Clair died, and poor Adolph, stripped of all his favors, was dragged off to the vile slave pen. Do you see no parallel between Adolph and the women of America? Adolph was restrained by unjust power from exercise of his natural rights, so are the women of this country, as is most fully shown, by this prosecution and trial of Susan B. Anthony.
In this country, two kinds of representation exist, property and personal. Let us look for a moment, at the Const.i.tution of the United States. In three years we celebrate our centennial. From what does it date? Not from the Const.i.tution, as our country existed eleven years without a Const.i.tution,--in fact, thirteen years, before it was ratified by the thirteen colonies. The centennial dates from the declaration of Independence, which was based on underlying principles. But as our government has recognized its own needs, it has thrown new safeguards around liberty. Within a year after the Declaration, it was found necessary to enter into articles of Confederation, and those were soon followed by the Const.i.tution, as it was found property rights were not secure "under the action of thirteen different deliberatives."
England has never possessed personal representation, but only that of property; and in the secret proceedings upon the framing of our Const.i.tution, the question as to property, or personal representation was strongly agitated. Some of the delegates favored the fuller representation of property than of persons. Others, who advocated the equality of suffrage, took the matter up on the original principles of government, recognizing the fact that it was not strength, or wisdom, or property, that conferred rights, but that "in a state of nature, before any government is formed, all persons are equally free and independent, no one having any right or authority to exercise power over another,"
and this, without any regard to difference in personal strength, understanding or wealth. It was also argued, and upon this acknowledgment the Const.i.tution was based, "that when individuals enter into government they have _each_ a right to an equal voice in its first formation, and afterwards have _each_ a right to an equal vote in every matter which relates to their government. That if it could be done conveniently, they have a right to exercise it in person. When it cannot be done in person, but for convenience, representatives are appointed to act for them, every person has a right to an equal vote in choosing that representative, who is intrusted to do for the whole, that which, the whole, if they could a.s.semble, might do in person, and in the transaction of which they would have an equal voice."
This was the basis upon which the Const.i.tution was established, and these, the principles which led to its adoption; principles which include the full recognition of each person as possessed of the inalienable right of self-government.
The argument for equality was continued in the following strain, as reported by one of the delegates, to the Legislature of Maryland: "That if we were to admit, because a man was more wise, more strong, more wealthy, he should be ent.i.tled to more votes than another, it would be inconsistent with the freedom of that other, and would reduce him to slavery." The following ill.u.s.tration was used: "Suppose, for instance, _ten individuals_ in a state of nature, about to enter into government, nine of whom were equally wise, equally strong, equally wealthy, the tenth is ten times as wise, ten times as strong, or ten times as rich; if, for this reason, he is to have ten votes for each vote of the others, the nine might as well have no vote at all, and though the whole nine might a.s.sent to the measure, yet the vote of the tenth would countervail, and set aside all their votes. If this tenth approved of what they wished to adopt, it would be well; but if he disapproved, he could prevent it, and in the same manner he could carry into execution any measure he wished, contrary to the opinion of all the others, he having ten votes, and the others altogether but nine. It is evident that on these principles, the nine would have no will or discretion of their own, but must be totally dependent on the will and discretion of the tenth; to him they would be as absolutely slaves as any negro is to his master. If he did not attempt to carry into execution any measures injurious to the other nine, it could only be said that they had a good master; they would not be the less slaves, because they would be totally dependent upon the will of another and not on their own will. They might not feel their chains, but they would notwithstanding wear them; and whenever their master pleased, he might draw them so tight as to gall them to the bone." Again it was urged that though every individual should have a voice in the government, yet even then, superior wealth, strength, or understanding, would give great and undue advantage to those who possessed them. But the point especially pressed in these debates was that each individual before entering into government, was equally free and independent: and therefore the conclusion was drawn that each person had equal right both at the time of framing a government, and also after a government or const.i.tution was framed.
To those who with old English ideas, constantly pressed property representation, it was replied that "taxation and representation ought to go together in so far that a person not represented ought not to be taxed."
