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.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE BEFORE 1865

The suffrage requirements as to race up to 1865 serve as a background

for the events after that date. A review[661] of the acts of territorial

government and State Constitutions of the Territories and States of the

United States reveals the following facts: Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont appear not to have had any race

distinctions in suffrage. Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,

and West Virginia never permitted any but white males to vote at any

time between the Revolution and 1865. The Constitutions of Kansas[662]

of 1855 and of Minnesota[663] of 1857 permitted civilized Indians to

vote, though the same privilege was not extended to Negroes.

Kentucky,[664] in 1799, gave the suffrage to “free” persons, but

expressly excepted Negroes, mulattoes, and Indians. Texas,[665] in 1845,

gave the right to vote to free male persons but excepted Indians not

taxed, Africans, and descendants of Africans.

Besides the above-named States which either made no race distinctions at

all or else always made distinctions as to Negroes, several States, at

one time or another, extended a limited suffrage to Negroes. The

Constitution of New York[666] of 1821, giving the right to vote to male

citizens, had the provision that “no man of color, unless he shall have

been for three years a citizen of this State, and for one year next

preceding any election shall be seized and possessed of a freehold

estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all

debts and incumbrances charged thereon, and shall have been actually

rated and paid a tax thereon, shall be entitled to vote at any such

election.” There was no property test for white voters. The

Constitution[667] of 1846 had the same provision about Negro voters. The

question of equal suffrage to Negroes was submitted[668] separately in

1846, and rejected by a vote of 85,306 to 223,834. It was again

submitted in 1860, with like result, the vote being 197,503 to 337,984.

The Constitution of North Carolina[669] of 1835, as amended, provided

that no free Negro, free mulatto, or free person of mixed blood,

descended from Negro ancestors to the fourth generation inclusive,

though one ancestor in each generation might have been a white person,

should vote for members of the “senate or house of commons” of the

State. Negroes who paid a certain poll tax were allowed to vote until

this Amendment went into effect. Governor W. W. Kitchin,[670] of that

State, says: “There were 21,000 free Negroes in North Carolina in 1835,

4,000 of whom were entitled then to vote.” After 1835 Negroes were not

allowed to vote there again until after the War.

The Constitution of Tennessee[671] of 1834 provided that no person

should be disqualified from voting in any election who was then by the

laws of the State a competent witness in a court of justice against a

white person. One cannot tell how many Negroes were qualified to vote

under this provision. The Constitution of Wisconsin[672] of 1848 limited

the privilege of voting to white persons, but the Supreme Court[673] of

that State held in 1866 that suffrage had been extended to Negroes by a

vote of the people at the general election on November 6, 1849.

Several States which at first allowed Negro freemen to vote later

withdrew the privilege. Until the Revolution, they were allowed to vote

in every State except Georgia and South Carolina. Between 1792 and 1834,

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky denied the suffrage to

Negroes. As has been seen, North Carolina permitted a restricted Negro

suffrage until 1835. New Jersey took the suffrage from the Negro in

1807, Connecticut in 1814, and Pennsylvania in 1838; and Tennessee, in

1834, limited the right to those Negroes who were competent as witnesses

against white persons. New York, in 1821, required a very high property

qualification not required of white persons.[674] Wisconsin alone

changed its law so as to allow Negroes to vote on equality with white

persons. New York tried twice to do so, but failed each time.

In each of the acts of territorial government drawn up by Congress,

suffrage was restricted to free white persons. This fact, together with

the fact that the West Virginia Constitution of 1861–63 also restricted

the suffrage to white persons, tends to show the attitude of the

National Government in the early days toward Negro suffrage.

SUFFRAGE BETWEEN 1865 AND 1870

In 1865, the only States that permitted Negroes to vote on the same

footing as white persons were Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. New York and Tennessee permitted a

restricted Negro suffrage.

The changes in the suffrage laws between 1865 and 1870 indicate what

might have taken place had not the United States interfered with the

Fifteenth Amendment. The Reconstruction Constitutions[675] of the

Southern States in 1868 and 1869 extended the suffrage to Negroes. These

Constitutions, however, did not express the will of the Southern white

people at the time in regard to suffrage. The Constitution of

Maryland,[676] of 1867, permitted only white persons to vote; and that

of Nebraska,[677] of 1866–67, under which it sought admission to the

Union, did not give the suffrage to Negroes.

Negro suffrage was voted down in New York[678] in 1868, as it had been

in 1846 and 1860, by a vote of 282,403 to 249,802. By the act of

territorial government of Colorado, of 1861, suffrage was restricted to

white persons. But an act of the legislature[679] of that Territory,

enacted in November, 1861, seemed to extend the right to vote to

Negroes. This was amended,[680] however, in 1864, by expressly excluding

Negroes and mulattoes from the suffrage. The legislature of

Connecticut[681] of 1865 proposed an amendment to the Constitution

whereby Negroes would be given the right to vote, the same to be

submitted to the people for their ratification. Minnesota[682] and

Wisconsin,[683] in 1865, submitted constitutional amendments providing

for Negro suffrage. According to Representative Hardwick,[684] of

Georgia, “Negro suffrage was rejected by decisive majorities.” It was

after the 1865 Amendment had been defeated at the polls in Wisconsin

that the Supreme Court of that State, as has been seen, held that

Negroes had been given the right to vote by a law of 1849.

The word “white” was stricken from the Constitution of Iowa[685] by the

legislature of 1867–68, and this action was ratified by a vote of

105,384 to 81,384. Minnesota[686] amended its Constitution in 1868 so as

to extend suffrage to Negroes. On December 30, 1867, the word “white”

was stricken from the election laws of Dakota Territory.[687]

On June 8, 1867, Congress passed, over the President’s veto, a bill

first introduced in 1865 establishing Negro suffrage in the District of

Columbia. Before its passage, provision had been made by Congress to

submit the question to a vote of the people. The extension of suffrage

to Negroes was rejected by a vote of 6,521 to 35 in Washington City and

812 to 1 in Georgetown. In spite of this vote the Thirty-ninth Congress

ordained Negro suffrage for the District. After four years, the

government of the District was so changed that suffrage was taken from

all the residents. In 1866, Congress established Negro suffrage in all

the Territories of the United States.[688]

The second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, proposed June 16, 1866,

and declared in force June 28, 1868, reads: “Representatives shall be

apportioned among the several States according to their respective

numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding

Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the

choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United

States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers

of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, 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

therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male

citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one

years of age in such State.” The Amendment did not prohibit the denial

or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color, but

provided that, if such right was denied or abridged, the State must

suffer the consequence of having its representation in Congress reduced.

One feels safe in saying that the purpose of the National Government in

adopting this section of the Fourteenth Amendment was to induce the

States, particularly the Southern States, to extend suffrage to the

Negro. With the possible exception of Minnesota, no State appears to

have heeded the warning between 1868 and 1870.

One cannot say what would have been the result had the National

Government rested there—whether or not of their own accord the various

States would have extended the suffrage to Negroes—because, within less

than two years, the Fifteenth Amendment had deprived the States of any

choice in the matter by providing that they _must_ not deny or abridge

the right to vote on account of race or color.

SUFFRAGE BETWEEN 1870 AND 1890

At the time of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, in 1870, the

following States still restricted the suffrage to white persons:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,

Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

Illinois[689] adopted a new Constitution in 1870 which omitted the word

“white.” Missouri[690] amended its Constitution on November 8, 1870,

after the Fifteenth Amendment went into effect, by erasing the word

“white,” and Virginia,[691] in its Constitution of 1870, extended the

suffrage to “male citizens.” It is needless to say that all the

Constitutions adopted since 1870 have omitted the word “white” from the

suffrage qualifications, so it is not worth while to note the various

Constitutions and Amendments that have been adopted since that date. But

in some State Constitutions which have not been changed within the last

forty years, one still finds the provision that only “white male

citizens” are electors. This is true of Maryland.[692] Attempts have

been made to amend the Constitution by erasing the word “white,” but the

objection has been made that it is null and void[693] anyway by the

Fifteenth Amendment, and that it would be too expensive to call a

constitutional convention or hold an election solely for the purpose of

erasing a “dead” word.

