Extracts from the Const.i.tution of the United States, upon which the resolutions are based:
PREAMBLE, We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general 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.
ARTICLE I. Sec. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Virginia L. Minor.]
SEC. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.--[See Elliot"s Debates, vol. 3, p. 366--remarks of Mr. Madison--Story"s Commentaries, Secs.
623, 626, 578].
SEC. 8. The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform mode of naturalization--to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Const.i.tution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 9. No bill of attainder, or _ex post facto_ law shall be pa.s.sed.
No t.i.tle of n.o.bility shall be granted by the United States.
No State shall pa.s.s any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law--or law impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any t.i.tle of n.o.bility.--(See c.u.mmings _vs._ the State of Missouri. Wallace Rep. 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume).
ARTICLE IV. Sec. 2. The citizens of each State shall be ent.i.tled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. (The elective franchise is one of the privileges secured by this section--See Corfield _vs._ Coryell, 4 Washington Circuit Court Reps. 380--cited and approved in Dunham _vs._ Lamphere, 3 Gray--Ma.s.s. Rep.
276--and Bennett _vs._ Boggs, Baldwin Rep., p. 72, Circuit Court U. S.)
SEC. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government. (How can that form of government be republican, when one-half the people are forever deprived of all partic.i.p.ation in its affairs).
ARTICLE VI. This Const.i.tution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Const.i.tution or laws of any States to the contrary notwithstanding.
XIV. AMENDMENT. 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.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
At this same convention Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, President of the Missouri State a.s.sociation, in her opening address said:
I believe that the Const.i.tution of the United States gives me every right and privilege to which every other citizen is ent.i.tled; for while the Const.i.tution gives the States the right to regulate suffrage, it nowhere gives them power to prevent it.
The power to regulate is one thing, the power to prevent is an entirely different thing. Thus the State can say where, when, and what citizens may exercise the right of suffrage. If she can say that a woman, who is a citizen of the United States, shall not vote, then she can equally say that a Chinaman, who is not a citizen, shall vote and represent her in Congress. The foreign naturalized citizen claims his right to vote from and under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and the State has no right to prevent him from voting, and thus place him in a lower degree or grade of citizenship than that of free citizens.
This being the case, is it presumable that a foreign citizen is intended to be placed higher than one born on our soil? Under our Const.i.tution and laws, woman is a naturalized citizen with her husband. There are men in this town to-day, to my certain knowledge, who have had this boon of citizenship thrust upon them, who scorned the name, and who freely claimed allegiance to a foreign power. Our Government has existed for eighty years, yet this question of citizenship has never been settled. In 1856 the question came before the then Attorney-General, Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were ent.i.tled to the privilege of preempting our public lands. He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not ent.i.tled to the benefits of the act.
In 1821 the question came before Attorney-General William Wirt, as to whether free persons of color in the State of Virginia were citizens of the United States, and as such, ent.i.tled to command vessels engaged in foreign trade. He gave it as his opinion that they were not, that the Const.i.tution by the term citizen, and by its description of citizen, meant only those who were ent.i.tled to all the privileges of free white persons, and negroes were not citizens. In 1843 the question came before Attorney-General Legree, of South Carolina, as to whether free negroes of that State were citizens, and he gave it as his opinion that as the law of Congress intended only to exclude aliens, therefore that they as denizens could take advantage of the act. Mr. Marcy, in 1856, decided that negroes were not citizens, but ent.i.tled to the protection of the Government.
In justice to our s.e.x, I must ask you to bear in mind the fact that all these wise Secretaries of State and Attorney-Generals, were men that made these singular decisions, not illogical, unreasoning women, totally incapable of understanding politics.
And lastly, in 1862, our late honored and lamented fellow-citizen, Attorney-General Bates, decided that free negroes were citizens. Thus, you see, it took forty-one years to make this simple discovery. I have cited all these examples to show you that all rights and privileges depend merely on the acknowledgment of our right as citizens, and wherever this question has arisen the Government has universally conceded that we are citizens; and as such, I claim that if we are ent.i.tled to two or three privileges, we are ent.i.tled to all. This question of woman"s right to the ballot has never yet been raised in any quarter. It has yet to be tested whether a free, moral, intelligent woman, highly cultivated, every dollar of whose income and property are taxed equally with that of all men, shall be placed by our laws on a level with the savage. I am often jeeringly asked, "If the Const.i.tution gives you this right, why don"t you take it?" My reply is both a statement and a question.
