She said it might surprise and encourage many, as it did her, to learn that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution, nor legislative enactment, general or local, has ever forbidden women to vote. They have simply permitted certain male citizens to vote, and have said nothing about women whatever. It is one thing to forbid women to vote; it is quite another thing to simply fail to expressly declare that they may. Some people think the Bible forbids women to vote because it doesn't say anything about it from beginning to end. True, it does not give any authority for it. Neither does it give any authority for using sewing-machines or clothes-wringers. The zeal of the people who search the Scriptures in the interest of bigotry and intolerance, assumes that all that is not commanded to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter says the general Constitution interposes not a single obstacle to woman suffrage, and there is therefore no need of a new amendment; while the State constitutions simply leave her right in abeyance by omitting to declare it. That this view of the general constitution largely prevails is shown by so many women bringing suits against those who have rejected their votes, under the constitution as it is. Mrs. Spencer's manner is very pleasing, and her speech was pungent and to the point. She closed with the following pithy illustration of the need of woman's influence in legislative matters:

I wanted a loaf of bread one day in a great hurry, and found six dram-shops on one square and only one bakery, and that was shut.

Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black, and Mr. Davis, of Philadelphia, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott. Committees on resolutions and finance were appointed, and the meeting adjourned till afternoon.

F. E. B.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17.

This convention, of which I sent you some account in my last letter, adjourned last night, sine die. Lincoln Hall has been crowded at all the sessions except one, when an admission fee was charged. And the admission fee worked up a little unpleasantness in another direction, for in such a case a license has to be bought of the city authorities. So on Thursday evening before the meeting opened, word was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room, that a police officer was after her. "Well, let him come then," she replied; "I shan't go after him, that's sure." In due time the policeman walked in, brass buttons and all. Miss Anthony had a pleasant little conversation with him for a few minutes. The policeman was very mild and amiable, and so was Miss A. Having had considerable experience with officers of justice(?), she has gotten a little used to them—in fact, rather indifferent. Hard knocks and rubs conduce to philosophy, and Miss Anthony has acquired a philosophy akin to that of Diogenes in his tub. She told the policeman she had no intention of paying this government for the poor privilege of coming here to demand justice at its hands. While Miss Anthony was as calm as a June morning, and wholly indifferent in the matter, Mrs. Belva Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, raised such a din about the policeman's ears that he took to his heels, and didn't darken the ante-room doors of Lincoln Hall again while the convention was in session. That license remains in statu quo.

Mrs. Stanton said that people were always saying women didn't want to vote, but the fact that the word "male" was in all the statute books showed that men knew all the time that they would vote if they had a chance. But whether they want to or not is a matter, she claimed, that had nothing to do with the question. It is time woman had a civil rights bill. No woman can enter Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. During the century we have spent $16,000,000 for the boys of New York, and $1,500,000 for the girls. Are you willing to believe, women, that your girls are sixteen times less valuable than the boys? What is the reason of this low valuation of woman? Because she is never to have anything to do with the State. It is a humiliating thing to ask, but I insist that the white women of this country be placed on the same civil and political footing with the colored men from the plantations of the South. If a woman traveling alone is belated at night, the hotels slam their doors in her face and turn her into the street. We want a civil rights bill that shall make every white woman just as respectable as a negro or a white man.

Mrs. Blake followed with an anecdote of a girl who applied for admission to Ann Arbor University. One of the sentences she had to translate from the Greek was this one from Antigone: "Seeing then that we are women, ought we not to be modest and not try to compete with men?" She took the highest honors in Greek, and was ahead of every man in the class. She prepared a Greek composition and introduced this sentence: "Seeing then that we are men, ought we not to be ashamed that we have been vanquished by women?"

Mrs. Stanton thought if girls could come out of colleges and schools ahead of the boys in their studies, it was pretty clear proof that they could accomplish almost anything within the power of human capacity, for girls have to study under all sorts of disadvantages that boys do not have to contend with. Hang a hoop-skirt on a boy's hips; lace him up in a corset; hang pounds of clothing and trailing skirts upon him; puff him out with humps and bunches behind; pinch his waist into a compass that will allow his lungs only half their breathing capacity; load his head down with superfluous hair—rats, mice, chignons, etc., and stick it full of hair-pins; and then set him to translating Greek and competing for prizes in a first-class university. What sort of a chance would he stand in running that race or any other!! Mrs. Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to Congress. This bill is to secure to them, equally with colored men, all the advantages and opportunities of life; open to them all colleges of learning; secure to them the right to sit on juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the same terms with colored men; to be tried by a jury of their peers; to be admitted to theaters and hotels alone; to walk the streets by night and by day, to ramble in the forest, or beside the lakes and rivers, as do colored men, without fear of molestation or insult from any white man whatsoever, to secure equal place and pay in this world of work.

She also presented a series of resolutions, nine in number. The first five are for freedom generally, and no taxation without representation. The sixth and seventh denounce the bills of Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan, the former being designed to deprive the women of the Territories of jury trial, and the latter to restore the common law in the Territories. The eighth recognizes the importance of the organization of the Grangers; and the ninth opposes the granting of general amnesty to former rebels. This resolution Mrs. Stanton denounced, speaking in favor of universal amnesty. Quite a spicy discussion ensued on this resolution, which was drawn up by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. Mrs. Stanton in her remarks in opposition, said it was hardly worth while for women in their conventions to throw any stigma on Jefferson Davis. The institution of slavery was sustained by the North as well as the South; the North got out expurgated editions of books for the Southern market. It was in bad taste for the North to denounce the South, and it was in particularly bad taste for woman suffragists who are clamoring for representation and for the ballot, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.

Col. R. J. Hinton, of Washington, also denounced the resolution, saying that it violated one of the fundamental principles of the woman suffrage platform, which is that the limitation of suffrage is a gross outrage. Miss Anthony very pertinently said: "All the trouble on this platform is that we haven't the right to vote. If we had it we shouldn't complain of anybody else voting." The resolution was voted down by a large majority.

At the evening session the Hall was literally packed. Mrs. Dundore of Baltimore, and Miss Taintor of California were the first speakers. Then the fascinating St. Louis lawyer, Miss Phoebe Couzins, whose logic is as sound as her wit is sparkling, was introduced, and delivered an address on "Woman as Lawyer," a subject which, in most hands, would have put the audience to sleep, but in hers, kept them wide awake with laughter and applause at her brilliant sallies. At the conclusion of her speech the Hutchinsons sang a stirring song, and then Miss Anthony introduced the colored member of Congress from South Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke unqualifiedly in favor of woman suffrage. Mr. Ransier is president of a woman suffrage association in South Carolina. He was a little inclined to repeat himself, and after having returned several times to the statement that he had "no speech to make," an old lady in the audience popped up on the bench and said: "Well, if you haven't got a speech to make, I have," and immediately started out at the rate of twenty-five knots an hour, utterly oblivious of the rights of Mr. Ransier, who already had the floor, and who was very politely waiting for her to subside. Miss Anthony, after patiently waiting some time, said she should have to call the lady to order, but she paid no attention to the call. After a while the ludicrous situation set the audience to smiling audibly, and the louder they smiled, and the greater the excitement grew, the swifter flew the old lady's tongue. After consultation among the managers of the meeting, it was finally decided to send a policeman to quietly remove this garrulous disturber of the peace. A policeman was accordingly summoned, but his entreaties had no effect on the old lady, who stoutly maintained her perch, and declared she would not go with him. Then Miss Couzins descended from the platform, and accomplished with her winning ways what the policeman couldn't. She calmed the troubled waters—got the old lady to sit down by her side and keep the peace the rest of the evening. Who wouldn't maintain the peace when entreated from such a quarter? Mr. Ransier was enabled to finish his speech—a really good one—Miss Anthony remarking at its close that she wished she could have had him for her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then made a wide awake and telling speech, which, if this letter were not already too long, I should like to give. At its close she introduced Mrs. Guthrie, a daughter of Frances Wright, that woman of rare mind and original thought, who came from England to this country some forty or more years ago; and who, with Robert Owen and some others, tried to start a colony on the community system. To the surprise of all, Mrs. Guthrie declared herself opposed to woman suffrage. At the close of her remarks the Doxology was sung, and the convention adjourned sine die.

