Race Distinctions in American Law

by Gilbert Thomas Stephenson

NOTES

[589]. Laws of Ia., 1870, p. 21.

[590]. Laws of Colo., 1897, p. 115.

[591]. Laws of Md., 1872, p. 134; 1876, p. 469.

[592]. In re Taylor, 1877, 48 Md. 28, at p. 33.

[593]. Bradwell v. State, 1872, 16 Wall. 130 at p. 142.

[594]. U. S. v. Rhodes, 1866, Fed. Case No. 16,151.

[595]. Laws of Ala., 1865–66, p. 98.

[596]. Ibid., 1866–67, p. 435.

[597]. Dolan v. State, 1886, 81 Ala. 11, at p. 17.

[598]. Kelly v. State, 1869, 25 Ark. 392.

[599]. Art. XIV, sec. 2.

[600]. Laws of Fla., 1865, pp. 35–36.

[601]. Art. II, sec. 5, par. 4.

[602]. Laws of Ky., 1865–66, pp. 38–39.

[603]. Bowlin v. Com., 1867, 2 Bush (Ky.) 5.

[604]. Art. III, sec. 53.

[605]. Laws of Miss., 1865, p. 83.

[606]. Ibid., 1866–67, pp. 232–33.

[607]. Laws of S. C., 1865, p. 286.

[608]. Laws of Tenn., 1865–66, p. 24.

[609]. Art. VIII, sec. 2.

[610]. Laws of Texas, 1866, p. 59; see Laws of Texas, 1866, pp. 131–32.

[611]. Ex parte Warren, 1868, 31 Texas 143.

[612]. Laws of Texas, 1871, p. 108.

[613]. Laws of Va., 1865–66, pp. 89–90.

[614]. Ibid., 1866–67, p. 860.

[615]. Statutes of Calif., 1863, p. 69.

[616]. People v. Washington, 1869, 36 Calif. 658.

[617]. Laws of Ind., 1865, p. 162.

[618]. Ibid., 1865, p. 161.

[619]. Laws of Nev., 1864–65, p. 403.

[620]. Laws of Wash., 1866, p. 91.

[621]. Ibid., 1869, p. 103.

[622]. Laws of W. Va., 1866, p. 85.

[623]. Stat. L., 336, chap. 114, par. 4.

[624]. Burns’s Annotated Revisal of 1901, II, sec. 3293.

[625]. Pub. Acts of Mich., 1885, p. 132.

[626]. Laws of N. Y., 1895, I, p. 974.

[627]. Laws of O., 1884, pp. 15–16; 1894, pp. 17–18.

[628]. Acts and Resolves of R. I., 1884–85, p. 171.

[629]. Laws of Ark., 1866–67, p. 99.

[630]. Laws of La., 1880, p. 52.

[631]. Laws of Miss., 1866–67, p. 233.

[632]. Laws of Tenn., 1865–66, p. 24.

[633]. Ibid., p. 65.

[634]. Ibid., 1867–68, pp. 32–33.

[635]. Va. v. Rives, 1879, 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Va., 1879, 100 U. S. 339; Strauder v. W. Va., 100 U. S. 303; Carter v. Texas, 1899, 177 U. S. 443; Rogers v. Ala., 1903, 192 U. S. 226.

[636]. Neal v. Del., 1880, 103 U. S. 370; Bush v. Com. of Ky., 1882, 107 U. S. 110; Ex parte Murray, 1895, 66 Fed. 297; Smith v. State, 1895, 162 U. S. 592; Binyon v. U. S., 1903, 76 S. W. 265.

[637]. Carter v. Texas, 1899, 177 U. S. 443, at p. 447.

