The National tribune., 1906-02-15
NATIoNAT THURSDAY 1905
with the rights Of citizens Of the United


with the rights Of citizens Of the United
States as such.
Blake vs.. Mcclung, 17s U. s.. 2ss; "a
Slaughter House cases, 1e Wall. &C.
81, L. Ed, 394.
In Minor VS.. Happersett, 81 Wall. 162,
it was held that the amendment did not
add to the privileges and immunities of
a citizen, but simply furnished an ad-
ditfonal guaranty for the protection OF
such as he already had. and 1t was said
| indirectly it may have had that effect
because 1t may have increased the num-
Der of citizens entitled to suffrage under
the Constitution and laws of the States
but 1t operates for this purpose, IL at
all, through the States and State laws
and not directly upon the citizen" The
case was one which involved the right
of women to vote in the State of Mis-
souri,, and it was held that while they
might be citizens, the Constitution of
the United States had not added the
right of suffrage to the privileges and
| immunities of citizenship as they eX-
listed at the time it was adopted.
| See, also. Bradwell VS.. State, 16 Wall,
| 100.
In re Lockwood, 1874 u. s., 116.
| Dent VS.. West Virginia. 129 U. s.,
| ia.
| Newton VS. Board, 100 u. S., 54S.
Wilson VS.. State of North Carolina,
169 u. S.. 5S6.
Van Valkenburgh VS.. Brown, Is Am.
Rep, 1856; 43 Cal. As.
| The Supreme Court then proceeds to
examine the question of the agreement
OF the law with the Constitution Of the
State upon this same matter of "privi-
leges or immunities," and says:
Does the statute in question contra
vene the provisions of section 6, arti-
Gle 1, of the State Constitution, which
says that the General Assembly shall
| not grant to any citizen or class of citi-
zens privileges or immunities which up
| on the same terms shall not equally
| belong to all? Whether it does or not
clearly depends upon the answer that
| shall be made to the further question
whether the right of appointment to a
| minor municipal office is q privilege
within the meaning of the Constitution.
| That the right to hold office, as one Of
the privileges protected by the COnSti-
tuition, was not contemplated by it's
trainers, is manifest from the ConSti-
| tuition itself. The right of suffrage is
| given to male citizens only (Sec /, Art.
| - and there are provisions expressly
| limiting the right to hold certain offices
| to the male citizens of the State. The
Constitution itself implies that women
| may become citizens of the State, and
| they undoubtedly are. and yet it will
| rot be claimed that they are entitled
to hold office under this provision of
the Constitution.
See Minor VS.. Happersett, 81 Wall.
162.
Ruff VS. Cook. "A Iowa, $50.
Opinion Of Judges Mass. Supreme
Court, lis Mass, 602.
The precise meaning of the words
privileges and immunities' is not very
definitely settled by the decisions. In
speaking of the words used in the
Constitution of the United States, Mr..
Justice Curtis in Common vs. Elliott, Is
, How, SCI, said: I'VE do not deem it
reedful to attempt to define the mean
ing of the word privileges in this clause
OF the Constitution. 1t is safer and
more In accordance with the duty of
judicial tribunal to leave it's meaning
to be determined i'm each case, upon a
view of the particular rights asserted
and denied therein" In Garfield vs.
Coryell. Wash. c. c., 81, the question
was considered by Mr.. Justice Wash
ington, who said in part: what are
the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens I'm the several States? We feel no
hesitation in combining these expressions
to those privileges and immunties
which are In their nature fundamental:
which belong of right to citizens of all
free Governments and which have, at
all times, Deeii enjoyed by the clIlZe1lS
oe the several States which compose
this Union from the time of their be-
coming free, independent and sover-
eign." This statement of the general
meaning of the words has been often
approved by the Supreme Court of the
United States, and while the language
was used with reference to the Consti
tuition of the United States, it is none
the less applicable to the Consti-
tuition Of this State, so far as defini-
ton Of the word 'privileges" is con-
cerned. Limiting our discussion to the
precise question under consideration, Is
the right to hold office one of the fun
damental privileges which belong of
right to all the citizens Of the States,
to be classed as natural right and
standing equally with the rights of life.
liberty and property? The right to
hold office can be no more a natural
and personal right. nor more sacred.
than the right of suffrage, and 1t is the
general holding Of the courts that the
right of suffrage Is not natural and
personal right, but political and civil
right. 1t owes it's existence to the Con-
stitution of civil government. and not
to the personality of the individual; nor
! does the right necessarily follow and
become an attribute Of citizenship, as
we have already pointed out. 1t is a
right which is conferred, withheld or
limited at the pleasure of the people
granted, it may be taken away by the
| same power that granted 1t, and 1t is
therefore not natural right which IL
held to be inalienable, like the rights
of conscience.
Hale VS.. Everett. 50 n. H., 8.
Barker VS.. People, 3 Cow. On. ".
$50.
People W.. Barber. IS Hun, 1913.
Anderson VS.. Baker, % Md, 531.
Minor vs.. Happersett, supra.
Blauck vs. Pausch, 113 ILL.,, Ga.
Morris VS.. Powell, 1875 Ind, 3l5.
| Gauger VS.. Timberake. 148 Ind, Al.
Meachem on Public Officers.
Bryan VS.. Catteli, Is Iowa. 53S.
People VS.. Loefiier, 81 y. e., 1856.
Van Valcanburgh VS.. Brown, 43 Cal.
| 49,
| A public office has in 1t no element
| of property. but Ii is rather personal
| public trust. created for the benefit of
| the State and not for the benefit Of the
| individual citizens thereof. Nor are the
prospective emoluments OF a public Of
| flee property in any sense, for the sal
AIRY or other perquisites may be reduced
or otherwise regulated by law at all
| times unless such change is forbidden
| by the Constitution
| Bryan VS.. Cattell, Is Iowa. $50.