PART 1.
No Contrary Provision New Except That In Our State Constitution.

How would you like for it to become a part of the supreme laws of our Grand Old State, a part of the State Constitution, with the proper regulations for carrying out the provisions thereof, that no one except members of the Caucasian or white race should ever again hold any North Carolina State, county, township, or municipal office—that is, that no one except members of the white race should be eligible to any office that comes either under the direct control of the State itself, by reason of its being a State office; or, indirectly, under its control by reason of its being an office belonging to one of the State's many political divisions or sub-divisions?

Possibly some reader is saying, "Why, that would be just grand, of course, but what is the use of talking about such a thing when it is impossible for it to be done."

It is impossible for it to be done; is it? Why is it impossible for it to be done?

"Because it is unconstitutional."

Unconstitutional; is it? What constitution forbids it?

"The United State Constitution, of course. If it did not, would we have let anybody but white people have held such offices in those terrible back years?

Ha! ha! My friend, if that is what you think about this matter you never were more completely mistaken in your life. And will it not make you feel jolly to find out your mistake? However utterly unbelievable the assertion may appear to you until you investigate it it is proven to you, it is an absolute fact that there is simply nothing whatever in the way of the existence of this desirable condition except our own present STATE Constitution, which we are about to toss aside and put in its place one better suited to our conditions, and wishes.

The main idea and object of the publication of the series of papers of which this is one is to make sure that the point aluded to shall not by any means entirely escape attention at this time but that it shall to some extent come before the public generally, and before every member of the State's Constitutional Commission, and especially before each member of that Commission's special committee which has more directly in charge that portion of the new Constitution which will deal more particularly with suffrage and eligibility to office, the great and important fact that the eligibility-to-office-holding clause thereof can squarely debar all members of any race of people in existance or as many races as it pleases, from holding any office that comes within the sphere of its regulations. It can assuredly do this directly and absolutely on the ground of race alone, without conflicting in the slightest degree with either the Federal Constitution or any of its amendments.

You do not believe the above? Maybe you do not, but it is a solid incontrovertible fact, nevertheless; and what will follow will prove it to you conclusively, not simply "beyond a reasonable doubt", but beyond the least shadow of any doubt whatever.

Of course, no State, nor any number of States, can make any regulations whatever about Federal officers—post-masterships, etc., everything in that line belongs entirely to the general government. But on the other hand, all regulations (including those prescribing qualifications for eligibility to office) of all offices except those pertaining to the general government, come exclusively under the supervision and control of the State within which the office is held or to be held. Neither any other State or States, nor the United States as a whole has anything whatever to do with the matter from beginning to end.

The above important truth, as said, applies as much to provisions as to who shall be eligible to the offices, as it does to the regulations concerning the duties pertaining to each of the offices. The bare statement of this great fact here made will be followed by a full enough proof of its correctness.

Search these columns for the proof and preserve them if you like for future reference, and verify them if you choose. The authorities and records quoted can all be found in the State Library at Raleigh.

PART 2.
Constitutional and Judical Proof.

Contrary to the prevalent impression there is not one word in the Constitution of the United States, or the Amendments thereto, forbiding any State that chooses to do so from passing laws absolutely denying the Negro or any other inferior race, that right to hold any office in it that comes under its control. This does not apply to Federal offices....postmasters, etc. Everyone will admit that if there is anything denying a State the right to enact such legislation, it is found in what might be styled the Negro Amendments—the 13th, 14th and 15th. Let us examine these, taking up the last one first.

THE 15TH AMENDMENT.

The 15th Amendment reads thus: "The right of citizens of the United States to VOTE shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Note specially that this amendment simply forbids a State to deny or abridge on account of race, the right to vote; it does not forbid a state to deny the right to hold office on that account.

Some say, however, that the right to vote for an office, carries with the right to hold that office, provided the voter can be elected to it.

In answer to this, it may be shown conclusively that there are offices for which citizens are allowed to vote to which they are not eligible. A native citizen can vote for President before he is old enough to be eligible that that office; a naturalized citizen can vote for President, though he never can become eligible to the office, some towns have a provision that a man must be a free-holder therein before he can hold the office of city tax collector, but he is, neverltheess, entitled to vote for a candidate for that office, and many similar provisions could be cited.

THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

Some think that the 14th Amendment, in conferring citizenship upon the Negro, conferred upon him, impregnably, the right to vote and to hold office, and clinched the matter when it said: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." That this idea in reference to citizenship, and its "privileges and immunities" is erroneous, is sufficiently proven by the passing of the 15th Amendment. The Negro may have been permitted under the 14th Amendment to vote and hold office, but if its provisions guaranteed to him beyond the interference of a State, even the right to vote, there would have been no earthly need for the 15th Amendment—it would have been superfluous.

While the above is sufficient, there is additional proof that mere citizenship, alone, does not carry with it either ship, alone, does not carry with it either the right to vote or the right to hold office, and also that "privileges and immunities" do not include these "rights." The following facts contain some of these additional proofs:

Ladies are citizens, but in most States they can neither vote nor hold office; neither in some States can criminals, paupers, illiterate persons, those failing to pay their taxes, and those paying taxes on less than a certain specified amount of property; and yet all these classes are still citizens, though they cannot even vote, and the fact that their "rights" to vote and hold office have been "denied and abridged" is plain proof that citizenship, alone, does not guarantee these things, and it is also another sufficient proof that these "rights" do not come under the head of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States," spoken of in this 14th Amendment, for the latter area completely and unqualifiedly forbidden to be abridged—the language in reference to them does not say they shall not be abridged on account of certain things, but it absolutely forbids their being abridged on any account whatever.

Now, as privileges and immunities are unqualifiedly forbidden to be abridged, it surely follows that the rights to vote and hold office are not included in them, for these "rights" are now, and to some extent, always have been "denied and abridged" in every State. And, exactly as each State still has the power of discriminating between its citizens in reference to these "rights" "on account of" sex, and "on account of" a number of other things, even so at that time, under the 14th Amendment, each State had the power to similarly discriminate between its citizens in reference to both of these "rights" on account of race, which fact, as said before, is recognized by the passing of the 15th Amendment, which took away the previous power of a State to deny, "on account of race," the right to vote, but left its power in reference to the right of office-holding untouched.

The 14th Amendment even contains, within itself, recognition of the distinction between the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States," and these "rights," for its 1st section absolutely forbids even abridging the former, while its 2nd section makes provision both about denying and abridging the latter; and, in addition to this, the plain inference from the language in the latter part of the 14th Amendment is, that under it, and until the adoption of the 15th Amendment, each State had the power to deny Negroes even the right to vote. Bear in mind that this amendment was intended specially for the benefit of the Negro, and yet after forbidding any State to "abridge" his "privileges and immunities," it goes on to say: "But when the right to vote is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens being 21 years old in the State."

Read logically, in its connection, what can this language mean except that at that time, and until the passing of the 15th Amendment, any State that chose to do so could deprive the Negro even of his right to vote, but must, in consequence of such disfranchisement, suffer a proportionate decrease of representation? And if a State could deprive him of the right to vote, it certainly could deprive him of the right to hold office.

THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

The 13th Amendment did nothing for the Negro except to free him, so it is useless to consider it further.

This concludes the examination of every one of the Negro Amendments, and the closest scrutiny has failed to discover a single word guaranteeing any inferior race in the right to hold office.

ELECTION LAW DECISIONS.

Supreme Court decisions upon Mississippi election laws, &c., sustaining them solely on the ground that they applied to both races alike are not antagonistic to the position outlined in this article, in fact, the actual decisions themselves upon the points they had at issue do not bear upon it at all, because those laws were aimed at the Negro's right to vote, which right, constitutionally, is unquestionably the same as the white man's, but his right to hold office, rests constitutionally, upon another basis, and is nowhere guaranteed to be the same as the white man's. When the 15th Amendment was being considered the additional words "and hold office," but the words "and hold office" had to be stricken out before it could be passed; hence the right to hold office is not guaranteed to the negro like the right to vote.

COURT DECISIONS, &c., FAVORABLE.