The State of Ma.s.sachusetts allows negroes to vote. The Const.i.tution of the United States says the citizens of each State shall be allowed all the privileges of the citizens in the several States. Now, I ask you, can a woman or negro vote in Missouri? You have placed us on the same level. Yet, by such question you hold us responsible for the unstatesmanlike piece of patchwork which you call the Const.i.tution of Missouri! Women of the State, let us no longer submit to occupy so degraded a position! Disguise it as you may, the disfranchised cla.s.s is ever a degraded cla.s.s. Let us lend all our energies to have the stigma removed from us. Failing before the Legislatures, we must then turn to the Supreme Court of our land and ask it to decide what are our rights as citizens, or, at least, not doing that, give us the privilege of the Indian, and exempt us from the burden of taxation to support so unjust a Government. [Applause].
Ten thousand extra copies of _The Revolution_ containing these resolutions and this speech were published and sent to friends throughout the country, laid on every member"s desk in Congress, and circulated at the Washington Convention of 1870. From this hour up to the time of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Virginia L.
Minor in 1875, the National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation took this view in regard to the XIV. Amendment. Mrs. Stanton, fully accepting the new position, made her speech on that basis before the Congressional Committee[127] on the District of Columbia. In calling this Committee to order Senator Hamlin said:
We have met this morning for the purpose of considering two pet.i.tions which have been presented, I believe, only to the Senate Committee of the District of Columbia. The first one is a pet.i.tion, very numerously signed, I think, by both ladies and gentlemen of this city, and in a few brief words it says that: "The undersigned, residents of the District of Columbia, earnestly but respectfully request that you extend the right of suffrage to the women of the District." The other memorial, very nearly as brief, is in these words: "The undersigned citizens of the United States pray your honorable body that in the proposed amendments to the Const.i.tution which may come before you in regard to suffrage, and in any law affecting suffrage, in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, the right of voting may be given to the women on the same terms as to the men." Upon this subject we have some lady friends who desire to address us, and I have the pleasure of introducing to you Mrs. Stanton.
Mrs. STANTON said: Accustomed to appeal to the sentiments and combat the prejudices of popular a.s.semblies, it is a comparatively easy task to plead the cause of woman before clear, logical, dispa.s.sionate minds--committees of statesmen--trained to view all subjects in the light of pure reason; for unprejudiced minds admit to-day that if the democratic theory of government is true, the argument lies wholly on our side of this question. As history shows that each step in civilization has been a steady approximation to our democratic theory, securing larger liberties to the people, it is fair to infer that its full realization--the equal rights of all--will be the best possible government.
Whatever is true in theory is safe in practice, and those holding the destinies of nations in their hands should legislate with a sublime faith in eternal principles. As bills are soon to be introduced in both the Senate and the House, asking further special legislation, we appear before you at this time to urge that the women of the District shall share equally in all the rights, privileges, and immunities you propose to confer on male citizens.
In the adjustment of the question of suffrage, now before the people of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance that the organic law of the land should be so framed and construed as to secure political equality to all citizens.
While the Const.i.tution of the United States leaves the qualifications of electors to the several States, it nowhere gives them the right to deprive any citizen of the elective franchise; they may regulate, but not prohibit the franchise. The Const.i.tution of the United States expressly declares that no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; hence those provisions of the several State const.i.tutions that exclude women from the franchise are in direct violation of the Federal Const.i.tution. Even the preamble recognizes, in the phrase "We, the people," the true origin of all just government.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general 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.
Are not women people?
SEC. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.
How can that form of government be republican, when one-half the people are forever deprived of all partic.i.p.ation in its affairs?
ARTICLE VI. The Const.i.tution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the const.i.tution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Const.i.tution tells us, too, who are citizens. The XIV.
Amendment says:
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.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
It has just been decided by the Supreme Court that a foreign born woman is naturalized by marriage to a native. Therefore, as birth and marriage secure the right of citizenship to large numbers, the remaining cla.s.ses of foreign unmarried women should secure naturalization papers, that we may all test our right to vote in the courts. As the subject of naturalization is expressly withheld from the States, and as the States would clearly have no right to deprive of the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are expressly included, still more clearly have they no right to deprive native born women citizens of this right.
The States have the right to regulate but not to prohibit the elective franchise to citizens of the United States. Thus the States may determine the qualifications of electors. They may require the elector to be of a certain age, to have had a fixed residence, to be of a sane mind, and unconvicted of crime, etc.; but to go beyond this, and say to one-half the citizens of the State, notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications, you shall never vote, is of the very essence of despotism. It is a bill of attainder of the most odious character.
On this point the Const.i.tution says:
ART. I., Sec. 9. No bill of attainder, or _ex post facto_ law shall be pa.s.sed.
No t.i.tle of n.o.bility shall be granted by the United States.
No State shall pa.s.s any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any t.i.tle of n.o.bility. (See c.u.mmings vs. the State of Mo., 4th Wallace Rep 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume.)
Opposed to this provision of the Const.i.tution, by the XV.
Amendment you have established an aristocracy of s.e.x, sanctioning the unjust legislation of the several States, which make all men n.o.bles, all women serfs. Justice and equity can only be attained by having the same laws for men and women in the District as well as the State.
