New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-10-20
rHn coNsT1ruroNAL AMENpmzNT:

representation and the right Of suffrage. The
passage quoted from the CRESCENT by the
Post was an attempt, and we think a success
full attempt on our part to prove that the
limitation or the extension Of the right of suf-
frage in one State Or section cannot possibly
work any injustice towards another State or
section. We maintain that the population
basis being once admitted-and the amend
ntent itself adopts this basis-it can make no
possible difference to one State or section, as
to relative weight in Congress, what may be
the extent Of the constituencies by which the
representatives are elected in other States or
sections. We showed, moreover, that the
establishment of uniform rule of suffrage
throughout the country and the radical doc
\ trine demands uniformity never been
heretofore recommended, and that such COM
puEsory uniformity, besides being entirely
| inFraeticable, would be equivalent, in the
emf, to total subEersion of the individuality
Of the States. The amendment proposes
uniformity Of suffrage as to color that is to
| say it infliets o penalty on such States as do
i1aot permit negroes to vote; and this required
uniformity is urged on the ground that it is
1 unjust that the number Of voters should be
relatively less in one State or section than in
another State OF section. But if the principle
Of uniformity is true, there is no reason
why it should not apply to sex, age
and condition, as well as to complexion.
| The Post, indeed, declares that 6 the CREs
4 CENT fails to make distinction which, when
I once perceived and admitted overthrows its
entire argument. That Journal contends
that the exclusion Of the negroes from the
right of suffrage is not analogous TO the
case of narrowing the right of voting by a
| property qualification, s'or any other KEe
Imitation; Z the difference being that negroes,
on account of the nature of the limitation are
permanently excluded; whilsta property quail
tication can, in theory at least, be obtained by
every person We cheerfully admit this. diff
ference in the two cases; but we insist that it
does not meet the point; in short, that it is
why one section of the country should pre-
scribe to a State, or number Of States, the
kind Of limitation which those States may
impose as to the right Of voting, if the foun-
dation of the claim is that any limitation
works violation of uniformity and conse-
quent injustice towards the States which
adopt more extended rule, or in which the
excluded class does not exist. We have shown
that no such injustice is committed; and the
Post taeitly admits the fact when it shifts the
| argument as to injustice from the complain
ing States to the excluded class. 1t follows,
therefore, that if injustice is perpetrated, only
those on whom suchinjustice is committed have
any right to complain, except on the theory
that it is the duty of the federal government,
as agent for the majority Of the States or
people to establish uniform rule of suffrage
throughout the country.
But, in point Of fact there is nothing neon
gruous in the Southern rule Of excluding ne |
groes from the right Of suffrage Such ex-
clusion has, hitherto, been the rule through |
out the country. In many Of the Northern
States it prevails at this day; and it is not too
much to say that it would not be surrendered, |
even there, if those States contained sufi-
Gent number Of negroes to affect their repre-
sentation in Congress under the contemplated
amendment Moreover the distinction to
which the Post draws our attention is one
which may operate in favor of the Southern |
rule, and not against it, 1t is not by any
means certain that rule based upon inyari-
able natural characteristics, is not far more
philosophical than a rule founded
ON purely Fictitious and artificial ciroum-
stances We do not exclude negroes from
the right of suffrage because they are called
negroes, or because their color is black; but
because we believe that they are totally unfit,
by education and bg habit, to participate in
public affairs If we ,were to go further and
say that we believe them to Be untitled by
their negro nature not their negro color
for such participation, our position would be
30 much the stronger and more philosophical.
We may be wrong in our view Of the negro
nature. But it must be conceded that our
deductions from our premises are rational
and consistent. Nor is it true that
our method of viewing this question is
peculiar to ourselves. On the. contrary, it is
the method adopted all over the country
the Northern States as well as in the South
ern States. It is on this very principle that
women are excluded from voting. The ac-
cepted theory Is that women, by education,
by habit and by nature, are unfit to exercise
the privileges Of electors unfit to participate
IN governmental affairs. If this is not the
ground on which they are excluded, to refuse
them equal privileges with men is an odious
and unjustifable act of tyranny, Now, We IN
dertake to say that the white women, Of the
United States are far better qualified, in
tellectualIy, morally, BY education and by ma
ture, to become voters than the negroes of the
Southern States. On this point We challenge
contradiction. We do not believe that it can
be or will be disputed.
T, then, tits right to infiet penalty on
States which refuse to let negroes vote, why
is il not right to infiet penalty on States
which refuse to let women yotep 1t may be
replied that it has always been the rule to ex-
clude women. sohas it always been the rule
to exclude negroes. Indeed, the rule has, I'M
til recent period, been more universal in re-
gard to negroes than in regard to women. For
merly, in New Jersey, when property quail
fcation prevailed in that State women were
allowed to vote. IN Europe the right of wo-
men to govern is conceded in some of the most