[638]. Eastling v. Ark., 1901, 62 S. W. 584; Wilson v. Ga., 1882, 69 Ga. 224; Green v. Ala., 1882, 73 Ala. 26; Ky. v. Jackson, 1880, 78 Ky. 509; Hicks v. Ky., 1881, 3 Ky. Law Rep. 87; Haggard v. Ky., 1881, 79 Ky. 366; Smith v. Ky., 1896, 33 S. W. 825; La. v. Casey, 1892, 44 La. Ann. 969; La. v. Joseph, 1893, 45 La. Ann. 903; La. v. Murray, 1895, 47 La. Ann. 1424; Cooper v. Md., 1885, 64 Md. 40; Mo. v. Brown, 1894, 119 Mo. 527; Bullock v. N. J., 1900, 47 At. Rep. 62; N. C. v. Sloan, 1887, 97 N. C. 499; N. C. v. Peoples, 1902, 131 N. C. 784; N. C. v. Daniels, 1904, 46 S. E. 743; S. C. v. Brownfield, 1901, 60 S. C. 509; Williams v. Texas, 1875, 44 Texas 34; Cavitt v. Texas, 1883, 15 Texas Ct. of Ap. Rep. 190; Carter v. Texas, 1898, 46 S. W. 236; Collins v. Texas, 1900, 60 S. W. 42; Smith v. Texas, 1900, 58 S. W. 97; Parker v. Texas, 1901, 65 S. W. 1066; Hubbard v. Texas, 1902, 67 S. W. 413; Carter v. Texas, 1903, 76 S. W. 437; Fugett v. Texas, 1903, 77 S. W. 461; Martin v. Texas, 1903, 72 S. W. 386.

[639]. Whitney v. Texas, 1900, 59 S. W. 895.

[640]. Kipper v. Texas, 1901, 62 S. W. 420.

[641]. Leach v. Texas, 1901, 62 S. W. 422.

[642]. Smith v. Texas, 1902, 69 S. W. 151.

[643]. Smith v. Texas, 1903, 77 S. W. 453.

[644]. Thompson v. Texas, 1903, 74 S. W. 914.

[645]. McPherson v. McCarrick, 1900, 61 P. 1004.

[646]. Raleigh, N. C., News and Observer, Feb. 17, 1910.

[647]. Whitney v. Texas, 1901, 63 S. W. 879.

[648]. Laws of S. C., 1865, pp. 278–91; 1866, pp. 387–90.

[649]. Pace and Cox v. State, 1881, 69 Ala. 231.

[650]. Pace v. Ala., 1882, 106 U. S. 583. See also Ellis v. Ala., 1868, 42 Ala. 525; Lord v. Ala., 1875, 53 Ala. 150.

[651]. Laws of S. C., 1865, p. 271.

[652]. Laws of Fla., 1865, p. 24.

[653]. Laws of Ky., 1865–66, p. 42.

[654]. Ibid., 1869, p. 52.

[655]. Laws of Mo., 1903, p. 161.

[656]. Laws of Ky., 1904, p. 83.

[657]. Laws of Del., 1866–69, p. 161.

[658]. Laws of Miss., 1866–67, pp. 232–33.

[659]. Laws of S. C., 1866, p. 405.

[660]. Boston Post, May 22, 1909. The volume of New York reports containing this case is not yet accessible. It is referred to, however, in 117 N. Y. Sup., p. 116.

CHAPTER XI
SUFFRAGE

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified on March 30, 1870, reads: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” In the face of this unequivocal constitutional provision, it would seem impossible to have a legal race distinction in the matter of suffrage. It is plain that, if a State or the United States makes a law that in any way denies or abridges the right of a citizen to vote on account of his race, such an enactment is in violation of the Amendment. The only State or Federal statute or State constitutional provision involving a race distinction that would be valid under the Fifteenth Amendment would be one that did not amount to a denial or abridgment of the right to vote. For instance, a State might require white and Negro electors to cast their ballots in different boxes, or in different parts of the booth, or even in different booths; or it might require them to register on different days, or before different registrars. If the Negro was given the same opportunity to register and vote as the white man, the requirements of separate registering and balloting would be race distinctions in the matter of suffrage, but they would not be denials or abridgments of the right to vote and, hence, might be supported under the Fifteenth Amendment. Any such requirements have not been found in the State Constitutions or statutes; they are only suggested as possible race distinctions which might be permissible.

It follows, therefore, that the race distinctions to be considered in this chapter exist, not in conformity to law, as in the case of separate schools and public conveyances, but in defiance of law or by legal subterfuges, and are properly called discriminations.