F. E. B.

The correspondent of the Boston Commonwealth, after giving a pen-picture of the ladies on the platform, said:

The Convention laid out some very practical work for the consideration and action of Congress. It circulated a petition and obtained six hundred names of citizens, both men and women of the District, asking that the word male be stricken from the organic act of the District government. This was presented by Mr. Dawes, for Mr. Butler, to the House, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, before the members of which the ladies to-day had a hearing. Their case was presented and briefly argued by Mr. Miller, a lawyer of some promise and reputation, a resident of the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer, of Washington, addressed the Committee on the legal points involved. She said that the petitioners did not conceal the point that the XIV. Amendment did not give them the right to vote, but since Congress had referred them to the State legislatures, they came now to ask that the women of the District be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer answered the argument so often made, that all of the bad women would vote and the good ones would stay at home. She said in reply to this oft-repeated objection, that she had found in talking with that class they made the same objection to woman suffrage that the fashionable women make, and were quite as averse to its adoption. Again, she said statistics show the lamentable fact that only one-fifth of this class live to be eighteen years of age; their average length of life being only five years, no real danger was to be apprehended from giving woman the ballot. Mrs. Spencer spoke with feeling, and evidently made a favorable impression upon the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood made a few pertinent remarks. As this lady has lately been admitted to the bar in this city, she can speak from experience upon many points of law and fact. Miss Burr, of Hartford, asked simply for full justice, eschewing law and legal lore upon the subject, willing to be numbered with Plato and John Stuart Mill on this question. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; as so many knock-down arguments had been hurled at their heads she preferred to attack the heart. She said she felt great delicacy in appearing before so much learning and wisdom, but the veteran commander-in-chief of the forces, Miss Anthony, had ordered her to the front, and when she told her she must spike a gun, like a good soldier, although a raw recruit, she obeyed. Miss Anthony introduced the speakers, and closed the meeting with a few well-chosen words.

It was a picture worthy the brush of an old master. Eleven lawyers seated around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the head, listening to women pleading for the right of self-government. Their faces, as they listened, every one of them with respectful attention, was a study worthy the most thoughtful student of human nature. Some of them listened, no doubt, for the first time to an argument in favor of this innovation, but the most unbelieving were evidently impressed with the earnestness and strong feeling displayed in the advocacy of the cause. The room was well filled with spectators, drawn together, some from sympathy, others from idle curiosity, but all were compelled to respectful consideration by the ease, dignity, and ability displayed by the ladies in presenting their cause. Only upon the faces of a few newspaper reporters just emerging from adolescence into manhood, rested the traditional sneer at the strong-minded; and when the hour for adjournment arrived, one of the members of the Committee remarked he regretted that a longer time could not have been given to the ladies. To those who think the cause of woman suffrage has gone backwards, we commend the proceedings of this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the petition for suffrage in the District, another one has also been drawn, which Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, will present at an early day, asking for the remission of the fine imposed upon Miss Anthony for voting at the last Presidential election.

By the way, an incident showing the singular independence of Gen. Grant happened on Saturday. When the President was taking his afternoon stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue, he met Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins. Instead of bowing and passing on, as most any one of the high dignitaries occupying official position would have done, he stopped, shook hands, and entered into conversation with them. The chief justiceship being the absorbing subject of interest, Miss Couzins suggested the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, since he seemed to have so much trouble in getting a man to suit. The President pleasantly replied he would not subject any woman to the ordeal of such an examination as she would be subjected to over Sunday, if the announcement of the nomination to that office were made. Miss Anthony said if he would only nominate Henry R. Selden, her counsel, the man who had brains and courage enough to defend her for voting for him, the country would at once recognize it as the best possible thing that could be done. The group, as they stood there on the avenue, the President of the United States with a pleased and animated face, and Miss Anthony, whom everybody knows and respects, even although they don't believe in suffrage for women, and the strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis, in animated conversation over the Chief Justiceship, was the object of attraction of all passing by. If some fortunate photographer could have taken the picture his fortune would have been secured beyond doubt.

The May Anniversary[158] of 1874 was held in Irving Hall, with the usual list of speakers.[159] The attendance was large throughout. Martha C. Wright, one of the most judicious and clear-sighted women in the movement, was elected president. A large number of letters[160] was received from nearly every State in the Union.

On May 28th, 1874, while the bill to establish the Territory of Pembina was pending in the Senate, Mr. Sargent, of California, moved to add "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would make the clause read:

Resolved, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time, abridge the right of suffrage, or to hold office, on account of sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude of any resident of the Territory.

Mr. SARGENT.—In the same connection I move in the first line of section 5 to strike out the word "male," so as to read "every inhabitant of the United States."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. SARGENT.—At the time when the last National Convention of the Republican party assembled in Philadelphia, which nominated General Grant for his second term, there was assembled a body of able, respectable ladies of the United States, who urged upon that convention a consideration of the subject involved in the amendment which I propose; and as a concession to the demand made by those persons, a plank was inserted in the platform whereby it was declared that the Republican party would treat with consideration the claims of women to be admitted to additional rights. Since that time, although the Republican party has had a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and elected the President of its choice, and now has full power and has had ever since the assembling of this Congress to carry out this promise, not one step has been taken in this direction. It has not been for want of petition or solicitation. It certainly has not been because the matter has not been called to the attention of both Houses of Congress, for petition after petition has been presented, and no action has been taken except adverse action in the other House, the committee reporting back those petitions with the recommendation that the prayer be not granted. In the Senate we have not yet been favored with the views of the committee to whom those petitions were referred. Considering that a great constitutional question was involved, it might be assumed that these subjects would receive very early attention at the hands of the committees of the Senate; but up to this time we have had no light on the matter.

I believe, Mr. President, that the amendment which I offer to this bill is justified by the organic law of the United States, and in fact required by that law. Before the adoption of the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States women were hedged from the ballot-box by the use of the word "male." Since that time another rule has been prescribed by the organic law, giving to all citizens of the United States the right to exercise this highest privilege of a citizen. By the XIV. Article of Amendment it is provided that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This most important declaration is now the organic law of the United States. It does not say "all males born or naturalized in the United States," but "all persons," and it can not be contended successfully that a woman is not a person, and not a person within the meaning of this clause of the Constitution.

This being the status of all individuals, male and female, they being citizens of the United States, it is provided that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Of course if any State is prohibited from doing this, any Territory should be prohibited from doing it, because no Territory can constitutionally do that which a State itself can not do. Then, if women are citizens of the United States, and there is no right to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as proclaimed by the supreme law of the land, what are these privileges and immunities? Grant White, in his able work on "Words and Their Uses," defines, on page 100, the privileges and immunities of citizens, and among them gives the right to vote and the right to hold office. Webster gives the same definition of the word "citizen" and so does Worcester, and Bouvier's Law Dictionary speaks expressly of these rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office; and there is little adverse authority to these definitions.

The Constitution, if it needs construction at all—and it would hardly seem to need it in a case so plain as this—must be construed by the ordinary and authoritative use of the words contained in it; and here is both the ordinary and the authoritative use of those words. This matter has not been without judicial construction. In the Circuit Court Reports (4 Washington, 371), it was held that these privileges and immunities included the right to hold office and to exercise the elective franchise; and this view was adopted by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries, volume II., page 71. So that both by United States courts and the best and highest commentary upon the laws of the United States the construction which I contend for of the XIV. Amendment is insisted upon and ably illustrated. The considerations which I have urged address themselves not merely to Republicans, they address themselves with great force to my Democratic friends who are such sticklers for the Constitution. Although that is true, nevertheless the Republican party has pledged itself especially to a respectful consideration of these demands in its last national platform, and it has control of both Houses of Congress and of the executive department.

Passing from that consideration, we have all persons born or naturalized in the United States declared by the Constitution to be citizens; and we have the meaning of the word "citizen" given by our courts, by our lexicographers, by our law commentators; we have further their "privileges and immunities" settled by all these authorities to include the right to vote and the right to hold office. In consonance with this organic law, the policy of which is not open to discussion because it has been adopted according to all the legal forms by the people of the United States, I offer this amendment.

