The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-05
THE NEW RHODE ISLAND CASE.

No matter how carefully Il law or con-
stitutional provision may be worded, the
construction thereof is questioned for
years. Three-fourths of the time of our
courts of last resort are occupied in deter
mining what certain words in particular
statute, or article of the constitution, ac
tually mean, or what the legislature intend
ed to provide thereby. Over threc-quarters
of a century has elapsed since the adoption
of the federal constitution and most of the
amendments thereto-eXcepting, of course,
the last three-and yet the meaning of the
different clauses or provisions thereof are
constantly coming up for adjudication. 1t
is not matter of surprise, then, that the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments are
not fully understood, and that new claims
are continually being made Hereunder.
The language, to be sure, seems plain, the
idea apparently intended to be conveyed is
concisely expressed and, taken in connec-
ton with other parts of that instrument
and its construction, as authoritively de-
clared by the Supreme Court of the United
States--whose province it is to so construe
it-there ought to be no room for doubt.
But there seems to be, as Susan b. Antho-
ny, under the advice of eminent and learned
counsel, claimed and exercised the right to
vote under the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments, and was punished therefor.
She is now. we may remark parenthetically,
demonstrating her gratitude to her counsel
ny circulating petition for the appoint
ment of Judge Selden to the Chief Justice
ship of the United States. Although it is
aside from the purpose of the present arti-
Gle, we cannot forbear remarking that the
woman suffragists," as they call them
selves, are endeavoring to use the same tao
tics employed by some of our fellow-citi-
zens at the west, of electing judges pledged
to decide given cases in a given way-that
is, decide the case and then hear arguments
without paying attention thereto.
But to return. The constitution of
Rhode Island provides that only such nat
uralized foreign born citizens as are own
crs of real estate, within the common
wealth, shall be entitled to the right of suf-
frage therein. The provision is one of the
relics of the ''charter' under which that
state was long governed, and which was
the cause of the ''Dorr Rebellion" and is
akin to the provisionin the New York con
stitution that no colored man shall vote I'M
less he has resided in the state three years
and is possessed of freehold estate of the
value of two hundred and fifty dollars over
and above all membranes" These pro-
visions are brought into especial promi-
nence just now, as former naturalized
citizen of Massachusetts, who is now, and
for some time has been, a resident of
Rhode Island, but who possesses no real es-
tate therein, although he is the owner of
real estate in Massachusetts, offered his
vote at the last general election and, ON
being refused, commenced suit against
the inspectors of election, or some of them,
which suit is now coming on for trial. He
has employed eminent counsel, and bases
his claim of right to vote, as Susan b.
Anthony did, on the fourteenth and fif-
teenth amendments. In considering this
question, 1t is necessary to refer to the text
of these constitutional provisions. The
fourteenth amendment provides that call
persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the states wherein they reside. No
statesh all abridge the privileges or immuni-
ties OF citizens of the United States" The
fifteenth amendment, following out, in
measure, the same idea, declares that =" the
rights of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States, or any state, on account of
race, color or previous condition of servi-
tude." We have, thus far, only quoted the
provisions under which the naturalized resi-
dent of Rhode Island claims right to vote