The history of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment—the

opposition it provoked and the means that had to be adopted to procure

its ratification by the Southern States—is found in the records of

Congress, newspapers, and political discussions of that day. Very little

of it has been preserved in the laws of the States. In the following

resolution by the legislature of Oregon[694] is found one of the few

traces of the opposition to the Amendment occurring in the laws of a

State outside the South:

“Whereas, the State of Oregon was, on the fourteenth day of February,

A.D., 1859, admitted into the Federal Union, vested with the right to

declare what persons should be entitled to vote within her boundaries;

and until she, by her voluntary act, surrenders that right, the Congress

of the United States has no authority to interfere with the conditions

of suffrage within the boundaries of the State of Oregon: and

“Whereas, the Congress of the United States, by means of an arbitrary

majority of votes acquired by the power of the bayonet, has sought to

force upon the several States the so-called Fifteenth Amendment to the

Federal Constitution, in direct violation of the terms under which the

State of Oregon was admitted into the Sisterhood of States; therefore

“Be it resolved by the Senate, the House concurring:

“That the so-called Fifteenth Amendment is an infringement upon the

popular rights, and a direct falsification of the pledges made to the

State of Oregon by the Federal Government.

“Resolved, that the said Fifteenth Amendment be and the same is hereby

rejected.

“Resolved, that the Governor be requested to transmit copies of this

resolution to the Secretary of State of the United States and to the

Senators and Representatives from the State of Oregon in the Congress of

the United States.”

The probable explanation of this opposition of Oregon to the Fifteenth

Amendment lies in its unwillingness to give the ballot to the Japanese,

Chinese, and Indians in the State.

The feeling of New York[695] toward Negro suffrage in 1870 appears to be

different from that of Oregon. A statute was passed prohibiting any

registrar or inspector of elections to demand any oath or ask any

questions of a Negro different from what was demanded of white persons,

or to reject the name of any colored person from registry except for the

same causes as would make it his duty to reject the name of a white

person. The violation of this statute was a misdemeanor, punishable by a

fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment for six months.

In order to make the prohibitions of the Fifteenth Amendment effective,

on May 31, 1870, two months after the ratification of the Amendment,

Congress passed an Act,[696] the first section of which reads: “All

citizens of the United States, who are or shall be otherwise qualified

by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory,

district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality,

or other territorial division, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at

all such elections without distinction of race, color, or previous

condition of servitude, any constitution, law, custom, usage, or

regulation in any State, Territory, or by or under its authority, to the

contrary notwithstanding.”

The fourth section of the “Enforcement Act,” as the Act of 1870 was

called, provided for the punishment of any person who should, by force,

bribery, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means, hinder, delay,

or combine with others to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct any

citizen from doing any act required to be done to qualify him to vote,

or from voting at any election.

In 1875, two inspectors of a municipal election in Kentucky were

indicted for refusing to receive and count the vote of a Negro. The

Supreme Court[697] of the United States, to which the case came by

reason of a division of opinion of the Circuit Court, held that the

Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but rather

invested citizens with the right of exemption from discrimination in the

exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or

previous condition of servitude. The fourth section of the Act of 1870,

by its language, did not confine its operation to unlawful

discrimination on account of race or color and was, therefore,

unconstitutional. The “Enforcement Act” of 1870, like the Civil Rights

Bill of 1875, failed in its desired effect because it was too

far-reaching in its scope. Had the Act of 1870 been upheld, the Federal

authorities would have taken complete control of all elections, State as

well as Federal.

The years between 1870 and 1890 are known for the actual race

distinctions in suffrage. Between 1870 and 1877, the white people of the

South were largely disfranchised, not because of their race, but because

of their participation in the War. After 1877, the Negroes were largely

disfranchised by unlawful methods adopted by the white people of the

South. If this were a history of the actual race distinctions in

suffrage, it would be necessary to consider at length the “tissue

ballots,” the stuffing of ballot boxes, the intimidation of Negroes by

the Ku Klux Klan and other bodies of white men, and other election

devices and practices in the South at that time. But this study, as has

been said before, is confined to the race distinctions _in_ the law, not

those _in defiance of_ the law. Out of all the suffrage irregularities

of the period very little suffrage law was evolved. Few judicial

decisions and no statutes bearing directly on the relation of race to

suffrage have been found.

Some cases of intimidation of Negroes at the polls reached the courts of

record. In Lawrence County, Ohio, in 1870, for instance, two white men

by threats of violence kept three Negroes from voting. One of the white

men was convicted in the Federal court[698] under the Act of 1870, and

imprisoned six months; the other was acquitted because he had not been

heard to use threatening language. In 1871 a white man in South Carolina

was convicted in the Federal court[699] for conspiring to keep a Negro

from voting at a congressional election. The same year, in a contested

election for mayor of Leavenworth, Kansas, the defeated candidate

claimed that he would have been elected had not a number of Negroes been

improperly kept from voting. He did not show that they had been in the

ward thirty days as required by the election law of the State, and the

court[700] held that Negroes must satisfy the same requirements as to

residence as other voters. In a State election in Louisiana, in 1872, it

was claimed, upon the affidavits of four thousand voters, that the votes

of ten thousand Negroes had been suppressed because of their race and

color.[701] A tax collector in Delaware, in 1873, refused or failed to

collect taxes from Negroes when the payment of taxes was a prerequisite

to voting. The Federal court[702] held that it had jurisdiction because

the tax collector was a State officer and, thus, it was the State

denying and abridging the right to vote on account of race. Over one

hundred men were indicted in the Federal court of Louisiana in 1874 for

intimidating Negroes at the polls.[703] The same year the judges of the

municipal election of Petersburg, Virginia, were indicted for refusing

to allow a number of Negroes to vote.[704] In 1878, a Negro in Illinois

who was denied the right to vote at a school election sued and recovered

a hundred dollars damages.[705] In Georgia, in 1844, several white men

were convicted in the circuit court of the United States for

intimidating, beating, and maltreating Negroes to keep them from voting.

The Supreme Court[706] held that Congress had power to regulate Federal

elections and could prevent such intimidation.

It will be noticed that nearly all of the cases cited above are along

the same line—intimidation of Negroes to keep them from voting. Several

constitutional principles, however, relating to suffrage were evolved

out of the cases decided during this period. In some of these cases a

Negro was not a party at all. It was thought at first, for instance,

that suffrage was a right of citizenship and that the Fourteenth

Amendment entitled every citizen to vote. Consequently, a proceeding was

started in the courts of Kentucky in 1874 to establish the right of a

woman to vote. The case went up to the Supreme Court[707] of the United

States which held that the Constitution of the United States does not

confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. Next, it was thought that the

Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote upon Negroes, but the

case of United States v. Reese settled this point by deciding that the

Amendment did not confer upon Negroes the right to vote, but the right

not to be discriminated in voting on account of race, color, or previous

condition of servitude.[708] Despite the Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments, the principle remains that the individual States retain the

right to prescribe the qualifications for voting so long as they do not

discriminate against persons on account of race, color, or previous

condition of servitude.

SOUTHERN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENTS SINCE 1890

In 1890, a distinct departure was made in the development of the law of

suffrage. For thirteen years, roughly speaking, the Negroes had been in

a great measure disfranchised by the illegal means already referred to.

