The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-02-08
AN %INADEQuATE DEFENSE

If no better defense can be made of the
Southern policy of DISTINGUISHING colored
voters than that set up by Representative
Talbert, Of South Carolina, the defendants
had better confess judgment at once. 1t
was quite fitting that Mr.. TaIbert should
attempt the defense. He represents the
district in South Carolina containing Edge
field county, which used to be headquar-
tiers of Kuklux and Red Shirts. and where
many negroes nave been killed for fun.
According to the census of 1900 the four
counties comprising his district contain
males of voting age as follows: Aiken
county. 4,19O white and 4,5O7 colored; Barn
we'll county, 2,47S white and 1867 colored;
Edgeheld county. 1850 white and 1859 col
ored; Hampton county. 1855 white and
1928 colored- a total of 1929 white voters
and 15,T1 colored. In 1896 the Republican
candidate for Congress received 635 votes;
in 1898 he received 10 votes; in 1900 he re-
ceived 1876 votes. In 1896 Mr.. Talbert re-
ceived 1893 votes; i'm 1898 he received 4.O13
votes. and i'm 1900 he received GLIB. Com
parison of the number of male persons of
voting age and the number of votes cast
for the respective candidates tells the whole
story. 1t was hardly necessary for Mr..
Talbert to advertise the fact that he has
owed his successive elections for years
past to the practical Acknowledgement of
the Republican voters in his district. When
he was first elected TO Congress he was
superintendent of the South Carolina Peni-
tertiary; in some of the Northern States
men have had TO serve time as convicts
for far less fragrant election frauds than
those to which he has owed his seat in
Congress ever since his first election.
Mr.. ralbert's defense of the disfranchis-
ing policy of South Carolina and other
Southern States consisted i'm showing up
the former anti-negro policy of Indiana.
as if that had any bearing on the bill to
reform the basis of representation intro
duced by Mr.. Crumpacker. Following out
this foolish idea, Mr.. Talbert quoted the old
anti-negro laws i'm force in this State un-
der the Constitution of 1916 and under that
of 1852 until they were repealed. Those
laws were indeed proscriptive and in
human. as was the spirit of the age in
which they were enacted, but they were
wiped off the statute book long ago and
belong now to ancient history. At present
there is not a word in the Constitution or
in any law Of Indiana discriminating be-
tween white and cOlored citizens, and there
has not been for a generation past. AL
though the party which Mr.. Talbert repre-
-o-.- F,,,~It n. l.-.s- a ~
and fifteenth amendments to the Constitu-
ton as long and as hard as possible, and
delayed their ratification somewhat, they
were finally adopted, and no attempt has
been made TO abrogate or nullify them.
Instead Of quoting from the Indiana Con-
stitution of 1916 and from laws repealed
thirty or forty years ago Mr.. Talbert should
nave addressed himself to present condi-
tons. The question is not what Indiana
or South Carolina did before the war or in
the early part OF the century, but what
they are doing now. Mr.. Crumpacker
should not waste any time replying to Mr..
Talbert's silly attack on the ancient and
obsolete legislation of Indiana. He needs
only to hold up the Constitution of the
United States with it's plain provision re-
garding representation in Congress to be
based on the voting population, and say,
There it stands; it speaks for itself" II
necessary. he can also hold up the present
Constitution and laws of this State and
let them speak for themselves that they
do not disfranchise a large body of voters
while still demanding that they be counted
in the basis of representation i'm Congress.
That is the point to which defenders Of
the Southern DISTINGUISHING policy should
address themselves, and not to quoting OBJ
solets laws of mast generations