The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1896-02-01
The Leading Question.

Notwithstanding the fact that the
Shreveport Convention endorsed the
suffrage amendment and embodied it in
Its platform, several Democratic papers
are still opposing it. One of these, pub
lished in this district-the Church Point
Advocate-says in its last issue:
"Vote against the proposed suffrage
amendment. OF course, under ordinary
| circumstances. we ought to favor any
measure which eliminates the vicious
the ignorant and the nurchasable vote
from politics, but if this cannot be done
without depriving even one true and
honest taxpayer of the right Of fran
chise we should refrain from so doing.
| again, if the suffrage amendment is
adopted the power is placed in the
hands of body of men. who are at
present unknown to the pnblic as legis-
latOrs, to modify, change or amend an
article of the constitution according TO
their own sweet will. and such modifi
cations. changes or amendments when
| adopted will become part of the con-
| stitution without the publication and
submission to the popular vote.
This undoubtedly delegates too much
| power to egislators-especially as the
legislators who will he entrusted with
| this power have not been yet selected
| by the people,"
This clipping embodies the main OBJ
jections urged against this wholesome
measure by those whose opposition is
| based upon the ground that some white
| men will be DISTINGUISHED by its adop-
ton. The same objections have been
| harped upon ad nauseum by the Re
publicaus, by the Populists-who are
making an open bid for the negro vote
and also by certain Democrats who
are unpopular with their party, and
who are also bidding for the negro
| vote, seeing no chance for political pre-
| ferment except through that dangerous
and corrupt element. They have also
Gratis like the Advocate who, while
placing their fate in the hands OF the
white people and spurniDg the negro
vote, appear to be afraid that the re-
lations and friends OF the few white
men who would be eliminated from the
body of electors would oppose their as
piratiOns for office and uayhap defeat
them.
The objection contained in the first
paragraph quoted has frequently been
shown to possess but little weight-in
| fact, placed i'll the presence of the bless
ings which would naturally aud inevi
tably flow from the elimination OF the
vicious, the ignorant and the pufchas-
able vote" it should possess, with pat
riotic and enlightened men, no weight
at all. As has been frequently eX-
piained, "tbis cannot be done this
most desirable elimination cannot
be accomplished = without depriv
ing few white men of the right
to vote, for the simple reason that the
Federal Constitution stands in the way.
Tue plan submitted is the product of
the brain of the Wisest, the most intel
iigent and far seeing white statesmen
and Democrats in Louisiana, who offer
it as the best lawful means conceivable
of permanently removing from the cleo
toral body that vast black mass of iy
norance and venality which is always
a dangerous. degrading and disturbing
factor in our politics, and which coBsti-
tutes constant menace to the peace
and prosperity of the State, and an ever
present threat of return to those in
tolerable conditions to rid themselves
construction days. 1t is therefore
trifling with the question, it is posi-
lively childish and puerile, in the face
of the conditions that confront US, to
talk of permitting this great opportu
tunity to pass by uuimprovei ii its util
ization would result in the disfranchse
ment of "even one true and honest tax
payer"-tbough Il man who does not
possess even $500 worth Of property
cannot be much OF a taxpayer, however
" true and honest he may be.
Other States, afflicted by the same
conditions and menaced by the same
black overhanging shadow, have been
wrestling with the same great problem.
Mississippi and South Caroliua have
solved it, and white civilization and
white supremacy are safe there. The
plan submitted for our adoption is
fairer and more honest, more manly
and straightforward, than ~those
adopted in those two States. Ii we
do not accept it, another plan, per-
haps less meritorious, will have to be
adopted. We cannot afford to remain
much longer under the shadow OF this
great danger.
As to the objection embodied in the
second paragraph. we think it is ground
less. By the very terms of the amend
mept, no change can be made in the
measure submitted except by an affirm
alive vote of two-thirds of the members
elected to both houses of the legisla-
ture. In addition to this, The change
must have the approval of the Cover
uOE. Is IL uUb pIuCtlGdity lIlpOSSiUit
that the people of Louisiana will elect
legislature, twG-thirds of whose mem
bers, with the sanction Of the Governor,
will iegislate against the States vel
fare 2 Is the very idea not absurd, pre-
p0sterous Besides, the chances we
take in adopting this amendment,
are not to be compared with those we
will be compelled to meet if it is de-
feated and constitutional convention
is held. That convention would deal
not only with the suffrage bnt with
every other question Of public import,
and it's decisions would be reached not
by two-thirds vote but by a mere,ma
j0rity vote aud when it had completed
its labors ii might declare the work OF
its hands the law Of the land, without
submitting the matter to the people at
all, just as has been done in many in
stances throughout the country, even in
recent years.
And then, let the fact not be over
looked that the legislature has the
power to enact 4 more stringent meas
ure still-an Australian ballot law, for
instance-and that it's legislation on the
subject will be a finality, i. e.. it will not
be submitted to the people for adoption
or rejection.