The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1872-03-29

But it will be said that the fifteenth
amendment becomes without purpose
and effect, and really as senseless as we
claim the fourteenth amendment to be
under the construction which we oppose,
if it is to be regarded as operating only
in the way claimed, and not as confer
ring rights not previously existing.
This is point of some force, and which
can be replied to only by the fact that
there was an impression upon the minds
of the Legislators and of the people, that
the fourteenth amendment did not con-
fer the right of suffrage. That impress
sion weighs nothing in now determining
the meaning of the fourteenth amend
ment; but il furnishes the explanation
that seems to be needed, of the passage
of the fifteenth amendment. Ii was, in
our view, wholly unnecessary, but was
generally thought to be necessary. The
difference in the two cases is, that the
fifteenth amendment was passed undera
supposed necessity, and with therefore a
complete object; while the fourteenth
amendment, under the construction
which our opponents give to 1t, not
only conferred nothing, but icds beLieUed
at the time to confer nothing and had
therefore no purpose whatever. Our
view, that the fifteenth amendment was
unnecessary was held by some leading
statesman at the time. Mr.. Sumner, in
the Senate, declared it to be so before its
passage, and proposed instead OF II a mere
law of Congress recognizing the right
of suffrage and regulating its exercise.
1t is, at any rate, very clear that the
construction of the fifteenth amendment
which makes it implicitly allow the
denial of suffrage on all other grounds
than the three stated cannot be sus-
tanned. Such rights as those with which
il deals will never be allowed, in free
constitution like ours, to be eurtailed or
restricted by mere implication. If that
construction is adopted, and a State may
deny the right to vote on all other
grounds but race and color, and previous
servitude, then of course 4 State may
deny the right to all naturalized for
eigners, although they have already ac-
quired and enjoyed the right, and may
also deny the right to vote TO persons of
a particular height, or color of hair, or
profession. Indeed, to reduce the case
to an absurdity, suppose the women are
allowed to vote in Massachusetts, and
being "A great majority over the men,
turn around and exclude the men. This
would be precisely the ground on which
women are now eXcluded-that Of sex
and yet can any one doubt that the con-
stitutional right to vote, of men, would
be sustained?
1t is worth noticing that the act of
Congress of May 81, 1870, to carry into
effect the provisions for the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments, is entitled
AN act to enforce the right of citizens
OF the United States to vote in the sew
oral Gfafac nf fit, IT,;o,,
Our conclusion, stated i'm a few words,
IS this: All women are citizens. Every
citizen, in the language of Judge Daniel,
IN the Dred Scott ease, has 'athe actual
possession and enjoyment, or the perfect
right of acquisition and enjoyment, of
an entire equality of privileges, civil
and political" The right to prescribe
qualifications rests with the States, in
the absence of any law of Congress
prescribing them. These qualifications
involve time of residence, age, and other
matters that are entirely within the
reach of the citizen by acquisition or
lapse of time. Mr.. Sumner has demon
strated, in a manner that cannot be
answered, that the qualifications thus
left for the States to prescribe must be
those under which the citizen can be-
come n voter, and cannot be such as
would permanently exclude him from
the right of suffrage.
1t has been said that it is not fair for
women TO take advantage of a right to
vote, no matter how clearly given them,
which there was no actual intention to
give. This objection does not touch the
argument we have been making, but il
may be well to say word upon it. The
law has so far dealt so unfairly with
D
should not be severely criticised for
/ taking advantage of the law. when.
/ though by mere accident, il happens to
favor them. But it is especially to be
considered that their claim is i'm accord
anee with the whole spirit of the Con-
stitution and i'm harmony with all the
fundamental principles of our Govern
ment, while the denial of suffrage to
them Is IN opposition to those principles.
III anything Is settled in this country as
an abstract general principle, it is the
right OF taxpayers to have a voice i'm
the legislation that is to determine their
taxes and in the appointment of the of
Ulcers who are to levy and expend them,
and that the members of the nation
should elect its rulers. Our error land
the day is not far distant when we shall
all see its absurdity) is in making these
fundamental rights the rights Of men
atone and in denying them TO iCODien.
The latter have equal intelligence, pa
triOtism and virtue, and their fidelity 10
their country has been as well proved as
that of men, and it is difficult to see any
good reason why they should have nc
voice in deciding who shall be the
rulers Of the nation, what its laws, what
its taxes and how appropriated, what
the policy that is TO affect, for good ol
evil, the business interests that they are
becoming more and more largely en-.
gagged in. With all this oQltity in theiI
favor, may they not be allowed, without
censure, to avail themselves of a Lcqd
rightP If the freedom of the slave could
have been declared by our judicial tri.
bunals under some guarantee of free.
dom in the National Constitution, orig.
inally intended only for white men, ali
lovers of freedom would have rejoiced
When Alvan Stewart, thirty years ago
attempted to get such n decision from
the Supreme Court of New Jersey, there
was not a cavil heard among the Oppon.
ents of slavery. SO when, in the face ot
the whole legal opinion of England
Granville Sharpe got decision in favol
of the slave Somerset, forever over
throwing slavery in England, by an ap.
plication of the latent principles of the
English Constitution, the whole world
applauded, and does to this day. 1t was
thus, as we understand it, that slavery
was overthrown in Massachusetts, q
lawyer claiming before its courts the
application to a slave of clause in it,
bin of rights supposed to have been in
tended only for white men. We would
add that it would not accord at all with
| the good sense and directness of method