There has nover been an actual test case in the courts upon the question whether a State has the power to deny Negroes the right of office-holding or not, for the simple reason that no State has, as yet, denied them that right, and there has consequently been nothing to make a test out of. But, nevertheless, in cases involving the rights of Negroes, and calling for an expounding of the Amendments relating to them, the decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court, and opinions given be eminent jurists who are authorities with all lawyers, support the position taken in this article, by uniformly maintaining, without a single exception, as far as examined, the same interpretation of the various parts of the several amendments, that are contained in this article. We briefly quote below a few extracts from these authorities:

CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS RIGHT.

"The right of suffrage is not one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of a State, or of the United States."—Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, page 162.

"Citizenship has no necessary connection with the franchise of voting, eligibility to office, or any other rights, civil or politica. The elective franchise and qualifications for office, are powers which ALWAYS require something superadded to mere citizenship."—Paschal's Annotated Constitution, pages 275 and 291.

THE RIGHT IS NOT IN "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United *** secured by the 14th amendment, do not include the right of suffrage. If they did the right must necessarily exis in all citizens of the United States from the mere fact of citizenship, without the power in any State, or in Congress to abridge the same in any degree, and in any case, therefore, no qualifications of any kind could be imposed, and all persons (being citizens) males and females, infants, lunatics and criminals, without respect to age, length of residence or any other thing, would be entitled to participate directly in all elections. Every provision in every State, which experience has proven to be essential to security and good order in society would therby be overthrown. It is enough to say that the rights secured by this amendment are of an ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT CHARACTER."—From the report of Senator Edmunds, 1870, submitted to the United States Senate from the Committee on Judiciary.

"The inhibition contained in the Fourteenth Amendment **** means that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its provisions are exerted shall deny to any person within her jurisdiction, the equal protection of her laws."—Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S., 337. Strauder vs. West Virginia, 303.

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was intended to secure to a recently emancipated race, all the civil rights which the superior race enjoy."—Strauder vs. West. Virginia, Id. 303.

THE 15TH DOES NOT GUARANTEE OFFICE-HOLDING.

"Suffrage: A voice given in deciding a question, or choosing a man for office. A vote."—Webster's Unabridged.

"The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon any person. It prevents the State. or the United States, however, from giving preference in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. BEFORE ITS ADOPTION THIS COULD BE DONE."—United States vs. Rouse, 92, U.S. Reports, page 217.

"The fifteenth amendment does apply to rights of suffrage, AND TO THOSE ONLY."—From the report of Senator Edmunds, 1870, submitted to the U.S. Senate from the Committee on Judiciary.

THE SUM OF THE MATTER.

To sum the matter up:

The 13th Amendment freed the Negroes, but did nothing else for the. The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship upon them with its "privileges and immunities," and while they were permitted to vote and hold office under it, they were not guaranteed in either of these "rights" until the passing of the 15th.

The 15th Amendment guaranteed to them in each State, the same "rights" in voting that were accorded to the white men in it, but did not likewise guarantee them in the right to hold office, thus leaving each State still with the power to deprive them of that right if it chooses to do so. And there the matter stands now. What will the Constitutional Commission do with this phase of the negro question when it meets on the 4th of June?

PART 3.
Historical Proof—Action In Congress.

In what has preceded, the position that the United States Constitution, with all its amendments, still leaves each State with the full power to deal with all inferior races of itself in the matter of office-holding in reference to its own offices exactly as it sees fit—to give them that right in full, to abridge it, or to entirely deny it on the ground of race alone, has already been fully maintained by arguments upon the last three amendments to the Fereral Constitution, and by the United States Supreme Court decisions upon them, showing that the 13th Amendment did nothing for the negroes except to free them from the control of their former owners; that the 14th, making them citizens and guaranteeing them the privileges and immunities of citizens, did nothing for them except to secure them the same protection of the law that the white race enjoys in civil matters, that is, in securing to them equal rights in property and in protection of life and limb, but not extending to any political right at all; that the 15th extended in the right of voting—not in the right of office-holding in any degree, whatever. These propositions, as said, have been maintained by argument on the amendment, and by extracts from the highest legal authorities, relating to them.