This Const.i.tutional Convention was in session a number of months; its delegates were partially elected by women"s votes, as at that date women were exercising their right of self-government through voting, certainly in the States of Ma.s.sachusetts and New Jersey, if not in Georgia and Delaware. These women sent their delegates or representatives to a.s.sist in framing a Const.i.tution.
Let us look at the Preamble of that instrument. It reads thus:
"We, the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish _justice_, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the _common_ welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Const.i.tution for the United States of America."
Here we have a statement as to _who_ established the Const.i.tution. It was not the thirteen States as States, not the government in its sovereign capacity, but the people: not the white people alone, not the native born alone, not the male people alone, but the people in a collective sense. Justice was not established by this Const.i.tution if one half the people were left out from its provisions, neither was the _common_ welfare considered unless all people in common, equally shared the benefits of the Const.i.tution. And moreover, the posterity of the people of that time are female as well as male. Therefore not only by our knowledge of the course of argument taken by the framers of the Const.i.tution, not only by our knowledge that women as well as men helped elect delegates to that convention,--not only from the original principles proclaimed in the Declaration, but also by and through this Preamble to the Const.i.tution do we find woman equally with man, recognized as part of the governing power.
Although women do not rest their claim to self-government upon any human instrument, it is well to show that even in the Declaration, and the original Const.i.tution, the "Const.i.tution as it was," the rights of _all_ people were most emphatically and truly recognized.
Judge Story in his commentaries upon the Const.i.tution, says, "The importance of examining _the Preamble_ for the purpose of expounding the language of a Statute has always been felt and universally conceded in all judicial proceedings."
_Com. on Const., 1, 443-4._
Chief Justice Jay regarded the Preamble of the Const.i.tution of the United States as an authoritative guide to a correct interpretation of that instrument.
2 _Dallas_, 414.
c.o.ke says, "The Preamble of a Statute is a good means to find out the meaning of the Statute, and as it were, a _key_ to the understanding thereof."
Blackstone lays it down as a fundamental principle, that we "must argue from generals down to particulars." Here is good legal authority. I have cited men whose opinions are accepted. We have thus argued down from the _generals_ of the Declaration and Const.i.tution to the particulars which appertain to each individual alike, and what is the result? Freedom for all; equal rights. We have read the Preamble of the Const.i.tution, and quoted authorities to show in what light it must be read in reference to its following provisions. By its Preamble, the Const.i.tution is shown to make no distinction in favor of s.e.x. From secret debates of the convention which framed it, we find the motives and the arguments of its framers.
The great foundation and key stone alike of our Republican ideas, _of our Const.i.tution_, is _individual, personal representation_, and it is the greatest blessing to the country at large that the question of representation has come up in the person of Miss Anthony. Men are _compelled_ to think upon underlying principles. They are compelled to ask themselves where they get either natural or const.i.tutional right to govern women.
From the earliest ages men have queried among themselves as to where lay the governing power. In the time of Abraham, and even now in some parts of the world the Patriarch of the tribe is looked upon as its supreme ruler. Members of Scottish clans to-day, look with more reverence upon their chief, than upon the Queen: they obey his behests sooner than parliamentary laws. Other men have believed the governing power lay in the hands of a select few, an aristocracy, and that these few men could by right make laws to govern the rest. Others again have believed this power vested in a single man called King, or Czar, or Pope, but it was left to our country, and our age, to promulgate the idea that the governing power lay in the _people themselves_. It took men a great many thousand years to discover this pregnant fact, and although our government laid down at the very first, certain underlying truths, it has taken a very long time even for this country to see, and practice these principles; but as men have opened their eyes to liberty there have been constant advances towards securing its full blessings to each and every individual, and in this progress we had first, the Declaration; second, the Articles of Confederation; third, the Const.i.tution; then the ten Conciliatory Amendments, quickly followed by an eleventh and twelfth, each one of these designed to more fully secure liberty to the people, and making fifteen successive steps in the short period of twenty-eight years.
