New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-25
STATEHOOD RESTRICTIo,,
Congress and the Equality Of q.
Commonwealth.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir; The suffrage provisions OF sensto- a..
bin for the admission OF Oklahoma s,s r-stf
Territory as one State raise an intersz+,,.
ton Of constitutional law and an tn,Dos.N~-.
question Of civic policy and moralA IN. Sas
stipulates: az
That said State shall never enact s,v
stIiclhg or aoTidginS the right OF sufrrsr. -
account OF race, color or previous coDSttSs On
servitude nor shall any educational auaiiss.a1s Ok
ever be imposed on the right OF suffraga' -e3loa
The first clause OF this section Is a w.
supererogation. II neither adds 10 po- =,
away from the existing guarantees OF N. -.
political rights. The re-enactmsnt OF N. 60
stitution as statue law Is a harmless. 4, -
activity. The Constitution CO the IJnitad -.
already forbids restriction OF the surY-,-. -
any State on account OF race color or go.
condition OF servitude. and no law which o.
homa might enact TO accomplish that rss,-,.,,--
would be IN tine slightest degree less va,,1 -
cause Of this proposed provision in thu snsA,t--
act.
The clause forbidding any educational -r..
ication for suffrage must be considered rror,
different point OF view. 1t would place "A -
ditionaI restriction on Oklahoma not ur.scr,1.s
by the Constitution and not resting on III. o,A--
States. several Of which have educational 49,.
feations. not merely in the South. for IN. -
pose OF excluding negroes but IN the NOrts !.
Massachusetts,. TO secure an intelligent c,,,r.--
ship without prejudice 20 any race or .I,,,
Has Congress any power to Impose such a -
dition not prescribed by the Constitution a..
not generally operative? The essential s..,,--
Of the federal system Is the equal rights a. -.
States. When the Constitution was formed -.
fat fn TT,fcv ~
suffrage. The theory OF our government "a "a.
new States become entitled TO all the rvh,,
privileges and immunities OF the original s;a,..
How. then. can Oklahoma be forbidden "a a.
what all the original States did and what sor.
OF them still eonstitutionaIly do?
II Is true that Congress has fre1u.nry a.
tempted to make such restrictions. m y,
slavery period some States were admitted an
condition that they should make no law esraA.
fishing slavery. and others to balance than
with fun liberty to establish slavery Much ia..-
Utah was admitted on condition that Il ssouis
provide by ordinance irTevocable without TIA
consent Of the United States and the psous
OF the United States that polygamous N
plural marriages are forever prohibited" N.
exaction Of such conditions may be defended On
the ground that no State can be admitted WITH
out the consent OF Congress. and that q can
compel the applicant to make such a eonstitu-
ton as II approves Whether Il has the riEht
to prescribe anything more than the republican
form OF government required By the federal
Constitution is a question OF speculative polis-
zeal philosophy. AS matter OF fact II has tia
power to do so.
But are such restrictions OF any binding fo-cs
II a State chooses 70 disregard them altar r.
is once admitted? Can It be driven rom ri,
Union and reduced to a Territory. or coercsd
by force. or reached by process OF the federal
courts? Probably not. The only apparent way
to deal with such a situation would be for ths
two houses OF Congress to exclude the repre-
sentatives OF an offending state from their
seats. and that would be IN soma respects a per-
version OF the power OF the houses to fudge TIA
qualifications OF their own members from It's OBJ
viOuS legitimate purpose. In ISIS Illinois. whIcA
had been formed out OF the Northwest Tern
tory. taking with 1t as part Of its organic zs
that great charter OF liberty the Ordlnanes os
1ISI. was admitted as a State with a provision
in the enabling act that its constitution should
not be repugnant 70 that ordinance. Yet IN IS24
a constitutional amendment was submitted By
the legislature and voted on by the people TO
esta blsh slavery IN Illinois. It was defeated
after hard struggle, but II II had been passed
Is there any reason 70 suppose that any power
in the United States could have lawfully pre-
vented the people OF Illinois from holding slaves
as permitted by their domestic law. when thu
federal government had no power % interfere
with the slave property of the people IN the ad-
joining States OF Missouri and Kentucky2
The point or constitutional law Is, however
rather academic. Not the point OF policy and
morals. Is II wise craftsmanship. whatever the
legal authority. u forbid any community %
place its government IN the hands OF its most
competent citizens? Universal suffrage Is no.
and never was necessary principle OF AmsFi-
can liberty. Washington. Hamilton and Je1ss~
son knew no such thing. The ballot IS not 3
right, but a privilege granted BY the state tor
practical purposes OF government. The compass
tive hOmogeneity OF our people IN the second
quarter OF the last century made II seem harm
less to the citizens OF most OF the States 20 abO
ish property and educational qualifications n
face Of the tide OF radical democratic sentiment
then prevailing and the pressure OF GemagOsueS
TO make new voters whom they could control
IL is now a serious question TO many minds Y
the movement did not go too far Our institu-
tions might be safer IL they were In the hands
at least OF those who able 70 read the Ian
guage in which our laws are written and under
stand something Of the spirit and traditions on
which they are founded. II Is no proper func-
ton OF the United States to force any stats 70
commit its civilization to the guardianship OF
thriftlessness and ignorance. r. G. =. q
Nsw-YorlZ, Jan II. 1904