Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-11-22

independent body, and perfectly free to
propose a frame work of government
upon a broader and more liberal basis
than that Of the parent commonwealth,
though it should provide for wo-
man suffrage. and allow the eligibility
of women to Office. They did not do
the former. and whether or not they
did the latter. in certain specified
cases, depends upon the constitution
they framed, and not upon the govern
meht which they superseded. OF the act
or manner of separation.
THE constitution restricts the right
of suffrage to male citizens, but does
not confine eligibility 10 office to males.
In one case words importing sexual
qualification are inserted in the consti-
tuition; in the other. they are omitted.
This distinction is of great significance,
as It shows that the trainers Of the con-
stituticn placed eligibility to Office upon
a broader basis than suffrage. else they
would have expressly restricted it with
in the same limits, when their attention
was called to that subject.
ITO hold these rights are cO-exten-
sivc is. in my Judgment. to disregard a
plain distinction made in the COnstitu-
ton, and to interpolate into it a clause
that would debar one half of the citi-
Zens of the State from their right to
participate in the administration of the
laws.
Impressed with the conclusiveness
Of this reasoning, majority of my
brethren seek to impair it's forces by
| dividing Offices into two classes, judi
cial offices and other offices enumerated
| in the constitution, and offices not
| judicial and not therein enumerated.
excluding women from the former, and
| admitting them to the latter class of
offices. While it is practicable to make
| this division, no sufficient reason is
| perceived, nor indeed, is any given.
! why the distinction alleged should at
tach to such classifications. Certain
| it is, no such distinction is found in the
constitution: it is in fact arbitrary. and
has rather the flavor of dogmatism
than argument.
| What is there it may be not inaptiy
asked, in judicial Offices. and other
offices named i'm the constitution. that
| invests them with such Importance and
sanctity, inherently, or because they
happen to he thus mentioned, that none
hut male citizens can hold them?
What good reason can be assigned why
women are eligible to the Office of State
| Superintendent of common schools.
| railroad commissioner, register of
deeds, and like offices, or members of
boards of health, or trustees of State
| institutions. or of the bar, and not
l oil; n;I hn Of i,,cticp nf tho
| peace: If satisfactory answers can be
| given to these questions, it is confident
| ~ maintained that must be found out
side of the constitution; they cannot
i proceed from within ii.
| 1T is not quite accurate to affirm
i that the universal and unbrOken prac-
/ teal construction given to the consti-
tuition of this State is adverse to the
i eligibility of women to the office in
i question, as it is understood that wo-
men have been commissioned justices
of the peace in this State in several
4 instances, and are today acting in that
i capacity. 1t does not appear that wo-
i men, in any considerable numbers.
have applied for that office. or that the
proportion of unsuccessful female APP
i plicants exceeds that of such mails $.
i The omission to claim a right, especial
4 ~ by the subordinated class of citizens.
does not prove it's nOn-existence. nor
would acquiescence even, by such Il
l class, in a denial of right, have that
effect, unless to that is also superad-
ded, the force of judicial sanction.
which is wanting in this case.
THE eligibility of women to Office
4 does not depend upon the common law
or the usages, laws and constructions
of the commonwealth of Massachu-
sets. prior to the adoption of the COM
stitution. unless they are specifically
made a part of it. and it is lOt pre-
tended that they are for this purpose.
The meaning and intent of the trainers
of the constitution are not to be
learned from such reconcile sources,
but are TO be ascertained from their
own language. interpreted by the tri-
bunal they established for this pur-
pose, in accordance with the objects
and purposes of the great charter of
liberty, equality, justice and progress,
which those masters of political science
framed.
IF the meaning of the constitution
is to be ascertained from extrinsic
sources. how are we to determine what
considerations ought, and what ought
not, to control it's construction? Why
may not laws authorizing the punish
ment of spiritual manifestations, so
called. as witchcraft. or the erection of
the whipping post in our public
squares. as a legitimate mode of pun
ishment. receive the sanction of the
constitution? The history of the
parent commonwealth furnishes pre-
cedents for such enactments. even I'M
der the domain Of the common law.
How long would our statutes. removing
the disabilities of married women and
of parties to be witnesses, and our
prohibitory liquor law. stand the test
now relied upon to debar women from
the right to hold the office Of justice of
the peace? What advantages. in fine.
has our written constitution thus con-
strued over the unwritten constitution
of England? 1t is obvious that they are
more mythical than real, ever liable TO
vanish from their grasp when the peo-
pie approach them for protection.
IF such principle Of construction
upon SO vital a question Is allowed to
obtain. there is great reason to fear
that written constitutions will soon
come to be of little value. and the ex-
pertinent of settling limitations to
r,rD,.x h<rffxa undooI