Were this the time and place, and were not the discussion foreclosed by the considerations which I have already advanced, I might speak at some length upon the advantage which there would be in the admission of women to the suffrage. I might point with some pride to the experiment which has been made in Wyoming, where women hold office, where they vote, where they have the most orderly society of any of the Territories, where the experiment is approved by the executive officers of the United States, by their courts, by the press, and by the people generally; and if it operates so well in Wyoming, where it has rescued that Territory from a state of comparative lawlessness to one of the most orderly in the Union, I ask why it might not operate equally well in the Territory of Pembina or any other Territory? I hope the time is not far distant when some of the older States of the Union like New York, or Massachusetts, or Ohio may give this experiment a fuller chance. But so far as it has gone, the experiment has been entirely in favor of legislation for admitting women to the ballot-box. And I do not believe that in putting these higher responsibilities upon women we degrade their character, that we subject them to uncongenial pursuits, that we injure their moral tone, that we tarnish their delicacy, that we in any way make them less noble and admirable as women, as wives, and mothers. I believe that by realizing the intention of the Constitution, which uses words that are so fully explained by our courts and by our writers upon the uses of words, we simply open a wider avenue to women for usefulness to themselves and to society. I think we give them an opportunity, instead of traveling the few and confined roads that are open to them now, to engage more generally in the business of life under some guarantee of their success. I believe that, instead of driving them to irregular efforts like those which they recently have made in many of the States to overthrow liquor selling, it will give them an opportunity through the ballot-box to protect their families, to break up the nefarious traffic and purify society. As it is now, their energies in this direction are repressed, and sometimes in order to have force are compelled to be exercised even in opposition to law. I would give them an opportunity to exercise them under the forms of law, and I would enforce the law by the accession of this pure element. I do not think that they would be corrupted by it, but rather that society and politics would be purified by admitting them to the ballot-box and giving them this opportunity.

I therefore trust that, in the spirit of the pledge that was made by us as Republicans, in the spirit of the adhesion to the Constitution professed by our democratic friends, there may be an assent to this amendment, and that the United States will engraft this feature in the organic law of this new Territory. There is nothing peculiar in the form of this proposition. All the original steps which we took toward circumscribing slavery were taken by engrafting provisos on the organic laws of Territories, from Nebraska down, providing that the Territories, when organized, should not do this or that affecting the liberty of human beings. In the mode pursued by that legislation, and according to those precedents, I now propose that the Constitution shall be invoked; that women shall have the right in this Territory which is guaranteed by the organic law.

Mr. STEWART.—If this region is to be created into a Territory, I think it eminently proper that this amendment should be adopted. The question of female suffrage is a question that is being seriously considered by a large portion of the people of the United States. We may think lightly of it here; we may think it never will be accomplished; but there are a great many earnest people who believe if females had the ballot they could better protect themselves, be more independent, and occupy useful positions in life which are now denied to them. Whether they be correct or not, it is not necessary for us to determine in passing upon this amendment. Here is a new Territory to be created, and it is a good opportunity to try this experiment. If it works badly, when the Territory becomes a State there is nobody committed. It is not an amendment of the organic law of the nation. This is a bill simply providing for the organization of a Territory and for a preliminary government, and I should like for one to see this experiment tried. It is suggested by my friend on my right (Mr. Conkling) that it can not spread unless it is catching. (Laughter.) If it works well, if it succeeds in protecting females in their rights and enabling them to assert their rights elsewhere and obtain such employment as is suitable to them, I hope it will become catching and spread all over the country, if that is the light in which it is to be treated. I am in earnest about this matter. I think this new Territory is the place to try the experiment. If it works badly, we can see it, and no great harm will be done. If it works well, the example will be a good one and will be imitated. We first tried the experiment of negro suffrage in the District of Columbia, and it became catching and spread all over the South. Now, when there is a large portion of the people of the United States desirous of having this principle illustrated, here is a fair field for the illustration of it, that they may see and we may see, whether there is anything in their arguments by the practical illustration of them for a few years until this new Territory shall become a State. I say let them have female suffrage there and try it. If it works well, their arguments will be vindicated; if it works badly, it need not be followed. I hope that the Senator from Minnesota will consent that this shall become a part of the law. Let us try it. It will do no harm.

Mr. BOREMAN.—I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of woman suffrage, nor a discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the adoption of a provision in favor of it upon this bill. I think this is not a very good time to "try experiments," to use the language of the Senator from Nevada, and I trust we may have a vote upon this question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ingalls in the Chair).—The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California.

Mr. SARGENT and Mr. SPRAGUE called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. MORTON.—I desire simply to state my views upon this amendment; views long entertained. I am in favor of the amendment on what I regard as the fundamental principles of our Government, upon the theory upon which we have based our Government from the beginning. The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The word "men" in that connection does not mean males, but it means the human family; that all human beings are created equal. This will hardly be denied. I remember it was formerly contended that the Declaration of Independence in this clause did not include black people. It was argued learnedly and frequently, in this Chamber and out of it, that the history surrounding the adoption of that declaration showed that white men only were intended. But that was not the general judgment of the people of this country. It was held to embrace all colors and all races. It embraces both sexes; not simply males, but females. All human beings are created equal. That is the foundation principle of our Government. It then goes on to say:

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

If these rights are fundamental, if they belong to all human beings as such, if they are God-given rights, then all persons having these God-given rights have a right to use the means for their preservation; the means is government: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I ask you whether the women of this country have ever given their consent to this Government? Have they the means of giving their consent to it? The colored men had not given their consent to it. Why? Because they had not the right to vote. There is but one way that the consent to government can be given, and that is by a right to a voice in that government, and that is the right to vote. I know it was argued in times past in regard to the South that the master gave the consent on the part of his slaves; that he represented them; that he had their good at heart, and that he gave their consent. We denied that. We know it was not true. Now, sir, to come down to the main question, I ask if the women of this country have given their consent to this Government? You say they are consenting. I say they are assenting to it, the majority of them; but they have no means of giving their consent to this Government within the theory of the Declaration of Independence; and they can not consent to it unless they have a voice, have a right to vote "yes" or to vote "no."

What was the old theory of the common law? It was that the father represented the interests of his daughter, the husband of his wife, and the son of his mother. They were deprived of all legal rights in a state of marriage, because it was said that they were taken care of by those who stood to them in these relations; but they never were taken care of. The husband never took care of the rights of his wife at common law; the father never took care of the rights of his daughter; the son never took care of the rights of his mother. The husband at common law was a tyrant and a despot. Why, sir, he absorbed the legal existence of his wife at common law; she could not make a contract except as his agent. Her legal existence was destroyed, and the very moment the marriage was consummated he became the absolute owner of all her personal property. What was the theory of it? The old theory of the common law, as given in elementary writers, was that if the wife was allowed to own property separate from her husband it would make a distinct interest; it would break up and destroy the harmony of the marriage relation; the marriage relation must be a unit; there must be but one interest; and therefore the legal existence of the wife must be merged into that of the husband. I believe a writer as late as Blackstone laid it down that it would not do to permit the wife to hold any property in severalty from her husband, because it would give to her an interest apart from his.

We have got over that. It took us one hundred and fifty years to get past that, and from year to year in this country, especially in the last twenty-five years, we have added to the rights of the wife in regard to property and in many other respects. We now give to her a legal status in this country that she has not in England or in any European country. She has now a legal status that she had not twenty-five years ago, and progress is still going on in that direction. While it was argued by old law-writers and old law-makers that to allow women to hold property separate from their husbands was to break up the harmony of the marriage relation, we know practically that it has not worked that way. We know that as we have made woman independent, recognized her legal existence as a wife, secured her rights, it has elevated her. We know that instead of disturbing the marriage relation, it has improved it constantly; and I believe that the woman has the same natural right to a voice in this Government that the man has. If we believe in the theory of our Government that must be so. I believe that as you make woman the equal of man in regard to civil rights, rights of property, rights of person, political rights, you elevate her, you make her happier; and as you do that you elevate the male sex also.

