The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-03
THE PRIMARIES SETTLE 1T.

In his speech before the Republican
convention here yesterday, Senator
Pritchard got a round of applause
from his brigade of revenue doodlers
when he declared that the Louisiana
amendment in the last election had
cut off fifty per cent of the white
voters of the State. He could make
that statement in n convention. COM
posed almost wholly of men he con-
troled by virtue of the offices he
could give them, but when he made
like statement with reference to Miss
issippi in the United States Senate
Mr.. Money answered him effectively.
The result of the adoption of the
amendment in Louisiana is the same
as it was in Mississippi. 1t guaran-
teed white government so securely
that it was not necessary for all the
voters to go to am election. In his
splendid speech replying to Mr..
Pritchard, the Mississippi senator,
MT. money Salu:
There is one more matter that /
want to allude to, and ! know l ann
OBTAINING the Senate too long. The
Senator from North Carolina assert
ed the other day that the very fact
that very small poll of votes oc-
Cured in Mississippi and other South
ern States was proof to his mind that
they were prevented from voting; that
they would have voted if they were
not prevented from voting. He allud-
ed to the fact that at the last election
only about $4,000 votes We're cast in
Mississippi, and that the total white
vote is $4,000. | do not know wheth-
er that is true or not. According to
the census of 1890 it was 10000 Does
he think that the $4,000 white men
prevented the balance of the white
men from voting? Who can compel a
man to vote? You can lead a horse
to water, but you can not make him
drink. Has not this thing occurred
elsewhere without any challenge?
Il explained at that time that the
reason why the poll was so small at
the regular election was this: The
nomination had been settled at pri-
maries or mass conventions. Then the
voting force Of the party turned out
and the election was with such small
opposition that it was a mere ratifi-
cation. That may be unwise or not.
but it does not argue anything unlaw-
full or anything unconstitutional. be-
cause our State provides by law for
system of primaries. and consequent
ly the thing being already done. simp-
" to be ratified. the people did not
trouble themselves to 90 to the polls
and vote. So it cannot be considered
even remotely. to be evidence that
anybody was prevented from voting
has been eliminated, the chief fight
comes in the primaries, and knowing
that nomination is equivalent to an
election, the voters are not particular
about going to the polls when every
thing is one way. In Louisiana, how
ever, the vote was smaller than Il
would have been by reason OF an un-
precedented storm which required
voters to make their way to the polls
in RATS, skiffs. and boats.
1t is not only in the South that
involved in no uncertainty. Often the
vote in Pennsylvania is very light.
except in Philadelphia, where accord
ing to John Wannamaker, there hasn't
been an honest election in thirty
years. In Massachusetts in 1890 there
was cast only 2S5,000 votes whereas
it had 665.0O0 qualified voters. Does
Senator Pritchard maintain that the
100000 men who didn't vote were IL
Hterates who were Disseminated
AGAINST. or intimidated? In Connecti-
cut in 1890, only $4,000 men voted out
Of $4,000 voters How comes it that
fhe votes in these two States was SO
small? The reason is that the domi
nant party had no real opposition,
the opposing party being unable to
make a contest that called out a full
vote.
Senator Plitchard ought not to
make such statements in view of these
facts and figures. OF course his cla-
ouers in his -iack-and-tan convention
of revenue doodlers will applaud, but
the thoughtful people of the State OF
all parties will see their fallacy.