The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-26
THE PENALTY FOR DIsFRANCHIsE-
MENT.

From present indications the new cleo
ton law of Maryland will become a sub
ject of is sussion and action by Congress.
1t does not involve any new principle. or
violation OF principle, being substantially
the same as the recent enactmentsi in sew
eral other Southern States. but circum-
stances have combined to make it more
conspicuous. From the beginning 1t has
been only a question of time when the en-
actment of wholesale disfranchising laws
by State after State would challenge the
attention of the Nation. 1t was impossible
that so open and fragrant a violation of the
Constitution and the principles of repub-
lican government could proceed very far
or continue very long without resistance
by those who believe in fair elections and
free government. One of the notable fea-
lures OF nineteenth century progress was
various countries. A widespread attempt
at the beginning of the twentieth century
to restrict it in the United States was sure
to invite determined opposition before it
proceeded very far. The enactment of the
Maryland law almost under the shadow Of
the national Capitol. and the plain inten-
ton of its trainers to make it a controll-
Jag factor in national politics, was the
turning point. Before any more disfran-
chising laws are enacted Congress will be
heard from.
The present situation has been fore
-A0I,r~oI f~~ ~~~~1 ill., IL 10 ~AflrtorC
that there has not been a fair election and
honest count in any Southern State for
thirty years past. From trlckery and fraud
down to violation of law it was but a step
To the wholesale Acknowledgement of voters
under laws enacted in open violation of
the Constitution. These laws are only
worse than the old methods because they
are more sweeping and universal in their
application, but they are better in that
they suggest an obvious remedy and one
which Congress should not hesitate to APP
ply The fourteenth amendment to the
Constitution says:
Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several States according to their
respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State. But
when the right TO vote at any election for
the choice of electors for President AMI
Vice President of the United States or rep
resentatives i'm Congress is denied to any
of the male inhabitants of such State. be-
ing twenty-One years of age and citizens
of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in the
rebellion, or other crime, the basis of rep
resentation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number Of such male
citizens shall bear TO the whole number of
male citizens twenty-one years of age i'll
each State.
The fifteenth amendment provides that
the right of citizens of the United States 10
vote shall not be denied or abridged by any
State on account of race or color, and
gives Congress power to enforce the pro-
visions by appropriate legislation" I'm
der these provisions any State which dis
franchises a large mass of it's citizens or in
any way abridges their right to vote. ex-
cept for crime, incurs the penalty of hav-
ing it's basis of representation I'm Congress
and the electoral college cut down in the
same proportion. If a State insists on it's
right TO deny the right of voting to thou
sands of its inhabitants it cannot complain
IL Congress reduces it's basis of representa-
ton to the constitutional standard. That
much, at least, can and should be done.