The New York herald., 1877-10-24
Tn. proposed Disnranchising Amsnd-

a question which the politicians OF both
parties are disposed to ignore. We believe
that public discussion is always wholesome,
and are glad that the property holders OF
the city, who are restive under the heavy
burden of our local taxes, have taken the
subject in hand and are determined that
the proposed amendment shall not be lost
by default. We suspect. however, that they
are fighting in cause which is already lost.
There is so much that is excellent in the
municipal amendment that we are sorry 1t
is destined to failure by the indissolublec con-
nection of its good features with one that is
so unpopular that no person well acquainted
with public sentiment can believe that a
majority of the people will vote to ratify it.
We heartily approve of the spring election,
of the full power of appointment proposed
to be given to the Mayor, OF the Board of
Finance which it is proposed to establish,
and we might perhaps favor the election OF
this Board by restricted suffrage 1t the
voters of the State would consent to it. But
nothing is more certain than that they will
give no such consent, and we should there
fore prefer, in the interest OF municipal
change, to see this abortive amendment
defeated in the next Legislature instead OF
blocking the way for another year.
The foregone certainty Of its defeat rests
on very simple and Ineligible grounds. 1t
cannot be adopted without large vote in
its favor by the very class of people whom it
is intended to disfranchise. At time when
recent unfortunate events have rendered the
great body of the laboring classes morbidly
sensitive and jealous they will not consent
to diminish their own power and confer
new prerogatives upon property. During
and since the lamentable July riots they
have been filling the air with clamors against
the oppressive tyranny OF capital. No period
could be more ill-selected and inopportune
than the present for asking men without
property to surrender any part of their legal
rights and increase the power of the owners
of capital. Even if the poorer classes were
as tranquil and contented as they are in
prosperous times they would not be likely to
vote away any part of their title to exercise
the elective franchise. 1t is certain that
they will not do so in their present state Of
smothered passion and resentment They
have learned how dangerous it is to express
their hostility to capital by riots and vio-
lence, but they know it is perfectly safe to
give it expression through the ballot box,
and they would vote as one man against
such constitutional amendment as was re-
ported by Governor Tilden's Municipal
Commission. This amendment passed the
last Legislature by republican votes but
the late Republican State Convention de-
occurrences Of the summer. Knowing
that the fate of the amendment was
decided they were unwilling to array
the laboring classes against their own
party for an impracticable object. They
may not have been wise enough to think so
far, but it is inexpedient to supply al this
time new fuel to the labor agitation by
attempting to confer q new privilege upon
property.
The sentiment in favor Of universal
suffrage has taken such deep root in the
popular mind that it willie require great
deal Of bitter experience to eradicate it. If
the practical effect OF the proposed amend
ment would be only to disfranchise the
vicious and dangerous classes there would
be no strong opposition to it; but it would
really disfranchise larger number of de-
serving citizens than of vagabonds and
miscreants. 1t proposes to put m unici-
pal governments under the control of
class OF voters ''who have for two
years next preceding the election paid an
annual tax on property of a value not less
than $500, or shall have actually paid
during the same period q rent for premises
for business or dwelling of not less than
$780," When this comes to be sifted and
examined it will be found to be great deal
less liberal than it looks on the surface.
We will first scrutinize the property quali-
fieation and then the rent qualification.
The property qualification alone would
operate as q Wholesale disfranchisement.
1t might as we'll have been put at IS, 600 as at
$500. Indeed, most OF our citizens who pay
taxes at oil do so on a much higher
valuation than $4,000 There are very
few lots in the city with buildings
on them which nre worth less than
$4,000, and very few people pay tax on
personal property unless they also own real
estate. People who pay q city tax on SO low
a value as $4,000 hardly appear on the col
lector's books. Setting tho limit at $500 is
therefore deceptive, as tending to conceal
the extent OF the Acknowledgement Those
whose property does not rise pretty well up
into the thousands do not pay taxes in this
city in sufficient numbers to make any show
in an election.
1t is sought to extend the proposed suf-
frage beyond SO narrow limit by admit
ting persons who have paid IN annual rent
Of $3.50 for two years This indeed extends
the basis very considerably, but still, like
the other, il is tar from being as liberal
as it looks 1t would exclude a much