The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-10-10
WOMEN DEMAND SUFFRAGE
IN NEW YORK AND ARE LIKELY
To GET IT,
As the Constitution Of the State
Makes No Distinction Of Sex
What A. 5. Wood Says.

New YoBK, October elf any of
the women OF New York should de-
sire to have their names entered on
the re.i trAtion books which opened
on Thufsd Y, they can claim the priv.
lege, says the Star, with the foil con-
eciousness that high authority exists
for the belief that their right of sut
irsga ia unssesllab'e.
Hamilton Wilcox, chairman o. the
Executive Committee OF the New York
stats Committee of the Womm's
Suffrag party, contends that in the
"E ect on Code" of instructio "a is
sued from the office Of the Secretary
OF state, at Albany, "the sections Of
article | Cf the constitution which Sc
cure suffrage to women are omitted,
while section e article 2, which Sc
cures il for men, and taken alone Ia
claimed to exclude women, is
printed"
Under date of September 10Th lat,
Arson S. Wood, formerly Deputy
secretary Ct Sac, has writ Mr..
Wilcox as follows:
| have to say thatit is true, as you
state, that the compilation of ext ting
sta utts, called for convenience the
election CODE" was made under my
immediate supervision when holding
the office OF Deputy Secretary OF Slate.
In an official letter TO you, written in
ID .cembsr, 1885, stated that the "in-
st uctious to nspectors" appended 70
the "eoc;ion code" W re added there
to merely for the convenience OF eltc
ton officers and ara not binding GA
inspt ctols, exc pit in so far rs they
ara found to be IN accordance with the
provisions Of the statute. What does
control is the law.
On an examination Ct tee subject l
am inclined to think that your view
OF it Ia ubsantally correct. It is
certainly true that both under com.
mon law and uuder the colonial and
provincial statutes women were.vo ers
on Che same tstms with men. The
case of Lady Deborah Moody, Of
Gravesend, cited by you ia this Goa
nection, is a striking il Il tration; for
it shows that woman, as sole vot, r
OF the town, repeat, dly elected the
town officerR. 1t is also true that the
constitution, wh9n formed in l77I
and the Revis d Statues, when first
passed half CO ntury later, expr ssly
guarded and preserved all existing
rights, aud that the provisions wnicn
did 3D. ore sill in force, the constitu-
tional ones having been retained and
reaflirmed in the revisioDs Of the con.
stitution in 1921 and 1S46.
1t ia further true that the c1nslitu
ton, as originally Termed in l777, 30.
cured suff age 10 women on like termB
W tn men; and the Legislature, in OK
tending the suffrage from class 10 class
W to 1926, d d 80 IN almost every case
in terms which included women.
The question then is, whether the
right OF suffrage that existed in 1925
was taken away by the adoption Of
the present wording of article 2, sec
zion /, of the constitution, "Evers
male citizen OF the United States, 81
years of age" etc, "shall be entitled
to vote"
On this point you appear to be sus-
ined by the fifty members OF the
New York bar who have approved
your argument, and who hold with
you that this section w9s clearly de-
signed as a guarantee to the emu
mei ated classes against being dieftan-
chised by the repeal Of any enfrsn-
chising act by the Legislature, or
otherwise and not to exclude any one.
la revising the cons tuition in 1921,
an exc udIng provision was for the first
time inserted-one forbidding the
newly emaucipated slaves to vote.
Had the r. vieers designed to exclude
others by the constitution, they would
have extended this new prohibitory
clause to cover other classes.
1t is well settled by the statutes and
by repeated decisions of the courts
that the Inspectors duty is to register
and receive vote from every person
who takes the oath required by the
election statutes. The law on the sub
ject is stated in the People ex rel
Smith vs.. Pease, q New York, 40. In
that case the Court OF Appeals cav
"The inspectors have no discretion in
such case (where the challenged
person tskes the OATH, but must de-
post the ballot in the box, whatever
they may believe or know OF the quail
ifications Of the voter. They are re-
CURED 10 act on the evidence which
the statute pregctiber, and have no
judicial power to pass on the question
of its truth or fslsehood; nor can they
act upon their own opinion or knowl-
edge. The inspector has no
power to reject the vote, even when
be knows the person offer ring it not to
be voter His duty 10 discharged by
requiring the voter to submit to the
examination and to take the oath
which the statute prescribes."
The Inclusion seems to be almost
irres stibe that any inspector who re-
fuses registry when required) or to
accept toe vote Of any person who sp.
pears and offers to take the oath re-
quired fails to do his duty aud violates
the law.
1t is believed that the Women's SUI
frage party, acting on this opinion,
will endsavor to have women regis
tered at oucs; and, in the event Of
refusal on the part of the registrar to
put their names on the books, they
-. Al