This idea that women will be degraded by allowing them to go to the polls comes down to us from other countries and from remote periods of civilization. Why, sir, in countries now that claim to be civilized it is said that to allow the wife or the mother to go to the dinner-table with the husband and meet his guests face to face degrades her and degrades them. In some countries a woman must not appear on the streets unless she is so closely veiled that she can not be recognized; for it is said to allow her to go upon the streets barefaced or so thinly veiled that she can be recognized, subjects her to insult and degrades her; and in some countries to-day it destroys her character as effectually as other things would destroy her character in our country. We know that is a prejudice; and the idea that woman will be degraded by giving her the right of suffrage is a remnant of that same idea. It is born of the same parentage. It has no sounder reason for it than these other nations have. I believe that to give women the right of suffrage would elevate the character of suffrage in this country. It would make the polls more decent, more respectable than they are now. Why, sir, fifty years ago the idea of women attending political meetings was intolerable to a great many people. The idea of her going to lectures of a scientific character was thought to be out of all reason. But now women go to political meetings. In almost every canvass in my State there are nearly as many women who attend the meetings as men. What is the effect of it? Are they degraded? On the contrary, their presence elevates the character of those meetings. It is an assurance of peace, it is a security against rowdyism and violence, because in this country men have to be very low if they are guilty of rowdyism or blackguardism in the presence of women. We have a habitual respect for them; and I can testify from my own experience in politics that the attendance of women upon political meetings, so far from degrading them or affecting men injuriously, has elevated the character of political assemblages, has made them more respectable, has secured to them immunity from violence, and from degrading scenes and blackguardism, and so it will be at the polls. When a woman is allowed to go to the polls and vote her sentiments and convictions, it will have the same effect there that her presence has in society. There is not a bit of doubt about it. And there will be no more discord in the family circle than there was when, in violation and against the old principles of the common law, you gave a woman the right to retain her legal existence after marriage and to own property separate and apart from her husband. These old notions have been giving away one after another little by little, and we shall finally come down to the true theory of our Government in all respects, and that is to allow every person, man or woman, who is to be affected and controlled by the Government, whose interest or whose happiness is to be controlled by or depends on the administration of that Government, to have an equal voice in that Government. Therefore I give my vote heartily and cheerfully for this amendment.

Mr. FLANAGAN.—I confess, sir, that I was delighted when my distinguished friend from California presented this amendment. Unlike my distinguished friend from Indiana, however, I am a new convert to this doctrine. He has been of this opinion long since, I am gratified to learn. I have reflected much on this subject, and within the last few months I have settled down in my determination, and that is to advocate this great measure. Why have I so recently arrived at that conclusion? In the last few months the women's war upon the whisky trade and intemperance at large has prompted me thus to declare unequivocally for them and their glorious efforts. It is from them and with them that I hope, judging from their success up to this time, to save this great Nation from the worst curse known to the human family, that of intemperance; and I believe it is they and only they through Almighty God who can do it. Man has been found incompetent and unable to perform that great and desired object. And gratified am I to receive the idea from my distinguished friend, that if women had the right to vote they would not be expelled from many pursuits as they now are, or be compelled to go upon the streets as they now are, seeking in self-defense the preservation of man. The effect of this measure on politics has been so well described by the distinguished Senator from Indiana that I need not comment upon that branch of the subject. They would tend to purify the atmosphere morally, either at the ballot-box or anywhere else, I care not where it may be. They are more directly interested in good morals, in the temperance of the world and everything bearing on that line, than the husbands are. I think it is a right they are entitled to in every sense of the word, and from this time henceforth I am a woman's rights man.

Mr. MERRIMON.—Mr. President, I will not yield to any Senator in the measure of my respect for and admiration of woman; I do not propose by any act or word of mine to detract from her dignity or to diminish the pleasures she may enjoy in this life; but I claim the right to be the judge, in conjunction with herself, of what is best calculated to elevate and protect her dignity and promote her happiness. I do not believe that woman herself believes that her dignity would be elevated or her happiness promoted by putting her upon an exact equality, civilly or politically, in both points of view, with man; and very strong and controlling evidence of that fact is, that neither in this country nor in any country has woman—I mean the great mass of them—ever demanded such a state of things. Our Government has existed for about a hundred years, and the number of females who have demanded to be invested with equal political and civil rights and to be placed upon an exact equality with the male portion of our population, compared with those who have remained in retirement, who have staid at their homes and lived and ruled within that sphere in which it seems God intended that they should rule, is as a drop in the sea. So it appears in this conclusive way that the women of America do not demand this state of things. They do not protect themselves by votes, nor do they need to do so. They shape the man when he is a child, rule him with the power of love, and thus they shape, affect, and often control the destinies of men, nations, and empires. I do not propose, however, to go into a discussion in detail of what the women desire or what we ought to grant. My main purpose is to reply very briefly to some remarks that fell from the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] in reference to the Declaration of Independence. I differ, with all respect, from the revolutionary construction which he puts upon that instrument. It is true, as he says, that the Declaration of Independence provides in these words:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, I maintain in the first place that we must put a reasonable construction on those words. Plainly, to my mind, all men are created equal in point of natural rights, certainly not equal in point of civil rights, not equal in point of political rights. By nature man has no civil or political rights. Natural rights are one sort of rights; civil rights are another sort of rights; and political rights are a third sort of rights. Every human being has a natural right to life and liberty; but every human being has not a natural right to government. He has not a natural right to the civil rights conferred and defined by a system of government. When he becomes subject to civil government he surrenders a part of his natural rights—agrees that civil government may regulate these and then enjoys the benefit of civil rights conferred by civil government; but then he does not thereby necessarily become entitled to political rights. He can not become entitled to political rights until they shall be conferred upon him by government.

Mr. MORTON.—Will the Senator cite what follows?

Mr. MERRIMON.—When our fathers adopted the Declaration of Independence, and declared these general truths, they had reference to the natural rights of man, and only to those rights. They well knew the distinctions to which I have adverted, had them in view and acted upon them, as I shall now proceed to show.

Mr. MORTON.—It says that "to secure these rights" referred to, the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments were instituted which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, I ask if women are a part of "the governed?"

Mr. MERRIMON.—Yes, sir; they are a part of "the governed," and I say that they have not only assented, but they have consented to this system of government.

Mr. MORTON.—How?

Mr. MERRIMON.—I say so, because they have never raised their voice in opposition to it; they have given for nearly a century their highest moral sanction to it; we have had a moral expression from the American women with a degree of unanimity and cordiality that is striking. I am warranted in saying that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand have given their moral assent, in as full a measure as it was possible for them to do, to our system of government. They have sustained it under all circumstances with their love, their hands, and their hearts, with their smiles and their tears, educated their children to love it and to die for it. They have manifested their love for it in every form, it has never appeared, be it said to their honor, that they disliked or disapproved it. They have had the right under the bill of rights of every State in the Union, they have had the right under the Constitution of the Union at all times to memorialize the States and to memorialize Congress, protesting against any abridgment of their natural or civil rights, if they deemed there was any abridgment of those rights. But I repeat what I said a while ago, the number who have thus memorialized Congress and the State governments, compared with those who have not opened their mouths on this subject, is as a drop in the sea compared to the waste of waters. They have yielded their assent to this system of government; they have ratified it by every means in their power outside of exercising the political right to vote. I know that there are a few women in the country who complain, but those who complain, compared with those who do not complain, are as one to a million.

But to get back to the point. Those who established the Declaration of Independence gave an exposition to their view of it in the formation and administration of the several State governments they adopted. For years in those State governments they provided civil and political distinctions and discriminations; they provided that certain classes of white men should enjoy certain classes of rights, that certain other men should not enjoy the same rights. They provided that the male population should enjoy rights that the female should not enjoy. They provided that the white race should be free and that the black race should be slaves. They did that, and according to their action and the organic laws which they adopted, they said in the most solemn manner they could, that that system of government carried out the purposes they meant to declare and define in the Declaration of Independence. They not only did that, but they had a right to do it, nor was it inconsistent with the declaration, for it referred only to natural rights, and when they instituted governments they provided civil and political rights, and therefore there was no contradiction and no practical absurdity as is suggested. Their theory was practical and adapted to the comprehension and protection of human rights. They were not visionary theorists but practical statesmen. They were not radical but conservative in their notions of government. Not only the State governments did at first what I have indicated, but when the American people came to establish the Constitution of the United States they again provided in the Constitution a distinction and discrimination between the male and the female portion of the American people; they provided that the males should hold the offices, that the males should have the right to vote; and not only that, but by way of further exposition of their views of the nature, purposes, and meaning of the Declaration, they provided that the black race should be slaves. That Constitution recognizes negro slavery in three several provisions.

