primary election.
The Supreme Court of the United
States said that this could not be
done and that this species of legis-
lation was in violation of the Con-
stnution of the United States.
In this State, it is so provided
thas the Democratic Party or any
other party for that matter acts
for the State, becomes its agent and
is given the authority to make their
own rules and regulations governing
the primaries. Both legal and COM
moasense would indicate that these
agaats could not exercise any pow.
er in excess Of that given to
the State itself and Is In fact
bound by such restrictions as may
be placed upon the principal for
whom they act. They must conform
their rules and regulations to the
lays of the State and those Of the
United States.
The State cannot authorize its
asegts to do any more or dtsrsgsrd