At the time of framing this government women existed as well as men, women are part of the people; the people created the government. Now, when speaking to you to-night, I am speaking to the people of this part of Ontario County, I am not speaking to men alone, I am not speaking to women alone, but to you all as people. When people frame a government the rights not delegated by them to the government, are retained by them, as is declared by the tenth amendment. Now where do men get their const.i.tutional right to govern women? Women have either delegated their right of self-government to certain delegates, by them to be elected according to all the forms of this government, or they have not so delegated their rights of self-government, but have retained them. In either case, according to the genius of our government, what is there to prevent them from exercising these rights any moment they choose, unless it is force? What prevents them unless it is unjust illegal power? The ninth amendment declares that the enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.
Remember what are the foundation principles of just government, principles fully acted upon by the old revolutionists; remember that no government of whatever kind or character can possibly _create_ the right of self-government, but only _recognize_ rights as existent; remember the non-use of a right does not destroy that right.
I have a natural right to as much fresh air as I can breathe; if you shut me in a close room with door and windows barred, that does not invalidate my right to breathe pure, fresh air. I have a natural right to obey the dictates of my own conscience, and to worship G.o.d as I choose. If you are physically stronger than I am, or if you are legally stronger than I am and use your strength to prevent the exercise of these natural rights, you by no means destroy them. Though I do not use these rights, I still possess them. The framers of this government, the men and the women who voted at that early day had never until then, exercised their natural rights of self-government; when they chose, they took them up.
But people tell us it was not the intention to include women. What then was the intention? Did the framers of the Declaration intend to leave women under the government of Great Britain? Did they intend to set themselves and their male compeers free, and leave women behind, under a monarchy? Were not women intended to be included in the benefits of the const.i.tution?
Oh, but says some one, they were intended to be generally included, but the amendments had nothing to do with them.
Let us look at this. Is it possible to amend a Const.i.tution not in accordance with its underlying principles? It can be repealed, abolished, destroyed, but not _amended; except in accordance with its original character_. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the powers of the Const.i.tution are granted by the people, and are to be exercised strictly _on them_, and _for their benefit_.
Story asks, "Who are the parties to this great contract?" and answers the question by saying, "The people of the United States are the parties to the Const.i.tution."
_Com. on Con._
_Com. on Con. Legal Rules_, 283, says: "This first paragraph of the Const.i.tution, declaring its ends, is the most vital part of the instrument, revealing its spirit and intent, _and the understanding of its framers_."
Here we have the recognized legal rule that the understanding or INTENTION of the framers of an instrument is to be found in its first paragraph, and the first paragraph of the Const.i.tution declares it was framed BY THE PEOPLE, and for the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. The native-born American women of to-day, are the posterity of the framers of the Const.i.tution, which was thus designed for their benefit. The intention to include women is here positive; women are part of the people now, and ever have been. "Rules of legal interpretation are general in their character,"
and so general has the interpretation of the Const.i.tution been, that not only did the people who framed the Const.i.tution, and their posterity, come in for its blessings, but the people also of every nation and tongue, from continent or isles of the sea, who come to us, are included in its benefits. Who can say our forefathers _intended_ to include Chinamen, or Sandwich Islanders, or the Norwegian, Russian, or Italian in its benefits? Yet they do all share in it as soon as they become citizens. How absurd we should think the a.s.sertion that it was not the Lord"s intention to hold the people of the United States under the law of the Ten Commandments, as they were given to the Jews alone, some four thousand years before the United States existed as a nation.
Ma.s.sachusetts never abolished slavery by legislative act; never intentionally abolished it. In 1780 that State adopted a new Const.i.tution with a Bill of Rights, declaring "All men born free and equal." Upon this, some slaves demanded their freedom, and their masters granted it. The slavery of men and _women_, both, was thus destroyed in Ma.s.sachusetts without intention on the part of the framers of the Const.i.tution, and this, because it is a legal rule to argue down from generals to particulars, and that the "words of a statute ought not to be interpreted to destroy natural justice;" but as c.o.ke says, "Whenever the question of liberty runs doubtful, _the decision must be given in favor of liberty_."
_Digest C.L._
When a Charter declares "all men born free and equal," it means, intends, and includes all women, too; it means all mankind, and this is the _legal interpretation_ of the language.
