The age-herald., 1901-04-14
..alCw the Nego DOte May Be 6vlmlNated..

to say that child of ten shall never be a voter. or shall not begin to vote until he Is forty? Bauvier defines political rights as the power to participate in the. establishment and management Of gov ernment Surely no one will contend that minor has an such right. Ef
 Now let us turn our attention to the fifteenth amendment 1t provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condl- tion of servitude Justice Hunt says: An examination of the surrounding cir cumstances and knowledge Of the evils intended to be prevented furnish rlue by which this amendment is to be con- strued. It was passed In 1870, and we have seen that two years previous Con-, gross had endeavored to prevent the dis franchisement of the blacks in the South ern States by threatening to cut down the basis of their representation. AS their rst act had proved futile this second amendment was adopted with prohibitive,. provisions that actually vested rights of suffrage should not be denied or abridged for the reasons assigned
 Although in both amendments the right to vote is treated as a right that may at tach to citizens of the United States, yet 1t Is universally admitted that it is neith- CT natural right nor right that inner ently attaches to federal citizenship. Such right must depend upon grant of power from some competent authority. What is the source of this authority? We have seen that the federal copstitu- tion does not confer it (Minor vs. Hopper sett, Wall, 17s) Manfestly it must come from the action of the several states.
 Then is the fifteenth amendment a reN striction on the power of q State to con- fer the right of suffrage or a limitation upon the power to revoke such grant when once made? If we accept the form CT theory 1t then becomes a restriction on the power to grant revoke the right | to persons unborn. That the language of the amendment Is directed against the power of investment of the right of suf- frage we maintain, but 1t does not apply to the power of investment of that right. | Any legal right must vest before 1t can be denied or abridged. Bouvier and Am. and Eng. Law Dict). Can 1t be said that minor citizen of the United States who has never possessed the right to vote has any right to vote that can be denied or abridged? If so whence is 1t derived? By what authority was 1t granted? What are it's limits? We fail to see how any clear thinking man can construe the term right to vote so as to mean the expect ancy of a minor or the chance of be- coming voter.
 Of course it would have been possible for the framers of the amendments to have provided that no State should make any distinction in conferring the right of suffrage on account of race, color etc. but they did not do so. and to give them such an interpretation Is to assert that Congress enacted one thing and meant another. In fact, an amendment of this character was proposed but was voted down.
 In the case of Minor vs.. Happersett, 21 1 Wallace ITS, the United States Supreme 1 Court decided that the federal constitu- tion has not conferred the right of suf- frage on anyone, and that the United States have no voters of their own crea- 1 ton in the States. In U. s, vs. Reese, 82 l U. s. 214. it was held that the fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with new constitu | tional right, which is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elec- l tive franchise on account of race, color l and previous condition of servitude, and 1 that the right to vote in the States comes 1 from the States, but the right of exemp- l tion from the prohibited discrimination
 comes from the United States. It should
 be observed that the language of the
 court is directed against the prohibited
 discrimination in the exercise of the cleo l tive franchise as distinguished from dis l crimination In conferring said franchise. I am aware that the opinion have pre- l sented Is not the one usually entertained
 on this question, but revived in the light of the recognized rules of constitutional