Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-02-27
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
Discussed in Reports Made to the
House on Both Sides.
TIE pISFRANCHlSING OF VOTERS
BY Various Methods in Many of the
States Inquired Into.
VIEWS OF THE MINORITY AND MAJORITY

WASHINGTON, Feb ~26-The minority
members of the Committee on Judiciary
have prepared two vigorous reports in op-
position to the Houck resolution. which was
ordered favorably reported to the House,
directing the Judiciary Committee to in
quire into and report to the House whether
or not any State has by any constitutional
or statutory provision violated the second
section of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution, so that a proper appor-
tionment of representation may be made by
Congress.
The minority report prepared by Mr..
Oates, of Alabama, is signed by Messrs.
Oates, Culbertson, of Texas; Henderson, of
North Carolina, and Wilson, of West Vir-
ginia, and by Stewart, of Vermont, with a
qualification. This report says that the
States are not constitutionally prohibited
from disiranchising any of their male citi-
zens. 1t only prescribed as a penalty for
such disfranchisement for any other cause
than that OF participation in rebellion or
ether crime, that the representation in Con-
greSs from such State shall be reduced in
The proportion which the persons disiran-
chised bear to the whole number OF adult
male citizens in such State.
A Pertinent Question Asked.
The question is asked if the resolution re-
ported be adopted now, can the committee
make the inquiry directed, in the absence of
any Legislation by Congress, providing the
means OF securing evidence to enable the
committee to procure the necessary proofs to
warrant Congress in reducing the renresen-
tation OF anv State? The committee assume
that some citizens in Mississippi and Mas
sachusetS are denied the right TO vote by the
State Constitutions Tor some other reason
than crime.
This may be true, but the minority can.
not shut their eyes to the fact that the Con-
stdution of Mississippi has not vet gone
into operation, and there is no law applica-
be tn that State, Massachusetts or any other
State. by which the committee can ascertain
the number Of franchised, for Congress has
never nroyided the means by which this may
he DOR. assumptions are worthless in such
grave matter.
Question of Proof
Legal proofs must be held to a reasonable
certainty, ar6 until such legislation is enacted
it Is utterly futile to adopt such resolution for
it cannot be complied with.
Until Congress enacts a law providing for an
enumeration Of the number of persons dsfran-
Ghised for crime and for the number disfran-
chised for other causes, it is impossible to CON-
ply with the resolution If the resolution was
literally construed. the report says the requir-
ing OF Il months residence in State and regis
tra;lon as a prerequisite to voting would be
good cause for reducing its representation.
But the report concludes. "a cardinal
principle in our system Of Government is that
The states shall each prescribe the oualiica-
tions of its electors When they ratified this
article OF the Constitution it cannot be as
m ed wi QNyc c hntu 0f SlaF +l,a
tended to surrender this right or to restrict
their powers To the extent that such a con-
structlon would maintain"
Based on False Assumptions.
Representative Rogers. in his individual mi
nority report. says: ''The resolution proceeds
Oh two false assumptions:
"First-That if State restricts suffrage for
cause other than rebellion crime. 1t violates
the second section of the Fourteenth Amend
Eent; and, second that it is necessary for some
STATE to violate this section in order that |
proper apportionment of Representatives may
be made. In Connecticut voters must be of
good moral character Whether they have it
IN BLOCKS of Five or not. We are not told. II
may be that in Connecticut all persons who
have not been in rebellion or been guilty of
other crime have good moral characters and
hence 'goCd moral character would not in that
State operate as restriction on suffrage
But of all the States the one whose Consti- |
tuition, according to tie logic OF the majority
is most hagrantly offensive to the section of the
Constitution cited is our sweet little sister
Idaho, who was brought into Statehood by this
congress after long labor and the successful !
performance OF the CaeSarian operation by the |
speaker. now known I'm general parliamentary
law) as counting constitutional quorum"
Other States in the List.
Attention is then drawn TO the Idaho provis- |
ison fOrbidding polygamists or Mormons
voting. "Other States" Mr.. Rogers saws.
might be cited, but the list is already SO long
as TO suggest the inquiry whether the whole |
country is not rapidly growing weary of the |
tOurteenth Amendment and becoming imbued |
with the idea that the people of the States are |
capable of self-government and should be left |
20 II without ofhcious outside interference
The majority of the committee in its report
prepared by Mr.. Caswell of Wisconsin. saws /
that the committee did not deem it necessary |
IN a parliamentary inquiry, to examine the |
various State Constitutions, but that, in the
judgment of the majority, the Constitutions of /
Mississippi and Massachusetts are clearly |
within the provisions of the second section of
the Fourteenth Amendment, because of the /
educational ana property requirements thereof |
The Fourteenth Amendments, it says is broad 1
and comprehensive in its terms and requires that
The representation shall be reduced whenever
there is al abrIdgmens of suffrage for any other
than the two reasons stated.
Not Within Its Provinces.
1T is not for u.s." says the report. ITO discuss
the wisdom of the Fourteenth Amendment.
nor does 1t become our duty 20 determine how
OF IN what the matter, the number or propor-
non of the inhabitants of any given State, who
are disiTanchised. can be ascertaned. The
sole question delegated to us is whether the
Constitution or laws of any State should work
a reduction Of its representation By reason of
suffrage restriction. The instances cited with
reference 10 Massachusetts and Mississippi we
believe, show that the resolution ought To pass
SO that thorough investigation might be had |
NO one is exempted from military service |
because he does not own property, and the
same may be said for those who have not had
the advantages of education They are often !
As loval and as devoted to good order and the
welfare of the people as those enJoying |
superior advantages. When the Fourteenth |
Amendment was adopted. public opinion was |
especially directed to this class of people, and |
1t may be assumed they were.in mind when the