The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-01-26

SUMMON
Since the adoption of the constitution, other
states have been admitted with similar provisions
in their constitutions. Kentucky, in hers Of
1882 provided that ''every free male citizen (ne-
groes, mulattoes and Indians excepted,) may
vote" 1t forbids emancipation OF the slaves
without consent of the owner or compensation.
Tennessee, by hers of 1902, confines voting
to swhite male inhabitants,' who have paid
taxes.
Indiana, by hers of 1915, requires the voter
to be a "white male citizen of the United
States"
Louisiana, by that of 1912, requires the voter
to be a Stree white male citizen of the United
States" and to have paid taxes.
The Mississippi constitution OF 1917 contains
the same provision.
Illinois, by her constitution of 1918, confines
the voting to "white male inhabitants"
Alabama, by hers of 1918, limits voting to
"white male persons, who are citizens OF the I nj
ted States"
Missouri, by her constitution of 1920, limits
voting to stfree white male citizens af the uneted
States"
Michigan, by her constitution of 1885, confines
| voting to "whte male citizen"
Arkansas, by hers of 1885, provides that every
Stree white male citizen of the United states,
&C., may vote.
Texas, when admitted, allowed only "free male
| persons to vote.
Iowa, by hers of 1874, confines voting to
| "white males citizens of the United States"
| Wisconsin, by hers of lS4S, limits to white
male citizens of the United States" and to Ger.
| tain foreigners and pure blooded Indians
California, by hers of lS49, confines voting "to
| white male citizens of the United States" and
| certain Mexcans.
| All these constitutions exclude thousands of
| white men from voting. Are all these states
anti-republican and subject to have their consti
| tutions changed at the dictaton Of congress p
1 ha pnnlp FIR hmm ra1
| years, been ignorant of the true character OF
| their state governments? Has congress all this
| time been negligent or ignorant CT its dnty p
| Have all foreigners been mistaken in calling them
| republican? Have either language or principles
| changed since 1877: Is it less disunion to keep
thessouthern states out of the Union now, than il
| was for them to secede four years ago? IF the
| south can be forced to conform to this newly in
| vited creed of the republican disunionists, the
| same principle can be applied and enforced in
| the same way-by excluding members, senator's
| &C., and thus force every state into obedience
| and all under the pretence of complying with
| guarantee, which those interested do not desire
| them to perform, and who deny their right to in.
termeddle
| The federal constitution guarantees that nc
| power out OF the state shall force those in it to
change their form of government. This guaran
| tee the republicans seek to violate, under pre-
| tence of performance. Ii they can force
chahge IN one particular, they can exact com
pliance with every demand. The states can thu:
be effectually destroyed, and federal sstraps gov
| ern them at the will of congress. Will the states
and people submit to this :: VIII they submit Il
this form of disunion? The object of i
was distinctly avowed last fall by Thaddeus Ste
| vens, the leader in the house of representatives
to be their desire TO perpetuste the power OF th'
\ republican party, and to long continue to ruiz
| the United States. Their mode of doing this i
to enforce disnnion against those statess wlicl
| will not aid them in this object. Their maxim i
power and disunion, preference to union with
out it. They are the real disunionists.-IDaal
| Argus