The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-05

"
stitution of Rhode Island is in conflict
with, and contrary to, the constitution of
the United States and therefore, void. If
the provision of the Rhode Island constitu-
ton is void it must, also, necessarily fol-
low that that of New York is, likewise,
void In this connection, as bearing upon
the question of construction and supposed
conflict, or, rather, the opinion that was
held in reference to the effect of these
amendments, 1t may be said that both were
ratified by the states of New York and
Rhode Island, and that no determined
movement has been made to change the
constitutions of these states in this respect.
1t becomes material to enquire what arc
the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States" which states arc forbid
den to abridge. 1t will be noticed that
the state is non forbidden to abridge
the immunities and privileges of its
own citizens, but only those of citi-
zens of the United States, and it is
necessary to bear this in mind. Another
thing is especially noticeable. The first
section of the fourteenth amcndment-ex-
cept, perhaps, in declaring who shall be
citizens-does not essentially alter or
amend the former provisions of the consti-
tuition. The original Investment declared
that ''the citizens of each state shall be en-
titled to all the privileges and immunities
of the citizens of the several states" and
under this no claim of right to vote, con-
trary to prohibition contained in state
constitution, was ever made. The last
clause of the amendment-whichw we do
not quote as it has nothing to do with the
the case under consideration also re-
declaration of provision always contain
ed in the constitution. The whole object
of the amendment was not to make any
change in the privileges and immunities"
enjoyed by the citizens of the several states
in each other, but to make that instru-
mcnt conform to the new order of things
at the SOUTH to recognize the late slave as
citizen and to prevent any discrimination
being made between white or colored
Hluli III tit StuttS. III iIlNUt1tS anu
immunites' spoken of have been repeat
edly before the courts for definition, and
although they will, probably, continue to
occupy more or less of their attention.
they have been pretty generally fixed, so
that the only controversy, hereafter, will
be whether or not a certain claim can he
so classed. These privileges and immun-
ties" are declared, in one reported case, to
be ''thc right of life and liberty the right
to acquire and possess property, to trans
act business, to procure happiness in his
own manner, subject to such restraint as
the government may adjudgc to be neces-
sary for the general good" Another case
says, in substance, that it means a citizen
has the right to go to the capital, or else
where, at will, to make claims against the
general government, transact business with
it, demand its protection. ''IIe has the
right OF free access to its seaports, through
which all operations of foreign commerce
are transacted: to the sub-treasuries, land
offices and courts of justice in the several
states" In the celebrated New Orleans
slaughter house case, Mr.. Justice Miller
defined other of these privileges to be
''to demand the care and protection of the
federal government of his life, liberty and
property when on the high seas or within
the jurisdiction of a foreign government
The right to assemble and petition for a
raflrasc IF or;avopoao orI ,Lo ,,r;,,;lo,x, =. e
the writ of habeas corpus
Such then, and of this nature, are the
privileges and immunities" which cannot
be abridged. No matter in what particular
state, a person may reside he is entitled to
these rights, privileges and immunities and
cannot, constitutionally or legally, be de-
prived thereof. Applying these principles
to the Rhode Island case, it is evident that
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments
do not confer the right of suffrage upon an
individual, when he is delarred that priv
ilege by the organic law of the state. The
absurdty of the claim may be seen, aside
from any legal argument, by this simple
| illustration. BY the constitution, we are a
citizen of the United States and under the
laws OF Vermont, we are entitled to vote in
Rutland to-day If privileges and mmu-
mites, as ii is claimed. involves the right
to vote, then we can, also, vote in Troy or
Boston to-day. because we enjoy the
privilege and immunity of voting in
Vermont. and Massachusetts and New
York are prohibited from making or en-
forcing any law which shall abrdge our
privileges or nmunities. Further than
this, the fourteenth amendment expressly
recognizes the right of the individual state
to control the matter of suffrage, by pro-
viding that when the right to vote for GER
tain officers is denied ''or in any way
abridged" except for crime or participation
in rebellion, 1.-THE basis of representation
in congress" shall be reduced in the pro-
portion" which the number of disfranchised
shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens over twenty-onc years Of age
Furthermore it is well settled that the
right OF suffrage is derived from the state
and not from the nation. The United
States does not attempt to control it, il
only undertakes to prevent unjust discrim-
nation, by providing that if discrimination
is made the state shall suffer therefor by
diminished representation. If we are right
in our views, and they are in accordance
with common sense and judicial decisions
then the Rhode Island plaintiff is without