The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-04
4.237.211

The Republican party in three districts In
Indiana polled more votes for representa-
tives in Congress han did the three States
Of Louisiana, Mississippi and South Caro-
lima In this district the aggregate vote for
representative to Congress was as large as
the entire vote of the States of Louisiana
and Mississippi. which have fourteen men,
bers in the present House. Mississippi
electing seven representatives by an aggre-
gate vote of 1S.07s, or 1853 for each repre-
sentative. Marion county. casting 4S,s21
votes. elected one member of the House.
The three States named, casting 72,63S
votes. elected twenty members of the
House, while Indiana, casting $780, $50 votes,
elected but thirteen.
The wonder is that such facts as are
here related do not attract more attention
than they do. since they show the entire
absence of interest in elections by the peo-
pie. In each of these States half of the
voters have been DISTINGUISHED by con-
stitutional amendments which are not SUBJ
mitted to the people-amendments designed
TO nullify the Constitution of the United
States. But why do not the other half of
those qualified to vote exercise the right
of suffrage? Because there is but one po-
litical party in these States, and there is
but one political party because men who
would create any other party than the
Democratic would become the victims of a
sort of social ostracism. furthermore, the
States which have disfranchised half of
their voting population have imposed a
heavy poll tax upon all who register to
vote. which can be escaped If those en-
titled to vote do not register. On this point
the New Orleans Times-Democrat says
that about one out of six of the persons
who can vote under the constitutional pro-
visions took the trouble to pay their poll
tax, get registered, go to the polls and cast
their ballots" There is no reason why
a man should pay a poll tax of s. simply
to enable him to vote when there is but
one party, and when the voting can be done
by the limited number Of men who must
pay taxes on property.
1t mo be possible that the Democratic
leaders who cunningly devised the schemes
for multiplying the Constitution of the
OHlteu States cOulu nave Deen DnnO 10
the consequences of that provision of their
amended State constitutions which makes
the suffrage of those who are not dis
franchised depend upon the payment of a
poll tax. 1t seems that they must have
f~oreseen that the poll-tax requirement
would accomplish just what it has, name
ly, the reduction Of the number of actual
voters to those who have the requisite
property and taxpaying qualifications. In
view of the result. is it not fair to assume
that the ruling class, which makes con.
situations and ratiies them without vote
of the people, had in view the elimination
of the majority of voters to the end tina
1.-The rule of the few"-the very few-mighi
be firmly established?
1t may seem a matter of no consequence
TO many people, but it Is an indisputabl,
fact that in no State which has been undel
Democratic control the past decade is {
full vote and a fair count tolerated. Ii
Louisiana, Mississippi. Alabama, South
Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia dis
reimbursement and poll-tax requirement.
have suppressed a large majority of tn,
voters, while in Kentucky a Goebel law
and in the Republican cities OF Missouri
Nesbit law has been enacted to over
whelm Republican votes by fraudulent vot
ing and counting.