5. Proceeding with this proposition, I exhibit it as petrifying in the Constitution the wretched _pretension of a white man’s government_. At this moment, when we are striking the word “white” from the national statutes, when this word has disappeared even from Post-Office laws, when, by a vote of the House of Representatives, it has been condemned in the laws regulating the elective franchise in the District of Columbia, it is proposed to insert an equivalent in the Constitution itself. To exhibit this shame is surely enough to make you turn away from it. Do not say that this is not proposed. What is the concession that the elective franchise may be denied or abridged “on account of race or color” but an insertion of the word “white” in the National Constitution? In that text, as it still stands, from beginning to end, from the preamble to the signature of George Washington, or the last word of the last Amendment, there is no recognition of “color.” For the sake of decency, keep it so. * * * * * 6. Proceeding still further with the proposition, I exhibit it as assuming, what is false in Constitutional Law, _that color can be a qualification for an elector_. The Constitution says that “the electors in each State shall have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Of course this leaves open the question, What is meant by “qualifications”? But this word must be interpreted in the light of the Constitution, which knows no “color,” and again in the light of the Declaration of Independence, which knows no “color,” and yet again in the light of common sense, which refuses to recognize “color” as a “qualification,” in any just sense of the term. Consult the dictionaries of the day, and you will find it means “fitness,” “ability,” “accomplishment,” “the state of being qualified”; but it does not mean “color.” It is applicable to the conditions of age, residence, character, education, property, and the payment of taxes; but it cannot be applicable to “color.” The English dictionaries most in vogue at the time of our fathers were those of Bailey and Johnson. According to Bailey, who was the earliest, “qualification” is defined:-- “(1.) That which fits any person or thing for any particular purpose.” “(2.) A particular faculty or endowment, an accomplishment.” According to Johnson, who is the highest authority, it is defined:-- “(1.) That which makes any person or thing fit for anything.” “EXAMPLE.--It is in the power of the prince to make piety and virtue become the fashion, if he would make them necessary _qualifications_ for preferment.--SWIFT.” “(2.) Accomplishment.” “EXAMPLE.--Good _qualifications_ of mind enable a magistrate to perform his duty, and tend to create a public esteem of him.--ATTERBURY.”