Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1890-07-12
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, sATURDA

a strange deformity of character, an
obliquity of moral vision, a spirit of
brutality, an inveterate prejudice a
pitiless despotism. which find graphic
portrayal in the cruel prosecutions
and merciless prescriptions practiced
upon defenseless citizens to drive
them by the terror of fear to the alb
dication of their rights as fremen
and the REIMBURSEMENT of the fruits
OF their acknowledgements.
We believe that no republic can
consent to this end live. That no
people can long inflict this wrongup
on their neighbors without them
selves in turn losing the rights they
wrest from others. There is no es-
cape from the aveDging Nemesis.
The furies will pursue and finally
overtake them. No human power
can avert it. The great King Og, In
the Jewish story, lifted n great rock
TO huri at his enemies, but God made
a hole in the middle of it, so that it
slipped down upon the giants neck,
where it remained forever. VIII not
our deluded countrymen reflect,
pause, and consider whether the rock
they lift to crush the rights of others
may not some day. in the changeless
round of justice, encircle their own
necks.
CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE.
Their plea to a portion of the in
dictment against them, touching
their cruelty TO the colored people, is
mot guilty." but to the distinct ac-
cusatiOn, that they deny to their col
ored neighbors their political rights.
refuse TO allow the honest results of
elections to be declared, but suppress
enough votes to make those results
conform to their wishes, their plea is
one of confession and avoidance. Z"
That, true it is that we annul the
Constitution, defy the organic law,
and put our feet on the necks of our
neighbors; but we are justified In
doing so in order to maintain white
political supremacy; that is TO say,
the violation of the Constitution is
justified on grounds of political ne
cessity-a necessity for one class of
citizens to maintain it's ascendency
over another class against it's will
and in violation of it's right.
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.
The political consequences of the
wrongs which they seek thus TO JUS
tify may be seen by their influence
upon the vote as shown in the sub
joined tabulaIed statement, which is
itself n most convincing argument in
support of the proposition to call in
national supervision to secure a free
expression of the will of the people at
national elections. The table shows
how Democratic methods have in
creased the Democratic and diminish
ed the Republican vote in five States !:
Every district in these five States,
with one exception, was returned
as electing a Democratic Congress-
man. 1t thus appears that in 1888
(it was much worse in 1850 that a
total vote of 595, O75 in five South
ern States elected thirty eight men,
bers of the House, while in the
States of New York and Connecticut
it requires ,470,S73 votes to elect
the same number. The atrocity of
this outrage upon the ballot will
appear in a still more vivid light
when it is remembered that the
enfranchisement of the colored race
brought to the Electoral College in
the south an acquisition of thirty
eight votes, which the Democracy
have appropriated to swell their Con
gressiOnal representation, while the
cOlOred Republicans in MOST SECTIONS
remain unrepresented. These re-
suits pleads trumpet-tongued
against the deep damnation of such
a system Of political spoliatiop
and
Heavens cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers OF the air
Should blow the horrid deeds IN every eve
until the nation ends them.
MORAL ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, / desire to saw
that no political considerations can
ever be permitted to dispute a moral
or legal obligation. The Consti-
tutional rights of citizens rest upon
the highest possible sanction, and
are not to be set aside by any
alleged rights of inferior obligation.
The claims of Justice are superior to
those of political expediency. No
man has ever permanently succeeded
by denying to others the rights he
claims himself. No nation has ever
become great by dispensing with
justice. The Almighty would not
allow such an experiment to sue
coed. Any individual who seriously
insists upon such a proposition
demonstrates either his lack of
sincerity or his ilsensibility of moral
distinctions. Those who insist that
it is wrong to protect by law the
rights of citizens against the incur
sions of wrong doors, and in the
same breath hold it right to despoil
their neighborsof their rights and
leave them naked and helpless to the
mercy of their enemies, can not
reasonably hope to receive credit for
both good falkland good judgement.
The total loss of moral vision
betrayed by Watt K. johnson, OF
South Carolina, who said, in the
case of Hill VS.. Catchings, that he