THE PASSING OF THE 15TH AMENDMENT.

There remains, however, one line of proof not yet touched upon at all but which is, nevertheless, excellent authority in an effort to get at the truth of such matters as this. It consists of historical proof—examination of various changes the amendments underwent while pending, and of the opinions of Representatives and Senators expressed upon them at that time in their debates. Both these lines of examination go to show that the members of both Houses knew that they were not giving inferior races the same rights, in full, that the superior races enjoyed. There is no need to look into anything except the passing of the last amendment, the 15th, as what was said and done while it was pending covers the whole ground and shows that each State, prior to that time, could suit itself as to these political rights in the matter of bestowing either one or both, in whole or in part, upon inferior races of entirely withholding them, and that the members of Congress realized perfectly that they were not guaranteeing the Negro in the right to hold office, but only in the right to vote, and that some of the warmest advocates of the amendment were quite sore over not being able to accomplish all they desired in this direction.

Very numerous were the changes proposed in the contemplated 15th Amendment by each House before its provisions as adopted, were finally agreed upon by both Houses. A concise history of these changes can be found in McPherson's History of Reconstruction, chapter 40, pages 399 to 406, from which we copy those parts telling of the most important action taken by each House in its consideration of this amendment throughout all its stages of progress. The History of the main features of the Congressional action on it as follows:

IT STARTS IN THE HOUSE WITHOUT OFFICE-HOLDING

On January 30, 1869, the House passed the 15th Amendment in the following words containing nothing but to vote.

"The right of any citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State by reason of race, color or previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States."

The vote was: Yeas, 150; nays, 42; not voting 31.

GOES TO THE SENATE; OFFICE-HOLDING ADDED.

On February 3rd, in the Senate, Senator Stewart moved to amend by substituting the following in the place of the House resolution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

Senator Wilson moved to amend Mr. Stewart's amendment by substituting for it the following:

"No discrimination shall be made in any State in the exercise of the elective franchise, or in the right to hold office in any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, education or creed."

Which was agreed to—Yeas, 31; nays, 27.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

Senator Sumner moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as follows:

"That the right to vote, to be voted for and to hold office, shall not be denied or abridged anywhere in the United States under any pretence of race or color; and all provisions in any State Constitution, or in any State law, territorial or municipal—inconsistent herewith are hereby declared null and void."

Which was disagreed to—Yeas, 9; nays, 46.

BACK TO THE HOUSE.

On February 15, the House disagreed to Senator Wilson's amendment by a vote of—Yeas, 37; nays, 133; not voting, 52.

IN THE SENATE AGAIN.

On February 17, Senator Stewart moved that the Senate recede from its amendment, disagreed in by the House; which was agreed to—Yeas, 33; nays, 24.

On the question "Shall the resolution as originally passed by the House pass." It was determined in the negative, (two-thirds not having voted in the affirmitave—Yeas, 31; nays, 27.

And the House proposition fell.

On the same day and immediately after the failure of the House proposition, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on a joint resolution reported January 15, 1869, from the committee on Judiciary, and amended by the Senate without divisions, January 28, so as to make it to read as follows:

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any other State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Senator Bayard moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words, "vote and", so that it would read:

The right of citizens of the United States to hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State," &c.

Which was disagreed to—Yeas, 6; nays, 29.

After several more amendments to the proposed 15th Amendment were brought up and all disagreed to, the joint resolution was engrossed, read a third time and passed—yeas, 35; nays, 11.

AGAIN BACK TO THE HOUSE.

February 20.—Mr. Logan submitted an amendment to the joint resolution to strike from the first section the words "and hold office." This was disagreed to—Yeas, 70; nays, 95; not voting, 57.

Mr. Bingham offered an amendment to strike out the words "by the United States or", and insert the words "nativity, property, creed", so that it would read as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, nativity, property, creed, or previous condition of servitude."

This was agreed to—Yeas 92; nay,s 71; not voting, 59.

FINAL ACTION; OFFICE-HOLDING PORTION KILLED.

