Litchfield enquirer., 1873-01-30

intelligent Southerners are rssponsi-
 ble for state of things they cannot help.
 The negro vote of South Carolina. for in-
 stance, is in so large a majority, is so
 thoroughly organized by selfish stcarpet- baggers, and is SO obedient to their dic-
 tatlon, that the intelligent property hold
 CT sees no way of protecting his property
 from destruction by the slow process of
 over-taxation.
 Such being the condition of things we
 consider it the duty of the party that
 forced universal suffrage upon the South
 by constitutional amendment, to resort to
 further constitutional amendment for
 their relief. Such executive interferences
 as those in Alabama and Louisiana are of
 doubtful suficiency as we'll as of doubt
 full constitutionality. Whether relief would best come by throwing such states as show preponderance of ignorance in-
 to some form of territorial government, or
 by such stringent limitations of power as would disarm greedy and corrupt legis- lature, is an inquiry from which Republi- can statesmen cannot afford to shrink. We have before expressed our preference for the latter plan, as not open to the dans gers of centralization That this remedy would be effectual the example of Missis- sippi indicates. It has proved signal blessing to that State that her old Repu- diation left her without any credit to be ruined by Reconstruction. With larger prepondernace of negro voters than any other state except South Carolina, Mis- sissippi has suffered less than any other reconstructed state from the deluge of legislative and official corruption that has swept away much of the property and prosperity left the South by the war
 The Birmingham Transcript justifes the Congressmen who took Credit Mobi- Her stock. It considers that any mem- Der who favored the Pacific road would have been justified in taking gift of this stock accompanied by the request that ''he would be hearty and prompt in push ing 1t along"
 Let us bring the case g little nearer home and suppose that it should be dis covered that the Speaker of our House of Representatives, the Lieut.. Coy, and various prominent Senators and Repre- sentatives, previously favorable to the N. r., N. H. and Hartford R. R. Co.,, had been presented during the past session with shares of the stock of that company, merely to be ''hearty and prompt" in try ing to squelch the lnsquelchable Good win. Would they have acted correctly had they received those shares of stock We cannot see why taking pay for increas- ed energy is not just as corrupt an act in legislator as taking pay for change of vote. In one case he is paid for helping to change other members votes; in the other, for changing his own.
 But, says the editor of the Transcript. ''We do this thing every day" "Heav- er's the proper place" for those who don't do it l! Here, now. is queer moral kink in one of our most scrupulous neighbors, runs in the family no doubt-which in- duces us to conclude by quoting Macau- lays review of similar excuse offered by an apologist for former Bacon:
 Now, to apply these principles to the case before us; let Mir. Montagu prove that, in Bacon's age, the practices for which Bacon was punished were general ly considered as innocent; and we admit that he has made out his point. But this we defy him to do. That these prac- tices were common, we admit. But they were common, just as all wickedness to which there Is strong temptation always was, and always will be common. They l were common, just as theft, cheating, per jury, adultery. have always been con- I mon. They were common, not because | people did not know what was right, but l because people liked to do what was l wrong. They were common, though pro- l hibited by law. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. l They were common, because in that age l law and public opinion united had not sufficient force to restrain the greediness of powerful and unprincipled magistrates. | They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to which it leads is great, and the chance of disgrace and punishment small. But though com mon, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustitiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audac-. ity publicly to avow and defend them.