The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1891-01-09
THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIME.
An Outrageous Case of Political Theft By
the Democrats.


the Democrats.
The crime perpetrated by the Demo-
Gratis in the Seventh South Carolina dis
trict and consummated by the action of
the Supreme Court of that State can not
be brought too frequently to the atten-
ton of the people of this country. A
member of Congress, fairly and honest
ly elected by a large majority in an
overwhelmingly Republican district,
has been refused his certificate of cleo
ton and his seat has been stolen by his
Democratic opponent, who is no more
entitled to it than a man in Oregon.
This, therefore, is not local crime but
National one. 1t is not so much a
crime against the rights of the voters of
the Seventh South Carolina district as
it is one against the rights of the whole
people of this country. 1t is q con-
temptuous disregard of the right of
Congress to regulate its own affairs. a
notification of the Federal law. If it
is to be submitted to without protest
and determined effort to correct it and
assert the power of the law, then the
people of this country must be pre-
pared to admit that honesty is not re-
ouisite in Congressional election, and
any Southern thief may break through
and steal a seat in that body with i'm
punity.
The responsibility for the unseating
of Elliott unfortunately rests with the
Democratic branch of the next Con-
gIess. Whether it will have the courage
and manliness to resent the outrage
perpetrated by the Democratic outlaws
in that district is extremely doubtful.
No Southern Representative has ex-
pressed his disapproval yet. No
Southern Senator, pending the dis
cussion of the force bill, has
risen in his place to denOunce this
crime, which is one of the strongest
arguments for its passage, and which is
a direct blow struck at the National
sovereignty. The evidence in the case
so overwhelmingly points to theft that
even Democrats do not dispute it. 1t
was committed in district carved out
by Democratic legislation for the eX-
press purpose of inclosing the largest
possible number of colored voters in
the State and relieving the other six
districts from any possibility of Repub-
lican domination. 1t was conceded to
the negroes. Their registered majority
is $4,000. There was no attempt to pre-
vent them from voting. Their candi-
date, Miller, was elected by large ma
jority, but the county board of can
vassers, upon the fimsy preteXt that
the ballots were a trifle narrower than
they should be.and that their tint was a
shade out of the way, threw them out
and declared that the Democrat was
elected. The State Board to which ap-
peal was made was evenly divided. The
Supreme Court of the State, in the face
of the protest of the Attorney-General,
however, sustained the action of the
county board and indOrsed the bare
faced theft. Under stronger elections
bill these ballots would have been and
should have been honestly counted.
Never has there been a more outrageous
case of political theft in the South,
never a more contemptuous defiance of
law. Until it is denounced by the SEN
ators from South Carolina and by other
Southern Senators and Representatives
their attitude of hostility to the cleo
tons bill is grotesquely absurd and a
satire upon their own consistency. No
criticism can lie against the elections
bill so long as they can see no wrong in
the criminal proceedings in the Seventh
South Carolina district, which should
consign every one concerned in them to
the penitentiary as a common thief
Chicago Tribune.