Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1874-12-14

is any given-why the distinction alleged should
attach to such classification. Certain it is, no such
distinction is found in the constitution; it is in
fact arbitrary, and has rather the flavor of dog
matism than argument.
What is there, it may be not naptly asked, in
judicial Offices and other offices named in the
sttution, that invests them with such Importance
and sanctity inherently or because they happened
to be thus mentioned that none but male citizens
can hold them? What good reason can be assign
ed why women are eligible to the Office of State
Superintendent of Common Schools, Railroad
Commissioner, Register of Deeds, and like offices,
or members of Boards of Health, of Trustees of
State institutions, or Of the bar and not eligible
TO the office Of Justice of the Peace' If satisfac
tory answers can be given to these questions it is
confidently maintained that they must be found
outside of the constitution; they cannot proceed
flom within it.
1t is not quite accurate to affirm that 'the uni
vcrsal and unbroken practical construction given
to the constitution of this State is adverse to the
eligibility of women to the office in question: as
it Is understood that women have been commits
stoned Justices of the Peace in this State in sew
eIal instances and to-day acting i'll that capaci
ty. 1t does not appear that women, IN any con-
siderable numbers, have applied for that office, nor
that the proportion of unsuccessful female appli-
cants exceeds that of such males. The emission
/ to claim right, especially by the subordinated
class OF citizens, does not prove its non-existence;
nor would acquiesence, even by such class, i'll
denial Of right have that effect unless to that Is
also superadded the force of judicial sanction,
which is wanting in this
The eligibility of women to Office does not de-
pend upon the common law or the usages, laws
and constructions of the commonwealth of Mas
sachusets prior to the adoption OF the constitu-
ton, unless they specifically made part oft !;
and 1t Is not pretended that they are for this pur-
pose The meaning and intent of the trainers OF
the constitution are not to be learned from such
reconcile sources, but are to be ascertained from
their own language, interpreted by the tribunal
they established for this purpose, IN accordance
with the objects and purposes of the great char
ter Of Liberty, equality, justice and progress which
those masters OF political science framed.
If the meaning of the constitution is to be ascer-
tanned from extrinsic sources, how arc we to de-
termine what considerations ought and ought not
to control its construction? Why may not laws
authorizing the punishment Of spiritual mani,tcs-
tations, called witchcraft,-or the erection OF
the whipping post in our public squares, as legit-
innate mode of punishme receive the sachon
OF the constitution? The history of the parent
commonwealth furn shes precedents for such enact
ment even under the domain OF the common law
How long would our statutes removing the dlsa-
bilities Of married women and of parties to be wit
reSses and our prohi5itory liquor law, stand the
test now relied upon to debar women from the right
to hold the office of Justice of the Peace' What
Vantages in fine, has ten constitution thus
construed, over the unwrtten constitution Of Eng
glandi 1t is obvious that they are more myth
cal than real, ever liable to vanish from their
grasp when the people approach them for p-otec-
ton.
If such principle of construc ion, upon so vital
a question, is allowed to obtain, there is great
reason to fear that written constitutions will
come to be Of little value, and the experiment Of
settiEg limitations to power speedily prove abor
tive. Indeed, the history of jurisprudence, unfor
tunately, is no, without such examples The pre-
cedent of outlawing the freedmen because, by
such rule Of construction, their race had no
rights that the dominant race was bound to re-
spect IS less repugnant to the judicial than the
pnilanthropc mind, and deserves to be stunned as
q perversion OF the law, rather than followed
authority. The constitution is itself the rule for
testing TIE validity of customs, usages and laws,
and not they the rule for interpreting the consti-
tuition.
This principle Of Interpretation is in strict con-
formity with the rule lad down by Chief Justice
Marshall in Gibb0n rs. Ogdea, 0 Wheat lS9
ave know of 10 rule" says that eminent jurlst
"for interpreting the extent of the powers con-
ferred by the constitution, other than is given by
the language of the instrument that confer5 them,
taken in conneAlon with the purposes for which
they were conferred"
1t will not answer to strain, subordinate and
dwarf the constitution Of this State. That instru-
ment does not bind the people to the perpetual
observance of pre-eNistng customs, usage5, con-
strucions and laws which form no part of it, but
il rather emancpates them from the exclusiyeness,
monopolies, inequalities and ipjustces, if any
there be- that arise therefrom. Aside from the
single discrimination IN rcspectto suffrage 10 GER
tain specific cases, the constitution does not deter
mine the rights of the people, according to CASTE
color OF sex, but leaves them free within specified
limitations, to the objects stated in its pre-
| amble in the best possible manner. The plain
people need no judicial hand book TO enable them
TO learn their rights under the organic law Of
their government; it is so plain in this respect
that he that rurs may read, and understand his
rights.
There is, in fine, one brief and conclusive an
swer to the questions propounded to the members
of the court; it is that the burden is upon those
who deny the right of women to hold the office
in question to show affrmatively that the consti-
tuition prohibits them from so doing. This they
certainly have not done. There being no consti-
tutiona inhibition, the right to hold that office
attaches alike to both female and male citizens.
| therefore answer the first question in the
affirmative, and the second Also though l am of
the opinion that no further legislation is neces-
sary 10 authorize the appointment in question.
have the honor to be,
Yours faithfully, j. G.. DICKINSON.