Mr. MORTON.—Does the Senator speak of the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. MERRIMON.—Yes, sir. In the matter of representation, slavery was expressly provided for; it was recognized in another provision relative to prohibiting the importation of certain persons until after the year 1808; and in another provision which provided that those held to labor, escaping to another State, should be surrendered to their masters on demand. The Constitution of the Union, made in pursuance of this very Declaration of Independence and conforming to it, recognized a distinction between the white race and the black race, and recognized and provided distinctions between the male and the female portions of the people of the American Union, and thereby in the most absolute manner drew the civil and political distinctions that have been kept up in one way or another from that day to this, and which I contend, with a view to good government, so far as the male and female portions of the American people go, ought to be kept up and perpetuated. It seems to me that any one who will take into consideration the facts to which I have called attention must see that the broad, radical construction which the Senator puts on the Declaration of Independence can not be sustained by reason, authority, or practice.

But, sir, I want now to refer to the position taken by the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent]. He says that under the Constitution by the XIII., XIV. and XV. articles of Amendment, Congress has no power to deprive the females of this country of the right of suffrage. That I deny as emphatically as I can. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, p. 65:

18. But citizenship of the United States, or of a State, does not of itself give the right to vote; nor, e converso, does the want of it prevent a State from conferring the right of suffrage. (Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 422.)

The right of suffrage is the right to choose officers of the Government, and it does not carry along the right of citizenship. (Bates on Citizenship, 4, 5.) Our laws make no provision for the loss or deprivation of citizenship. (Id.)

The word "citizen" is not mentioned in this clause, and its idea is excluded in the qualifications for suffrage in all the State constitutions. (Id., 5, 6.)

Mr. SARGENT.—What clause is he commenting on?

Mr. MERRIMON.—He is commenting on section 2 of article 1. He says further:

American citizenship does not necessarily depend upon nor co-exist with the legal capacity to hold office or the right of suffrage, either or both of them.

No person in the United States did ever exercise the right of suffrage in virtue of the naked, unassisted fact of citizenship. (Id.)

There is a distinction between political rights and political powers. The former belong to all citizens alike, and cohere in the very name and nature of citizenship. The latter (voting and holding office) does not belong to all citizens alike, nor to any citizen merely in virtue of citizenship. His power always depends upon extraneous facts and superadded qualifications; which facts and qualifications are common to both citizens and aliens. (Bates on Citizenship.)

I read these hasty citations of authority which happen to be convenient to show that there is a distinction between political power and political rights, and in further support of the distinction between citizenship, or civil rights, and political rights.

Mr. SARGENT.—Will my friend allow me a moment?

Mr. MERRIMON.—Yes, sir.

Mr. SARGENT.—The author there is commenting on the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and I think his reasoning on that upon general principles may be correct, at any rate it is in consonance with the authority that he cites. But it will be observed that by the XIV. article, section 1, it is provided that—

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

And then it says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,

Covering the whole broad ground. Whatever may be the privileges and immunities of citizens are covered and protected by this clause. This is subsequent to the article commented on there and changes the spirit of the old Constitution, is inconsistent with it, repeals it, or modifies it pro tanto; or else there would be no object in the adoption of the XIV. article.

Mr. MERRIMON.—I was just coming to the discussion of that Amendment. The XIV. Amendment applies to civil rights. As I have shown, a citizen merely by virtue of citizenship does not enjoy political rights; neither the right to vote nor the right to hold office. The manifest object and purpose of the XIV. Amendment was to secure to all the American people equality of right in the States, equality of right under the United States, civilly, not politically; and that is made more manifest when we consider the second section of the XIV. Amendment. It is in these words:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus it appears the amendments recognized the right of the State itself to regulate the political right to vote. The XV. article of Amendment still further confirms my view. It provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote"—and that word "vote" is material there—"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State." Note what follows: "On account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The right of a citizen of the United States in the first place to vote shall not be abridged on account of three considerations, to-wit: race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Why was it limited to those three causes? Manifestly because the framers of this article saw that Congress had the power to abridge the rights of the colored race—indeed, any race—in the matter of voting and in the matter of holding office as well. Can it be contended that the United States would not have the power to-day to provide that a negro or an Indian or a Chinese or a Mongolian, if naturalized, and a citizen, should not hold office under the United States Government? It is plain they would have such power. But they can not act upon the ground of race, color, or previous condition as to the matter of voting, and the restriction is to that alone. This clause provides expressly that as to voting the right of no human being shall be abridged because of his race, or his color, or his previous condition of servitude, but such right may be abridged for any other cause or consideration. This amendment did not impose a restriction simply on the power of the United States. In order to protect the colored race in the Southern States, and indeed I may say throughout the whole Union, this provision embraces the States as well as the United States, and provides that the States shall not have power to abridge the right to vote on any one of three accounts—race, color, or previous condition of servitude. But that does not imply that the States shall not have the power to abridge this right for other causes. Each State has the power to-day to abridge the right to vote because a man can not read, because he can not write, or for any similar cause. The States have power to provide that a man shall not be allowed to hold office or to vote because he can not read or because he can not write, or for any cause whatever. That is not only so according to the plain construction to be given to the XV. Amendment, but some of the States exercise such power in this country to-day.

Mr. SARGENT.—Will the Senator allow me to direct his mind to one consideration?

Mr. MERRIMON.—I will.

Mr. SARGENT.—The XV. Amendment to the Constitution which the Senator refers to, reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged:" It does not create a right, it says "the right"; it speaks of something existing which shall not be denied. The right, then, to vote is the right of a citizen of the United States; the right exists. In other words, the right which exists of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged.

Mr. MERRIMON.—There is no affirmative provision or principle in the Constitution that confers such a right, and my friend arrives at his conclusion by a simple inference; that is all. And I apprehend that a right of so much moment, contravening the whole policy of the Government, heretofore, can not be established by a simple inference; and especially in the strength and in the face of the fact, however it might be as to other matters, that the United States shall not have the power to abridge the right for the cause mentioned. Besides this, if I concede what the honorable Senator says, he must acknowledge that it is within the power of the United States to abridge the right to vote for other causes than those stated. The constitution of Connecticut prescribes these qualifications: Every white male citizen of the United States; one year's residence; freehold of the yearly value of six dollars; good moral character; able to read any article of the Constitution or any section of the statutes of the State. But if that State had undertaken to restrict the right to vote because a man was black or because he belonged to a particular race, or because heretofore he had been subject to a condition of servitude, that would be absolutely null and void; or if they had put in that he should not vote because he was white it would be null and void.

Next, by the constitution of Massachusetts, the right to vote is limited to "male citizens (excepting persons or paupers under guardianship); residence in the State one year; in the town or district six months; having paid all required taxes." That constitution has existed since 1780. It was provided further in that constitution that "no person shall have the right to vote or to be eligible to office under this Commonwealth who shall not be able to read the constitution in the English language and write his name. So that the power which I insist belongs to the United States, and I think I have shown belongs to the States, not only exists, but is actually exercised by States, at least two States of the Union, at this moment; and indeed in nearly or quite all the States there are more or less restrictions of the right to vote; and the State and the Union have absolute power to abridge the political right to vote except for three causes only, and those three causes are race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Mr. STEWART.—I hope that the Senate will not suppose that there is any constitutional question here involved. It is simply a question of regulating the suffrage in a Territory, exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. There is no doubt of the power of Congress to allow women to vote in the Territories, and I hope there will not be a great deal of time spent on that matter.

Mr. MERRIMON.—Why do you want to go into a remote, sparsely settled Territory to make the experiment?

Mr. STEWART.—Why not try it everywhere? Why not try it in North Carolina? Because we can not.

Mr. MERRIMON.—Why not try it in this city?

Mr. STEWART.—Because we have not the power to do it.

Mr. MERRIMON.—You have in the District of Columbia.

Mr. SARGENT.—We tried the question of negro suffrage in Nebraska first.

Mr. STEWART.—Negro suffrage was opened in a Territory when there were less people in it than there are here, and see how that has spread.

Mr. MERRIMON.—My friend did not hear my question. Why not confer suffrage on the women of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SARGENT.—We will the first time we get a chance.

Mr. STEWART.—The Senator from North Carolina asks, "Why not try it here?" The question has been suggested whether there is not a constitutional reason for not trying it here, and that constitutional question applies to males as well as females. The Constitution says that Congress shall have exclusive power of legislation within the District of Columbia, and it shall exercise like power over places owned by the United States with the consent of the States for arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, making this District under the exclusive control of Congress. I think that nothing but the emergencies of the case could have justified the experiment we tried here with negro suffrage; but we did it. We now have a fair field in the West where the country is rich and inviting, as my friend from Minnesota says, a country that is able to become a State; the land fertile, the climate salubrious, and is to be occupied by the very best people, and we can try it there under the most favorable auspices.

