The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-07
A Democratic FaIlacy.


OUR Democratic contemporary in discussing
the proposed law of Congress establishing i'm
partial suffrage throughout the republic, re-
marks that elf Congress has the power to
say who shall vote in the States, they nave
the power to declare, also, who shall not vote,
and thus to destroy the freedom of the ballot
altogether, and allow only favored few TO
exercise the elective franchise"
This statement contains fallacy which,
though often perpetrated, is still very obvi-
ous one. We suppose the word ''power," IN
this connection, to be used as synonymous
with riohtful, or at least legal, power. 1t is
not true that the power to enfranchise necessa-
riIy implies the power to disfranchise, $50 as to
destroy the freedom of the ballot altogether,
and allow favored few to exercise the cleo
tive franchise" The power to do good acts,
in accordance with the ends for which govern
ment is established does not suppose the
power to do bad acts directly contrary to those
ends. Government has the power to prohibit
murders has it equally the power to sanction
murder
S"'"'''N
tionally do certain act necessarily imply the
power to do its opposite. Congress has the
power to guarantee republican form OF gov
ernment to each of the States but has it the
power to overthrow republican form of gov
ernment or to institute despotic or aristo-
cratic oneH Congress has the constitutional
power to prohibit slavery in the Territories of
the United States and in the District of Colum-
bia; has it, therefore, the power to establish
slavery in the Territories and in the District
Now, in the case under discussion, it is the
opinion of a large number of persons, who
have studied the Constitution very thoroughly
and carefully with reference to this very point,
that Congress has full power to secure the
right of the elective franchise to every citizen
of the United States. The right to vote is
looked upon as an inherent right in every
citizen of the Republic. 1t is his only method
of participating in the government under
which he lives, whose laws he obeys, whose
taxes he pays, and in whose defense he is
liable to be called into the field to bear arms
and to fight. But, because it is maintained
that Congress has the power to protect and
secure this inestimable right, does it therefore
follow, as our contemporary AYERS, that Con-
gress has the power also ''to destroy the free
dom of the ballot altogether, and allow only a
favored few to exercise the elective franchise.P'
By no means. The suppositiOn is absurd
Congress has no more rightful or constitutional
power 'to destroy the freedom of the ballot"
than it has to make king. Nor does our
contemporary fear that Congress will do this.
Its real fear is that the freedom of the ballot
will be secured, not overthrown. It's argument
is in the interest of disfranchisement, not
enfranchisement. What it breads is, that the
unjust and iniquitous laws with which its
party has hedged round the ballot-box in SO
many of the States-laws which are disgrace
to the age in which we live, and an anomaly
in free government-win be swept away
We trust that its fears on this point are wei
founded