February 23rd.—The Senate disagreed to the amendment of the House, and asked a conference on the disagreeing voters of the two Houses thereon, which was agreed to.—Yeas, 32; nays, 17.

Messrs. Stewart, Conkling and Edmunds were appointed the managers of the conference on the part of the Senate and Messrs. Boutwell, Bingham and Logan were appointed on the part of the House, the House having agreed to the conference—Yeas, 117; nays, 37; not voting, 68.

February 25.—The conference reported, recommending that the House recede from their amendment and agree to the resolution of the Senate with an amendment as follows: In section 1, line 2 strike out the words, "and hold office," and the Senate agreed to the same.

February 25.—The House agreed to the report—Yeas, 144; nays, 44; not voting, 35.

February 26.—The senate agreed to the report—Yeas, 39; nays, 13.

And thus the 15th Amendment was adopted in its curtailed form without guaranteeing any inferior race in the right of office-holding. The knowledge of the Congressmen and Senators of this fact is plainly shown in the closing debate upon it as is also the chagrin of the leaders at the partial defeat of their plans.

Extracts from the debate will be given. It will show some of the leaders mad as hornets because they could not do all they tried to and keep the office-holding part in.

PART 4
Historical—Extracts from Congressional Debate

The debate in Congress clearly shows that the members of Congress knew the 15th Amendment did not carry with it the right to hold office. The extracts from the remarks of Senators that immediately follow are taken from the Senate proceedings of February 17, 1869 as found in part 2 of the Congressional Globe, third session, Fortieth Congress. The extracts are selected at intervals from pages 1, 1294 to 1,307. They read as follows:

Wanted Office Holding in, But Failed.

Senator Wilson.—Now, I am very desirious of getting in an amendment that shall secure not only the right to vote, but the right to hold office. I am acting in this matter in no factious spirit. certainly, but with an earnest desire to get what I believe to be right. In my judgment, nine-tenths of our friends, in and out of Congress, who are in favor of submitting this question to the country at all are in favor of so submitting it as settle both the right to vote and the right to be voted for. I do hope that we shall adopt that plan here, and that the fear of failing in this measure will not drive us, in a panic, to send out to the country an immature proposition—a proposition that is nor complete in istelf. Now, sire, suppose we submit this imperfect proposition which says to seven hundred and fifty thousand colored men in this country. "You shall have the right to vote, but you shall not have the right to sit upon the jury or to hold office." how will they feel in regard to it?

State Can Deny Office Holding

Mr. Ferry—If the Senator will permit me, I will tell him that it says no such thing.

Mr. Wilson.—It is true that it does not say so expressly, but it leaves that inference. It does not say that a State shall not deny to colored men the right to hold office; and will it not be an inspiration to some to keep on and take that right from them. Now, sir, I want to accomplish the work of making these citizens equal to other citizens in right and privilege.

Senator Stewart.—The Senator from Massachusettes is as much responsible as any other person for the concdition in which we are placed. In the first place, the proposition of the Judiciary Committee was conceded by a large number of friends to be the best. It contained the simple proposition that the right to vote and hold office should not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It did not attempt to extend any further than the right to vote and hold office. The Senator from Massachusetts moved to put upon that several other propositions which loaded it down; he voted to put upon it all of those propositions which went to the House of Representatives, and were rejected by them.

Could Get Nothing But to Vote.

It came here. A majority of our friends here this morning, on consultation and by a large vote, said we had better take this than to have nothing and the votes have been very emphatic upon that point. To throw it open to further discussion is to get nothing. The true way to get the right to hold office included in this proposition was by standing by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. I stood by it. I refrained from speaking, and protested against loading that down, as it was loaded down by the vote of the Senator from Massachusettes and others. It is now in such shape that to sent it to a committee of conference at this late day will couse the loss of everything This is not my proposition, but it is the best I can get, and therefore I am taking it now rather than get nothing.

