The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1879-10-25
THE DIFFERENCE.

4
The Cleveland Leader says; The
difference between the Democratic and
Republican parties in their respective
appeals to the constitution is that the
former knows only the constitution as
bit was while the latter appeals to the
constitution rs it is The three amend
ments adopted after the war and EN-
bodying the results of the war are just
as much parts of the constitution as
those ratified in 1889. 1t is true that
the more outspoken of the Democratic
| party in the South re ,udiate those
amendments and threat n to tear them
and all legislation made under them
from the statute books, and that the
less frank members of the party North
and South preserve discreet silence as
to them, but the Republicans and the
great mass of citizens at the North, if
not elsewhere, hold the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth amendments as much en-
titled TO obedience and respect as the
Tenth' Joy sii5 1E 0A s Dn5g6 ~
The real difference between the Demo
cratic and Republican PARTIES, is that
the Democrats fully and patriotically
accept the constitution as it is, and the
Republicans do not regard the consti-
tuition either as it was or is. Mr.. Hayes,
the head of the Republican party, is at
this moment travelling about with great
pomp through the country under the
care of the General of the Army, who
declares constantly In his speeches that
the President is an absolute ruler
This of itself is sufficient proof that the
Republican party does not accept the
constitution as it is, for that instrument
confers no shadow Of absolute authority
on the President Absolute ;, is an
ugly word to be so proclaimed in re-
public by servant of the people. 1t
marks, however, very distinctly the
achasm between the constitutional Dem
ocratic party and the centralizing anti
constitutional iRepublican party q ~
The three amendments, which are
fully accepted by the Democratic party,
do not by any means destroy the con.
stitution as ii tods. The tenth section
remains in full force, and the relation
between the State and Federal Govern
ments is unaltered save in the one par
ticularindicated by Chief Justice Waite,
of the United States Supreme Court,
who, in the case of the United States
vs.. Cruikshank, said: I'm Minor VS..
Haffersett, 81 Wallace, 17s, we decided
that the constitution of the United States
has not conferred the right of suffrage
upon any one, and that the United States
have no voters of their own creation in
the States. In United States VS.. Reese
ct al, we hold that the Fifteenth amend
ment has invested Che citizens of the
United States with new constitutional
right, which is exemption from discrim-
nation ON account of race, color or pre-
vious condition of servitude. From this
it appears that the right of suffrage is
not a necessary attribute of national
citizenship, but that exemption from
discrimination in the exercise of that
right on account of race, ETC., Isl. The
right to vote I'M the States comes from
the States, but the right of exemption
from the prohibited discrimination
comes from the United States. Tho
first has not been granted or secured by
the constitution of the United States,
but the last has BEEN"
This "new constitutional right" the
Democratic party fully indorses. Mo-
body in that party wants to tear them
and all legislation made under them
from the statute books" but if the
Democratic party gets into power some
of the laws which have been pro-
nounced unconstitutional by the high
est tribunal and which are based not
on the three amendments, but on the
suppuration Of diseased craftsmanship,
will undoubtedly be taken off the stat
ute books. The amendments will stand
and be enforced. The Republican State
of Rhode Island has been for long
time the most persistent advocate of the
right of State to legislate voters from
the polls. Among the legal voters thus
excluded are many Union soldiers who
fought faithfully through the war. 1t
is needless to say that no Republican
organ is addicted to trotting out Rhode
Island as State devoted to the "na-
tionsl-supremacy doctrine, especially
as one of her Republican Senators has
declared that the State was free and
sovereign, and could not be interfered
with by the Federal Government in the
matter of suffrage.
We need scarcely remark that the
Democrats hold the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth amendments as much entitled.
to respect and obedience as the Tenth.
The Tenth will stand bulwark against
the unconstitutional csntralism which
has, by the Republican party, been
falsely based on the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth amendments.
The tenth section embodies the Dem
ocratic and constitutional doctrine of
State rights, without which we would
no longer have republic. The Repub-
hcans in 1860 made extreme State rights
plank in their platform. To-day they
would give good deal to have the
tenth section of the constitution wiped
out. %sLFcs. }NNtN> 1NyNN[s.