New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-22

v;des that every male citizen OF the nted ota'es'
oe twenty years of age, not pauper nor under
Guardianship. nor On untaxed Indian, having mad
bs residence in that State for three months proceed
inc any election shall be entitled to vote for Gov
ernor, Senator's ard Representatives in the town
where bis residence s. The phrase 'citizen of the
United States is employed in similar connection
in several other State Constitutions iii describing who
shall be electors. Hitherto in all these States free
coored persons Of African descent have voted under
those provisions: but as some Of the Judges OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States, in their Opin
ions in the bred Scott case, have denied
or seemed to deny that persons of African
descent can be citizens of the United States,
some question has been raised as to the
correctness of allowing them for the future to
vote. as heretofore under the above statement OF
qualifications. So far as that question relates to
Maine, it las been authOrtaively settled BY
on opinion Of the Supreme Court of that State.
The Legislature of Maine, at its last session. under
provision of the State Constitution, which au-
tborizes them in certain cases to call for the Opn.
ion of the Supreme Court on questions of law ln-
volvng the interests Of the public submitted to the
Court the question as to the right OF persons OF
African descent TO vote and We have before us, IN
The Kenntbec Journal, the decision of the Court
sustaining their right and the practice of the State.
There were four opinions delivered in the case:
one signed by five Judges in which is contained
the decision Of the Court; second by Judge APP
petOD; third by Judge Davis, sustaining that do.
cisOn, but taking up some points not touched by
the other Judges; and a fourth by Joshua W.
Hathaway, dissenting from the decision.
TIE opinion sIgped by the majority of the Judges
does not regard the opinions in the bred Scott
case, nor other opinions to the same effect deliv-
cred in Kentucky Tennessee. Arkansas and GeOr-
gia-not parts of the world, we may observe, to
which al ybody can look for any great enlgbten-
ment On any question Of jursprudence-as at all
affecting the question before them. The question
for them to decide lie, not what the trainers of the
Constitution meant by the phrase citizen Of the
United States, but what the trainers of the Constl-
tuition of Maine meant by it, for it we'll might
| happen that in these two Instruments, framed at
such an interval of time in such different ATTITUDES,
and by such different bodies, the phrase might be
used in very different senses.
Yet the opinion actually given, and the fOunda-
tons On which it is based are in direct collision,
as it seems to US, with the bred Scott and other
concurring opinions, which the Court-out of an
excess, perhaps, Of professional politeness-mght
seem disposed rather TO affect to wave aside than
directly to trampe them under foot. 1t is admit
ted that the question involves not merely the rights
of persons of African descent born in the State, but
the rights also of those coming into it from other
States, and as citizens of those States claiming
the right Of citizens of Maine and the pre-
limDary ground upon which the Court bases
| its opinion is that previous to the adoption Of
| the Federal Constitution and thence downward to
| lS20, when the Constitution of Maine was
framed the mau of African descent was both in law
| and in fact recognized as citizen by the Const-
tutons laws and practice of several of the States
| New York, New.Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina
and especially Massachusetts,, from which last State
| the State of Maine was derived. Such having
| been the law and practice at the time when the
| Constitution Of the State of Maine was framed
| q law and practice down to that time not yet
| called in question by anybody, there cannot be
| doubt that the trainers of the Constitution for
the State of Maine, in using the phrase citizen Of
the United States, meant to include persons of Afr-
| can descent. But as if TO make assurance doubly
sure, it appears by the journal and reported de-
bates of tie Convention by which the Constitution
| of Maine framed that motion was actually
made to exclude negroes, and voted down, with an
express declaration by the way, of faith in the
| equal rights Of all men on the part of those who
represented the Democracy of Maine in that
| Convention.
In bis dissenting opinion, Judge Hathaway takes
the ground that the Constitution of Maine must be
understood to mean by the phrase citizens Of the
| United States those who are under the COnsttu
ton of the nited States, and then, assuming
| which, however, is not the fact-that the bred
Scott case decides that negroes of African descent
whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and
were brought into this country and sold as negro
slaves, did not and do not become citizens of the
| United States under the Federal Constitution, he
holds that such sort of persons of African descent
are not entitled to vote in Maine. Yet at the same
time, be admits that there may be some persons of
African descent not falling under the above descrp
| tcn, who would be entitled to vote. Upon this
| point be is not very specific; but as one Of his
| grounds Of exclusion is that the ancestors of the
excluded were If "pure African blood" We take it
that even Judge Hathaway does not hold this ex-
cIusiCn to apply t. persons Of African descent on
one side only, and whose fathers, grandfathers or
| great grandfathers were yhite
Judge Appleton, in his separate opinion, meets
Judge Hathaway point blank and not only him bu.
| fancy and the other Supreme Federal Judges,
| 10 whose authority in the case Mr. Hathaway sub.