National Republican., 1883-01-05

iuily ana freely is great measure OF safety to
the state to its good order, and the security
Of life and property. We have seen how large
per centage of men in the state cannot, or
do not in fact, for reasons which will be stated
hereafter, exercise this right. Our laws as
now administered allow them to take no part
in the government. large and fast increas-
ing minority of the citizens of the state arc
deprived by our laws and their execution of
any part in its concerns. They feel that they
have not been permitted to take part in
framing the laws under which they live
10 such class of persons such laws seem
and arc oppressive To them they
have not given their assent or dissent
They have the ballot neither as power nor
protection. VIII they not look, then, for
other combinations rather than legal ones, as
a means Of redress for real or supposed griev-
ances2 On the other hand, give them the
ballot and they will conservatively use it
undor and according TO the law for the re-
dress of their grievances. IL may be said that
they now have equal rights and equal powers
with all other men. Not true; but if &c werc
not by laws of their own making Hold them
with these oppressive laws of deprivation of
their rights and they become the Pariahs Of
society, and will look TO communistic asso-
citation outside of the pale of the laws for tho
protection and rights that they should have
by the law. The argument put forth by
some-the unreflecting-against equal rights
dangerous class will arise. Not so. Power
makes all men conservative, and sense of un-
deserved oppression makes all men lawess
Remember that upon this class of citizens the
state must rely for the military power which
must enforce your laws. Why, then, strive
to make them unhappy, discontented and
lawless2
Fortunately, the abolition of the tax quail
fication for voting is not question which
now divides political parties.
In the constitutional convention of 1858 an
amendment TO strike IL out of the constitution
was passed by vote of 206 to 50. 1t was sup
ported by the entire democratic party of that
day, headed by the venerable iurist Marcus
Morton, and all insisted that suffrage was
natural right
II was supported by tho mon who gave birth
to the froe-sol party, the nucleus of tho re-
publican party, and was advocated by such
men as Joel Parker, chief Justice of New
Hampshire, and head Of the Harvard Law
school, Charles Allen, John Il, Alley, Francis
w. Bird, George S. Boutwell,, Arson Burlin-
game, Henry Chaplin, Richard H. Dana, ir.,
Robert 7. Davis, John NJ. Earle, Charles Sum
nor, Amasa Walker, Nathaniel p. Banks, jr.,
and Henry Wilson.
No moro learned iurists no better states
men lived in that day in Massachusetts,, nor
have lived since.
Vice President Wilson used, in regard to
eloquent language:
Poverty Is bitter enough 10 be borne with
out the degradation of Acknowledgement That
constitutional provision which would deny to tho
poor man VINO could not pny his tax bill the right
to vote should be forever bottcd out of the con-
stituton Ola Christian commonwealth.
Afterwards, two republican congresses by
two-thirds maiorities gave suffrage, free and
untrammelled, to every white man and four
millions of freed slaves by the fourteenth and
II M IQ 20 tlan ,t,.ts
which were adopted by three-fourths of tho
states. most Of them republican, one of which
was Massachusetts.
The doctrine of absolute free suffrage re-
mains cardinal principle OF the republican
party to-day, nowhere better or more elo-
quently stated than by one of her chosen rep
resentatives (who might well have been ad-
dressing you), in carefully prepared grafton,
delivered Mt fremont temple, upon questions
Of republican principles in the late political
campaign.
Mr. Graz po says:
What are these questions which demand our
attention to-day? They arc the questions of free
aud fair elections, the absolute enjoyment by
every man in this country of the right to vote.
The republican party, through its adminis-
tration, and by its entire organization, struck
hands with the progressive Malone, of Vir-
ginia, and i'll the election of 1882 caused the
poll-tax qualification to be stricken from tho
constitution of that state by the decisive ma
jority of 1013O3 to 66,171.
Opposition to a property or tax qualification
for suffrage has been the doctrine of the dem
ocratic party everywhere, except when led
from the principles of true democracy by tho
influences of slavery, which all good men
thank God are gone forever.
OF the thirty-eight states five only tolerate
it in their constitutions. 1t is for you, as
legislators of Massachusetts, to say whether
our old free commonwealth shall remain
,longer in the degraded column.
THE INtPEDINfENTs OF REGISTRATION.
We have already seen the very great dis
proportion between the number Of voters of
the commonwealth and tho number of votes
actually cast. That disprOportion, however,
is far beyond that which is caused by II tax
qualification. This arises from the impedi-
ments thrown in the way of voting by our
laws in regard to registration. Registration
is a perfectly proper and necessary regulation
as prerequisite to voting, but it should he
carefully guarded so as not to be hindrance
to the honest voter in the exercise of his
rights. Within few years there have been
several provisions in regard to registration,
which are wholly unnecessary and .obstruc-
tive. In the first place, the registration in
cities closes Mt very early day before the
election, so that the voter is shut out from his
privilege without notice. He should have the
right il qualified, to be registered down to
the hour Of opening the polls.
In the second place, rs the registry is ad-
ministered, q very large proportion of our
voters have to be rc-registered every year,
and the fact that they have been once regis
tered, and voted, does not seem to be consul
cred by the registrars in making up the regis
tration lists, l can best illustrate this point
by referring to what has absolutely taken
place in the registration of the city of Boston,
and in so doing / give quite approximate but
not accurate numbers,
In 1850 there were about SO 900 voters regis
tered in the city of Boston. In 1852, when
the registry lists were published, there were
only 81, 200 names on the registry lists. That
was a striking OIL of some 2l,O0O names who
had already once voted and shown themselves
qualified. Why leave those names of, unless
some positive evidence was shown to the regis
try that they were not voters? Only from
the second Monday Of September or for some
thirty days is there any opportunity for the
voter TO get his name on the list. 1t Is true
that that time is shorter in Boston than In
any other city or town in the commonwealth,
probably because there are more voters to DO
left unregistered
The registration law has been altered in
some form almost every year for the last
seven, and always in derogaton and obstruc-
ton of the voter The changes which would
suggest are these Let every man of 21 years
and upward who is assessed have his name
put on the registration list to be stricken OF
by the registrar after notice to him in case of
any proof against him as u votor-a name
once stricken Off not to be re-registered i'm any
subsequent year until the right to vote at
that time Is fully established by the voter. In
other words now all intcndmonts i'm repistrn-