To go back to the Const.i.tution of the United States, let us examine if women were not intended. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to a.s.semble and to pet.i.tion the government for a redress of grievances."
No mention is there made of women, but who will deny it was not intended for them to enjoy the right of worshipping as they choose? Were they not to be protected in freedom of speech, and in the right of a.s.sembling to pet.i.tion the government for a redress of grievances? Not a man before me will deny that women were included equally with men in the intention of the framers.
The Sixth Amendment reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against _him_; to have compulsory processes for obtaining witnesses in _his_ favor; and to have the existence of counsel in _his_ defense."
The words "him" and "his," are three times mentioned in this amendment, yet no one can be found wild enough to say women were not intended to be included in its benefits. Miss Anthony, herself, has already come under its provisions, and were she denied a speedy and open trial, she could appeal to the protection of this very amendment, which not only does not say women, or her, but does alone say _him_ and _his_, and this, notwithstanding the other legal adage, that laws stand as they are written. This whole question of const.i.tutional rights, turns on whether the United States is a nation. If the United States is a nation, it has _national_ powers. What is the admitted basis of our nation? We reply, equality of political rights. And what, again, is the basis of political rights? Citizenship. Nothing more, nothing less. National sovereignty is only founded upon the political sovereignty of the individual, and national rights are merely individual rights in a collective form. The acknowledged basis of rights in each and every one of the thirty-seven States, is citizenship,--not State citizenship alone, as that alone cannot exist, but first, national citizenship. _National_ rights are the fundamental basis of _State_ rights. If this is not true, we are then no nation, but merely a confederacy, held together by our own separate wills, and the South was right in its war of secession. Every sovereign right of the United States exists solely from its existence as a nation.
As the nation has grown to know the needs of liberty, it has from time to time thrown new safeguards around it, as I have shown in its fifteen progressive steps since 1776. For sixty years there was no change.
Slavery had cast its blight upon our country, and the struggle was for State supremacy. Men forgot the rights, and need of freedom; but in 1861, the climax was reached, and then came the bitter struggle between state and national power. Although our underlying principles were all right, freedom required new guards, and the right of all men to liberty, was put in a new form. An especial statute or amendment was added to our National Const.i.tution, declaring that involuntary servitude, unless for crime, could not exist in this republic. This statute created no new rights; it merely affirmed and elucidated rights as old as creation, and which, in a general way, had been recognized at the very first foundation of our government--even as far back as the old Articles of a.s.sociation, before the Declaration of Independence. This amendment was the sixteenth step in _securing_ the rights of the people, but it was not enough. Our country differs from every other country, in that we have _two kinds_ of citizenship. First, we have national citizenship, based upon equal political rights. A person born a citizen of the United States, is, by the very circ.u.mstances of birth, endowed with certain political rights. In this respect, the circ.u.mstances of birth are very different from those of a person born in Great Britain. A person born in Great Britain is not endowed with political rights, simply because born in that country. Political rights in Great Britain are not based upon personal rights; they are based upon property rights. In England, persons are not represented; only property is represented. That is the very great political difference between England and the United States.
In the United States, representation is based upon individual, personal rights--therefore, every person born in the United States--_every person_,--not every white person, nor every male person, but every person is born with _political_ rights. The naturalization of foreigners also secures to them the exercise of political rights, because it secures to them citizenship, and they obtain naturalization through _national_ law. The war brought about a distinct and new recognition of the rights of national citizenship. States had a.s.sumed to be superior to the nation in this very underlying national basis of voting rights, but when certain States boldly attempted to thwart national power, and vote themselves out of the Union,--when by this attempt they virtually said, there is no nation, a new protection was thrown around individual, personal, political rights, by a seventeenth step, known to the world by the Fourteenth Amendment, which defined, (not created) citizenship. "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," thus recognizing United States citizenship as the first and superior citizenship.
Miss Anthony was not only _born_ in the United States, but the United States also has jurisdiction over her, as is shown by this suit, under which she was arrested in Rochester, and held there to examination in the same little room in which fugitive slaves were once examined. From Rochester she was taken to Albany, from Albany back to Rochester, and now from Rochester to Canandaigua, where she is soon to be tried. She has thus been fully acknowledged by the United States as one of its citizens, and also as a citizen of the State in which she resides.