Mr. CONKLING.—May I ask a question?

Mr. STEWART.—Most certainly.

Mr. CONKLING.—The Senator has assured us so often that he is in earnest, that I know he will be able to afford those like me who are following him, although they may be somewhat in the dark, the requisite information. Some Senator inquired of my friend why he did not try the experiment here, and he answered that Congress has power to legislate here, and therefore there is no experiment to try here. Now I know my friend does not mean to paddle out of any thing, because he has courage enough to stand up to it; and I submit to him that that is rather "thin." Under the organic law of this District men vote here annually; the things upon which they vote are prescribed; and if the Senator is in earnest, I should like to know some better reason why he does not try it here. An amendment is in order on this bill to try it here. We have confessedly in this District, exceptionally in this District the entire power upon this question; and if the Senator is in earnest, knowing as he does that under the organic law, of which as a member of the committee of investigation he has learned so much, voting is to be done and is now committed exclusively to men and denied to women, I beg him to state some broader and better answer to the question why he does not try it here. And let me remind him at the same time that under the rules of the Senate an amendment is in order to this bill; he need not go beyond this bill in order to insure the right in the District of Columbia.

Mr. STEWART.—Inasmuch as the Senator from New York has designated me as the leader whom he is to follow, and I take it for granted he is in earnest in his question, I shall occupy the time of the Senate briefly in answering it. When the question arises for suffrage at all in this District, with my present ideas, I shall vote for female suffrage in this District. I was saying that I do not think there need be any popular voting at all in this District by males or females, for the reason that the great mass of people here are merely sojourners. I think we should govern the District directly by the Congress of the United States, that can pass all needful laws. When the question comes up properly as to the District, it will be time enough to meet it. Here is the question directly up as to a Territory, and there is no doubt about this being a good opportunity.

Mr. CONKLING.—I beg to inquire when ever in time or eternity that question will come up here, unless some champion who has the courage and genius of my friend brings it up? Who shall bring it up if he refuses to do it? And when a bill is pending to which that amendment is appropriate, and his attention is called to it, if he flinches, if he goes back, who shall we hope for to come hereafter who will break a lance in such a cause? I say to him that unless he wants to discourage me and other men of less courage who are trying to follow him, he must not flinch by saying that he can not do anything about it until it comes on a motion to bring it up. He should bring it up himself.

Mr. STEWART.—The only fear I have as to the Senator from New York is that he will not have sufficient courage to follow. (Laughter.) The question is up now. The question is squarely up on this amendment whether we will allow the females in this distant Territory to vote. I propose to vote for it. He has said that I was his leader. The only question now is whether he has the courage to follow my lead, I following the lead of the Senator from California. I want to put his courage to the fullest test now. I only ask him to follow me in this one little step. If he breaks down here, I hope he will not say any thing more about it; and I am afraid he will. I will say to him, however, that the time will come when he will look very much astonished if anybody questions the right of a female to vote; and when that time comes, I shall never mention his past record to him because I do not mention unpleasant things to gentlemen. I say that for his benefit in case he should not do the gallant thing he proposes to do of following me, I following the lead of the Senator from California. The question is squarely up, and is nothing more than this: will you give women a chance to try this experiment where it is admitted it can do no harm, and where a large portion if not a majority of the people of the United States believe it will do a great good? Try this experiment there; and if the struggle which is inaugurated there shall spread over the country as the struggle that was inaugurated in Kansas spread over the country and finally terminated in the colored man having full rights, if it should have full effect on the rest of the country, so be it. I rather think it will.

Mr. MERRIMON.—In the discussion in which I engaged, I was more anxious about the principle involved than I was about the particular amendment, and therefore I hardly mentioned it in the hasty argument which I submitted. In order to support my position now, I desire to read a report from the Judiciary Committee which embraces the very subject under discussion, the question of the power of the State governments and the Federal Government to abridge the right to vote and hold office. The subject came before that committee in the way of a petition of certain citizens of the State of Rhode Island who insisted that their rights as citizens of the United States were abridged—

Mr. STEWART.—Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. MERRIMON.—Certainly.

Mr. STEWART.—Suppose the American people come to the conclusion that it is right that females should vote, does not the Senator think there will be plenty of ways to accomplish it notwithstanding that report of the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. MERRIMON.—O yes, I think so; but I do not care to debate that. My object was to throw light on this question. I do not want a wrong construction put upon the powers of the Government at this day. It is important that we should be upon the right line and keep upon it; and with a view to strengthen my argument I ask the Clerk to read the report which I send to the desk. It is very brief; and I beg leave to say now that it is well known to the Senate and must be known to the country that this committee embraces the ablest lawyers in this country on constitutional law.

The CHIEF CLERK read the following report submitted by Mr. EDMUNDS on the 26th of May, 1870:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Rhode Island setting forth, by reference, the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and stating that, "the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the provisions of the above-named amendments, persists, in and by the first section of article 2 of the constitution of said State, in denying and abridging the right of about 10,000 citizens of the United States to vote at any and all elections holden in said State," and praying that Congress will "pass such appropriate legislation as may be found necessary to obtain for, and secure to, the citizens of the United States resident in Rhode Island all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States," respectfully report:

That the constitution of Rhode Island, adopted in 1842, prescribes two alternative classes of qualifications for voting. The first gives to all male citizens of the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if they own real estate of the value of $134, or which shall rent for $7 per annum. The second gives to every male native citizen of the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if he pays a tax of $1 a year, etc., although he may not own real estate. No man or party has ever questioned the right of the people of Rhode Island and of every other State to establish such a constitution of government as maybe agreeable to their views of the public welfare in that State, although its provision as to suffrage may not conform to the opinions of other States. At the time when this constitution of Rhode Island was adopted the right to regulate the qualifications of voters belonged exclusively to the respective States. The petition under consideration fully recognizes this, but it raises the question (although studiously framed in such a manner as not to declare or insist upon such a conclusion) whether, by the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, natives of foreign countries who have become citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote in Rhode Island, without regard to the qualifications imposed by her Constitution?

The committee is unanimously of the opinion that this question must be answered in the negative.

The "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" mentioned in the petition as secured by the XIV. Amendment do not include the right of suffrage. If they did, the right must necessarily exist in all citizens of the United States from the mere fact of citizenship, without the power in any State or in Congress to abridge the same in any degree; and in such case, therefore, no qualification of any kind could be imposed, and all persons (being citizens), males and females, infants, lunatics, and criminals, without respect to age, length of residence, or any other thing, would be entitled to participate directly in all elections. Every provision in every State which experience has proved to be essential to security and good order in society would thereby be overthrown. It is enough to say that the rights secured by this amendment to the constitution are of an altogether different character.

The XV. Amendment does apply to rights of suffrage, and to those only. By it the State of Rhode Island, in common with every other State, is forbidden to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States "to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But, plainly, the constitution of Rhode Island does not preclude any citizen from voting on either or any of the grounds thus prohibited. No fact of race, or color, or previous servitude prevents any citizen from voting in Rhode Island. Neither of these qualities depends in any degree upon the place of his nativity. This seems too obvious to need discussion. It is also a fact, appearing in the public records of Congress and doubtless known to the petitioners, that when the XV. Amendment was under consideration by Congress it was proposed to embrace in it a prohibition of any denial of suffrage, on account of "nativity," and that this proposition was not agreed to, for the reason that Congress did not think it expedient to restrict the ancient powers of the States in these respects any further than appeared to be absolutely needful to secure to the whole people the great results of the overthrow of the rebellion.

The committee is therefore of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the constitution of Rhode Island referred to in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Whether these provisions are wise or right in themselves is a matter over which neither the committee nor Congress has any control. That subject belongs to the people of Rhode Island, who it must be presumed will correct any and all errors that may from time to time be found to exist in her internal affairs.

Mr. MERRIMON.—I think the Senator from Nevada will be unable to answer that position.

Mr. CARPENTER (Mr. INGALLS in the chair.)—Mr. President——-

Mr. EDMUNDS.—Before the Senator from Wisconsin proceeds with his remarks, I should like to ask the chairman of the committee whether he means to include Indians and Canadians? The language is "every inhabitant of the United States."

Mr. SARGENT.—No, it is qualified further, as the Senator will see if the whole section is read.

