Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1944-05-12

The struggle to give the Negro
equal political rights in the south
has gone on increasingly (and I'M
successfully since the end Of the
civil war in 1865.
The bloody, fratricidal conflict
did abolish Negro slavery. But it
failed to give the Negroes politi-
cal, economic or social equality.
In 1870, angry northerners sue
ceeded in getting through the fif-
teenth amendment to the U. S.
constitution stating: "The right of
the citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by any state on account
of race, color or previous condition
of servitude."
Despite constant agitation, that
constitutional mandate has re-
manned a dead letter in the south
for three-quarters of a century.
Save for a few scattered counties,
the eleven original states of the
1860-65 secession have consistent
ly deprived the otherwise quail
fled among their ten to eleven
million Negro population of the
voting franchise. That has been
accomplished in many ways: by
excessive and cumulative poll
taxes; by ridiculously admins
tered educational" tests; and by
plain intimidation.
The south has something on its
side. One factor strangers never
understand is southern national
pride. Beyond racial prejudice
entirely, the south fiercely resists
every measure it considers forced
upon it by the more populous north.
The fifteenth amendment is case
in point. 1t still rankles in south
ern breasts that this amendment
was a punitive measure, designed
by the south's great enemy, Thad-
deus Stevens, to enforce corrupt
carpet Dagger" Negro govern
ment upon the conquered whites.
Still, the agitation to give the
southern Negro the vote has gone
steadily forward. 1t gained great
impetus as the result of the first
and second phases of the German
wars. The Negroes have under
stood almost instinctively the mean
ing of Hitlerism. They have con-
stantly clamored for equality in
assignment to combat units and
have never opposed CONSUMPTION.
That attitude has lent powerful
force to their claim of political
equality.
AS far back as 1924, a test case
was brought to the supreme court
against a Texas law barring Ne
groes from primary elections. In
the south, due to paucity of Re-
publican voters, the primary cleo
tions are decisive. A Democratic
nomination is equivalent to cleo
ton. The supreme court in that
first case held the state law was
unconstitutional. The Texas legis-
lature repealed it and passed an
other one giving authority to the
state Democratic organization to
make regulations for primary cleo
tons.
A test case on this act finally
got up to the supreme court in
1885. The high tribunal rejected
the appeal against the act. 1t held
the Democratic party in Texas was
a voluntary association, like a pri-
vate club, and could choose it's
own members. Thereby the Ne
groes could be excluded from the
Democratic primaries. That de-
cision was given unanimously by
the old court filled with conserva-
tives with whom President Roose-
welt was constantly in conflict.
1t is that decision which the new
court of nine members has over
turned by a vote of 8 to /. Only
Mr.. Justice Roberts dissented. He
is one of the two former Republi-
can party members of the court.
And his dissent was based chiefly
on the arbitrary overturning by
the court of previous carefully
considered decisions.
In brief, the majority decision
held: That state primaries are sub
ject to federal control; that where
a state law delegates to a political
party the right to make regulations
for the selection of party nominees
on a general election ballot, the
party thereby becomes an agency
of the state because of the duties
imposed upon it by statute; that
such duties cannot be private be-