A further investigation of the subject will show that the language of the const.i.tutions of all the States, with the exception of those of Ma.s.sachusetts and Virginia, on the subject of suffrage is peculiar. They almost all read substantially alike. "White male citizens, etc., shall be ent.i.tled to vote,"
and this is supposed to exclude all other citizens. There is no direct exclusion, except in the two States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people of a State to partic.i.p.ate in a government of their own creation requires no enabling clause; neither can it be taken from them by implication. To hold otherwise, would be to interpolate in the const.i.tution a prohibition that does not exist. In framing a const.i.tution the people are a.s.sembled in their sovereign capacity; and being possessed of all rights and all powers, what is not surrendered is retained. Nothing short of a direct prohibition can work a deprivation of rights that are fundamental.
In the language of John Jay to the people of New York, urging the adoption of the Const.i.tution of the United States, "silence and blank paper neither give nor take away anything," and Alexander Hamilton says (_Federalist_, No. 83), "Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between silence and abolition." The mode and manner in which the people shall take part in the government of their creation may be prescribed by the const.i.tution, but the right itself is antecedent to all const.i.tutions. It is inalienable, and can neither be bought, nor sold, nor given away. But even if it should be held that this view is untenable, and that women are disfranchised by the several State Const.i.tutions directly, or by implication, then I say that such prohibitions are clearly in conflict with the Const.i.tution of the United States and yield thereto.
The proposition is now before the people of the District to abolish the munic.i.p.al government and reduce this to a mere territory, which is clearly retrogressive legislation; as in the former, the chief magistrate is elected by the people and in the latter appointed by the President. In your civil rights bill, compelling black and white to vote together, to go to school together, to ride in the cars together, you have taken a grand step in progress. If in the proposed bills soon to come before you for the establishment of a medical college in the District, and an improved school system, you shall as carefully guard the rights of women to equal place and salary, you will take another onward step. In making the changes you propose, it is evident you are doing to-day an elementary work in which all the people should have a voice; hence, your primal duty is to extend to the women of the District the right of suffrage, that they may vote on the schools, colleges, hospitals, prisons, and whether their government shall be republican with a Representative in Congress, munic.i.p.al officers, or territorial with a Governor appointed by the President. In doing such fundamental work, many distinguished publicists have expressed the opinion that all the people should have a voice. In the debates in the Illinois Convention, now in session, members refused to swear to support the State Const.i.tution, because, said they, "it is absurd to swear to support what we are now tearing to pieces. We are doing an elementary work, and are amenable to the Federal Const.i.tution alone."
Ever since the abolition of slavery, the District has been resolved into its original elements. In fact by the war, and the revision of the Federal Const.i.tution, the nation, too, has been resolved into its original elements, and the women have to-day, the right to say on what basis the District, their several States, and the nation shall be reconstructed. We think, honorable gentlemen, you must all see the broad application of this principle. And if all the people should have a voice in the revision of a State or national const.i.tution, women must be included. The Const.i.tution confers, by express grant upon Congress, "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever," for the purposes of government. Under this grant Congress, by the first section of the act of January 8, 1867, enacted that each and every male person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been born or naturalized in the United States, who shall have resided in the said District for the period of one year, and three months in the ward or election precinct in which he shall offer to vote, shall be ent.i.tled to the elective franchise, and shall be deemed an elector, and ent.i.tled to vote. This act, you perceive, recognizes the pre-existing right of all persons, and excludes women only by the use of the word male, unless, as Hamilton says, "silence on that point is not abolition."
It is fitting that here, under the shadow of the national capitol, under the control of the Federal Government, where the black man was first emanc.i.p.ated and enfranchised, that the experiment of a true republicanism should be tried, by securing to woman, too, the rights of an American citizen.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY addressed the Committee as follows: We are here for the express purpose of urging you to present in your respective bodies, a bill to strike the word "male" from the District of Columbia Suffrage Act, and thereby enfranchise the women of the District. We ask that the experiment of woman suffrage shall be tried here, under the eye of Congress, as was that of negro suffrage. Indeed, the District has ever been made the experimental ground of each step toward freedom. The auction-block was here first banished, slavery was here first abolished, the newly-made freemen were here first enfranchised; and we now ask that the women shall here be first admitted to the ballot. There was great fear and trepidation all over the country as to the results of negro suffrage, and you deemed it right and safe to inaugurate the experiment here; and you all remember that three days discussion in 1866 on Senator Cowan"s proposition to amend the Senate bill by striking out the word "male;" the able speeches of Cowan, Anthony, Gratz Brown, Wade, and the Senate"s nine votes for the amendment. Well do I remember with what anxious hope we watched the daily reports of that debate, and how we prayed that Congress might then declare for the establishment in this District of a real, practical republic. But conscience, or courage, or something was wanting, and women were bidden still to wait.