I tell you that voting against this proposition is voting against any constitutional amendment for this session. The only hope for getting anything is to vote for this proposition, and I appeal to the Senators who are willing to take something to vote for this, and then I will go with them as faithfully as I can for another proposition that will give the right to hold office. I will work with them for that, and let us save what we have got. I will work as hard as any one for a proposition that colored men shall hold office, but because I cannot get what I want now, I am not to reject what I can get. I am for taking what we can get now.

Mr. Nye.—I trust by this time, honorable Senators who opposed the House proposition, see the utter futility of attempting to pass any other.

There are two or three objections urged against the House proposition; one was that the amendment did not go far enough; that it omitted to say that the class of persons alluded to should have the privilege of holding office. ****Does it not go far enough? If it does not, let us take what we can get.

Ever since my hair was as black as the raven's plumage have I heard honorable Senators from Massachusetts standing here and elsewhere, making the very air that surrounded them vocal with songs of freedom, and buoying and lashing men up to the point of giving the black men the right to vote. I heard those Senators descant eloquently upon the power that it would give the black men if they could only be armed with the ballot. Sir, that is the armor that cannot be pierced and yet when such a proposition was presented here today, both those Senators, as well as the honorable Senators from Kansas, voted "No", because it did not go far enough. Sir, I have an abiding faith that if it does not go far enough to reach the real point, those who come after us will reach it more certainly than we can do now. I would secure to those men the boon of the ballot, and I am willing to risk the holding of office to their ballot when that is done.

Senator Wilson.—My colleague deems it inexpedient to submit to the State Legislatures any amendment whatever. While, however, he is opposed to the submission of any constitutional amendment, he doubtless desires, if one is submitted, it shall in its terms accomplish its desired object. That desire unquestionably influenced his action in striving to refer the whole matter to a committee of conference and in voting down the House propostiion with a view to taking up the proposition of the Judiciary committee, which secures the right to hold office.

Congress Firmly Declined.

 While I am ever looking forward to the complete attachment of the equal civil and political rights of citizens of the United States, while I am striving to accomplish that good result, I am ever ready to act so as to accomplish the most that can be accomplished in the immediate present. It it is the determination of Congress not to incorporate into the constitutional amendment the right of our colored fellow citizens to hold office, as well as to vote, I shall bow it to its decision and vote for securing suffrage.

I fear, however, that the enemies of the black men, expecially of Georgia, will feel that our action will be an inspiration to those who are opposed to their civil and political rights. *** I fear, too, that those who would give them neither civil nor political rights, will taunt us with our weakness, will say that we are actuated, not by a sense of justice, but by the love of power; that we are willing that citizens of African descent shall vote for us, but shall not vote for citizens of their own race, whatever may be their intellectual or moral worth or services to their race or their country.

Mr. Nye—I wish to ask the honorable Senator if it is not in perfect harmony with all that he has ever said and done to have the colored people vote. That seems to be as far as we can go. What I complain of is that if you can not get the ell, you will not take the inch.

Mr. Wilson.—I would if I thought we could get no more.

Mr. Nye.—It is very evident that you can not. I am willing to go as far as the Senator, but I am not willing to throw away everything.

From page 1440 of the same volume, we take the following extract, being a part of the Senate proceedings of February 22, 1869.

Mr. Buckalew.—The House then seemed to take exception to the Senate amendment because it was too comprehensive. The Senate amendment differed from the House proposition in including the question of office-holding. It also differed from the House in naming nativity, property, and creed. I believe that everything that was in the Senate amendment as we sent it to the House on a former occasion is now contained in this amendment, unless it be the particular of education. Possibly that may be different.

The two Houses are at issue, apparently, upon the question of the extent to which the amendment shall be carried, the House of Representatives originally insisting upon a single particular, no exclusion from the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, all of which terms simply mean colored suffrage, and nothing else; and the Senate, by its vote, insisting upon making the amendment more comprehensive, and removing sundry other disqualifications that exist, or may exist, by virtue of State constitution and laws, and extending the amendment also to the important question of holding office.

By common consent, almost as I am understood in the House they stood by their original and comparatively limited proposition; they repudiated entirely what was done by the Senate in the way of extending this proposed amendmen to cover office-holding, and to cover the several other disqualifications which I have mentioned.

