New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-14
TILE ALAR1LA CONSTITUTION.

n whole, is admirable. None in any OF the
Free States is more nobly dedicated to the
principles of universal freedom and equal rights
Already the clause relating to suffrage, how
eyer has been subjected to some unfriendly
criticism. Neither Congress nor the Convcn-
ton has seen fit to carry out the rec0nstruc-
ton policy of The TRIBUNE, which has been
and still is in favor of Universal Amnesty ana
Impartial Suffrage. Had the generous policy OF
universal amnesty been adopted, much larger
white vote in favor of reconstruction on the
basis of impartial suffrage would have been
polled in every Southern State than can now
be pollcd for any constitution that may be
framed under the prescriptions incident to the
Congressional policy. We are compelled to
discuss the action of the Alabama Convention
as standing in relation to and designed to
carry out a policy already adopted 10y Congress,
the main feature of which is that suffrage shall
be universal as to the blacks, and limited as
to certain classes of Rebels From this point
of view let rs see whether the objections Which
have been made to the Alabama Constitution
are deserved. The Constitution allows "all
male citizens, native or naturalized, twenty
cone years of age, who have been residents OF
"thc State for one year" TO vote, provided
they arc registered and take the required oath.
1t then excludes from registration all who vio-
lated the rules Of civilized warfare during the
Rebellion, all who violated an official oath in
Joining the Rebellion, all convicted OF treason
and certain other crimes, and all idiots and in
sane persons. Finally, before being registered
the voter is required to take an oath ito sup
"port the Union and the State of Alabama, TO
accept the civil and political equality Of all
men, and to agree not to deprive any one, on
account of color, race, or previous condition.
of any political or civil right" 1t may be
conceded that this excludes from registration
and voting all who oppose the reconstruction
of the State under the laws passed by Congress.
Is such an exclusion abstractly wrong or po-
litically unwiseP Have Rebels an abstract night
to vote under law in order To defeat It's
operation7 Congress having enacted the civil
and political equality of all men into national
law, and providcd that the Southern States
shall be reconstructed and come into the Union
on that basis any attempted reversal or over
throw of that law by the late Rebels is but
continuance of the spirit of the Rebellion. The
stratecy is the same though tho tactics are
different There are some questions on which
Congress desires the vote Of the people OF
Alabama. But on the question whether they
will remain in the Union or go out of 1t,
whether they will have Slavery or do with
ont il. whether they will pay the Rebel
debt or the National debt. whether they will
obey the Montgomery Constitution or the
National Constitution, whether they will elect
representatives to the National Congress or to
n Rebel Congress at Richmond, and finally,
whether they will be reconstructed on the
johnson plan, by the white vote only,
or on the Congressional plan of
universal suffrage, which is now the law
on all these questions, Congress has called
for no vote and cares not whether the people
of Aabama would vote, if permitted, one way
or the other In all these respects the people
"of Alabama" Extending that phrase only to
those who formed "the people" before the
war, viz, the whites of Alabama are not their
own masters; but the people of the United
States are enforcing toward them policy
which is admitted to be coercive and com
pulsory. Nevertheless, majority of the entire
people Of Alabama as embraced by this leg
islation, approve it, and are made thereby their
own masters. The power of the Rebel whites
must be limited, in order TO emancipate the
blacks. In all this legislation Congress is CO.
ercive 1t does not propose to ask, but to
compel, the assent of the Rebels who, Of course,
oppose it, Is there any just reason why the
latter should claim the right to vote against
the Reconstruction acts of COngess-tO vote for
resstancc-for passive.rebellion-- sullcn dis
lOyalty-for the overthrow and defeat of the
very law under which they votcY If not,
then the restriction in question is no
more offensive or unjust than those imposed
by the President, viz: that voters should
accept the restoration of the Union and the
abolition of Slavery az accomplished facts.
The Alabama Convention requires voters TO
accept universal suffrage and political equality
as accomplished facts, on the same principle as
the President required them to accept Enamel
patton and she National Debt.
1t is to be remembered, moreover, that the
first use made by the Conservatives of Ala
bana, when they had the control of Recon-
structiOn under the johnson pan was by their
" black codes" to restore Slavery, to degrade
tho freed race, to Cypress the Union whites.
Should they again obtain the control of the
State, they would exercise their power in the
same mlsclney0us and oppressive manner.
There is no reason why the Conservatives of
Alabama should not relinquish the liberty to
Cypress, or the power to enslave. 1t is no
ablidgment of their own just rights to
be compelled to do so as a condition
to the exercise of any political rights.
Whether such q restriction is politically wise
depends simply on the question whether the
vote it designs to exclude would be likely to
defeat the present effort at reconstruction.
The registration in Alabama numbered 1GO,9Ol
Of whom 72,74S are whites and Ss,243 are blacks
4 .la Ill .I for