Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1891-01-08

have The right. and that oil who do
have the right ahall Be- protsctsd IN
is sxsrciss.
More than this; In the provisions
Of the bill itsslf, involved and con-
fused - thsy are. there i but little.
If anything. TO criticise because q
thsir severity; and il the Law would
b always fairly administered by CON.
pstsst oficials il would prove an sfi-
cisnt aid. By the Federal arm, in -
curing tho purity Of the ballot box.
Nor can il b objected 10 The bill
that il aims at the correction Of an
abnss who're none sxists Notxith-
ntandina ths slahorats EMISSIONS Of
Bsnsl6Is - tie other sids. there =
probably not one of thsn Who would
not II once admit in private convsr-
sation what everybody knows to b.
true. that wherever in the South the
colored vote outnumbers the white
vote the colorsd vote ID not permitted
to be cast. or if cast. 10 not permitted
to be counted. The old days Of 60
crst organizations and midnight ma.
rsuders seem for the time to have
passed. but the vote il ss efisctually
suppressed az in those times Of horror
and Of bloodshsd.
We have then bill seeking to
right 90 uadoubted violation Of Law,
constitutional 10 its scope. not unduly
harsh 10 its provisions. and yet Q
measure which. in my judgment. it
would bs most unwiss and unpatriot-
10 to enact into law.
| The bill, Mr.. President. should not
become law because ii involves Fed.
sral iutsrfersncs and espionage ct
other than national elections, aud
such interference is contrary to the
spirit Of our institutions and On OBJ
stacls to the right enjoyment Of our
liberties.
II q measure could bs framed max.
ing the day for the election Of mem.
bsrs Of Congress separate and dis
tinct from any local election. and the
officers appointed to supervise such
election could bs 90 limited in their
powers and tenure of Office 40 to 90.
cure impartiality in the exercise Of
their functions, ] should favor IT,;
hut any Federal msddling with State
elections il to my mind intolsrabls.
We are told of the great good the
present Law hes done in tbs larger
cities. and that State officials have
frequently worked in harmony with
the Federal oficers ct elections. All
this may be true. bat I think it does
not offer sufficient argument for the
Law.
Take the city of New York With
thousands of ignorant and criminal
and venal voters. It is. to my mind.
better that its local and State elec-
tions should be attended with fraud
and dishonesty than that they should
be kept pure BY Federal intsrfersncs.
Even in the city Of New York there
are infinitely more good men than
bad-mors men who want honest
elections than there are men who want
dishonest elections and while for the
time local interests suffer, in the end
the decent men hand together. ami.
mated not only by motives of good
citizenship but by desire TO protect
property interest and BY united action
they secure good government. or as
near an approach to it as can be had
in great cities. Public opinion 10 al.
ways not only finally right but finally
controlling, and Federal eurveillsnc.
only wsskens the citizen. ssnss Of
responsibility without permanently
eradicating the evil
We triad the remedy of Federal
interference in Denver, the capital of
Colorado; we tried it last in 1888, at
the suggestion and under the manage
ment of q Democratic district attor.
ney and Democratic marshal. The
law was administered bY a judge who
is 90 exceedingly fair an impartial
that he is invariably opposed to both
sides. [Laushtsr.1 In that coumu-
nify. the capital of the State of Colo
RADIO. composed of people noted for
their probity and uprightness on slec-
tion day ~ we'll a. every other day
of the year. We had Federal supsrvis-
ion Of the election two years ago.
No change was made in the result
and there could be no change. because
it was an honest election, and yet
Mr.. President. I do not believe that
in the city Of Denver there was
citizen who loved his State who did