According to the Constitutions and laws of the Southern States, the

Negro had precisely the same right to vote as the white person. Yet he

did not vote, or, if he voted, his ballot came to naught. The Southern

white people, wearied of using underhand methods of eliminating the

effect of Negro suffrage, turned to seek a method under the law to

accomplish the same result. The Fifteenth Amendment seemed to offer an

insuperable obstacle. The problem was how to evade this constitutional

provision. Speaking of this difficulty, the Supreme Court of

Mississippi[709] said: “Within the field of permissible action under the

limitations proposed by the Federal Constitution, the Convention [the

Constitutional Convention of Mississippi, 1890] swept the field of

expedients to obstruct the exercise of suffrage by the Negro race. By

reason of its previous condition of servitude and dependency, this race

had acquired or accentuated certain peculiarities of habit, or

temperament, and of character, which clearly distinguished it as a race

from the whites. A patient, docile people; but careless, landless,

migratory within certain limits, without forethought; and its criminal

members given to furtive offences rather than the robust crimes of the

whites. Restrained by the Federal Constitution from discriminating

against the Negro race, the Convention discriminated against its

characteristics and the offences to which its criminal members are

prone.”

Beginning in 1890 the Southern States have, one by one, adopted new

Constitutions or amended their old ones so as to change considerably the

qualifications of voters. Suffrage amendments have been adopted by the

Southern States in the following order: Mississippi,[710] 1890; South

Carolina,[711] 1895; Louisiana,[712] 1898; North Carolina,[713] 1900;

Alabama,[714] 1901; Virginia,[715] 1901; and Georgia,[716] 1908.

Maryland[717] has made two separate attempts, one in 1905 and the other

in 1909, to amend its Constitution, but has failed in both instances.

Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas have not made any constitutional

changes in the matter of suffrage which might be called “Suffrage

Amendments.”

The phrase, “the Suffrage Amendments in the South,” has been used so

often that the idea prevails among those unfamiliar with the laws on the

subject that suffrage qualifications in the Southern States are

fundamentally different from those in other States. With the hope of

making plain wherein suffrage laws in the South are similar to and

wherein they differ from the corresponding laws of other States, a table

of the qualifications of electors in all the States and Territories of

the United States, including Alaska, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the

Philippines, is given (see pp. 322–339). The requirements for voters

will be taken in the order given in the tables and considered with

reference to the ways in which they lend themselves to race distinctions

and discriminations.

_Citizenship_

In order to vote, one must be a citizen of the United States or an alien

who has taken the formal step toward naturalization of declaring his

intention to become a citizen, with the exception that, in a few States,

an Indian who has severed his tribal relationship may vote. This

suffrage qualification does not easily lend itself to race distinction

or discrimination. It lies within the power of the United States, not of

the States, to say what alien residents may become citizens.[718] If

Congress says, as it does in the Chinese Exclusion Act,[719] that

Chinese not natives of this country cannot become citizens, it follows

that they cannot demand of a State the privilege of voting. At present,

a statute[720] specially provides for the naturalization of aliens of

African nativity and persons of African descent, requiring that the same

rules shall apply to them as to free white persons.

The only case that has been found involving the citizenship of a Negro

arose in Michigan in 1872.[721] A Negro, born in Canada of parents who

had been slaves in Virginia but who had gone to Canada in 1834, went to

Michigan at the age of twenty. The question was whether he was a citizen

of the United States and, so, entitled to registration as a voter. The

Supreme Court of the State held that, when his parents went to Canada,

they were no longer under the jurisdiction of this country. The son was

not born of citizens of the United States, nor was he born under the

jurisdiction of the United States, and, therefore, was not a citizen of

the United States.

The citizenship requirement in the Southern States is essentially the

same as that in other States and cannot be said, in any way, to involve

a race distinction.

_Age_

In all of the States and organized Territories an elector must be

twenty-one years of age or over. In the Philippines the age limit is

twenty-three. There seems to be no possible race distinction in the age

requirement. It may be that, because of the less careful record of dates

of birth among Negroes, more of that race are unable to prove that they

are twenty-one years old; but this is only a question of evidence.

_Sex_

All except four of the States limit the suffrage to males. This

requirement cannot possibly involve a race distinction.

_Residence_

All States and Territories require that the voter shall have resided for

a certain length of time previous to the election in the particular

State or Territory, in the County, and in the precinct, ward, town, or

other political division in which he offers to vote. The residence in

the State varies from three months to two years, in the County or its

corresponding division from thirty days to one year, and in the

precinct, ward, or town from ten days to one year. It is noticeable that

in the Southern States the required residence is, as a rule, somewhat

longer than in the other States. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia all require a residence of two

years in the State, while Rhode Island is the only State outside the

South that requires a State residence of that length. Mississippi is the

only State that requires a voter to be a resident of the precinct one

year. Louisiana requires six months in the precinct, while thirty days

is the favorite residence with the other States.

The greater term of residence required in the South may lend itself to

race distinction in case one race is more migratory than the other. If,

for instance, the Negro is more apt to move about from place to place

than the white person, more Negroes than whites will be unable to

satisfy the residence qualification.

_Payment of Taxes_

The following States require the payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite

to voting: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South

Carolina, and Tennessee. Of these Alabama, Arkansas, and North Carolina

require the payment of the poll tax for only one year preceding the

election; Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for two years preceding;

and Virginia, for three years preceding the election. Some States

require payment of both property and poll taxes; and some, only the

latter. The law of Delaware is that the voter must have paid a county

tax within two years, assessed six months before the election, not

specifying whether it is a poll or property tax. Georgia provides that

all taxes legally required since 1877 must have been paid six months

before the election. Pennsylvania requires the payment of a State or

county tax within two years to be assessed two months and paid one month

before the election. South Carolina demands, not only the payment of the

poll tax, but of all taxes for the preceding year. In the Philippines,

the elector must satisfy other tests or show payment of an annual tax of

fifteen dollars.

The payment of taxes as a prerequisite to voting is not peculiar to the

Southern States, such a requirement being found in Delaware,

Pennsylvania, and the Philippines as well. The poll tax and the

requirement of payment for more than the year next preceding the

election are found mostly in the Southern States. In the Philippines

alone, it appears, the payment of taxes is an alternative requirement;

that is, if one cannot satisfy this qualification, he may, nevertheless,

qualify under other tests; but in the States, he must not only show his

payment of taxes but be qualified as well in other respects.

In two ways this qualification lends itself to race distinctions. In the

first place, if Negroes are more shiftless and less inclined to pay

their taxes than white people, more of them will be unable to satisfy

this test. Secondly, if they are careless about preserving their tax

receipts for one, two, or three successive years, they will be unable to

prove the payment of taxes and, thereby, be disqualified to vote.

_Ownership of Property_

The next qualification may be said to be in a sense peculiar to the

Southern States, yet not entirely so. In Rhode Island, one must own

property worth one hundred and thirty-four dollars on which taxes of the

preceding year have been paid or must pay an annual rental of seven

dollars to be entitled to vote for city councillors and to vote on

questions of finances. In Alaska, to be entitled to vote in municipal

elections, one must be the owner of substantial property interests in

the municipality. In the Philippines, the voter must be able to satisfy

other tests or else be the owner of property assessed at two hundred and

fifty dollars.

The property test in the Southern States is an alternative of the

educational tests. That is, if the applicant cannot satisfy the

educational test but can satisfy the property test, he may register and

vote; or he may do so if he can satisfy the education but not the

property test. Unless special mention is made at the time, this will be

understood in the following discussion of these two qualifications. When

it is said that such and such property or educational qualification is

required, it is meant only that it is required in case its alternative

cannot be satisfied.

