Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-08

and the multiplication table; ]! they hau
n proper sense of shame they would peg
| the government TO reduce the NUMBER oi
,tc;r districts" But unfortunately,
~lanicnts our contemporary, W canho'
expect that they will take this course'
and therefore these States SHOULD DE to
ouircd by Congress to give mp the power
dhich they unjustly hold" Then the
I~ndependcnt develops an inquisitiveness
which is natural in those whose nienlai
makeup is such that they are easily
shocked at a ''sin" against arithmetic o'
,he MULTIPLICATION table, but who can
contemplate with the greatest equaninn'y
4 transprcssion of the laws OF society ana
civilization. II asks: "Who shall say
,ro, CONGRESS cannot obtain proof OF this
wholesale destruction of suffrage rights:
Well. no one who has kept abreast OF
the times will say that Congress cannon
Obtain proof that suffrage is restricted III
some of the Southern States, and that III
tbese States the man and the brother
cauuot vote as numerously as when lhe
scallawag and the carpet-baggcr piped
him TO the polls to the tune OF 'forty
acre, and a mule" As TO one State
Mississippi-Congress would have to go
no further than the records of the SUI
preme Court Of the United States for the
proof. In the Mississippi case the SUI
preme Court of Mississippi "rnade nc
bones"-no suggestion Of comic instru-
mental accompaniment to the lndepeiid-
ent's wall is here intended-of conceding
that the DISTINGUISHING clause OF the State
Constitution was intended to restrict sui
frage. But to what practical account
could Congress turn the proof after OBJ
tainirg it? The United Siaes Supreme
Court sustained the decision Of the Mis-
sissippi court. It declared i'll terms that
the clause in question was not
to the fifteenth amendment. and III the
opinion Of many who have subjected It's
decision to exhaustive analysis, the court
also decided conscquentially that the
clause does not traverse the fourteenth
amendment. In other words, it is held
that the effect Of the decision is that so
long As States follow the lines of the Mis-
sissippi Constitution in respect OF this IS
sue, there is nc appeal to either
the fourteenth or the fifteenth
amendment. But ever should the
deduction touching the bearing of the
decision on the fourteenth amendment
be unwarranted, when Congress came to
attempt a reduction under that amend
intnt of representation in Congress and
the Electoral College, it couldn't make
fish Of one section of the country and
fowl of another. 1t would have TO
reckon with the Northern States in which
suffrage is restricted, and then there would
be trouble i'll the camp of the faithful.
To apply the fourteenth amendment to
a Southern State because it restricts ne
gro suffrage and exempt from the
~'penaltv" a Northern State that restricts
white suffrage would be to repudiate the
cherished Republican doctrine of the
equality of man" 1t would be a viola
ton of the fifteenth amendments dis
elimination or account OF race, color, or
previous condition of servitude." APP
plication to both sections would prove a
boomerang for the Republican party,
that III Northern States that
have DISTINGUISHING clauses in their con-
stitutions the movement would jeopar
die party solidity. In the matter of rep
resentatives III Congress and electors, the
Northern States as States
Believe In the good old plan
o. keen what you've got,
And get what you can.
Therefore, aside from the contention
that the decision of the Supreme Court i'll
the Mississippi case bars the way to an
application of the fourteenth amendment
in this matter, we do not think hat when
it cones to the pinch Congress will Sc
consider the demand of our angry
and distressed New York contemporary.
Hence we do not believe that the South
will have ITO pay the penalty"
And, by the way, it would seem that
apart from the above considerations, the
Independent made a mistake in striking
IFS caption keynote. As the situation
now presents itself, and in view of how
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments
are beginning to operate III the South, it
looks as if the Republican party was
destined to pay the penalty" i'll the
shape of r~etributive justice for its %iniquity
in foisting them upon orr people. Both |
amendments were conceived in hatred
and born i'll hypocrisy. They were the
hopeful progeny of malignancy and
lust for power, but having served their
pareutage more or less faithfully for a
generation, it would appear that they
are now about 10 carse that parentage
and die. So mote it be.
|
The Baltimore American notes the in