The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-19

Some POin Is in Mr.. Stephens Testimony.
THERE resome points in the testimony of
Mr.. ALEXANDER STEPHENS before the Re-
construction Committee worthy OF comment.
He testifles emphatically to the industry and
general good conduct of the freedmen. he
says that they are generally at work, and
that their behavior is "much better than the
most hopeful looked for" So much for
predictions that the freed black man would
not work, and would become vsgrant.
Mr.. STEPHENS thinks that the Southern
people still adhere to their belief in the
abstract right of secession, but that they
would never again attempt to exercise it to
the extent Of inaugurating war. This change
of opinion as to the policy of seeking to
carry out their views by force he ascribes
mainly to the operations of the war among
themselves, and the breaking down of indi-
vidual rights of person and property by their
own authorities. The wrongfulness of at
tempting to overthrow free, representative
Government by force does not seem to be
comprehendedby MIR. STEPHENS or the South
ern people generally.
Upon the point of suffrage and representa-
tion Mr.. STEPHENS is quite emphatic. The
people-that is, the tohite people-of Georgia,
he thinks, would neither be willing to bestow
the right of suffrage upon the negroes, nor,
on the other hand, to exclude them from the
basis OF representation; and If the PROPOSE
| ton were made to the State, as a condition
precedent to the admission of her representa-
tives in Congress, either that suffrage should
be conferred upon the colored population, or
that they should be excluded from the basis
of representation, he tbinEs such PROPOSE
! ton would and should be rejected That is
! to say, Georgia proposes to disfranchse
nearly one-half of her whole population as
unfit to be trusted with political power, and
yet to augment her representation in Con-
gress and in the Electoral College by count
ing in this same disfranchised popula-
/ ton. To show the monstrous character of
this proposition, we shall adduce few figures
and institute some comparisons. Mr..
STEPHENS testihes that the present voting
population of Georgia is $4,000. This is
evidently liberal estimate, but we will &C.
cept it. Her representation in Congress,
under the apportionment of 1860, is seven.
|
fifths of the colored populauon-then slaves
were counted, while now, as free men, the
whole number would be counted another
Congressman would be added to the Georgia
delegation, making eight. However, we will
take seven as the standard Eighty thousand
voters in Georgia, then, are to be represented
by seven Congressman. New Jersey, last fall,
polled over 10000 votes, yet she has but foe
representatives. According to the Georgia
rate she ought to have eleoen. Hence, each
reconstructed Rebel in Georgia, according to
/ STEPHENS plan, would WELD more than
twice the power in Congress of loyal citizen
OF New Jersey.
Iowa, in 1864, polled over one hundred and
thirty-six thousand votes. She has six repre-
sentatiyes According to the Georgia rate she
ought to have twelve.
Hence Georgia is to have twice the power
in Congress that Iowa has; or, to be more
specific, eleven voters in Georgia will WELD as
much power as twenty-six voters in Iowa.
Take cur own State. Pennsylvania polled
in 1854 over $4,000 votes She has twenty
four representatives.
According TO the Georgia rate she ought to
have 1fty-tauo In other words, eleven voters
in Georgia are to have as much influence in
all national affairs as twenty-three voters in
Pennsylvania.
We need not pursue these comparisons
further. They show that Mr.. STEPHENS
plan Of reconstruction is one which never can
and never ought to be accepted.
There are only two more points in this tes-
timony to which we will allude. In reply to
the question, whether he was to be understood
as holding the opinion that the Government
bad no constitutional power to exact condi-
tions precedent to the restoration of political
power to the lately rebellious States Mr..
STEPHENS replied that such was his opinion.
In reply to the further question, whether he
held the same opinion respecting the constl-
tutional amendment abolishing slavery? he
said that he did. This, it will be seen, opens
the door to the future reputation of the
amendment by the Southern States, although
Mr.. STEPHENS took occasion to avow his be-
lief that said amendment had been adopted in
good faith.
Mr.. STEPHENS claims in his testimony that
Immediately upon the cessation of the war
the rebellious States were entitled to resume
their old relations and claim all of their old
rights under the Constitution. In other
words, a State may secede, rebel, wage war,
join foreign power. exert its utmost endea-
! ~