Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1875-10-14
The United States Supreme Court on
the WOman.Suffrage Question.

In the Supreme Court Of the United
States at Washington, Oct. 4, in the case
Of Virginia l.. Minor and Francis Minor
her husband, plaintiffs in error, rs. Reese
Happersett, in error to the Superior Court
of the State of Missouri, Chief Justice
Waite delivered the opinion of the court
to the effect that the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the Constitution does not confer
upon women the right to vote. The court
afiirms in the decision that women have
always been considered citizens under the
Constitution and entitled to all the priyi.
leges and immunities Of citizenship, but in
the admission of this general point the
court decides that suffrage is not one of
the privileges and immunities Of the citi
zen and that it is nowhere made so in ey.
press terms, and even further than this
| that suffrage was not cOeXtensive with the
citizenship of the States at the time of its
adoption. Applying these general facts to
the constitutional amendments, the court
shows that the trainers of the Fourteenth
| Amendment never contemplated that it
conferred the right of suffrage even upon
| the colored persons because it invested
them with citizenship, and, taking this
| view, they framed the Fifteenth Amend
ment to prevent any State denying them
/ the right Of suffrage because ofrace, color
or previous condition of servitnde. Upon
| this point the court said
THE Fourteenth Amendment had al
ready provided that no State should make
or enforce any law which should abrdge
! the privileges or immunities Of citizens of
the United States. If suffrage was one of
these privileges or immunites why amend
the Constitution to prevent its being de-
MED on account of race, etc? Nothing
is more evident than that the greater must
include the less, and if all were already
protected why go through with the form
of amending the Constitution to protect a
part?"
The decision closes with the following
statement
Certainly if the courts can consider
| any question settled this is one. For
nearly ninety years the people have acted
| upon the idea that the Constitution, when
it conferred citizenship did not necessari-
| " confer the right of suffrage Ii uni
| form practice long continued can settle
the construction of so important an lnstru-
mcnt as the Constitution Of the United
| States contessedly is, most certainly it has
! been done here Our province is to de-
eide what the law is, not to declare what
| it should be- We have given this case the
careful consideration its importance
demands. If the law is wrong it
ought to be changed, but the power for
that is not with us. The arguments adj
dressed to US bearing upon such a view
of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to
induce those having the power to make
the alteration, but they ought not to be
permitted to influence our judgment in
| determining the present rights of the
parties litigating before us. Noargument
as to womens need of suffrage can be con-
sidered. We can only act upon her rights
| as they exist. 1t is not for us to look at
the hardship of Withholding. Our duty
is at an end if we find it is within the
| power of State to withhold