Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-07-05

various provisions of the law providing
for submission of questions to a vote
of the people, such as the removal of
county seats, the adoption of the pro-
visions of the herd law, in counties;
and the erection of water and electric
light plants, the granting of franchises
the establishment of free libraries in
cities, enlarged the meaning of the
term election" so as to include ANY
other election, held for any purpose,
authorized by law" The right of suf-
frage is not an absolute or natural
right, it is simply political privilege,
and cannot be exercised unless express
ly conferred. In nearly all countries
the right has been denied to females,
minors and aliens. Am. & Eng. Ency
page 260.
An equally well settled prin-
ciple is that the legislature
cannot extend the right of
suffrage to those not possessed of
the constitutional qualifications. 6
Am. d. Eng. Ency. page 263, and cases
there cited. Our constitution in the
plainest terms, confines the right of
suffrage to males in call elections au-
thorized by law" This qualification
cannot be enlarged by the legislature,
am, therefore, forced to the conclu-
sion that women are not qualified elec-
tors in an election held for the pur-
pose of submitting question as to the
establishment of libraries in cities or
towns, such elections being "author-
lied by law" A case in point has re-
GENTLY been decided in Michigan, Cof-
fin VS.. Board, Sc NV. Reporter, 567.
The statute of that state permitted
women to vote for all school, village
and city officers, and on all questions
pertaining to school regulations upon
the same terms and conditions pre-
scribed by law for male citizens. The
constitution of that state, likewise,
conferred the franchise to males 'sin
all elections" The action was brought
to compel the election officers to re-
ceive the vote of plaintiff, woman, at
a city election. II was denied by the
supreme court on the ground that the
constitution having prescribed the
qualification of electors at ''all cleo
tons the law, which authorized wom-
en- to vote at certain elections was in
valid. In that case, as in this, the
right was sought to be upheld on the
authority of Bellies VS.. Burr rs Mich. i
Wheeler VS.. Brady Is Kan. 20; State
VS.. Cones Is Neb. Al, and Plummer VS..
Yost, Qllinois), SO N. e. Rep. 191, in
which cases women were permitted to
vote at school elections and for school
officers notwithstanding the provisions
of the constitution limiting the right
of suffrage to males. But it was clear
I ly pointed out by the Michigan court
in that case, that the cases cited were
merely school cases, in which the off
GERS voted for were not provided for or
mentioned in the constitution, but were
created by the legislature, which could
therefore prescribe the qualification of
voters therein. This distinction is
Iclearly made also in Illinois. In Plum
mer VS.. Yost, above cited, it was held
that women might vote for school Off
GERS, as such officers We're not created
| by or mentioned in the constitution,
but the same court, in People VS.. En-
| olish 30 N. 4. Rep. 67S, denied them
the right to vote for county supcrin-
tendent of schools, because that office
was one recognized by the constitution
w pIONftCu lOI SuCn dl UulCST III
each county whose qualifications, po-
wers, duties and compensations should
be therefore prescribed by law" Wo-
men We're denied the right to vote in
school elections, in New York on that
same ground, Notwithstanding, the sta
tute in terms gave them such right. See
In re Benjamin 25 N. Y. Sup. 1868, and
In re Gage 26 N. Y. Sup. 167, affirmed
in court of appeals and reported in IS
Northeastern Rep. 1904. The election
held in Ottumwa was not school cleo
ton nor for school officers, but was an
election authorized by law" and
therefore recognized in the constitu-
ton, which expressly limited the right
of suffrage in such elections to males.
| Having reached this conclusion it is not
necessary to consider the other consti-
tutional objections urged against the
| statute. The demurrer to petition is
MISUNDERSTANDING eScept-July 2,
1900.
Frank w. Eichelberger, Judge.