Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1939-06-02

Negroes of their guard and re-
strict their suffrage.
The opinion, written and de-
livered by Mr.. Justice Frankfurter,
held that the 18th Amendment to
the Constitution "nulifes sophisti-
Gated as well as simple minded
modes of discrimination" The
opinion represented a 6-2 decision
with Justices McReynolds and But
Ter dissenting and Justice Douglas
not participating.
The case, which was carried to
the high court by the National As
ISOLATION for the Advancement of
Colored People, represents the
twelfth victory out of thirteen
cases carried to the supreme court
by that organization.
In the opinion delivered by JUS
tice Franhurter, the court said:
"The crux of the present con-
troversy is the validity of this
registration scheme, with its d.
viding line between white citizens
who had voted under the grand
father clause" prior to Quinn ".
United States supra, and citizens
more than IL days as the normal
period or registration for the
therefore prescribed class"
18th Amendment Violated
Pointing out that this was a
clear violation of "the fifteenth
amendment which secures freedom
from discrimination on account of
race in matters affecting the
franchise" the opinion made it
clear that this amendment "nulh-
fies sophisticated as well as simple
minded modes of discrimination.
It hits onerous procedural require
ments which effectively handicap
exercise Of the franchise by the
colored race although the abstract
right to vote may remain unre-
stricted as to race"
The case, which is now thrown
back to the supreme court of Okla
hOma, involves a $4,000 law suit
filed against the registrar Of Wag-
oner County, Okla, in 1884 by 1.
W. Lane, who charged that he was
refused permission to register to
vote in that year.
N. A. A. C. P. attorneys who
argued the case before the highest
tribunal in the country were:
Charles A. Chandler, of Muskogee,
Okla, and James C. Nabrit, pro-
fessor in the Howard University
law school. Associate counsel who
prepared the brief in the case
were: Thurgood Marshall, assistant
legal counsel of the N. A. A. C. p,
Charles H. Houston, and Leon A.
Ransom, of the Howard University
law school.
Case Goes Back to 1914
This case had its birth in the old
grandfather clause cases of 1914
whereby the constitution of Okla
homa and several other states pro-
vided strict educational qualifca-
tons for voters unless they could
prove that their grandfathers had
voted prior to 1866. Since no Ne
groes were qualified to vote prior
to 1866 the discrimination in the
constitution was apparent and the
U. s. supreme court in 1915 held
this provision unconstitutional in a
case fought by the N. A. A. C. P.
Immediately after this decision
Oklahoma attempted to get around
the 18th amendment again by pass
ing an act February 26, 1916, that
all persons eligible for registration
had to register within IL days or
be forever barred from registra-
ton. But the act provided, how
ever, that all persons who voted in
the 1914 elections (when Negroes
were excluded by the grandfather
clause) were not affected. This act
was challenged on constitutional
grounds in 1884 by the N. A. A.
C. P. when registration was re-
fused I. w. Lane.
Officials of the N. A. A. G. P.
pointed out that the courts de-
cision can be hailed not only as a
great gain for Negroes because it
establishes their right to vote un-
der the fifteenth amendment to the
Constitution, but it also gives a
broader Interpretation to the So
called Civil War amendments. Not
only Is the right to vote established
by the old grandfather clause
cases, and the right to vote in