unless than conclusion is overthrown by some other provision of the Constitution.

It is not necessary for the purposes, of this argument to claim that this amendment prohibits a state from making or enforcing any law whatever, regulating the elective franchise, or prescribing the conditions upon which it may be exercised. But we do claim that in every republic the right of suffrage, in some form, and to some extent, is not only one of the privileges of its citizens, but is the first, most obvious and most important of all the privileges they enjoy; that in this respect all citizens are equal, and that the effect of this amendment is, to prohibit the states from enforcing any law which denies this right to any of its citizens, or which imposes any restrictions upon it, which are inconsistent with a republican form of government. Within this limit, it is unnecessary for us to deny that the states may still regulate and control the exercise of the right.

The only provisions of the Constitution, which it can be contended conflict with the construction which has here been put upon the first section of the Fourteenth amend ment, are the Fifteenth amendment, and the second section. of the Fourteenth.

In regard to the Fifteenth amendment, I shall only say, that if my interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment is correct, there was still an object to be accomplished and which was accomplished by the Fifteenth. The prohibition of any action abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens, contained in the Fourteenth amendment, applies only to the states, and leaves the United States government free to abridge the political privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as such, at its pleasure. By the Fifteenth amendment both the United States and the state governments, are prohibited from exercising this power, "on account of race, color, or previous condition. of servitude" of the citizen.

The first remark to be made upon the second section of

the Fourteenth amendment is, that it does not give and was not designed to give to the states any power to deny or abridge the right of any citizen to exercise the elective franchise. So far as it touches that subject it was designed to be restrictive upon the states. It gives to them no power whatever. It takes away no power, but it gives none, and if the states possess the power to deny or abridge the right of citizens to vote, it must be derived from some other provision of the Constitution. I believe none such can be found, which was not necessarily abrogated by the first section of this amendment.

It may be conceded that the persons who prepared this section supposed that, by other parts of the Constitution, or in some other way, the states would still be authorized, notwithstanding the provisions of the first section, to deny to the citizens the privilege of voting, as mentioned in the second section; but their mistake cannot be held to add to, or to take from the other provisions of the Constitution. It is very clear that they did not intend, by this section, to give to the states any such power, but, believing that the states possessed it, they designed to hold the prospect of a reduction of their representation in Congress in terrorem over them to prevent them from exercising it. They seem not to have been able to emancipate themselves from the influence of the original Constitution which conceded this power to the states, or to have realized the fact that the first section of the amendment, when adopted, would wholly deprive the states of that power. But those who prepare Constitutions are never those who adopt them, and consequently the views of those who frame them have little or no bearing upon their interpretation. The question for consideration here is, what the people, who through their representatives in the legislatures, adopted the amendments, understood, or must be presumed to have understood, from their language. They must be presumed to have known that the "privileges and immunities" of citizens which were secured to them by the first section beyond the power of abridgment by the

states, gave them the right to exercise the elective franchise, and they certainly cannot be presumed to have understood. that the second section, which was also designed to be restrictive upon the states, would be held to confer by implication a power upon them, which the first section in the most express terms prohibited.

It has been, and may be again asserted, that the position which I have taken in regard to the second section is inadmissible, because it renders the section nugatory. That is, as I hold, an entire mistake. The leading object of the second section was the readjustment of the representation of the states in Congress, rendered necessary by the abolition of chattel slavery (not of political slavery), effected by the Thirteenth amendment. This object the section accomplishes, and in this respect it remains wholly untouched, by my construction of it.

Neither do I think the position tenable which has been taken by one tribunal, to which the consideration of this. subject was presented, that the constitutional provision does not execute itself.

The provisions on which we rely were negative merely, and were designed to nullify existing as well as any future. state legislation interfering with our rights. This result was accomplished by the Constitution itself. Undoubtedly before we could exercise our right, it was necessary that there should be a time and place appointed for holding the election and proper officers to hold it, with suitable arrangements for receiving and counting the votes. All this was properly done by existing laws, and our right being made complete by the Constitution, no further legislation was required in our behalf. When the state officers attempted to interpose between us and the ballot-box the state Constitution or state law, whether ancient or recent, abridging or denying our equal right to vote with other citizens, we had but to refer to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the states from enforcing any such constitutional provision or

law, and our rights were complete; we needed neither Congressional or state legislation in aid of them.

The opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, in a case in the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans10 would seem to be decisive of this question, although the right involved in that case was not that of the elective franchise. The learned justice says: "It was very ably contended on the part of the defendants that the Fourteenth amendment was intended only to secure to all citizens equal capacities before the law. That was at first our view of it. But it does not so read. The language is: 'No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' What are the privileges and immunities of citizens? Are they capacities merely? Are they not also rights?"

Senator Carpenter, who took part in the discussion of the Fourteenth amendment in the Senate, and aided in its passage, says: "The Fourteenth amendment executes itself in every state of the Union .. It is thus the will of the United States in every state, and silences every state Constitution, usage or law which conflicts with it. And if this provision does protect the colored citizen, then it protects every citizen, black or white, male or female.. And all the privileges and immunities which I vindicate to a colored citizen, I vindicate to our mothers, our sisters and our daughters.''11

It has been said, with how much or how little truth I do not know, that the subject of securing to women the elective franchise was not considered in the preparation, or in the adoption of these amendments. It is wholly immaterial whether that was so or not. It is never possible to arrive at the intention of the people in adopting constitutions, except by referring to the language used. As is said by Mr. Cooley, "the intent is to be found in the instrument itself" and to that I have confined my remarks. It is not a new thing for constitutional and legislative acts to have an effect be

10 1 Abb. U. S. Rep., 402.

11 Chicago Legal News, No. 15.

yond the anticipation of those who framed them. It is undoubtedly true, that in exacting Magna Charta from King John, the Barons of England provided better securities for the rights of the common people that they were aware of at the time, although the rights of the common people were neither forgotten nor neglected by them. It has also been said, perhaps with some truth, that the framers of the original Constitution of the United States "builded better than they knew;" and it is quite possible that in framing the amendments under consideration, those engaged in doing it have accomplished a much greater work than they were at the time aware of. I am quite sure that it will be fortunate for the country, if this great question of female suffrage, than which few greater were ever presented for the consideration of any people, shall be found, almost unexpectedly, to have been put at rest.

The opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, in regard to this amendment, in the case before referred to, if I understand it, corresponds very nearly with what I have here said. The learned judge, in one part of his opinion, says: "It is possible that those who framed the article were not themselves aware of the far-reaching character of its terms. They may have had in mind but one particular phase of social and political wrong, which they desired to redress-yet, if the amendment, as framed and expressed, does, in fact, bear a broader meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those who were never thought of when it was conceived and put in form, and does reach social evils which were never before prohibited by constitutional amendment, it is to be presumed that the American people, in giving it their imprimatur, understood what they were doing, and meant to decree what has, in fact, been decreed. . . . It embraces much more. The 'privileges and immunities' secured by the original Constitution were only such as each state gave its own citizens. Each was prohibited from discriminating in favor of its own citizens, and against the citizens of other states. But the Fourteenth amendment prohibits any state