In order to become a citizen of a State, and enjoy the privileges and immunities of States, a citizen of the United States must reside in a State. Citizenship of the United States secures nothing over the citizenship of other countries, unless it secures the right of self-government. State laws may hereafter regulate suffrage, but the difference between regulating and prohibiting, is as great as the difference between state and national citizenship. The question of the war was the question of State rights; it was the negro, _vs._ State rights, or the power of States over the ballot. The question to-day is, woman, _vs._ United States rights, or the power of the United over the ballot. The moral battle now waging will settle the question of the power of the United States over the rights of citizens. By the civil war, the United States was proven to be stronger than the States. It was proven we were a nation in so far that States were but parts of the whole. The woman question, of which in this pending trial, Miss Anthony stands as the exponent, is to settle the question of United States power over the individual political rights of the people; it is a question of a monarchy or a republic. The United States may usurp power, as did the States, but it has no rights in a sovereign capacity, not given it by the Const.i.tution, or in other words, BY THE PEOPLE. By the Preamble we have discovered _who_ are its people, and for _what purpose_ its Const.i.tution was inst.i.tuted. Each and every amendment--the first ten, the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, are only parts of the grand whole, and must, each and every one, be examined in the light of the Preamble.
Each added amendment makes this change in the status of the People, in that it gives new guaranties of freedom, and removes all pretense of right from any existing usurped power. People are slow to comprehend the change which has been effected by the decision as to State rights. One, claims that only the negro, or persons of African descent, were affected by it. Others claim, and among them, some prominent Republicans, that every civil right is by these amendments, thrown under national control.
Recently, two or three suits have come before the United States on this apprehension. One of these, known as the Slaughter House Case, came up from New Orleans in the suit of certain persons against the State of Louisiana. A permit had been given certain parties to erect sole buildings for slaughter, and in other ways control that entire business in the city of New Orleans for a certain number of years. A suit upon it was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, on the ground of the change in the power of States, by, and through the last three amendments, and on the supposition that all the civil power of the States had thus been destroyed.
The Court decided it had no jurisdiction, though in its decision it proclaimed the far-reaching character of these amendments. In reference to the Thirteenth Amendment, the Court used this language:
"We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language _and spirit_ of these articles are to have their full and just weight in any question of construction.
Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the minds of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any kind of slavery, now, or hereafter. If Mexican peonage, or the Chinese cooley labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may be safely trusted to make it void."
This is the language used by the Supreme Court of the United States in reference to this thirteenth amendment; prohibiting any, _all_, and every kind of slavery, not only now, but in the hereafter, and this, although the decision, also acknowledges the fact that only African slavery _was intended_ to be covered by this amendment.
The Court further said, "And so if _other_ rights are a.s.sailed by the States, _which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles_, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent."
What "other rights fall within the protection of these articles?" What "other rights" do these amendments cover? The fourteenth article, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and of States, still further says, "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, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." This comprises the first section of that amendment. The jurisdiction and protection of the general government applies to United States citizens. By its prosecution of Miss Anthony, the general government acknowledges her as a citizen of the United States, and what is much more, it acknowledges its own jurisdiction over the ballot--over the chief--chief, did I say,--over the _only_ political right of its citizens. This prosecution is an admission of United States jurisdiction, instead of State jurisdiction.
