Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1877-01-26


oera,lc newspaper or orator during the
present debate, any admission of any kind
of irregular conduct among Democrats in
any Of the Southern States. 1t seems TO be
incredible to such organs aud orators that
there could have been any suspicion Of in
timidaton or violence or bulldozing, aud
the unenlightened reader would assume
from their articles and speeches that Louis
lana, for instance was an Arcadia In which
heavenly peace and happiness would pre-
vail except for a devastating Republican
monster called a Returning Board. There
arc, indeed, Republicans who agree that
the throwing out Of votes should be close
! ly scrutinized, and if found to be unlaw-
full or fraudulent, Internationally con.
demned. There are Republicans who go
further, and agree that the election law in
Louisiana seems to have been constructed
so as 10 perpeiuate the power Of the DOM
inant party without appeal. But we have
not found the Democrats who agree that
these stories Of murder and scourging and
violence should be carefully weighed aud
allowed to have their due influence In the
final decision. There is no doubt, indeed,
that there is a disposition in this part of the
country to be "tired Histories of outrages,"
and the tone of many intelligent papers in
discussing the present question Ia plies
that Louisiana and Mississippi are TO be
considered a. If they were Vermont or
Maine.
Certainly they are both States in the Uu-
ion and entitled TO their constitutional
voice in the result OF a Presidential cleo
ton. But there the resemblance ends.
Suppose that in Vermont more than half
the population had been hello, from the set
Element of the State, in AFFECT slavery, and
that, in a futile endeavor of the master
class to break away from the Union, the
slaves had been freed by the Union and
made equal citiz9ns with their late mas
tiers. Suppose the masters baffled and ru-
ined, and seeing in the emancipation and
political equality Of the slaves proof of a
vindictive triumph Of the victors. Sup
pose the slaves helpless, homeless, house
less, landless, ignorant, -barbarous,
aud absolutely dependent. Suppose set
| tiers coming from other States, some of
them politicians, gaining control. of The
new and ignorant voters, and turning their
votes to obtain political control Of the State,
and finally arousing the indignation aud
hostility of the old master class, that had
lain in a sullen torpor until The control was
obtained. In word suppose in Vermont
the precise case of Louisiana, would "in-
timidatiOn," violence, murders, scourg-
lngs, terrorization, Of the new voters by
the old seem to be 80 utterly incredible and
impossible? Grant that the better people
in Vermont did not personally take part in
such crimes, yet is it not probable that the
worse people would, and that the better
might remain passive, leaving the question
of repression to the "usurplng" auihori-
ties?
If such things did take place, and were
found TO be systematic, regular, organized,
what would be in Vermont tho obvious
and fair conclusion Plainly that they
were not ebulitions of spite and general
haired, bat that they had a purpose. And
would it be necessary that the purpose
should be declared in the Vermont news
papers? Would it not be perfectly evil
dent that the purpose was to keep the new
voters from the polls, in order that the old
voters might gain control of the govern
ment? Could there be any other reasona.
bic explanation Would ii not be most
natural for the old voters to say that they
had tho intelligence and the property of the
| State, that the new vote was, as a rule, alb
solutely unlntelligent and Irresponsible,
that it was turned by adventures to base
uses, and converted the government OF the
State into highway robbery, aud that they
would no longer submit? And would not
this feeling, being universal in all classes of
the old voters, inevitably produce system
of organized intimidation of the new yot-
ers? Would all this be extraordinary
| Would it not be precisely what might be
expected in Vermont
Suppose, now, that State and nat ional
election was held in Vermont; that in GER
tain counties, where the new voters had al
ways had very large majority, they poll
ed scarcely any votes, and that there was
| copious evidence of intimidation in those
counties, while in others, where no vio-
| lence was reported, the new voters increas-
ed their vote, could the election in tho in
timidated counties be called fair, full,
free election? And if the most important
results depended upon the vote Of those
counties, could that be held by honorable
men to be so fair that no question ought to
| be raised That is the case of Louisiana.
| We do not say now that the vote ought or
| ought not TO stand. We do not now say
that there ought or ought not TO be law
which would prevent such vote deciding
momentous questions. We do not now
say that such proceedings ought or ought
| not to invalidate the entire vote of the
State. But can any reasonable man fail to
see that the one thing which is antecedent-
ly probable in that Slate is intimidation,
and that, without refining upon "mental
processes 1t is undeniable that violent in
timidation may decide an election The
question for the State would then be
whether it would be just and wise 10 throw
out poll at which such intimidation had
been proved. For the country the ques-
ton would be, first, whether, If Congress
may reject the vote of State, it might not
properly reject that of a State cast under
proved intimidation and second, how re.
spectacle would be the title of President
elected by inundated pols.-Hdrper's
Weekly.
A HOPEFUL New ENGLAND MANuFAcr-
URER.-The New York Herald says that