Year: 1866

Representation and Direct Taxes.


We have often exposed the false no ID
of the assertion made by the radicals that
the pending constitutional amendment
would, i'll case of its adoption, give equal
representation, that we are surprised that
newspapers and orators Of that party will
persist in the attempt to deceive the people
by repeating it. The amendment is an
open and gross attempt to dcfraud the
people of the south and west in taxation
and representation, if the arguments of
radicals concerning the present rule are
correct. If representation based on the
whole number of persons is an unfair rule


why did not Congress, in proposing a
change, provide a different one? This
it did not do so far as the northern States
are concerned. The practical operation
Of the rule proposed in the amendment
would be to have representation in the


north as it now is. There is not, probably
a SING ele northern State whose representa- on
would be changed by the eniranchisement
or disfranchisement Of the negroes within
her limits.


Representation should be based on the
whole number of voters or on the whole
number of inhabitants The radicals al
lege that it should be based on the num-
Der of voters, and therefore propose to
amend the Constitution, but. as VIC have
seen, the rule offered by them will be the
same in its operation in the north as the
present one. 1t will require from third
to twice as many more votes in the western
States to elect me nbcrs of Congress than
it will require in the eastern States In
this il is seen that it is framed to meet the
interests of New England and against the
intests of the west.


If representation should be based ci tie
number of voters, why does the rule pro
pose that all who took part IN the rcbell>
ion may be disfranchised, and yet the
States thus DISTINGUISHING them be entitled
to as great number of representatives in
Congress as if the Confederates were per-
mItted to vote. 4 large mojority of the
white adult II ales in Tennessee and Mis-
souri, were rebels. Under the constitu>
tions and the laws Of those States they are
now denied the privilege Of voting, yet the
States, under the amendment. would lose
nothing in representation by the denial
| The amendment offers premium to mi
norities in the south for the disfranchisc-
ment of all who supported the coniedcracy.
BY such disfranchisemcnt the radical party
If it can obtain control oft'.c State govern
ment, may perpetuatc its own power and
have the full number Of representatives to
~
few members This is certainly singular,
considering the radical claim that the
amendment bases represeu tation on the
number of voters. fthose States disfran>
chise negroes, they will under the amends
mcnt, lose in representation, but if they
dis franchise white mcn-it make no dif-
ference how many-tkey will be entitled
to as many representatives as if the whole
number OF adult white mails were permitted
to vote This feature in this scheme was
connected by the thinkers of the c0nstitu-
ton to meet the interests of the radical:
party generally. New England in this was
content to share with the rest. Why
should the vote OF Que man in Tenness ee
or Missouri count as much as the votes cf
three men in Illinois:


If representation be based on the whole
number of Inhabitants in the Dorih, why
should it not be in the south? We have
seen, under the rule proposed in tne
amendment, that in the north the number
of voters. is made the basis. II black re-
pu5licans believe that all men are created
equal, why do they make a distinction be-
tween negroes and white men in proposing
change in the rule of representation -
If Massachusetts may be represented BY
the whole number Of inhabitants, why may
not South Carolina? ii the doctrine of
equality of races contcnded for by the rad>
lcals Is correct, why may not a South Cars
Gilman represent those who are not voters
as Justly as Puritan? Under the proposed
rule Massachusetts may, without loss of
representation, restrict suffrage to one tenth
of her adult male population, bat should
South Carolina restrict it to Que half, she
would lose half the number Of her repre-
sentatives.


Under the Constitution, there is the
same rule for apportioning representation
and direct takes. The amendment does
rot touch the latter. Il is obvious to every
person of common sense that there are much |
more imperative reasons for changing the
rule IN regard to direct taxes than the one
relating to representation. In proportion
to the number Of inhabitants, New Eng /
land has much more capital than the west> /
ern States The State OF Wisconsin has .
$50, 900. Wisconsin with one>tenth /
of the capital. pays more than FIVE times
as much direct tax us Boston. Is there a
man SO leadenheaded that he cannot see
why the rule in regard to direct taxes was
left untouched ? VIII the aboitionists
who are now SO blatant abou. inequality of
representation answer why this iarlng IN
Justice to the west was unnoticed IN pros
posing change of the rule in which the
subject was involved Chicayo Times.