There was never, therefore, any ground for the alleged apprehension of negro domination as a result of a free, fair, and honest election in any one of the Southern or Reconstructed States.
And this brings us to a consideration of the question, What is meant by "Negro Domination ?" The answer that the average reader would give to that question would be that it means the actual, physical domination of the blacks over the whites.

But, according to a high Democratic authority, that would be an incorrect answer.

The definition given by that authority I have every reason to believe is the correct one, the generally accepted one.

The authority referred to is the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, H.H.

Chalmers, who, in an article in the _North American Review_ about March, 1881, explained and defined what is meant or understood by the term "Negro Domination." According to Judge Chalmers' definition, in order to constitute "Negro Domination" it does not necessarily follow that negroes must be elected to office, but that in all elections in which white men may be divided, if the negro vote should be sufficiently decisive to be potential in determining the result, the white man or men that would be elected through the aid of negro votes would represent "Negro Domination." In other words, we would have "Negro Domination" whenever the will of a majority of the whites would be defeated through the votes of colored men.