Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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

invited, opens with a definition of citizenship-not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia, or in the territories, though in the United States, were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this Court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States.

“It declares that persons may be citizens of che United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the United States."

From the date of the adoption of that amendment, every statute containing the words "citizens of the United States,” has had the meaning of that section; and if the Statute originally had a different meaning, that amendment defined its true reading thereafter. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 389, that “the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment had the effect, in law, to remove from the State Constitution, or render inoperative, that provision which restricts the right of suffrage to the white race.”

The same rule makes all acts of Congress, all organic laws of the territories, conform to the definition of citizen in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That section, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, does not regulate the right of suffrage in a State. But where the qualification for a voter is that of being a "citizen of the United States," it defines the meaning of

tbat term. As it is a term used with reference to civil and not political rights in that section, the term cannot be used to disqualify women from voting. The section knows no sex. “Citizen" is used in the sense of a member of the “body politic."

In Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 664, the Supreme Court of the United States qualify the expression in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, that “The Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,” by saying:

“But the court was combating the argument that this right was conferred on all citizens, and therefore upon women as well as upon men.”

In the case of Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 690, where a Chinaman, who was a resident of California, claimed the benefit of the statutes protecting the civil rights of “citizens," the court held: “The person on whom the wrong to be punishable must be inflicted, is described as a citizen. In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word "citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State or of the United States. It is so used in section 1 of Art XIV of the amendments of the Constitution, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,' and that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' But it is also sometimes used in popular language to indicate the same thing as resident, inhabitant, or person."

The statute referred to, made no distinction of sex as to civil rights. Nor did the court.

III. THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.—All the territory of the United States originally belonged to the States. The right to vote in the States was regulated by State constitutions. The right to vote in the Territories depended on the acts of Congress, or on the acts of the Territorial legislatures. Some of the Territorial courts

claim that under the full legislative power given them, the Territories can disfranchise classes of citizens for other causes than crime.

The question is not involved in this case. Sec. 1860 has imposed the limitations upon the power of the Territorial legislatures, and does not require that the voters shall be males.”

Under the second section of the Fourteenth amendment, the right to vote within the States, on the part of adult male citizens of the United States, residents of the State, is protected against encroachments on the part of Congress or of the State legislatures, except for crime. This amends the old constitution. The section did not forbid States to enfranchise women. It did prohibit the States from disfranchising any adult male citizen of the United States, resident in the State, except for crime. : IV. THE EFFECT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.-As held by the court in Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 389, this amendment became the supreme law, and defined the meaning of the term "citizens of the United States" in the first section.

The second section defined and protected the rights of “male inhabitants” of a State, who were “citizens” of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the amendment. It does not limit the political rights of citizens of the United States to "male" voters.

As held by Judge Cranch of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in The United States v. More, 3 Cranch, 162, “The constitution was made for the benefit of every citizen of the United States, and there is no such citizen, whatever may be his condition, or wherever he may be situated within the limits of the territory of the United States, who has not a right to the protection it affords.”

The unlimited legislative power over the rights of citizens claimed by some courts, was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States in Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 662, in which the court held: “It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property

« ZurückWeiter »