Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-07-27
A Day in the Supreme Court.

/ EDITOR STANDARD: To-day (July 25)
promises to be much more than an
ordinary day in the history of Ameri-
can jurisprudence.
/ The occasion was the argument OF
the case Of Nevada Boomer VS.. Todd
and others. The case comes from
Spokane Falls ard was brought by
Mrs. Bloomer against Todd and others,
judges of election, for damages in re-
fusIng to allow her to vote ut a local
election in that town. Todd demurred
to the complaint for the reason that
it appeared that the plaintiff was a
woman and was therefore not entitled
to vote; the court so decided, and the
case was then brought to the Supreme
Court. In the Supreme Court the issue
was clean cut and well defined, and
was simply this: When Congress
passed the Organic Act of this Terri.
tory in 1853, authorizing the Terri.
tOrial Legislature to prescribe the quail.
ifications of voters, did Congress con.
template and would it have permitted
the acknowledgements of women?
Mr.. Murray. the attorney of the plain.
tiff. contended that the language oil
Congress was explicit and no interpre-
tation Was allowable. In support oi
this position that female suffrage war
not inconsistent with the spirit of our
institutions as expressed from time Ia
time in Congress, he cited the fact that
Congress had referred to female sui.
frage in Utah as an existing fact and
legal SO far as anything to the contrary
appeared. Mr.. Murray argument was
ingenious and able and he received the
congratulations of allsuffragists prese mt
as well AS of many who were opposed
to his views.
The defendants were represented bv
Ex-Judge Turner. His argument last
ed about an hour and a half, and was
a thorough review of the cases bearing
upon the point in issue. Many of the
cases were cases where women had ap-
piled to be admitted to the bar in the
several States; in all OF such cases the
courts have held that women could not
be admitted to the bar, for although
the laws usually read "all citizens who
have reached the age of twenty-one
years, ETC., may be admitted to the
bar" the courts all hold that the
Legislature, at the time of passing such
acts, did not contemplate any evolution
| from the customs of the common law
and therefore did not contemplate
opening the quasi political, learned
profession to women, and from analogy
Judge Turner insists that although the
Legislature is authorized to confer suf-
frage upon all Citizens" yet Congress,
in using the term citizens, did not con-
template including by that term class
Of citizens who had never been consid-
cred in connection with suffrage; in
other words, the term citizens used by
Congress should receive the interpre.
tation that Congress intended it to
have, the same as if Congress should
pass an act authorizing the drafting
of all "citizens" into the army, no one
would contend for moment that such
an act included women, although Con-
gress used the term citizens" and with
tout qualification but works must re-
ceive the construction and force in
tended to be given them by the person
or body that uses them.
Besides the regular counsel of the
case the court had invited Judges
Greene and Dennison and ]. c. Haines
to appear and present their views as to
the legality Of the suffrage act. Mr.
Haines appeared and took the same
view as Judge Turner; neither Judge
Greene or Judge Dennison appeared
which side of the question they would
have taken is not known. They are
both known to favor female suffrage,
but under the invitation Of the court
they would have been compelled To
have given their opinions as lawyers
without regard to their personal wishes.
The argument occupied the entire
day, and at the end of it the court
announced that it had invited Judge
Greene to file q brief and would adj
journ until August Is.
1t is not proper to speculate as to
the decision while the court has the
case under advisement, but it il safe
to cay that whatever the lawyers
thought before the argument; when il
was over they were all convinced that
there was but one conclusion for the
court to reach.
The case was thoroughly and ably
presented on both sides, and which
ever view the court may take Of it the
question will be ret at rest unless the
defeated party takes it to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which they
can do, as it involves the construction
of an Act of Congress-