The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-11-02
No FclOn Can Vote in South Carolina.

{ w ttlOIl fptc .ooutu
/ The decision OF Judge Prc>~lry in ,hc
! Oraugcburg election cases j.. in our view,
! tho most important judicial dc.ivcIancc
! that has been had in this State Sine" the
/ adoption OF the new Constitution. II il
| important by reason Of its application to
! the political situation in South Carolina
! and. besides, by reason Of its prospective
/ effect in clcvatng those who, in the view
0i some members Of the Protestant Epis.
cOpai Congress, can never be made to APP
, prcciatc fully the obligations Of the moral
law.
| Under the Election law passed last
! winter, every olcctor in South Carolina
/ must bc registered, at the time and in
the manner prescribed, and no person
/ who shall not have registered can vote al
/ any election. 1t is provided that no per-
/ son who shall ''havc been convicted Of
! treason, murder, robbery Of the goods
or ciattcIs of another, with or without
violence, whether taken from the person
! on otherwise. or Of huclling shall be al
| loved 10 voI". such prrsuil4, Therefore.
| cannot be registered AS voters In Or
ungchnrg County a large nlmbcr OF ne
! groes were refused registration because
| they had been convicted OF larceny, and
| some of them took an appeal, IN ier the
| law, from the decision Of tho supervisor
| of Registration TO the Board Of Supcryi-
| sOrs. Tho Board decided that the appli-
! cants had been properly rejected. and All
| appeal was then taken to the Circuit
Court The grounds Of tn" appeal were
| various; but the principal one was, that
the Constitution Of tho State prohibits
. tho Legislature from passing auy Inw
that will deprive any Of the citizens Of
this state Of the right of suffrage, except
iDr trcn>Dn rDbD"rY.H or dnclling, wncre-
of IL person shall have been duly tried
! aud convicted.' whereas tho present
Election law DISTINGUISHES persons VINO
| I,ny h,pn tpI lI GRAND t,Ii
larceny, which offence, il, the technical
| srn-c nf the words, is not robbery.
Judge PRESLEY decides that tie inability
of convirtod thieves To hold any office,
or to vote, or testify in the Courts Of Jus
tic", was established under the Common
law of England long before the adoption
of the Constitution of 1865, and that no
| Legislation on the subject was necessary.
| The Election law does not make tho law
or this subject but merely declares it.
| Moreover, tho present Constitution cX-
pressly recognizes the disability Of ielons
by providing that mo person shall be
disiranchiscd for felony or other crimes
committed Will" smch person wae 4
slave The inference is Irresistible that
| convicted fUiuns, vino never were slaves
ana were, therefore, always responsible
for their acts, AFRO disfranchiscd, and that
those who Onco were slaves lost their
right to vote, on conviction Of felony
committed after they became free. Judge
ilcSSicp ucclucS, tlcIcioie' tiiat no con-
victed thief can vote in South Carolina;
and his ruling is broader in its scope.
The elect or the decision is that no con-
ricted .ftim IF any Kind, (whO was free
man when convicted,) can vote at the
elections in this State. The housebrcak-
crs, tho ravisher, the forger, the rioter, is
DISTINGUISHED well us the common
thief SO is applied to the present politi-
cal system the rule which obtained pre-
vious to- 1868, under tho Constitutions of
l7aS, 1870. and 1860.
Tho tar-rcaching consequences of this
broad AMI snlutary decision can he easily
disccrncd Every man in South Carolina,
we repeat, who has been convicted Of Il
felony Is, by that fact, permanently de-
barred the right to votc. In tho case of
convictions after they became FREQ; and
80 common has been the commission of
fcinnies by the negroes that there can DO
no doubt that the numbor of electors in
tho State will be reduced by many thou.
sands and the character of the electoral
body no correspondinEly improved. 1t
will not Dc claimed anywhere that thief
or any other fclnn, who has not been par
doncd, should be permitted to poison the
fountain of government at its source by
voting ut popular elections; and it will
not be denied that, in many respects. cx-
clusion from tho suffrage on accGunt of
arson. murder or forgery is more just
than such disfranchiScncnt for illtcrucy
or poverty a. obtains III New England.
An honest man is the nOblest work of
God and the moro VIC reverence Ropub-
lican institutions and tho more we cling
to tho right Of the people to govern them.
selves. the more rcsolutc should we be in
our efforts to purify and elevate the char
acter of tho great body OF voters, who
form cur government, make our laws,
and elect our officers. From moral
standpoint. also, Judge Pressley's deci-
sion is of the utmost consequence What
preaching, teaching, exhorting and plead
ing will not induce, the prospect IF dis
Reimbursement bids fair to accomplish.
We mean that ca!urea people " hC cannot
be made to understand that it is wrong
to steal II ncighbors chickens, will be in.
duced, In many cases, to forego that rccrc.
alton, and other felonious diversions,
when they understand that the effect is