The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-17
IMPARTIAL SUFFRAGE AND UNI
vERsAL AMNESTY.
The MOvemen in the Democratic Party
The south Likely to Accept the
Terms-RepOrt of their Approval by
the President.

WASHINGTON, Friday, November 16. The
movement OF leading Democratic newspapers ia
the Fast and West in favor of impartial suffrage
has caused decided sensation in Washington,
especially among officials and Southern men.
The latter declare that the South will accept i'm
partial suffrage in preference to ratifylng the
Constitutional amendment. A Well-known New
Orleans editor, now here, favors 1t, and the Hon.
w. H. Trescott, of South Carolina, who was an
officer OF the Confederate Government, aud
formerly Assistant Secretary of State under
Buchanan arrived here to-day, and says South
Carolina prefers II to the amendment 1t i5
rumored tonight that the President will recon-
mend universal amnesty for impartial suffrage
in his forthcoming message.
The Chicago Times contains substantially the
above.
The Boston ''Post" Follows the Lead Of
the Chicago 'Times."
The Boston Post the leading Democratic
paper in New England, yesterday contained the
following editorial article:-
When those who talk louGest about universal
suffrage are taken seriously at what they say
they betray the hollowness of the dogma and
the iusincerity of their professions by at once
abandoning both. 1t could not be expected OF
them in reason that they should do less. I'm
partial suffrage is guarded by proper restrlc-
tions, so that the fountain of political power
may not be polluted. Universal suffrage means
throwing down OF e1try barrier, in the shape
of qualification and condition, by which the
source of authority is kept from protanation
and tossing into the trampled arena of party
strife the very safeguard that permits such con-
tests in popular governments at ALL
Impartial suffrage Is strictly according to
Democratic theory and rule; 1t is impossible TO
conceive from what other it derives 1t support.
But its very name implies the existence of some
sort OF qualification; that, for instance, its en-
ioyment shall be put upon an impartial obe-
dience to some requisition that is standard. To
establish no Standards debaslng the very auLho-
Tity derived; the abandonment of all conditions
is an outright annlhlauon of the value of the
franchise. When the founders of our repub-
hCan government laid broad and deep their
plans, they had much to say on the purity of
the ballot ard the due protection of the fran
Chise. All their discussions of the subject 90 to
prove that they thought the stability of the
structure was TO depend on the soundness of its
foundations, and that chief among those ioun-
dations was the protected ballot They did hold
that all power was derived from the consent of
the governed, but they had never learned to
stultlfy themselves by claiming that all alike
possessed the right to vote because OF their
level qualifications.
tory, with the State Governments for their own
management; and there alone it belongs to-day.
We realize that new school of Xperimentaltsts
has emerged from the chaotic style OF think
ing generated by the temporary tumults OF war,
who seem to believe that the bolder their
assumptions the better chance for them TO
obtain foOthold, and whose leading tenet is
that the war for The Union under the Constitu-
tion has been successful only 1T has over
thrown Union and Constitution together; but
they advance no reasons, and employ no sub.
work of the trainers OF our system. The most
they can say is that things are changed. But
the purpose OF the war was not to revolutionize,
but to establish. 1t Is not more competent for
Congress to go into the several States now, and
dictate the terms of suffrage, than 1t was before
the war. If it be, then 1t can be shown re-
corded on the programme OF the purposes OF
the war. To say that 1t grew as result out
of the work of war, is merely to admit
that the war has wholly broken up and de-
stroyed our republican system.
There can be no valid objection to the preva-
lence of the mpartlal-suffrage principle. Base
it, as here, in Massachusetts on citizenship taxa
ton, and a certain degree OF intelligence, and no
reasonable man will question the fact that 1t Is
calculated to strengthen the political character
of every State that adopts It. These three simple
and comparatively easy qualifications are per-
fectly talr, and do not derogate from the value
and dignity of the elective franchise. They
bestow ii with freedom enough and still sur
round it with the safeguards that are calculated
to enhance It in the popular esteem Those who
acquire il feel that it is an acquisitions; to be
without it after coming to manhood, would mark
the denied individual unenviably. And from
such considerations, it becomes possession that
speaks the general authority with an appreci-
able emphasis.
These qualifications, which we have Hamed as
! peculiar to Massachusetts, we should be glad to
see adopted by every State in the Union. They
are just, because they are impartial. We would
| like to see them set up as a common standard OF
! suffrage, to which men of all conditions and
!
nation. Color ought to have no more to do
| with the matter than size. Only establish a
| proper standard, and then apply it impartially.
! rule of that sort is too firmly fixed in justice
| and equality to be shaken. 1t commends itself
too clearly TO the right sentiment of the entire
! body of our countrymen, to be successfully ira
! versed by objections. Once let this principle be
| fairly presented to the people of the several
| States, with the knowledge on their part that
| they alone are to have the disposal aud settle
ment of it, and we sincerely believe 1t would not
| be long before it would be adopted by every
| State in the Union.
But adoption is another matter from enforce
| ment. The most patient examination fails to
| reveal the authority from which Congress de-
riVes the power which many latterly claim fol
! it, TO go into the States and compel them to
adopt particular rule of suffrage, or 70 abolish
| all rules entirely. Not only is the ballot, which
is the source of authority, corrupted By SO
leveling process, but the primary prerogative
of the States themselves is seized and trampled
upon. The ballot loses its purity, the State Is
robbed by open violence, and the people are
taught lesson in arbitrary proceedings whlcf
they can as readily put in practice In the futur'
without regard 10 the ballot as with.
We repeat that we shall rejoice at the adop
nOn OF impartial suffrage by all the States
North and South alike; but we should not likt
10 see that or any other sound and eXcellen
principle forced upon the citizens of the State
oy any outside power whatever. There is sucl
thing as practically raining even a good prin
ciple by bad method of applying it. We ar,
at perfect liberty to discuss this matter within
those limits by which our own political poWe
Is bounded; and we may set forth as noble al
illustration OF our convictions as q local examnl
will admit; but it is not allowed us to combin
in Congress to compel other States TO follow tha
example, though 1t were the PERFECTION of reaso,
in itself, and the ne plus ultra of Justice AM
morality.