* * * *

The proof given above and in the former articles, combined, is ample, but it is only a small part of what could be given. If anyone wants to see more he has but to search the records, of which our admirable State library contains a good supply and the more thoroughly he looks into the matter, the more thoroughly he will be convinced of the correctness of the position.

PART 5.
Supposed Objections To The Suggested New Feature Answered.

In considering the desirability of making the eligibility-to-office clause of our new State constitution provide that none but members of the white race shall be eligible to the offices that come under its control, it is well enough, as indeed it is in all matters of importance, to consider both sides. It is well enough to think not only of the things that are favorable to it, but to think up, and bring out, every objection, large or small, along every line, that either has been or likely could be brought forward by any opponent of the measure in any party—Democrat, Republican, or otherwise—white or black, or of any section—South, North, East or West, and consider every objection well from every standpoint.

What is given below is an attempt at a list of objections intended to embrace every one that can be made from any source against such a step, with brief replies to each objection. If you know of or can think up, or can discover any objections not given here, bring them out and see what weight attaches to each one.

No matter how plausible or potent either one of the objections seems to be when first heard or read, each and all of them in its last analyiss will be found flimsier than a spider's web. Here are the objections to them as far as known to the author of these papers:

Objections Answered.

1st objection.—It cannot be done; it will conflict with the United States Constitution.

Answers.—There is nothing left of this objection. What has already been said effectually disproves it—not another word need be added.

2nd.—There is no need for it; we are now accomplishing the same result any how, by another method, by the use of the "grandfather suffrage clause."

Answer.—What if we are accomplishing this desired result at present by another plan?—Which indeed we really are. But even then is it not the wiser course to anticipate snags that may be encountered in the future, and still more thoroughly safe-guard against them? To safe-guard against them by just as many other bulwarks of defense as possible? And to do so just as early and just as strongly as possible? Will anything be stronger against a recurrence of the evil conditions of the past than a provision like this in our State Constitution? If it is ever once put into it, will it ever be taken out? Hardly! It will likely be there as long as the State endures.

3rd.—The North would look with disfavor upon such a step.

Answer.—What if it did?

But, my friend, do not be too sure that it would. Since the War a very considerable portion of the colored population of the country has drifted into the North, and it has had very unsatisfactory experiences with them, by which and its additional experience in recent years—the experience of the whole country in fact, with the inhabitants of our insular possessions—the Phillipines, etc., that came under our flag as a result of the Spanish-American War, the eyes of the North are being opened as never before to the fact that the inferior races are not simply called inferior but are really so.—that they are unfit to ever govern themselves much less to take part in shaping the destinies of the white race, the highest in intelligence and in governing capacity, that the world has ever seen.

And moreover, if the North, a half century ago, under the influence of the then existing animosities engendered by the War, and at the time of the wild agitation and excitement of the "Reconstruction" (?) era with its overturning and destructive proceedings could nevertheless even in those passionate times, control itself partially and keep cool enough to see and realize, the great possible peril to every State—to their own States as well as the others, that lay in a constitutional provision which would render each State unable to exclude inferior races from office-holding if such need arose, and refuse to allow such a perilous measure to go into effect, there is no danger but what it would be equally conservative now, should a similar proposal ever be made, which, however, there is but little likelihood of.

4th.—It would not be treating the Negro right.

Answers.—Would it not? IS it not to the very best interest of the Negroes themselves, as well as to our own best interests to keep from them as far as possible everything by which they are prone to injure both themselves and ourselves?

5th.—It would, in a certain way, be to the disadvantage of the Democratic party, and conversely to the advantage of the Republican party, because some unstable Democrats now remaining in the party largely by reason of their fears of a return of the obnoxious conditions resulting from having Negro officials, might leave it if that fear was removed; and there is more cause now to fear a white Republican party than the black Republican party.

Answer.—There may be some measure of truth in this objection, but nevertheless, there ought to be a wider opportunity than there is now for white people to divide politically without danger—to be able to cast their ballots upon their ideas of men and measures, of principles and policies, without being overshadowed by a constant menace of a black cloud of incompetency and misrule, unless they hold together and vote solidly one way regardless of their differing views.

