Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

pride of every officer and vacate every other place. Everytime he is called to act in this capacity he must feel that though perhaps placed in the humblest station, he is yet the guardian of the life, the liberty and reputation of his fellow citizens against justice and oppression; and that his plain understanding has been found the best refuge for innocence, and his incorruptible integrity is relied upon as a sure pledge that guilt will not escape. A State whose most obscure citizens are thus individually elevated to perform those august functions-who are alternately the defenders of the injured, the dread of the guilty, the vigilant guardians of the constitution—without whose consent no punishment can be inflicted, no disgrace incurred who can by their voice arrest the blow of oppression and direct the hand of justice where to strike-such a State can never sink into slavery or easily submit to oppression. Corrupt rulers may pervert the constitution, and vicious demagogues may violate its precepts, foreign influence may control its operation; but while the people enjoy the trial by jury taken by lot from among themselves, they cannot cease to be free.

"The information it spreads, the sense of dignity and independence it inspires, the courage it creates, will always give them an energy of resistance that can grapple with encroachment and a renovating spirit that will make arbitrary power despair."

Can we too religiously guard this sanctuary, into which liberty may retire in times when corruption may pervert and faction overturn every other institution framed for its protection?

.Elliott Anthony.

SUFFRAGE IN. WASHINGTON TERRITORY.

The validity of the law defining the qualifications of voters of Washington Territory approved Jan. 18, 1888, was questioned by Judge Nash, of the Fourth Judicial District, in the case of Nevada M. Bloomer v. John Todd, et al. He decided against the law, but filed no written opinion. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory, and the judgment was affirmed. This statute is essentially the same as that of 1886, which was annulled by the Supreme Court on account of defects in its title. It makes the essential qualifications for voters, citizenship or a declaration of citizenship, without repect to sex, as it recites that "all citizens of the United States, male and female, above the age of 21 years having a residence of six months previous to the day of election in the Territory," etc., "shall be entitled to vote." The opponents of the law admit that the legislature had 11 power to enfranchise all citizens and all persons who had declared their intentions to become citizens, provided that they were adult males. They insist that the word "male" must be interpolated in the law, because at the time the Organic Act was passed [1853] women were not considered entitled to the right of suffrage, and were not properly included in the term "citizens of the United States." They contend that the term "citizens of the United States," so far as suffrage was concerned, was intended to mean only male citizens.

The points involved are as follows:

1. The legislative power conferred upon the legislature of the Territory of Washington.

2. The meaning of the term "citizens of the United States." 3. The political rights of a citizen of the United States. 4. The effect of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5. The effect of the revision of the Statutes of the United States.

6. The true rule of interpretation.

THE LEGISLATIVE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON.-The legislative power conferred by the Organic Act, extended "to all rightful subjects of legislation."-(Sec. 6, Act of March 2, 1853.)

In Sec. 5, the qualifications for electors at the first election were prescribed, and it was also enacted: "but the qualifications of voters and of holding office shall be such as shall be prescribed by the legislative assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years," etc. There was no limitation as to sex.

This was the law up to Dec., 1873, when the Revised Statutes. of the United States were adopted.

The first part of Sec. 5, which had ceased to be operative as to Washington Territory, was revised for territories thereafter to be organized. The latter part of the section is now Section 1860, R. S. U. S., which reads:

"The right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twentyone years, and by those above that age who have declared on oath, before a competent court of record, their intention to become such, and have taken an oath to support the constitution and government of the United States," etc.

This grant of legislative power over suffrage is subject only to the limitations imposed by Sec. 1860. What Congress has not forbidden, is a valid exercise of legislative power. This clause of the Organic Act is similar to that of Wisconsin, except that under that, only citizens of the United States could vote.

Under that provision of the Organic Act of Wisconsin, the territorial legislature defined the qualifications for voters for the constitutional convention. The Enabling Act passed by Congress, August 6, 1846, contained no restriction as to the

qualifications of voters. The people rejected the constitution of 1846, and a new convention was held, and a new constitution framed, which was adopted in March, 1848.

That constitution limited suffrage to adult male persons of the following classes:

First-White citizens of the United States.

Second-White aliens who had declared their intention to become citizens.

Third-Persons of Indian blood who had once been declared by act of Congress to be citizens.

Fourth-Civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe.

And the section provided "that the legislature may at any time extend by law the right of suffrage to persons not herein enumerated, but no such law shall be in force until the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the people at a general election, and approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such election."

The word "white" was stricken out by a vote of the people of the State at the general election held November 6, 1849. The word "male" was stricken out as to school elections by virtue of Chap. 211, Laws of 1885.

In Brown v. Phillips, 36 N. W. Reporter, 244, this law was sustained on the ground that "This preservation of power to so extend the right of suffrage, was manifestly intended to relieve the legislature to that extent from the limitations which otherwise would have fastened upon it. To that extent, then, the power of the legislature, when so approved, was left unlimited. The exercise of such power is not restricted to males, nor prohibited from being exercised as to females, unless by implication of a remote and argumentative character. The question is not whether the constitution conferred the power to so extend the right of suffrage to women, but whether it anywhere expressly, or by necessary implication, prohibited the exercise of such power. It is not contended that there is any prohibition upon the exercise of such power in the constitution of the United States."

This decision sustains the right of the legislature of the

Territory of Washington to pass a law placing females upon the same footing as males in regard to the right of suffrageprovided they are included within the definition of the term "citizens of the United States." That term as used by the people of the Territory of Wisconsin in 1848, included women as well as men, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin so held. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S Reports, 39, had before them the Act of Congress which amended the suffrage laws of Utah so far as to provide that neither polygamists, bigamists or females cohabiting with such persons, should be entitled to vote. Congress did not in that law of March, 22, 1882, attempt to annul the suffrage laws of Utah by denying the power of the legislature to pass a law conferring suffrage upon both sexes upon equal terms. Congress provided as follows:

"Sec. 8. That no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no women cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor or emolument, in, under, or for any such Territory or place, or under the United States"

This law was construed in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 39, where it was held that Mary Ann M. Pratt and Mildred E. Randall met the requirements of the law, and that they were entitled to their action against the judges of election for refusing to allow them to vote.

As Congress has not annulled any law of the Territories of Washington or Wyoming which declared female as well as male citizens entitled to suffrage on equal terms, these equal suffrage laws are recognized as fully within the legislative power conferred upon those Territories.

II. THE MEANING OF THE TERM "CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES."-In The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 72, the Supreme Court of the United States say: "The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially

« ZurückWeiter »