Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1875-10-14
An Important Decision on the Right of
Women to Vote.

! 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, o. Reese
Happersett, in error to the Superior Court
| of the State of Missouri, ChiefJ 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
affirms in the decision that women have
always been considered citizens under the
| Constitution and entitled to all the priv
| 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 cOeXtensiEe with the
! citizenship of the States at the time of It's
| adoption. Applying these general facts
| to the constitutional amendments, the
court shows that the trainers of the Four
! teenth Amendment never contemplated
that it conferred the right Of suffrage even
| upon the colored persons because it in
vested them with citizenship, and, taking
this view, they framed the Fifteenth
Amendment to prevent any State denying
them the right of suffrage because Of race,
color, or previous condition Of seryitude
| 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 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 race, ETC.? Nothing
is more evident than that the greater must
include the less, and if all were already
protected why 60 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-
ly confer the right of suffrage. If uni
form practice long continued can settle
the construction of so important an instru-
ment as the Constitution of the United
States confessedly 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 it's 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 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 par
ties litigating before us. No argument
as to wCman'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"