Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-11-02

There is nothing in the federal constitution
nor in any act of congress, which disqualifes
ex-rebels for voting. They can all vote, if they
WILL without being interlered with by any law
of the nation; and the disfranchisement which
excluded them from holding office under the
national government, has been removed from
all but about two hundred of the foremost lead
ers. They are no longer DISTINGUISHED in any of
the states, excepting Arkansas, where disfran-
chisng provision of the state constitution is
still in operation. 1t is claimed on one hand
that this provision is in conflict with the su-
preme law of the nation, while, on the other
hand, such conflict is denied because the disfran-
chisement provided in the national constitution
did not extend to the matter of voting. Those
who really desire to settle this question, can do
so easily by carrying it into the courts, and
there is no other orderly and regular way of set
ting it.
In connection with this matter, the democratic
Greeley organs have furnished some notable H.
Illustrations OF what they really mean when they
talk of 'federal despotsm" and "local self
government" They have done what they could
TO hold Gen. Grant responsible for this state dis
reimbursement in Arkansas. He ought to sup
press it, they say; and his omission to do this
they describe as something very atrocious. The
World, hearing it said that the Judges in that
state who refuse to register or receive the votes
of these disfranchised ex-rebels, care in no
danger of prosecution" hastens to use
this as proof that "the administration
will uphold the existing acknowledgements"
That is to say, it demands despotic in
reference with "local self-goyernment;" in
reference for which there is no warrant of law
or constitution. Those who complain of this
Arkansas disfranchisement have their remedy
in the courts. If it is in conflict with the ma
tional constitution, the courts will say so, and
the grievance will be removed. II the COM
plant were honest, measures would be taken 10
bring the question TO such a settlement. It's
matter with which the president has nothing to
do. He can not repeal the constitution of that
state. He is not court to decide questions
raised by it's provisions.
In the old times before the rebellion it was
the democratic idea" that the national govern
ment had a constitutional right to do anything
in aid of the slave power, and no constitutional
right to do anything against it. Congress could
enact and the president could enforce the infa-
nous slave bill OF 1859; but it was not allowable
for any department of the national government
to protect the rights of citizenship in slave states
1t was all right for the supreme court TO make
"Dred Scott decsions;" but it was all wrong for
federal court to hear and determine the cases of
citizens of Massachusetts, who were arrested,
imprisoned, and sold into slavery, merely be-
cause they were found on board Massachusetts
vessels in Charleston harbor. No such case
was ever allowed to appear in any federal
court, while the democratic idea" ruled tie
country. That old 'idea" still haunts the land
as dreary ghost, making itself heard of in the
democratic talk of "despotism," "centralism,"
and the like. 1t is now "despotic centralism'
for the national government to interfere with
the bloody atrocities of the kuklux fraternity;
bat it would be all right, according TO the same
for the national government to re-
peal or set aside the constitution of the state of
Arkansas, in favor of ex-rebels. Anything in
favor of "ex-confederate" mourners for the
'lost cause" is right; anything done against
them is wrong, in the judgment of that crazy
old oracle which the republican party refuses to
consult