In Alabama, the property requirement is that the applicant for

registration be the owner or the husband of the owner of forty acres of

land in the State in which they reside or of real or personal property

worth three hundred dollars upon which taxes for the preceding year have

been paid. In Georgia the requirement is forty acres of land in the

State or five hundred dollars worth of property in the State. In

Louisiana, the requirement is three hundred dollars worth of property

and payment of the personal taxes. South Carolina prescribes three

hundred dollars worth of property on which the taxes for the preceding

year have been paid. Of the Southern States which have altered their

suffrage laws since 1890, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia have

not provided any permanent property test.

The property qualifications cause the disfranchisement of more of one

race than of the other only in so far as the first is more shiftless and

more delinquent in the payment of taxes than the other. If the Negro is

given the same opportunity as the white to acquire property, he has an

equal opportunity to register under the property clause of the suffrage

laws.

_Educational Test_

In no sense is the educational qualification peculiar to the Southern

States. As early as 1855, Connecticut required of voters ability to read

the State Constitution. The present requirement, as amended in 1897, is

ability to read the Constitution and statutes of the State in English.

In 1857, Massachusetts added as a prerequisite to voting ability to read

the Constitution of the State in English and write one’s name. The

Constitution of Wyoming of 1889 provides that the applicant for

registration must be able to read the Constitution of the State.

California, in 1894, required ability to read the Constitution in

English and write one’s name. Similar requirements were made in Maine in

1893 and in Delaware in 1900. In the territorial possessions of the

United States, a Hawaiian elector must read, speak, and write English or

Hawaiian, and a Filipino must speak, read, and write English or Spanish.

In the Philippines this qualification is an alternative of the ownership

of property; in Hawaii and the States mentioned above the educational

qualification is absolute.

In the Southern States now to be considered, it is to be remembered that

the applicant must satisfy either the education or the property test,

not both. In Alabama he must be able to read and write the Constitution

of the United States in English unless physically disabled. In Georgia

he must be able to read and write in English the Constitution of the

United States or of Georgia, or if physically disabled from reading and

writing, to “understand and give a reasonable interpretation” of the

Constitution of the United States or of Georgia, when read to him. In

Louisiana he must be able to read and write and must make his

application for registration in his own handwriting. Mississippi

requires that the applicant must be able to read or understand or

reasonably interpret any part of the Constitution of the State. North

Carolina requires ability to read and write the State Constitution in

English; South Carolina requires also an ability to read and write the

Constitution, but does not specify that the test must be in English.

Virginia does not declare that the applicant must be able to read and

write, but requires him to make his application for registration in his

own handwriting, and prepare and deposit his ballot without aid. This

does not apply to those registering under the “Grandfather Clause” to be

considered later.

All States[722] and Territories, except Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey,

North Carolina, South Carolina, and New Mexico have adopted a blanket

official ballot which is, in effect, the requirement of an educational

qualification for voting. By this system the State provides a uniform

ballot containing the names of all persons of all parties to be voted

for, and requires the voter to mark and deposit his own ballot. Where no

party emblem—as the elephant, cock, or anvil—heads the list of

candidates of a particular party, it is wellnigh impossible for one to

mark his ballot properly unless he is able both to read and write.

The Southern States are more lenient in their educational tests than

other States in allowing a person otherwise qualified to vote if he has

either education or property; while in the latter he must have a certain

amount of education no matter how much property he owns.

Educational qualifications easily permit race distinctions in several

ways. In the first place, registration officers may give a difficult

passage of the Constitution to a Negro, and a very easy passage to a

white person, or _vice versa_. He may permit halting reading by one and

require fluent reading by the other. He may let illegible scratching on

paper suffice for the signature of one and require of the other a

legible handwriting. But race discriminations in such cases rest with

the officers; they do not have their basis in the law itself.

The educational clause of the proposed Maryland suffrage amendment,

recently defeated at the polls by the voters of that State, restricted

the right to vote to a “person who, in the presence of the officers of

registration, shall, in his own handwriting, with pen and ink, without

any aid, suggestion, or memorandum whatever addressed to him by any of

the officers of registration, make application to register correctly,

stating in such application his name, age, date, and place of birth;

residence and occupation at the time and for the two years next

preceding; the name or names of his employer or employers, if any, at

the time and for the two years next preceding; and whether he has

previously voted, and, if so, the State, county, city, and district, or

precinct in which he voted last. Also the name in full of the President

of the United States, of one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the

United States, of the Governor of Maryland, of one of the Judges of the

Court of Appeals of Maryland, and of the Mayor of Baltimore City, if the

applicant resides in Baltimore City, or of one of the County

Commissioners of the County in which the applicant resides.” It is easy

to see how race discriminations could have been made under this proposed

amendment, but it need not be discussed inasmuch as it failed to become

law.

“_Grandfather Clauses_”

The “Grandfather Clauses” are, in a real sense, peculiar to the Southern

States, though there are a few somewhat similar provisions in other

States. For instance, Illinois, by its Constitution of 1870, allowed

those to vote who had the right to vote on April 1, 1848, provided, of

course, they satisfied the age, sex, and residence qualifications. When

Maine added its educational requirement in 1893, it provided that this

qualification should not apply to anyone who had the right to vote in

January, 1893, or to anyone sixty years of age at that time.

Massachusetts had made a similar provision in 1857. The Constitution of

Wyoming of 1889 had said that nothing in it, except the provisions about

idiots, lunatics, and convicts, should be construed to deprive any one

of the right to vote who had that right at the time of the adoption of

the Constitution. New Hampshire does not allow paupers to vote, but it

provides that one who served in the Rebellion and was honorably

discharged shall not be disfranchised because he has received aid from

the public. In the Philippines, one unable to satisfy the educational or

property test, may, nevertheless, vote if he held a substantial office

under the Spanish régime.

The principle of the “Grandfather Clause,” in short, is that one who is

not able to satisfy either the educational or property tests may,

nevertheless, continue to be a voter for life if he was a voter in 1867

or is an old soldier or the lineal descendant of such voter or soldier,

provided he registers prior to a fixed date. Alabama permits all who

served honorably in the forces of the United States in the War of 1812,

the War with Mexico, any war with Indians, the War between the States,

the War with Spain, or in the forces of the Confederate States or of the

State during the War between the States and the lawful descendants of

those and all who are of good character and who understand the duties

and obligations of citizens under a republican form of government, to

register before December 20, 1902. The clause in the Georgia

Constitution is like that of Alabama, except that the privilege is

extended to veterans of the Revolutionary War and their descendants, and

the character and understanding clause is permanent. To take advantage

of the “Grandfather Clause” in Georgia one must register before January

1, 1915. Louisiana provided that one entitled to vote in any State

January 1, 1867, son or grandson of such a one twenty-one years old or

over in 1898, or a foreigner naturalized before January 1, 1898, who had

resided in the State five years preceding his application for

registration, might register before September 1, 1898. North Carolina

allowed one who had the right to vote on January 1, 1867, and the lineal

descendant of such a one to be registered prior to December 1, 1908.

Before January 1, 1898, one could register in South Carolina who could

read the Constitution of the State or understand and explain it. In

Virginia one might register up to 1904 who, before 1902, served in the

army or navy of the United States or of the Confederate States or of

Virginia or who was the son of such a one, or who owned property on

which the State tax was one dollar, or who was able to read and explain

or to understand and explain the Constitution of the State. Mississippi

has no “Grandfather Clause.”

In Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia, the fact that one was a soldier

enabled him to register under the “Grandfather Clause”; in Louisiana and

North Carolina, that he was a voter in 1867. In each State the lineal

descendants of such soldiers or voters in 1867 might register under the

“Grandfather Clause.” In Alabama one might register, though he was not

an old soldier or descendant of one, if he understood the duties and

obligations of citizenship and was of good character. In Virginia and

South Carolina, one could register under the “Grandfather Clause” if he

could understand and explain the Constitution when read to him; and, in

Virginia, if he owned property taxed as much as one dollar a year.

The “Grandfather Clauses” are all temporary. Those classes of men

covered by the clauses are given a certain time within which to have

their names entered on a permanent registry. If they are once entered on

the permanent register, they are voters for life unless excluded because

of some crime or because they become public charges. If they fail,

however, to register within the limited time, and still wish to become

electors, they must satisfy the same tests as other applicants for

registration. For instance, one who could vote in North Carolina in 1867

might have his name entered on the permanent register prior to December

1, 1908, and thereby become a voter for life, though he had neither

property nor literacy; if he failed to register by that date, he had to

satisfy the educational test as any other applicant would have to do.

The length of duration of the “Grandfather Clauses” varies from a few

months to several years. Thus, the “Grandfather Clause” of South

Carolina was of avail from 1895 to 1898; of Louisiana, from May 16,

1898, to September 1, 1898; of North Carolina, from July 1, 1900, to

December 1, 1908; of Alabama, from 1901 to 1903; Virginia, from 1902 to

1904; and in Georgia, it extends from 1908 to 1915. It will be seen that

Georgia is the only State in which the “Grandfather Clause” is still in

force. All who registered within the dates given above are still

electors and will continue to be as long as they live unless excluded

from the suffrage because of crime or the like; those who have not

registered under the “Grandfather Clauses” cannot do so now, except in

Georgia.

The “Grandfather Clauses” are more nearly race distinctions than any

other sections of the suffrage laws for the reason that so many white

men in the Southern States and so few Negroes are either old soldiers or

descendants of old soldiers or had the right to vote in 1867. Yet they

are not, technically speaking, race distinctions because, if one was a

veteran or son of one, he might register regardless of his race or

color. As a matter of fact, a considerable number of Negroes in the

Southern States, who were Federal soldiers in the Civil War, have

registered under the “Grandfather Clauses.”

“_Understanding and Character Clauses_”

The “Understanding Clauses” do not have as large a place in the suffrage

laws of the Southern States as is commonly believed. In only two

States—Georgia and Mississippi—is the “Understanding Clause” permanent.

In Georgia, one may register if he is of good character and understands

the duties and obligations of citizens under a republican form of

government, although he has neither education nor property. In

Mississippi, one who cannot read may register if he can understand and

reasonably interpret the Constitution when read to him. A distinction

must be made between these two “Understanding Clauses.” In Georgia the

requirement is the understanding of the duties of citizens of a

republican form of government; in Mississippi it is understanding the

State Constitution when read. In three other States—Alabama, South

Carolina, and Virginia—the “Understanding Clause” of the Mississippi

type is part of the “Grandfather” section, and became inoperative with

the “Grandfather Clauses.” The Georgia provision which allows one to

register, regardless of education or property, if he is of good moral

character has a prototype in the Constitution of Connecticut which

requires all electors to be of good moral character, and the

Constitution of Vermont which requires the electors to be of quiet and

peaceable behavior.

It cannot be doubted that the permanent “Understanding Clauses” of

Mississippi and Georgia lend themselves to race discrimination. The

Constitution of Mississippi provides that the applicant for registration

must be able either to read or understand and reasonably interpret the

Constitution. The registrar who so desires may easily disqualify members

of one race by asking them to explain more difficult passages of the

Constitution or by requiring of them a more scholarly interpretation of

such passages than he demands of members of the other race whom he

desires to have qualify as electors. In Georgia the registrar who passes

upon an applicant’s understanding of the duties and obligations of

citizens under a republican form of government may set a higher standard

for one race than for the other.

_Persons Excluded from Suffrage_

Certain classes of persons are excluded from the franchise because they

are considered incapable or unfit to take a hand in governmental

matters. The classes excluded are practically the same in all the

States, and there is slight evidence of any race distinction in such

cases. The following States do not allow paupers to vote: Delaware,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Other States, including

Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, exclude the

inmates of public institutions of charity, Louisiana and Oklahoma making

an exception of Soldiers’ Homes. Practically all the States exclude

idiots and insane persons from the suffrage. Other classes, though not

excluded from the suffrage, are not allowed to get the required

residence to become electors. Thus, in a number of States, students in

schools, unless self-supporting, do not get the required residence by

living at the school. In a great majority of the States, soldiers and

sailors in service do not gain an electoral residence in a State,

county, or precinct by being stationed therein. California, Idaho,

Nevada, and Oregon exclude all but American-born Chinese. Where the

Chinese, because of the Federal naturalization laws, are incapable of

becoming citizens, they cannot be electors, because all the States

require the electors to be either citizens or persons who have formally

declared their intention to become citizens. Idaho, Maine, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, and

Wisconsin exclude tribal Indians, or, what is perhaps the same, Indians

not taxed.

All States exclude from the suffrage those who have been convicted of

certain crimes; that is, those who may have served out their terms of

imprisonment, but who have not been restored to their civil rights by

the executive department of the State. Treason and felonies like

embezzlement and bribery are the crimes most frequently mentioned. One

finds here a possible race distinction. The Southern States have greatly

added to the list of crimes which operate as an exclusion from the

suffrage. By the Constitution of Alabama of 1875, for instance, the

following were excluded from suffrage: Those convicted of treason,

embezzlement of public funds, malfeasance in office, larceny, bribery,

or any other crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The

last Constitution of Alabama is more specific; it mentions the following

crimes as having the effect of excluding from the suffrage those

convicted of them: Treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in

office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money

under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault

with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on

wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation,

crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the

penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crimes involving moral

turpitude; also any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp,

or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of

making or offering to make false return in any election by the people or

in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any

person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure

the registration of any person as an elector. Delaware and several other

States, on the other hand, exclude only those who have been convicted of

a felony. If, as the Supreme Court of Mississippi said, the Negro is

more given to furtive offences than to the robust crimes of the whites,

the exclusions of the Alabama law would seem to be directed toward these

offences. If more Negroes than whites are guilty of such crimes as

larceny and wife-beating, and of sexual irregularities, then the law

operates to disqualify for the suffrage more Negroes than whites.

SUFFRAGE IN INSULAR POSSESSIONS OF UNITED STATES

The suffrage qualifications in the insular possessions of the United

States are particularly significant in that they tend to show the

present attitude of Congress toward the elective franchise. The Act of

April 30, 1900, providing a government for the Territory of Hawaii,

restricts suffrage to those who can speak, read, and write the English

or Hawaiian language—a strict educational test. In the Philippines to be

an elector one must be a native of the Philippines, twenty-three years

of age or over, and must have paid an annual tax of fifteen dollars, or

be the owner of property assessed at two hundred and fifty dollars, or

be able to speak, read, and write English or Spanish, or have held

substantial office under the Spanish régime. It will be noticed that the

tax payment, educational, property, and office-holding tests are

alternatives, so the satisfaction of any one of the four is sufficient.

