Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1875-10-15
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 G. Minor and Francis Minor,
her husband, plaintiffs in error, gs. 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
atfirms in the decision that women have
always been considered citizens under the
Constitution and entitled to all the privi-
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 ex-
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
AhS III vi DCCdhHG Vi IdlG, COlOI,
or previous condition Of seFyitude. Upon
this point the court said:
"The Fourteenth Amendment had al
ready provided that no State should make
or enforce any law which should abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States. If suffrage was one of
these privileges or immunities why amend
the Constitution to prevent its being de.
MED on account of face, ETC.? Nothingis
more evident than that the greater must
include TIE less, and if all were already
protected why 60 through withthe form
OF amending tile 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
il conferred citizenship, did not. neeessa;
Hly confer the right Of suffrage. 1funi-
form practice long continued can settle
the construction of So important an instru-
ment as the Censdtuton of Che Tnied
States cpnfessedly Is, most certainly n lias
been done here. Our province is TO de.
eide what the law is, not to declare what
II 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
this is not with us. The arguments ad-
dressed to us bearing upon such view
OF the subject may perhaps be sufficient
to induce those having the power to make
the alteration, but they ought not 10 be
permitted 10 influence our Judgment in
determining the present rights of the par
ties litigating before us. No argument
as TO woman's need of suffrage can be
considered. 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"
JuhT dron too mnon.-Relnp hanrad.