Mr. EDMUNDS.—Not as to the first election.

Mr. SARGENT.—I think myself the section is very inartificially drawn.

Mr. EDMUNDS.—I do not know but that it is very artificially drawn, if it is intended to include the Indian and the Canadian.

Mr. SARGENT.—To answer the Senator from Vermont I ask that the final proviso of the section be read, which qualifies the part he referred to.

The CHIEF CLERK read as follows:

Provided, further, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared on oath, before a competent court of record, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and Government of the United States.

Mr. EDMUNDS.—That does not relate to the first election.

Mr. SARGENT.—That objection applies to the details of the bill; it does not apply to my amendment.

Mr. EDMUNDS.—That is true.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.—The Senator from Wisconsin is entitled to the floor.

Mr. CARPENTER.—Mr. President, as the yeas and nays have been ordered on this question and I shall vote for this amendment, without going into any argument of the general question, I desire to say one word as to the reason why I shall so vote.

I believe it is not one of woman's rights, but it is one of man's that the franchise should be extended to women. I believe there is no situation in which man can be placed where the aid of woman is not beneficial; that in all the relations of life, in all the occupations and all the duties of life it was the intention of God in creating the race that woman should be the helpmate of man, everywhere and in all circumstances and occupations. Look through your country, look in your railroad cars, look in your post-offices, look in your dry-goods stores, and there you see everything decent and orderly and quiet. Why? Because women go there. The only place in this country from which they are excluded by law is the voting place, and in many of our large cities those places are the most disgraceful that can be found under our institutions. Now, I believe if the elections were open to ladies as well as gentlemen, to women as well as men, there would be as much order, quiet, and decency at the voting places as there is in a railroad car, and for precisely the same reason. If our wives and mothers and daughters were going to these election places there would be order and decency there, or there would be a row once for all that would make them decent. I have more confidence in the influence of women at the elections in New York City to reform the condition of things that exists there and bring about decency and order at the elections and the prevention of violence and fraud, than I have in all the Army and Navy that the President can send there under the election bill which was put through here by my honorable friend from New York (Mr. Conkling).

Without enlarging on the subject, I shall vote for this amendment, not because this Territory is located, as some Senator has said, near Minnesota. I would vote for female suffrage in the District of Columbia to-morrow; I would vote for it in the State of Wisconsin; I would vote for it anywhere and everywhere if I had an opportunity to do so.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine.—Mr. President, I shall vote against this amendment, and for the reason that I do not consider the right of suffrage a woman's right or a man's right. I do not understand it to be a natural right at all. It is a political right; and I do not understand, as applied to women, that it is a privilege at all. It is akin to a service; and it is a very rough service. It is in its nature akin to militia service. The man who exercises the ballot must be prepared to defend it with the bayonet; and therefore the propriety of its being confined in all ages to men. That it is not a natural right is apparent to anybody who reflects upon it; and it never was so considered in any country in the world.

We talk about it here now as a natural right, and my honorable friend who sits next me (Mr. Morton) has invoked the principles of the Declaration of Independence and said that it stands with those rights which are called inherent, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not so in any sense whatever, and never was so regarded. If it were, do you not perceive that it applies as well to infants as to adults? If it is natural to all citizens, then it applies, as I have said, to infants as well as to adults. I regard it as strictly a political right. It does not inhere in man naturally, or in woman; and I do not propose, myself, to impose it on women. It is a severe, rugged service, which in my judgment ought not to be imposed on women.

My honorable friend from Wisconsin says there is no position in life in which the society of woman would not be an improvement. How is it on the deck of a battle-ship? How is it in military affairs? Should she be placed in the militia to enforce the results of a ballot? Is there any one of us who believes that? Is there anybody here who would be glad to see a woman in the train-band, on the muster-field, at the cannon's mouth, or on the decks of your war-ships? That is what your argument means, if it means anything logically.

But sir, I am not going to argue the proposition at all. I am going to vote against it because the right of suffrage is that rugged and severe service which man has no right to devolve upon woman. It is enough to say that when the American women want the ballot, when they come to hanker for it, and fall in love with the exercise of the ballot at the polls, I am in favor of their voting, but not until then; and I am not in favor of that sentimental sort of stuff which is gotten up somewhere or other by portions of the people who would force it upon the American women as a general proposition. Whenever they come to desire it, whenever the American women come to ask it, and particularly when they come to demand it, or even to solicit it, there will be no question as to what the American Congress will do; but until that time comes I shall vote steadily against it.

Nobody will be surprised at these sentiments from me who has had occasion to know the sentiments that I have expressed on this same subject on former occasions. I will send to the desk and ask to have read a paragraph or two from a speech made by me some years ago on the subject of suffrage.

The CHIEF CLERK read as follows:

Universal suffrage is affirmed by its advocates as among the absolute or natural rights of man, in the sense of mankind, extending to females as well as males, and susceptible of no limitation unless as opposed to child or infant. It is supposed to originate in rights independent of citizenship; like the absolute rights of liberty, personal security, and possession of property, it is natural to man. It exists, of course, independent of sex or condition, manhood or womanhood. To admit it in the adult and deny it to the youth would be to abridge the right and ignore the principle. Now, sir, in practice its extension to women would contravene all our notions of the family; "put asunder" husband and wife, and subvert the fundamental principles of family government, in which the husband is, by all usage and law, human and divine, the representative head. Besides, it ignores woman, womanhood, and all that is womanly; all those distinctions of sex whose objects are apparent in creation, essential in character, and vital to society, these all disappear in the manly and impressive demonstration of balloting at a popular election. Here maids, women, wives, men, and husbands promiscuously assemble to vindicate the rights of human nature.

Moreover, it associates the wife and mother with policies of State, with public affairs, with making, interpreting, and executing the laws, with police and war, and necessarily disseverates her from purely domestic affairs, peculiar care for and duties of the family; and, worst of all, assigns her duties revolting to her nature and constitution, and wholly incompatible with those which spring from womanhood.

Besides, the ballot is the inseparable concomitant of the bayonet. Those who practice the one must be prepared to exercise the other. To introduce woman at the polls is to enroll her in the militia; to transfer her from the class of non-combatants to the class of combatants.—Congressional Globe, part 1, second session Thirty-ninth Congress, 1866-'67, page 40.

Mr. SARGENT.—I have no doubt of the consistency of my friend from Maine on this proposition and on every other. I have no doubt that the remarks which he made formerly on this subject he repeats to-day with the same idea of their entire correctness; but I differ with him upon both the propositions which he advances. He says that women do not desire the right of suffrage and there is no evidence before Congress that they do desire it. Why, sir, the tables of your committee-rooms have been loaded with petitions from every State in this Union on this subject, and they come forward day after day.

Mr. EDMUNDS.—And remonstrances also.

Mr. SARGENT.—Very few indeed.

Mr. STEWART.—I suggest to my friend from California if the only question is whether women desire the right of suffrage or not, that can only be determined by submitting it to them. When we wish to ascertain whether the male citizens of the country desire a proposition, we submit the question to them and let them vote upon it.

Mr. SARGENT.—That suggestion is very just. But the fact that there are remonstrances against the extension of the suffrage to women shows that there is agitation, and agitation shows interest in the matter. If this opinion were not in danger of prevailing, if it were not sweeping over the country, we would get no remonstrances; it would be looked upon as mere idle wind blowing nowhere and amounting to nothing. I say these petitions are coming here in every form. There are large and popular conventions, attended by ladies and attended by a great many men, making strong efforts to this end. There is as much agitation on this point as there was for the abolition of slavery before the war broke out.

Now I come to the other proposition of my friend from Maine. He says the ballot and the bayonet go together, and that he who handles the one must be prepared to handle the other. What do you do with men who are past the years of military service and exempted by your laws? Do you deprive them of the ballot? That of itself is a sufficient answer to that argument. They are not inseparable. Fortunately for our country the necessity for the use of the bayonet occurs very seldom; but when it does occur there are large classes of male voters who are not called to the field, but are exempted by the policy of our law. No one believes that if women had this privilege, or this immunity, or this right—whatever you may call it—put into their hands we would therefore require of them to do things that would degrade or unsex them, or that would be improper for them to perform. I believe that men would have the same respect for women with the ballot in their hands as without it.