This whole amendment, with the exception of the first clause of the first section, which simply declares who are citizens of the United States and States, is directed against the interference of _States_ in the rights of citizens. But in Miss Anthony"s case, the State of New York has not interfered with her right to vote. She voted under local laws, and the State said not a word,--has taken no action in the case, consequently the United States has had no occasion to interfere on that ground. The question of _State_ rights was not as great a question as this: What are United States rights? Can the United States, in its sovereign capacity, overthrow the rights of its own citizens? No, it cannot; for the Fifteenth Amendment to the Const.i.tution specifically declares "The right of citizens of the United States _to vote_, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
This fifteenth Amendment has been seriously misapprehended by many people, who have understood it to mean that _women_ could be excluded from voting, simply because they are women. I have shown you that Statutes and Const.i.tutions are always general in their character; that from generals we must argue down to particulars, and that if there is any doubt as to the interpretation of a statute, it must be defined in the interests of liberty. But as to the interpretation of this statute there can be no doubt. Had it read, "The right of citizens of the United States to take out pa.s.sports, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," no person would interpret it to mean that such right to take out pa.s.sport could be denied on account of _female_ s.e.x, or on account of _male_ s.e.x. We will read it now, first in the light of the Declaration; second, in that of the Preamble to the Const.i.tution, and the Const.i.tution itself, and its various amendments, to which I have referred: the first, sixth, ninth and tenth, which would have been interpreted male, had the Const.i.tution meant men alone, but which have always been defined to cover, and include woman--to cover and include the rights of the _whole_ people to freedom of conscience, to freedom of speech, to the right of a speedy and public trial, &c., &c., and this, although in the Sixth Amendment, the terms _him_ and _his_ are alone used. The Courts long ago decided that Statutes were of general bearing, as is fully true of the Declaration and Const.i.tution, which are supreme statutes. The Fifteenth Amendment does not specifically exclude right of male citizens to vote, because they are _male_ citizens, therefore, male citizens are of necessity included in the right of voting. It does not specifically exclude female citizens from the right of voting, because they are female citizens, therefore, female citizens are of necessity included in the right of voting--a right which the United States cannot abridge. No male citizen can claim that he, as a male citizen, is included, save by implication, and save on the general grounds that he is not specifically excluded, he is necessarily included. Can the United States, at pleasure, take from its own citizens the right of voting, or abridge that right? Has it the right to take from citizens of States the right of voting? Are citizens of States simply protected against States, and can the United States now, at will, step in and deny or abridge the right of voting to all its male citizens simply because they are male? If it has that power over its female citizens, it has the same power over its male citizens. You cannot fail to see that the question brought up by Miss Anthony"s prosecution and trial _by the United States_ for the act of voting, has developed the most important question of United States rights; a larger, most pregnant, more momentous question by far, than that of _State_ rights. The liberties of the people are much more closely involved when the United States is the aggressor, than when the States are aggressors.
"The Act to Enforce the right of citizens to vote," declares that CITIZENS shall be ent.i.tled and allowed to vote at all elections by the people, in any state, territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, munic.i.p.ality, or other territorial division, &c.
This Act was pa.s.sed _after_ the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, and is designed to be in accordance with the Const.i.tution. It does not say _black_ citizens shall be ent.i.tled and allowed to vote; it does not say _male_ citizens shall be ent.i.tled and allowed to vote--it merely says CITIZENS. It covers the right of women citizens to vote, and yet United States officials claim to find in this very act, their authority for prosecuting Miss Anthony and those fourteen other women citizens of Rochester for the alleged _crime_ of voting. When Miss Anthony voted, what did she do? She merely exercised her citizen"s right of suffrage--a right to which she, and all women citizens are ent.i.tled by virtue of their citizenship in the nation--a right to which they are ent.i.tled because individual political rights are the basis of the government. The United States has no other foundation. If that right is trampled upon, we have no nation. We may hang together in a sort of anarchical way for a time, but our dissolution draws near. Can the United States destroy rights on account of s.e.x? In the original Const.i.tution, before even the first ten amendments were added, States were forbidden to pa.s.s bills of attainder. By the fourteenth amendment, the right of voting was forbidden to be abridged, _unless for crime_. Is it a crime to be a woman? "In the beginning G.o.d created man, male and female, created he them." A bill of attainder inflicts punishment, creates liabilities or _disabilities_, on account of parentage, _birth_, or descent. Do United States officials presume to create a disability, or inflict a punishment, on account of _birth_ as a woman, and this in direct defiance of the Const.i.tution? When the Const.i.tution of the United States presents no barrier, no lesser power has such authority. "The Const.i.tution of the United States, _and the laws made in pursuance thereof_, shall be the supreme law of the land."