The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-09

III one Oh the UlOSI TtIlhl Nhblt luNoH'NS VI
longevity in the annals Of modern times.
and history of her 100 years of existence
would form an inteie s,ing book.
4 Dangerous Newspaper.
New Orleans States.
! 1t has always been a matter OF aston
ishmcnt that the democrats Of Texas have
not established a representative newspaper
in Dallas. though the party is ably repre-
scented by the Houston Post The News.
while protesting to be democratic, is. In
truth. more dangerous TO the party than
an out and-out republican organ could be.
The Galveston News. which is under the
same management as the Dallas branch,
recently had a characteristic editorial
which is reproduced with Infinite relish by
the New York Sun. and which we submit
almost entire. as indicating the aumus of
our Texas contemporary:
| 1T is not improbable that the Fifty fifth
congress will invesuaate the suffrage laws
OF South Carolina and Mississippi. and pos
sibly Georgia. The almost total suppress
sion OF the negro vote in the first two and
the extensive suppression in the latter
seem to leave congress no alternative but
10 act IN accordance with the mandatory
|
| States"
| Here Is interpolated Columbia, s. c.,
dispatch to the Globe Democrat. which
says that the republican managers have
determined TO bring the question of rep
resentation to the attention OF congress,
with the claim that South Carolina is only
entitled 10 three, instead OF seven. repre-
sentatives, and profess to be confident Of
carrying their point. Tho News then thus
| proceeds:
| The official returns from Mississippi
show that in the recent election only 10 0DO
votes were cast. Mississippi Ike South
| carolina. has an educational suffrage test.
| Al least the law provides that no male of
| Young age snail exercise the privilege of
suffrage unless he can read and Interpret
| certain passages OF the constitution of
MISSISSIPPI This provision, IL strictly en-
forced, would doubtless disfranchise al
most every citizen OF that State, not ex-
cinhing the lawyers. In Georgia the negro
| is reached through the poll tax law ono
more vicious than the others. because II
opens the way for dsrcputable vote buyers
10 debauch the elections by furnishing poll
lhN receipts TO the poor and ignorant
mere is no doubt that the laws of these
,hree states suppressng suffrage chal-
lenge action by congress"
| AFTER quoting article Il. section . amend .
monts to the constitution. which provi1es
that whenever the right to vote Is denied to
| any OF the male inhabitants of n State he
| ING Il years of age, or In any way abridged
except for participation In rebellion or other
crime the basis of representation therein
| snnii be reduced IN the proportion which the
number OF male citizens shall hear to the
whole number Of male citizens 81 years of
age in such state, the professed representa-
tive journal of the South goes on 10 say:
This provision of the constitution is
| mandatory, not discretionary, and congress
| can not warrantably evade this plain COM
nand According to the census of 1890 the
males OF voting age in Mississippi were.
| Whites, l206ll; colored, $50 400 South
| whites, 1902 657; colorec l3o eig
Georgia whites, 2l9094, colored l79 OPS
70 show how the laws Of Mississippi and
| Scuth Carolina operate In the electioa NJ
| eohsressmen. take the elections of 1894. The
| total vote of the several districts in Mlssis
slppi Is shown rs follows First. $3.50 Sec
ond, 5lo6, Third. 1852 Fourth S9Gi Fifth
sos'' sixth. Col6 Seventh. 5i2i In South
Carolina the figures were: First, 95iS; Sec.
| ond, 1913; Third, Il0j, Fourth II .22i; Fifth
| HoS6;, Sixth, l0630. Seventh. l00s6 Total
veto in Mississippi, 39.5Sl total vote /,
! south Carolina, cS.6i5; average vote pcr dis.
| trict in Mississippi, 5655; average vote per
district In South Carolina. aO92 In The
| same year the average vote per district In
| Indiana was $4,000. in Texas "a 900, in MI
| lois $4,000 In Kentucky 80, 800, in North
carolina so, 500; in Connecticut IS 500 Be
yond all question II Ia manifestly unfair for
7'o5 voters OF Mississippi TO have a repre-
| sentative in congress, while In Texas II re-
| 9u,rcs ~ 600 TO 40 600. Indeed. in 1884, ,ho
| vote in the Sixth TeXns district was 40 4oi
| against a total Of 1881 in the seven Missis-
| slppi districts, Congress ought no, TO per-
nlt this inequality to longer exist. The
| lguros OF the last election ara NOT al hand
out enough IS known 10 warrant The state.
rent that Missssippis representation in
nc National house OF representative
| should be reduced from seven to two and
south Cnrollna's from seven TO three, Like
| wise Mississippfs representation in IN,
electoral college should be reduced from,
| nine to four and South Carolina's from
| nine to FIVE, This is hut Justice 10 ststes
I, Ike Texas. Missouri North Carolina ami
the other Commonwealth where there /,
| no restriction NJ suffrage such MS the ouoted
| provision Of the constitution refers ia as
hypothetical contingency, and the SAM
provision unquestionably makes IL mazda
tcrv unoa congress- IN take such action
II Will be observed that the enforcement,