It is not for the few women who remonstrate from luxurious parlors, sitting upon sofas, in the glare of the gaslight, changing and choosing their phrases, but for the great class of laboring women in the country that I appeal for this redress. I appeal for the women who have been struggling on in these Government offices, doing the same work that men do, aye, and in many cases doing it better, for about one-half of the pay. Do you suppose if they had ballots they would not make their voices heard here and get for the same work the same pay? Who ever knew a labor strike of women to succeed? When women in New York City and other places are bowed down to the earth by their labor—making shirts at a shilling a day—and they strike for more pay, for more bread, for an opportunity to live, who ever heard of one of their strikes succeeding? Men strike from their workshops and they succeed, and why? Because they have the ballot; because they have political force, because they have the power of citizenship behind them in its fullest sense. Give these poor struggling women the same chance and they can make their way to a fair remuneration of wages in the public offices, and they can make their way in the workshops, and these toiling mothers, widows, and sisters supporting orphan brothers and sisters will have some opportunity to vindicate their rights and to procure not merely political rights, but a chance to live, and a chance to avoid infamy.

Senators talk about this question as if the ballot was not demanded for women. Will you tell me why it was that the great party which controls both branches of Congress and holds the Executive, when it met in Philadelphia at that grand convention, put a plank in its platform stating that these demands for further rights should be respectfully considered? Do you think there was no agitation, no desire on the part of women for the ballot when that great convention could be moved to a declaration like this:

The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women or America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to higher fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights shall be treated with respectful consideration.

Was that mere euphuism, mere phrasing? Did that mean nothing? Did it respond to no demand? Ay, sir, did it not only respond to a demand which was there pressed, but did it not imply a duty, a pledge which this party ought to redeem?

But the Senator from Maine, as well as the Senator from North Carolina, asserts that the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution has no relation whatever to political rights, that it relates to something with reference to social equality, something in the far distance, but does not touch this question at all. When I called the attention of the Senator from North Carolina to the XV. Amendment which says "the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged," assuming the right to exist, not saying that the right hereafter shall exist and shall not be abridged; but the right now existing by fair intendment shall not be abridged, he replied "that I deduced this right by an inference," and he thought a right of this kind ought not to stand on mere inference. His argument for the opposite construction, that the right to vote may be abridged for any other cause than those enumerated in the amendment, is drawn only by an inference from it. The affirmative language is that the right shall not be abridged for certain causes; and then by an inference the Senator says it may be abridged for others. In other words, his argument is that I am not at liberty to infer from the Constitution of the United States rights for women or rights for mankind. I shall not extend it by inference in favor of freedom, but any inference which will limit its operation, which will destroy or curtail its meaning, is legitimate.

Mr. MERRIMON: What clause of the Constitution does the Senator assert creates the right?

Mr. SARGENT: The first section of the XV. Amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged—speaking of it as an affirmative right; not speaking of it as here established but as a right which of course must have been established by the XIV. Amendment.

Now, sir, to show that I do not strain the interpretation of the Constitution, I desire to refer to some few authorities even under the old Constitution which go very far to answer the authority that the Senator cited. Bushrod Washington, a member of the United States Supreme Court, and well known as a jurist of high attainments and great powers of mind, in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell declared what I shall read, which is approvingly cited by Kent, the master writer upon American law, in the second volume of his Commentaries:

It was declared in Corfield vs. Coryell that the privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the several States were to be confined to those which were in their nature fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property, and to pay no higher impositions than other citizens, and to pass through or reside in the State at pleasure, and to enjoy the elective franchise according to the regulations of the laws of the State.

Those, according to the decision in Corfield vs. Coryell, cited approvingly by Chancellor Kent, are the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States. Then comes in the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," and further, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Now, sir, I quote from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the title "citizen." He gives what the word means, first in English law, and then he comes down to American law:

One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people.

In the face of authorities like these, who shall deny that the right to vote is one of those privileges and immunities of citizenship, or that citizenship itself carries with it that highest right? Go into literature and you find the same definition; as, for instance, in the work which I hold in my hand entitled "Words and their Uses," by R. Grant White. He says:

A citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the word is properly used only to imply or suggest the possession of these rights.

Is it a mere question of privilege or immunity? It is a right which exists and so it is considered in all the law; so it is treated in the well-considered decisions on the subject, and by the text writers.

By the pledge which was given by the dominant party of the country in their last National Convention, by the allegiance which Democrats themselves owe to the Constitution of the United States, by the higher benefit which will be conferred upon society, upon the women themselves who are struggling for a chance in life, and upon men themselves by the purification of society, I ask that this amendment be adopted.

Mr. BAYARD: I should like to ask the honorable Senator a question before he takes his seat. I understand that he denies the power of the Congress of the United States or of a State to exclude a female from voting, to make an exclusion based upon sex, because it would be an infringement of her rights as a citizen, under the meaning of that word in the Constitution, according to the construction given it by the courts. I should like to ask him whether he considers that an exclusion by reason of age is not just as arbitrary and unauthorized as the exclusion by reason of sex, and by what right can it be that a State or the United States shall arbitrarily fix a period in a person's life at which he shall attain his civil rights? In most of the States, and by the common law of England, the age of twenty-one years was fixed as what they term the majority, when a person becomes sui juris. Under the laws of the various States of this Union, following the laws of other civilized communities of older date, a period has been fixed in the life of man at which he attains his civil rights. Ordinarily it is at the age of twenty-one years; under the civil law it is twenty-five; it is so in France; it is so in Spain; it is so in the French and Spanish Colonies. Among the English-speaking people the age of twenty-one years is the period fixed. If the rights which have been spoken of by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from California are inalienable, natural rights, are part and parcel of those "privileges and immunities" referred to by the Constitution of the United States, how can it be that a law, a mere arbitrary enactment by a State or by Congress, shall exclude a man who is twenty years and six months old from exercising those inalienable rights, those privileges and immunities which six months after, by the mere difference of time, they permit him to enjoy? I have stated the question at length for the purpose of letting the Senator from California answer it more fully.

Mr. SARGENT: Mr. President, I do not think the Constitution prevents a regulation of the power to vote. The States unquestionably have a right to fix the time when voting shall take place, to fix the places where the voting shall be done, and they have the right to fix the age at which voting shall be exercised. But under the Constitution they have no power to prescribe a test which is not equally attainable by all persons. They have no right to say that only white men shall vote, for that would exclude black men. They have no right to say that only black men shall vote, for that would exclude white men. They have no right to say that only men shall vote, for that would exclude women. The Constitution says that all shall be put on an equality in this respect, that any test which may be required shall apply to all alike, men and women, black or white.

Mr. BAYARD: But the law does no such thing. There are classes, and a very large and great class in the State that the Senator represents, who can not become citizens of the United States and can not vote there.

Mr. SARGENT: Why not?

Mr. BAYARD: Because of their race; because they are Asiatics and not Africans.

Mr. SARGENT: The Constitution of the United States does not prevent it.

Mr. BAYARD: No; but the law of Congress prevents it. The Senator says these are all entitled under the law.

Mr. SARGENT: I will not detain the Senate now on the point referred to by the Senator. He has shifted his ground and I will not follow him. Whenever legislation comes up on that subject I will discuss it. They are not citizens of the United States. I am dealing now with citizens whose privileges and immunities as such no one has a right to abridge.

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan: It is not my intention to speak on the merits of this proposition; but inasmuch as the Senator from Maine (Mr. Morrill) has raised the question of consistency and appealed to his record, it reminds me of the fact that the question of woman suffrage appeared as early, I think, as 1858, before the Legislature of Michigan. I had the honor of holding a seat in the Senate of the State at that time, and the question was referred to the committee of which I was a member, and it fell to my lot to report upon it. If my recollection serves me rightly the resolution favoring the right of women to vote was lost by but a majority of three in the Michigan Senate.

Mr. EDMUNDS: Which way was the report?

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan: I am reminded by the Senator from Vermont that perhaps I have not intimated which side the report took. The report was in favor of woman suffrage, and it may be regarded as having contributed to so large a vote. To-day, sir, is the first time since that occasion that I have been officially called upon to record my judgment upon the same question. I have had no reason since that report was drawn to shake my belief that the right of suffrage will not be jeopardized or perverted if wielded by the hand of woman. Believing that now and desiring to act in accord with my action in 1858 in the Senate of my native State. I am glad of the opportunity to prove my consistency by voting for woman suffrage to-day.