Manhood suffrage, as provided by the “Foraker Act”[723] of 1900, is

still in force in Porto Rico. But this seems destined soon to give way

to a restricted suffrage. Secretary of War Dickinson has recently issued

a report on the conditions in Porto Rico in which he suggests an

amendment of the suffrage laws to the effect that, after the general

election of 1910, the qualified voters for any election shall consist

only of citizens of the United States, who, with such other

qualifications as are required by the laws of Porto Rico, “are able to

read and write; or on the day of registration shall own taxable real

estate in their own right and name; or who are on said day _bona fide_

members of a firm or corporation which shall own taxable real estate in

the name of such firm or corporation; or on the day of registration

shall possess and produce to the Board of Registration tax receipts

showing the payment of any kind of taxes for the last six months of the

year in which the election is held.” President Taft, in transmitting the

report to Congress, indorsed Secretary Dickinson’s suggestions,

saying[723]: “It is much better in the interests of the people of the

island that the suffrage should be limited by an educational and

property qualification.” The above suffrage qualifications for the

insular possessions of the United States is evidence that the attitude

of Congress toward universal suffrage has been considerably modified

within recent years.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUFFRAGE AMENDMENTS

The first “Suffrage Amendment” of the Southern States, that of

Mississippi, was adopted twenty years ago, and yet no case involving the

constitutionality of these laws has been squarely presented to the

Supreme Court of the United States. The one most nearly in point was

Williams v. Mississippi[724] in 1898. Williams, a Negro, had been

indicted by a jury composed wholly of white men. The law required that a

juror should be an elector. Williams contended that the provisions of

the Constitution about suffrage were a scheme to discriminate against

Negroes, that the discrimination was effected, not by the wording of the

law, but by the powers vested in the administrative officers. The United

States Supreme Court refused to interfere, saying that the laws did not,

on their face, discriminate against the races, and that it “had not been

shown that their actual administration was evil, only that evil was

possible under them.”

Several suits[725] have been brought, the purpose of which has been to

test the constitutionality of these laws, but they have all been decided

on points of procedure or on technical grounds.

At present, the suffrage laws of the Southern States stand judicially

unimpugned in the light of the Fifteenth Amendment. Mr. John Mabry

Mathews[726] says that the Supreme Court has shown an “apparent desire

to shift the duty of redressing such wrongs [those arising under the

suffrage laws] upon the political department of the Government. So far

as Congress has given any indication of its attitude upon the subject,

it has intimated that the matter is one for judicial settlement. But the

absence of congressional legislation would in any case hamper the

efficiency of the courts in securing the practical enforcement of the

Amendment. The real reason behind the attitude of both Congress and the

courts is the apathetic tone of public opinion, which is the final

arbiter of the question. In the technical sense, the Amendment is still

a part of the supreme law of the land. But as a phenomenon of the social

consciousness, a rule of conduct, no matter how authoritatively

promulgated by the nation, if not supported by the force of public

opinion, is already in process of repeal.”

It cannot be safely conjectured what the Supreme Court will say when it

squarely faces the suffrage laws of the South in their relation to the

Fifteenth Amendment. Until then, each is entitled to his opinion. That

the citizenship, age, sex, and residence qualifications are in perfect

conformity to the Amendment there is no doubt. The qualifications of tax

payment, property, and education existed long before the Fifteenth

Amendment in the States of the men most active in securing the adoption

of that Amendment. It is hardly to be supposed that the Senators and

Representatives from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania understood the

Amendment they were advocating to be nullifying the suffrage laws of

their respective States. Moreover, a property or educational test is not

an abridgment or denial of the right to vote, because it lies within the

power of everyone, regardless of race, to accumulate property and

acquire literacy.

The “Grandfather Clauses” are the most doubtful parts of the suffrage

laws. In one sense, they are not at all a denial or an abridgment of the

right to vote. Granting that the property and educational tests are

constitutional, the “Grandfather Clause,” instead of abridging or

denying, enlarges the right to vote by giving the suffrage to those who

would be disqualified under the property or educational tests. Be that

as it may, the Southern States are more uneasy about the

constitutionality of these provisions than of any others. For instance,

at the last two sessions of the legislature of North Carolina bills were

introduced to extend the “Grandfather Clause” of that State to 1812 and

1816 respectively. In each case the bill was defeated, the argument

against it being that it was unwise to open up the suffrage question

again, lest the amendment be brought into court.[727]

A leading thinker on constitutional law has given the unpublished

opinion that the “Grandfather Clauses” are in violation of the tenth

section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States,

which says that no State shall grant any title of nobility. His idea is

that an order of nobility is created whenever a class of persons is

granted exceptional political privileges, that the old soldiers and

lineal descendants constitute such a class, and that the title of

nobility is “Elector,” whether expressed or not.

If the “Grandfather Clause” should be declared unconstitutional on the

ground just suggested or on any other ground, the next question would be

whether that would nullify the other sections of the suffrage laws, such

as the educational and property tests. This depends upon whether the

different sections of the laws are separable, whether the legislature or

the people would have adopted the educational and property tests, etc.,

if they had thought the “Grandfather Clause” unenforceable.[728] North

Carolina prepared for just such a contingency by inserting the following

section in its Suffrage Amendment: “That this amendment to the

Constitution is presented and adopted as one indivisible plan for the

regulation of the suffrage, with the intent and purpose to so connect

the different parts, and to make them so dependent upon each other that

the whole shall stand or fall together.”

MARYLAND AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

In the preceding section it has been assumed that the Fifteenth

Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution of the United States.

Whether or not this assumption is warranted is brought into question by

a recent action of the legislature of Maryland.

As has been said earlier in this chapter, Maryland has made two

unsuccessful attempts to amend its suffrage laws in such a way as would

disfranchise a large number of the present Negro voters in that State.

The letter of the Constitution of Maryland at present restricts suffrage

to _white_ male citizens; but it has been taken for granted that the

word “white” became inoperative under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Out of the discussion of Negro suffrage in Maryland has arisen the

question whether or not the Fifteenth Amendment itself is valid. At the

last session of the legislature of that State, that of 1910, the

so-called Digges Bills were introduced and passed by both houses. The

purpose of these bills was to disfranchise all Negroes who have not

owned five hundred dollars’ worth of property for two years before their

application for registration, upon which all taxes have been paid during

those two years. This disfranchisement applied only to State and

municipal elections. The bills failed to become laws only because they

were vetoed by the Governor of the State.

Upon the failure of the Digges Bills to be passed, a constitutional

amendment[729] was drafted and approved by the required three-fifths of

all the members of both houses of the legislature, which embodied the

same features as the Digges Bills. This amendment is to be voted upon by

the people at the general election in November, 1911. This amendment

provides for the Australian ballot and for uniform election laws

throughout the State. In the event of the amendment being declared

unconstitutional, the laws now in force in Maryland are to be revived

automatically.

The validity of the proposed Maryland amendment is directly dependent

upon the invalidity of the Fifteenth Amendment. Under the proposed

amendment, no property qualification whatever is required of _white_

male citizens applying for registration, while a heavy property

qualification is required of _every other_ male citizen—and this must

include Negroes—applying for registration. Thus, in violation of the

Fifteenth Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote

would be denied or abridged by the State of Maryland on account of race

or color.

The validity of the Fifteenth Amendment is questioned on the following

grounds, among others: (1) The fifth article of the Federal Constitution

provides that Congress, “whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem

it necessary,” shall propose amendments to the Constitution. It is

claimed that only thirty-nine of the sixty-six members of the Senate,

less than two-thirds, voted to submit the Fifteenth Amendment to the

States for their ratification. (2) Maryland was one of the two

States—the other being Delaware—that refused to ratify either the

Thirteenth, Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment. It is claimed, therefore,

that Maryland is not bound by the Fifteenth Amendment, which it did not

ratify. (3) The fifth article of the Constitution, after providing the

two ways in which the Constitution may be amended, adds that “no State,

without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the

Senate.” Upon this last clause, Mr. Arthur W. Machen, Jr., in a recent

article in _The Harvard Law Review_,[730] has founded an ingenious

argument that the Fifteenth Amendment is void. His reasoning on this

point is, in brief, that the State meant here is the citizens or voters

or the government of the State, and not the territory. By the

enfranchisement of the Negroes after the War, the composition of the

State was changed, a body of persons became part of the State who were

not a part of it before, and thus the State was deprived of its equal

suffrage in the Senate. Mr. Machen says: “The Fifteenth Amendment

amounts to a compulsory annexation to each State that refused to ratify

it of a black San Domingo within its borders. It is no less

objectionable than the annexation of the San Domingo in the Spanish

main.”

