New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-20


The House Committee on Elections could
hardly have made any other decision IN the
Dantzler case than 10 declare air. Lever entitled
70 his seat Certainly e could not have seated
Mr.. Dautzler on the assumption that under
happier conditions votes 20 elect him might
have been cast. HIS assertion that Il certain
citizens Of South Carolina entitled % vote m
der the constitution Of 1865 had been allowed
% vote a. the last election 10 Congress they
would have supported him and given him
majority Is q mere matter Of speculation. They
might have voted for his opponent At any
rate, they dii not vote, and The legal votes cast
not the legal votes which might have beeen cast
under some conceivable circumstances. deter
mine IN election. Il was obviously Impossible 70
give Mr. Dsn-zler che scat The only possible
alternative TO The course taken was % declare
the seat vacant on the ground thar no election
entitled 20 recognition by Congress bad taken
place.
This wo1ld have meant the denial q repre-
sentauon 10 al the Southern States which have
repudiated their reconstruction promises and
nulldod the constitutional amendments. Some
persons, Indeed, have proposed that method q
dealing with the Southern suffrage problem.
Despairing OF action by the courts 70 enforce
the negroes political rights. and fearing that
the proposed reduction of representation would
ment Of the blacks. they propose this more rad
zeal measure. They say that these States have
violated their con1pocts with the Union. and
that Congress should treat them as contuma-
cious. This would put them g the position OF
the rebeltous States after the Civil War, some
OF which were kept without representation Tor
several years until they compiled With the
terms imposed upon them. Il such a policy
could be repeated SC would force the States
affected 70 make new laws and constitutions
as the price Of enjoying once more their privi-
leges OF Statehood.
Now, there Is not the least doubt that they
have violated the conditions Of their Statehood
and have broken fstth with the rest Of The coUn-
Try. They are violating the Federal Consutu-
ton. But IS suspension from membership IN
the Union one OF The disciplinary measures
within the power o. the United States2 Ger
tainly such q thing was never contempt ersd by
the founders 81 the government; and n tnvU--
ite theory with some students of reconstruc-
ton. THAI Instead - trying TO deal with the
South rs States cisorganized by domestic IN
surrectior Congress should have declared State
hood forfeited and reduced the land 70 q terri
toral condition. Is met by tho declarar.1 n Of the
Supreme Court. en- Texas against White, tha;
this is an indesructhle Union Of tndestructble
States, and that the stntus of Texas as a State
persisted through tire Civil War even when 81
organized government vol Us people,
wa IN rebellion. u s. perhaps IN the power
OF Congress virtually @ cSpol, or at laas;
suspend, s.Etes from the Union so Tar gs their
psrcc,uaciCn N aH'iorsl sNa'rs "a corc--noS
by refusing admission 70 --re7-esentas-reS
That Is practically what Is ,prc2ozad - raes >
ure OF discipline Tor Utah. where uotu-lously
polygaUy is sheltered IN violation o. tie solemn
and irrcvocoble compact under which II was
admitted.
But The committee - right IN thinking rhe
House iitle htted % pass .uciciuly on the regu
lar1ty o. State constitutions and laws: ana re-
there is practically DO other wsv OF keeuinc
stntes . their duty IN matters not involving n
oiviouai fights which tho federal courts car
enforce. Even some Of those rights are hard e
gSt before the courts IN way to secure theii