New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-03-28

Amid the shame and sorrow to which we are SUD-
jected by the efforts Of the slsveholdIng mpor-
ify of the Supreme Court of the United States IN
bold defiance Of historical truths, o. well a Of tne
plainest and most universal admitted pr ncIPes OF
legal Interpretation, to force upon the Constitution
Of the United States theological inierPre sHon' We
are not left without conso alton. CotenPors
neously with this new and saraIas proof OF the
rapid progress Of that Pro. Slavery astcisn when
with tie last twenty years has 90 totally subjected
to its control and service not only the religion, the
morals and the laws of the Sou'h, but 50 many OF
the political and pecuniary leaders Of the North II
ia gratifying to note many evidences Of powerful
csunter current setting in the opposite direction
Consp cuOus among there are the efJrts now max
ing in this Stale a. well as in Connecticut to carry
back the State Constitutions to those principles OF
equal rights upon which they were originally estao'
lished; principles abandoned at comparatively
recent period through slaveholding influences, and
out Of an iL:judged complaisance " our Southern
brethren; cODplaisance from which We have
reaptd 10 fruits except the grossest ndgnites ana
bumlisiions, and spirit Of usurpation on the part
Of the shareholders which has eliminated in the extra
ordinary judicial pronunciamiento above referred TO-
The very decided msjori.es BY which both Houses
of State Legislature have passed the resolutions
for amending the State Constitution, 80 as to give
colOred men equal right of voting with other citi-
zens, u.s. we doubt net an indication of pubic sent.
melt on that subject, and foreshadOws speedy re-
turn, as to that Natter to the original docsr ne and
practice, not Of New York merely, but We may say of
the Union. For in spite of the assertions iguoran iy
or sudaciously made by Mr.. fancy, for himself and
his slaveholdng brethien-and probably in those
trions there was considerable mixture Of both
ignorance and sudacity-it is nevertheless an un-
questionable fact that only two Of the State ConsH-
,uiions first adopted excluded anybody from tho
right Of suffrage on The ground of color.
The Constitutions put in force in 1776 by South
Carolina and Virginia, in fixing the right Ofsuhrage,
referred merely to the qualifications which had pre-
yioutly been required by the colonial laws. Now,
sn election act passed in South Carolina as early as
ZIG restricted the right Of suftage to "wbite men
and 10 Others" while an &C. of Virginia, which
q correspondent calls attention to in another
co umn, followed up long series ofpersecutng en-
acmt nts against free negroes and mulattoes BY de-
priving them Of the right of voting. The second
Constitution of South Carolina, adopted in IT'S,
COL fined the right of voting in terms to "free white
men,"
BY the Constitution originally adopted in all the
other States, the right of voting wss bestowed
on all /" treemen" or inhabitants possessed Of
certain qualifcat OILS Of residence age or property
AID under til provision free negrces having the
other requisite qualifications we're allowed to v,se
equally with whites. Previous to the adoption Of the
Federal Constitution, South CatOlioa had found no
imitaiors, e1 cept in the passage of law in the
State of Delaware early in 1877 deprising slaves
manumitttd under the laws of that are, aud their
ISSUE Of the right Of yOting-an exclusion followed
I'D in tie second Constitution Of Deaw ware, adopted
in 1892, by copying from South Carolina the restric
ton Of the right of voting tO free white citizens"
The same provision was introduced into the CoDs.i-
tuition Of Kentucky ad"p ed the same year. But
the new State Of Tennessee, which framed its Con-
stituton 10 1896, did MT follow this example
Tennessee adhered to the provision On the subject
in the North Carolina Constitution, and gave the
right Of suffIsge to every "freem.n possessing a
freehold in aJy county, or resident for six months
in the county in which he offered to vote.
Ohio, whose Constitution was formed in 1902
was the first of the Free States to adopt this pro-
hbitiop for which in her case the excuse was urged
that it would prevent an influx Of free colored
settlers from the adjoining Slave States. Alb nut
the san time Maryland, in which the free colored
population was becoming considerably numerous,
partially adopted the same policy. By an amend
ment to Der Constitution 10 1eO2, the right of vot
ing for State officers was taken away from the free
coloIed people of Baltimore and Annapolis, who,b
a sub eluent amendment in $780, were also de-
priyed Of their right to vote for Presidential Eject
ors and Representatives to Congress; bat these
Amendments still left the right CT outrage 10 pos
session of the cOlored people in other parts of the
State.
The Constitution Of Louisiana, adopted in 1872
contained, as might be expected, the exclusive
clause. Not only Mississippi and Atsoau. in 1917
ard 1919. but Indiana in 1914 and Illinois ia 1875
adopted the same policy.
In 1918, the Democratic party in Connecticut
succeeded, by the aid of the dissatisfied Episcopa-
lisps of that Siae in calling Convention to frame
a Safe Constitution. The Connecticut Democrats
had always been the tools and very humble servants
Of the slayeho ding ars'ocracy, and Of course, as
CHI be exps ct.d, they followed the wishes of their
masters spd gave proof that their dem ,cracy was
of tie true Southern stamp. by DISTINGUISHING the
colored population, and inserting clause in their
State Cons tuition by which the right Of voting
was conf ed to "whie male citizens Of the United