Whether or not any or all of the above objections and the others that

are urged against the Fifteenth Amendment are valid cannot now be

answered, because the validity of the Amendment has been assumed by the

courts rather than decided upon after argument. Until after the election

of November, 1911, attention will be centered upon Maryland. If the

proposed amendment to the State Constitution is ratified by the people,

then haste will no doubt be made to have its constitutionality tested,

in which case the validity of the Fifteenth Amendment will be directly

raised. The Southern States, as a rule, deplore this action on the part

of Maryland because they fear that it will open up the whole suffrage

question. It is deplored by people over the country as a whole because

they fear that it will revive the ill feeling among the sections

occasioned by Reconstruction.

EXTENT OF ACTUAL DISFRANCHISEMENT

It is impossible to say how many persons have been disfranchised under

the suffrage laws. No doubt many who are capable of satisfying the

qualifications do not register, or, if they register, do not vote. This

is probably due to the one-party system in the South. The following

figures show either the extent of actual disfranchisement or the

political apathy in the Southern States: In one county in Mississippi,

with a population of about 8,000 whites and 11,700 Negroes in 1900,

there were only twenty-five or thirty qualified Negro voters in 1908,

the rest being disqualified, it is said, on the educational test. In

another county, with 30,000 Negroes, only about 175 were registered

voters. In still another county of Mississippi, with 8,000 whites and

12,000 Negroes, only 400 white men and about 30 Negroes are qualified

electors. The clerk of court of a county in North Carolina, with a

population of 5,700 whites and 6,700 Negroes, writes that a Negro has

never voted in the County. As a general rule, taking the country at

large, about one person in five is a male of voting age. In Iowa four

out of five possible voters have actually voted in the last four

elections; in Georgia, a State of nearly the same population, the

proportion is one to six. In Mississippi, in 1906, only one out of

eighteen males of voting age actually voted; in Georgia, one out of

fifteen. In a district in Mississippi with a population of 190,885,

2,091 votes were cast for the Representative, John Sharp Williams, in

1906; in a district in Connecticut with a population of 247,875, 46,425

votes were cast for Representative Litchfield. These figures show that

the ratio of actual voters to total population in the Southern States is

astoundingly smaller than in other States.[731]

QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.

──────────────────┬────────────┬────┬───────┬───────────────────────────────

STATE OR │Citizenship.│Age.│ Sex. │ PREVIOUS RESIDENCE IN—

TERRITORY. │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┬──────────────┬─────────

│ │ │ │State.│ County. │Precinct.

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Alabama[714] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │2 yrs.│1 yr. │3 mo.

│U. S. or │yrs.│ │ │ │

│alien who │ │ │ │ │

│had declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention by│ │ │ │ │

│Nov. 28, │ │ │ │ │

│1901. │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Arkansas[732] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │1 mo.

│U. S. or │yrs.│ │ │ │

│alien who │ │ │ │ │

│has declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

California[733] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │90 da. │30 da.

│U. S. for 90│yrs.│ │ │ │

│days before │ │ │ │ │

│election. │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Colorado[734] │Citizen of │21 │Male or│1 yr. │90 da., 30 da.│10 da.

│U. S. or │yrs.│female.│ │in city or │

│alien who │ │ │ │town. │

│has declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention 4 │ │ │ │ │

│mo. before │ │ │ │ │

│election. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Connecticut[735] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │6 mo. in

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │town.

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┴────────────┴────┴───────┴──────┴──────────────┴─────────

──────────────────┬─────────┬─────────────┬─────────────

STATE OR │ Payment │Ownership of │ Educational

TERRITORY. │of Taxes.│ Property. │ Test.

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Alabama[714] │Poll │Owner or │Able to read

│taxes for│husband of │and write

│preceding│owner of 40 │Constitution

│year paid│acres of land│of U. S. in

│by Feb. │in State upon│English,

│1, before│which he │unless

│election.│resides or of│physically

│ │personal │disabled.

│ │property │

│ │worth $300 │

│ │upon which │

│ │taxes for │

│ │preceding │

│ │year have │

│ │been paid. │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Arkansas[732] │Poll tax │ │

│for │ │

│preceding│ │

│year │ │

│paid. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

California[733] │ │ │Able to read

│ │ │Constitution

│ │ │in English

│ │ │and write

│ │ │name.

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Colorado[734] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Connecticut[735] │ │ │Able to read

│ │ │Constitution

│ │ │or Statutes

│ │ │of State in

│ │ │English.

──────────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┴─────────────

──────────────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────

STATE OR │“Grandfather │“Character │“Understanding

TERRITORY. │ Clause.” │ Clause.” │ Clause.”

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Alabama[714] │One might │One might │

│permanently │permanently│

│register │register │

│before Dec. │before Dec.│

│20, 1902 (1) │20, 1902, │

│if he had │if he was │

│honorably │of good │

│served in the│character │

│forces of the│and │

│U. S. in the │understood │

│War of 1812, │the duties │

│War with │and │

│Mexico, any │obligations│

│war with │of citizens│

│Indians, war │under a │

│between the │republican │

│States, war │form of │

│with Spain, │government.│

│or in the │ │

│forces of the│ │

│Confederate │ │

│States or of │ │

│Ala. during │ │

│the war │ │

│between the │ │

│States, or │ │

│(2) if he was│ │

│the lawful │ │

│descendant of│ │

│one of the │ │

│above. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Arkansas[732] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

California[733] │Educational │ │

│test did not │ │

│apply to men │ │

│60 years old │ │

│when │ │

│amendment │ │

│took effect. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Colorado[734] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Connecticut[735] │ │Voter must │

│ │have good │

│ │moral │

│ │character. │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────

──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STATE OR │ PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE.

TERRITORY. │

──────────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬────────────┬────────

│ Paupers. │ Insane. │ Criminals. │ Indians. │Chinese.

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Alabama[714] │ │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Arkansas[732] │ │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts of │ │

│ │ │felonies. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

California[733] │ │Idiots and │Embezzlers of│ │Natives

│ │insane. │public │ │of

│ │ │moneys. │ │China.

│ │ │Convicts of │ │

│ │ │infamous │ │

│ │ │crimes. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Colorado[734] │ │Insane and │Convicts in │ │

│ │_non compos │prison. │ │

│ │mentis_. │ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Connecticut[735] │ │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts of │ │

│ │ │heinous │ │

│ │ │crimes. │ │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴────────────┴────────

──────────────────┬────────────┬────┬───────┬───────────────────────────────

STATE OR │Citizenship.│Age.│ Sex. │ PREVIOUS RESIDENCE IN—

TERRITORY. │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┬──────────────┬─────────

│ │ │ │State.│ County. │Precinct.

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Delaware[736] │Citizen of │22 │Male. │1 yr. │3 mo. │30 da.

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Florida[737] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Georgia[718] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Idaho[738] │Citizen of │21 │Male or│6 mo. │30 da. │

│U. S. │yrs.│female.│ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Illinois[739] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │90 da. │30 da.

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

──────────────────┴────────────┴────┴───────┴──────┴──────────────┴─────────

──────────────────┬─────────┬─────────────┬─────────────

STATE OR │ Payment │Ownership of │ Educational

TERRITORY. │of Taxes.│ Property. │ Test.

