The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-11-05

right 10 vote 10 crafty party craft, and the
this a agoverDment Of the people by the people, ,
such as white men fougut to perpetu ate 2"
! Two hundred thousand disfrAuchsed in
VirginiaY General Soho6eld's report dated
December 13, 1867, shows that in the entire
State only l6, 343 failed to register from any
cause, and of these not more than 49, 900 are
actually disfranchised under the Reoonstruo.
tion acts.
Seventy thousand disfranchised in TexasH
That is the Democratic fiction. The simple
truth being that in the whole State less than
1000 are disfranchised. Competent authori-
ties fix the number at 3000 basipg their esti-
mate on a comparison of the number regis
eIed now with the number of voters in 1860.
We allow wider margin and call it 1000.
Ninety thousand disfranchised in Missis-
sippiP So the hTpreSS Gays. The total num-
Der registered there is 139, 690 of whom about
90, 600 are whites. In 1860 the total number
of voters was $4,000. 1t is safe to assume
that the new white voters fall short of the
voters killed during the war, and in that
case the aggregate disfranchsed cannot ex-
ceed 5000.
Again, 10000 in Missouri Mere guess
work, evidently. The ST. Louis democrat, in
the fulness Of local knowledge, states the
number at between 20, 900 and 25 900.
"More than half million whites denied the
right to vote," exclaims our Democratic in
all the Southern States. A careful examina-
tion OF the registration returns in the ten
States to which the Reconstruction acts apply,
and a comparison of these returns with the
number of white voters in 1860, brings us to
the conclusion that at no time did the disfran-
chisement enacted by Congress affect more
than &c, 900 men, of whom probably 25, 900
are to be found in the three States not yet re-
stored to the Union. A total of 20 900, dis
tributed over ten States, does not tally with
the sweeping allegations invented by the De-
mocrats for partisan purposes.
Moreover, the Reconstruction acts entail no
permanent Acknowledgement. Not a solitary
citizen, white or black, is deprived of VOTE
by Congressional action, in any of the recon
structed States. The question of suffrage
reverts to the States SO soon as they comply
with the requirements of law and the COM
paratively trifing disfranchisement ordered by
Congress ends.
How, then, have the reconstructed States
dealt with the question of Acknowledgement |?
The Democratic accusation implies a continu-
ance of the disability imposed by Congress
down to the present time. AS a matter of fact
however the charge is untrue. Not only have
the restored States not adopted a proscriptive
policy, hut with two exceptions they have
pursued most liberal course. Louisiana and
Arkansas alone uphold system OF disfran-
chisement-the latter State in a modified form
Alabama, which at first enacted disabilities
subsequently abolished them, and disfran-
ohisement no longer exists there. In North
and South Carolina Georgia, and Florida
every citizen is q voter. We believe that the
whole sum of Acknowledgement in the restored
| States does not cover more than ten or twelve
| thousand votes, and these are divided between
Louisiana and Arkansas. Everywhere else all
the whites vote freely.
| With disfranchisement in West Virginia,
| 4 aud
struction in no manner connected. The
wisdom of continuing a policy which had its
origin in the exigencies OF the Rebellion may
well be doubted; but that is a matter to be de-
cided by the States themselves. Congress is
no more responsible for the imposition of the
disability or the failure to abolish it, than for
the more sweeping dislranchisement which is
kept up by the Democrats in Maryland aud
kentucky. Ii it is proper in Maryland, why
not in Missouri II right in Kentucky, why
not also in Tennessee? Color is certainly not
greater crime than rebellion.