Telegram-herald. ([Grand Rapids, Mich.) 18??-1892, 1890-08-23

tsoa2. AZ : raised b. ne proceedings
os TIE Assslsslpoi stale constitutions
convent-0l. Il . tAs ayosec purpose
or tnzE bo1y ~ had soals wss Of pre-
venting negroes frosn voting, or AZ
least from affecting tie result CT cleo
tlons. A property o. educational qual.-
hcatlon OF electors bss been looked
upon as the nlost feasible and, a. tss
same tine, lsgal method to Dc adopted,
It being cooceded that states have tie
night % impose such qualifications.
Butin reference 10 the reconstructed
states a grave question arises or their
right 70 impose the qualifications men
toned. When Mississippi vas read
Matted to the Union in 1899, Congress
had previously required from her GER
tain guarantees concerning the political
rights OF the freedmen and had re-
quired as q condition precedent TO ad-
mission % the Union, that she embody
such guarantees IN her constitution.
In compliance, that State incorporated
INTO her constitution = provision "that
no property CT religious qualification
for ONCE, nor any property or educa-
t.onal qualification for voting shall
ever be required" Ga the faith Of
these guarantees the state was read
mitted.
Now the question arises, can the state
violate these guarantees ana impose
the qualifications therein prohibited
Good lawyers in the State differ, as q
matter of course, but, as further mat
ter Of course, the weight of opinion is
IN favor of the states right TO do as
she pleases n the premises. The legal
aspect only j. looked at, the moral
/ question not exerting feathers weight
10 the balance. Ii IS claimed that any
pledges or guarantees gwen TO Congress
| during the reconstruction period are
not binding, because OF the duress
under which the State acted and that,
when Mississippi was re-admittcd, she
thereby re-assumed her position as a
sovereign State, with all the power 10
regulate her internal affairs, including
the qualification OF voters, that any
other State possesses.
The question of duress seems frivol-
Gus; but the argument of the equality
Of the States is more serious. Can
/ Michigan impose an educational or pro-
perty qualification and Mississippi not?
Morally speaking the two States are not
equal. Michigan was intensely loyal
while Mississippi was intensely dis
loyal and ought TO be thankful that
she got out of her scrape with
her citizens unhung for treason and
with anything more than the privileges
of suhjugated territory. But IN legal
view OF the case, there is question
whether there can be any discrimina-
/ ton made between the states. Just
! how the Federal Courts would view the
| question, is uncertain. 1t does not
seem as if they could wholly ignore the
guarantees given TO Congress. In such
an event, the qualification of voters in
| Federal elections for Congressman
and Presidential electors-would be
more liberal tnsn the qualification of
electors in state elections. Such re-
suit would require separate elections
and would assure the Southern States
OF freedom from NEGRO domination -
while the entire population upon which
Federal representation is based would
find expression at the polls.
In spite of Democratic mIsrepresenta-
tons, the Federal election bill does not
contemplate any interference with
state elections. 1t simply provides for
an honest Federal election. We see no
reason why the two elections could not
be held separate, at least in sep
arate boxes. and why an hon.
estly applied educational or prop
erty qualification could not be
maintained for State elections.
It's not strained Interpretation of the
reconstruction guarantees gwen by
Mississippi to confirm their application
to Federal elections solely. Can the
solution not be worked out on this line