Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-05
RIGHT OF WOMEN TO VOTE FOR CON-
GRESSMEN.

Francis Minor, in the April number of
the Forum, makes out strong case in
favor of the right OF women to vote for
members of Congress. The Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution OF the
United States declares that 'all persons
born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens OF the United States and OF
the State wherein they reside" There
is no reference to sex anywhere in the
Constitution in connection with suf-
frage. 1t simply invests the right in
''the people of the several States" The
decision in the case of Minor VS.. Hap
persett announced that ''the United
States has no voters of its own creation
in the States" and the Judges were
unanimously OF the opinion that the
Constitution of the United States does
not confer the right OF suffrage upon any
one." But nine years later the matter
OF Federal suffrage was before them in
the Yarbrough case, and the Court de-
clared that the right to vote for mem
bers of Congress is based upon the Con-
stitution of the United States. Revert
ing to the Minor case, the Court also
said ''If the right of suffrage is one OF
the necessary privileges of a citizen of the
United States, then the Constitution
and laws of Missouri, confning it to
men, are in violation of the Constitution
of the United States as amended, and
consequently void"
The magazine writer sums up the con-
clusions of the Supreme Court on this
subject as follows: 1t decides that the
right to vote for members of Congress is
based upon the Constitution of the
United States; the Constitution vests
the right in ''the people of the several
! States ;" men and women constitute the
people; men and women, therefore, are
Federal electors; the right that exists
for one citizen exists for all to deny
women, therefore, the right to vote for
members of Congress, is to deny to citi-
Zens OF the United States constitutional
right
This reasoning is faultlessly logical.
But there is another line of reasoning
which would not reach the same con-
clusion The States prescribe the
qualifications of their voters for the
most numerous branch OF their Legisla-
lures without reference to the election of
members OF Congress; nor can they
prescribe the qualifications for voting
for members of Congress distinctively.
They prescribe who shall vote for
the popular branch of the Legislature.
and the Constitution of the United States
says that the same persons shall vote
for members of Congress. 1t adopts
the qualification thus furnished as the
qualification OF it's own electors for mem
bers of Congress. Now if this state
ment of the case is correct, then it re-
mains with the States, under the
Constitution of the United States, to say
who shall vote for members OF the Legis-
lature, and when they make sex quail
fication and confne it to males, that
settles it as against women not only in
their right to vote for State officers but
also in their right 10 vote for members
of Congress.
Yet it is impossible to say what would
be the decision OF the Supreme Court if
the question were again presented. In
the Yarbrough case it has reached the
conclusion that the right to vote for
members OF Congress is based upon the
Constitution of the United States, and
the Fourteenth Amendment has been 50
fruitful in opening the door to all sorts OF
new and surprising constructions, that
we shall hold ourselves prepared to hear
at any time that under it woman SUI
frage, as far as members of Congress is
concerned, is IN fat accompE.