This measure will come some time, and it will be better for the Democratic party for it to come through it than for it to come through some other, and the present seems to be as favorable a time for it to be passed as will likely ever come.

If unfortunately, a greater need arose at some time for it than there is now, we might not find it as easy to get it then as is now. And if it is accomplished by means of the Democratic party along with other desirable measures, it can then proudly and confidently say, "We have done everything we know what to do, now to get all encumbrance of negroism off your shoulders; show us another thing that we can do to finish the job so well begun, and we will gladly do that too at the earliest possible moment and as efficiently as possible. And further than that, as long as we possess control of the offices of the State we will do everything possible to keep things that way, and to give you throughout, wise laws, economical, well-administered government, and a continuance of quiet, peaceful, prosperous times, so different in every way from the results that have always flowed from Republican administrations whenever we had one." All this the Democrats could than say as strongly, and even more strongly, than now, for then they would have gone still further than they have as yet gone along the road towards complete and permanent white control.

Will it not be better, far better, to do the very last possible thing that can at present be surely accomplished towards establishing safer conditions, along this particular line, and then trust to the enlightened intelligence of our patriotic voting citizens to look out for the future and its problems.?

6th.—In spite of the restrictions of the "grand-father suffrage clause," some negroes can still vote; and no party that takes the lead in establishing such a measure as this could ever hope to get any of their votes.

Answer.—Such an objection as this last one is not worth the paper it is written on, or the breath it would take to speak it. Do we get any such votes now? Did we ever get any of them? Would we want them if we could get them? On the contrary, are we not against all members of all inferior races taking part in politics at all? And is not one result that is to be hoped for as likely to follow the adoption of this measure that it would probably cause those who could still vote to more largely lose their interest therein, and thus make the control of them all the easily in the future?

Final Words.

These papers have been published in response to the Democracy-like effort of the Constitutional Commission to hear the voice of the people, to find out the wishes of those whose highest interests they are endeavoring to promote along various important lines. they have been carefully prepared to the be t of the writer's ability as a direct response to the Commission's courteous general invitation to the citizens of our State to submit to it suggestions of measures which they might deem would proved beneficial if embodied into the new constitution. They touch upon only one line, eligibilitiy-to-office, and they make but one suggestion along that line. The one single suggestion made by them is that office-holding in State offices be limited strictly to the white race. There are still other wise requirements that can be made relative to eligibility to office, but the restriction of limiting office-holding to white people is the only one advocated, suggested or even mentioned herein. In all that is said your minds are directed to that one simgle point. Joined with the suggestion is ample proof along several lines that the suggested measure can be incorporated into our new State Constitution without conflicting with the United States Constitution; and in addition to that, every objection, or reason that is known to the writer as to why we either ought not or need not, at the present time go ahead and insert this much longed for feature into our organic law, has been frankly stated and briefly discussed.

The answers to the advanced supposed objections, could be made fuller but there is no need for that. Merely to get the facts in the case before the able men who have the work immediately in charge is sufficient. The writer has but little acquaintance with these prominent gentlemen except by reputation, but he knows that some of then rank in legal attainment among the foremost of their profession in the State; and he is satisfied that all of them are men of solid worth, wide information, good hard common sense, strong patroitism, and are believers in and supporters of white supremacy. Into their hands he now gladly commits this little product of his self-inposed task, with the full confidence that they will give the feature to which it invites their attention, whatever measure of consideration of it, if they arrive at the conclusion that they are warranted in believing, as he does, that the opportune time has now arrived for this feature to become a part of our Supreme State law. that they will put in it, and he has no fear whatever but what the voters of the State will back up their work by a rousing majority when the time comes. And when this feature once becomes a part of our State Constitution it will remain a part of it; and as a consequence thereof never again will "The Good Old North State" be cursed by having a single State office filled by a member of any inferior race. So may it be.

And may all the Commission's work be so well done that the finished result of its labors could well serve and may perhaps indeed serve as a guide to other States seeking similar good results, and prove of such excellence and enduring value that it will be a source of good and a cause of pride to our own citizens even of future generations.