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Delaware[736] │Paid │ │Able to read

│county │ │Constitution

│tax │ │in English or

│within 2 │ │write name.

│years, │ │

│assessed │ │

│6 mo. │ │

│before │ │

│election.│ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Florida[737] │Poll tax │ │

│for 2 │ │

│years │ │

│preceding│ │

│paid. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Georgia[718] │All taxes│Owner of 40 │Able to read

│legally │acres of land│and write in

│required │in State on │English

│since │which he │Constitution

│1877 paid│resides or of│of U.S. or of

│6 mo. │personal │Ga., unless

│before │property in │physically

│election.│State worth │disabled.

│ │$500. │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Idaho[738] │ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Illinois[739] │ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┴─────────────

──────────────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────

STATE OR │“Grandfather │“Character │“Understanding

TERRITORY. │ Clause.” │ Clause.” │ Clause.”

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Delaware[736] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Florida[737] │ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Georgia[716] │One may │One without│One physically

│permanently │property or│disabled from

│register │education │reading and

│before Jan. │may vote, │writing may

│1, 1915 (1) │if he is of│vote if he can

│if he has │good moral │understand and

│honorably │character │reasonably

│served in │and │interpret the

│forces of │understands│Constitution

│U.S. in │the duties │of U.S. or of

│Revolutionary│and │Ga. when read

│War, War of │obligations│to him.

│1812, War │of citizens│

│with Mexico, │under a │

│any war with │republican │

│Indians, war │form of │

│between the │government.│

│States, war │ │

│with Spain, │ │

│or in forces │ │

│of │ │

│Confederate │ │

│States or of │ │

│Ga. in war │ │

│between the │ │

│States, or │ │

│(2) if he is │ │

│lawful │ │

│descendant of│ │

│one of above.│ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Idaho[738] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Illinois[739] │One who was │ │

│an elector │ │

│April 1, │ │

│1848, │ │

│continued to │ │

│be elector │ │

│under new │ │

│Constitution.│ │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────

──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STATE OR │ PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE.

TERRITORY. │

──────────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬────────────┬────────

│ Paupers. │ Insane. │ Criminals. │ Indians. │Chinese.

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Delaware[736] │Paupers. │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts of │ │

│ │ │felonies. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Florida[737] │ │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Georgia[716] │ │Idiots and │Unpardoned │ │

│ │insane. │convicts. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Idaho[738] │ │Idiots, │Convicts of │Tribal │Natives

│ │insane, and │felony, │Indians not │of

│ │persons under│bigamy, │taxed. │China.

│ │guardianship.│polygamy, and│ │

│ │ │inmates of │ │

│ │ │houses of │ │

│ │ │ill-fame. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Illinois[739] │ │ │Unrestored │ │

│ │ │convicts of │ │

│ │ │felony or │ │

│ │ │election │ │

│ │ │bribery. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴────────────┴────────

──────────────────┬────────────┬────┬───────┬───────────────────────────────

STATE OR │Citizenship.│Age.│ Sex. │ PREVIOUS RESIDENCE IN—

TERRITORY. │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┬──────────────┬─────────

│ │ │ │State.│ County. │Precinct.

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Indiana[740] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │6 mo. │60 da. in │30 da.

│U. S. or │yrs.│ │ │town. │

│alien who │ │ │ │ │

│has declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention if│ │ │ │ │

│resident in │ │ │ │ │

│U. S. 1 yr. │ │ │ │ │

│before │ │ │ │ │

│election. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Iowa[741] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │6 mo. │60 da. │

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Kansas[742] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │6 mo. │ │30 da.

│U. S. or │yrs.│ │ │ │

│alien who │ │ │ │ │

│has declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Kentucky[743] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │60 da.

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Louisiana[712] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │2 yrs.│1 yr. │6 mo.

│U. S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┴────────────┴────┴───────┴──────┴──────────────┴─────────

──────────────────┬─────────┬─────────────┬─────────────

STATE OR │ Payment │Ownership of │ Educational

TERRITORY. │of Taxes.│ Property. │ Test.

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Indiana[740] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Iowa[741] │ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Kansas[742] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Kentucky[743] │ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────

Louisiana[712] │Poll tax │Owner of │Able to read

│for 2 │property │and write and

│years │worth $300, │make

│preceding│on which, if │application

│election │personal, │for

│paid, │taxes paid. │registration

│unless │ │in his own

│voter is │ │handwriting.

│60 yrs. │ │

│old. │ │

──────────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┴─────────────

──────────────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────

STATE OR │“Grandfather │“Character │“Understanding

TERRITORY. │ Clause.” │ Clause.” │ Clause.”

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Indiana[740] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Iowa[741] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Kansas[742] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Kentucky[743] │ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

│ │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────

Louisiana[712] │One might │ │

│permanently │ │

│register │ │

│before Sept. │ │

│1, 1898, (1) │ │

│if he was │ │

│entitled to │ │

│vote in any │ │

│State, Jan. │ │

│1, 1867,(2) │ │

│son or │ │

│grandson of │ │

│such a one │ │

│and 21 years │ │

│old or over │ │

│in 1898, or │ │

│(3) a │ │

│foreigner │ │

│naturalized │ │

│before Jan. │ │

│1, 1898, │ │

│resident in │ │

│State 5 years│ │

│before │ │

│application │ │

│for │ │

│registration.│ │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────

──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

STATE OR │ PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE.

TERRITORY. │

──────────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬────────────┬────────

│ Paupers. │ Insane. │ Criminals. │ Indians. │Chinese.

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Indiana[740] │ │ │Convicts of │ │

│ │ │infamous │ │

│ │ │crime during │ │

│ │ │term fixed by│ │

│ │ │court. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Iowa[741] │ │Idiots and │Convicts of │ │

│ │insane. │infamous │ │

│ │ │crime. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Kansas[742] │ │Insane and │Unrestored │ │

│ │persons under│convicts of │ │

│ │guardianship.│treason, │ │

│ │ │felony, │ │

│ │ │bribery, │ │

│ │ │embezzlement.│ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Kentucky[743] │ │Idiots and │Convicts of │ │

│ │insane. │treason, │ │

│ │ │felony, and │ │

│ │ │bribery. │ │

──────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────

Louisiana[712] │Inmates of │Idiots and │Felons under │ │

│charitable │insane. │indictment. │ │

│institutions,│ │ │ │

│except │ │ │ │

│soldiers’ │ │ │ │

│homes. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴────────────┴────────

──────────────────┬────────────┬────┬───────┬───────────────────────────────

STATE OR │Citizenship.│Age.│ Sex. │ PREVIOUS RESIDENCE IN—

TERRITORY. │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┬──────────────┬─────────

│ │ │ │State.│ County. │Precinct.

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Maine[744] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │3 mo. │ │

│U.S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Maryland[745] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │

│U.S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Massachusetts[746]│Citizen of │21 │Male. │1 yr. │6 mo. │6 mo.

│U.S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Michigan[747] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │6 mo. │20 da. │20 da.

│U.S. or │yrs.│ │ │ │

│alien who │ │ │ │ │

│has declared│ │ │ │ │

│intention │ │ │ │ │

│before May │ │ │ │ │

│8, 1892. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Minnesota[748] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │6 mo. │30 da. │30 da.

│U.S. 3 mo. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│before │ │ │ │ │

│election. │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┼────────────┼────┼───────┼──────┼──────────────┼─────────

Mississippi[710] │Citizen of │21 │Male. │2 yrs.│1 yr. │1 yr.

│U.S. │yrs.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ │

──────────────────┴────────────┴────┴───────┴──────┴──────────────┴─────────