The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-31

The New York Evening Post condemns M.
Boutwell's plan for regulating suffrage py
means of a constitutional amendment. Inc
Post says that there is one answer 10 all the
arguments of Mr.. Boutwell, and others VINO
desire that Congress shall fix the Suffrage In
the States. and that is that we should never
have done fixing it." This is the very ground
taken by the CRESCENT, in the course OF
discussion with the Post on the fourteenth
amendment The Post approved OF the
amendment, especially as to that portion
which established a certain uniform rule OF
suffrage by means of the clause imposing the
penalty of diminished representation in case
ofnon-compliance. The CRESCENT denied the
right of any number of States thus to inter-
fere in matter which properly belong to
the individual States, and of which each
State, separately, is naturally the best judge
The CRESCENT showed, moreover, that the
assumption of this power by Congress and
majority of the States, in the interest and at
the dictation of a particular opinion, was not
a guarantee of permanency, but really con-
dition of instability, because the precedent of
interference on behalf of one party being
once established, other parties would be sure
to resort to the same method, in order to SUBJ
serve temporary purposes, and thus fuctua-
ton would be the rule, and not genuine,
enlightened progress. If, on the contrary,
rule of suffrage, fixed by Congress, should
be settled and permanent its operation
would be essentially repressive. Although 1t
might force an extension of the suffrage to
classes not fitted for it. and on States not
prepared forit the theory of uniformity would
prevent any extension in States in which such
extension might be desirable, and to classes of
persons who may hereafter become fitted for
it. 1t is gratifying that so able paper as the
Post now accedes to these views, as may be
seen by the following extract from its article
1t is of very great importance 10 the country
that such question as this of the suffrage should
be settled once TOR all, or should at any rate, be
removed permanently out of the domain of gen.
eral politics. But MIR. BoutwelPs plan would keep
it there forever.
For. if one Congress may enact general suffrage,
the next may limit the suffrage; and as the ques-
ton is a convenient one for politicians who Wish
TO avoid really important issues and questions we
should have one or the other party forever max.
ing the suffrage question the "great issue OF the
tines" and one Congress after the other tinker
ing at this question and wasting time over il, to
the injury Of the whole country and of every in
terest.
1t seems to Us that this single objection is sufi-
Gent to condemn the whole plan. Ii might be
added that it is unconstitutional, contrary to the
established policy of the government, and pecu-
lsrly irritating interference with the reserved
rights of the States. But all these arguments
would, in these times, fall upon dull ears, in Con-
gress and we will not urge them.
Obi fkofu hof (OnV dOad IN
other may undo, and that II Is hardly wise for the
friends of general suffrage TO whet knife which
may at some early day be used to cut their own
threats, will perhaps strike the more prudent of
them as having Sufficient force to persuade them
to caution. However just the proposition that the
suffrage should be general and impartial-and the
Evening Post has always supported that and al.
ways wil-tbis way is the one way in which this
policy ought not TO be carried. To make Congress
enact it is to make the sufirsge-the very source
of power and the substance of republican govern
meDt-the sport of every political convention,
and to turn it INTO object of strife between par
ties.