This condition demonstrates that the right to vote ought not to be, and is not, an absolute right. The fact that the practical working of the assumed right would be destructive of civilization is decisive that the right does not exist. . . . . It will be seen by the first clause of the XIV. Amendment, that the plaintiffs, in common with all other persons born in the United States, are citizens thereof, and, if to make them citizens is to make them voters, the plaintiffs may, of right, vote. It will be inferred from what has already been said, that to make a person a citizen is not to make him or her a voter. All that has been accomplished by this Amendment to the Constitution, or by its previous provisions, is to distinguish them from aliens, and make them capable of becoming voters.
In giving expression to my own judgment, this clause does advance them to full citizenship, and clothes them with the capacity to become voters, The provision ends with the declaration of their citizenship. It is a constitutional provision that does not execute itself. It is the creation of a constitutional condition that requires the supervention of legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect. The constitutional capability of becoming a voter created by this Amendment lies dormant, as in the case of an infant, until made effective by legislative action. Congress, the legislative power of this jurisdiction, as yet, has not seen fit to carry the inchoate right into effect, as is apparent in the law regulating the franchise of this District. When that shall have been done, it will be the pleasure of this court to administer the laws they find it. Until this shall be done, the consideration of fitness and unfitness, merit and demerit, are considerations for the law-making power. The demurrer in these cases is sustained.After the reading of the opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Cartter, Mr. Riddle, counsel for the plaintiffs, in open court, prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. And that highest tribunal affirmed the decision of Judge Cartter.
This contradictory decision of Judge Cartter averring that the XIV. Amendment clothed women with the capacity to become voters, but did not create them voters, afforded opportunity for criticism and ridicule. The Washington Sunday Morning Herald wittily reported[1] this trial in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
- ↑
woman suffrage in the courts.—shakespeare revived.
In the case of Hamlet vs. Rex, Shakespeare's reports, occurs the following: Scene—Churchyard.—Enter two clowns with spades. First Clown. Is she to be buried in Christian burial that wilfully seeks her own salvation? Second Clown. I tell thee, she Is; therefore make her grave straight. The crowner hath set on her and finds it Christian burial. First Clown. Mow can that be, unless she drowned a in her own defense? Second Clown, Why, 'tis found so, First Clown. It must be so, se offendendo; it can not be else. For here Hes the point. If I drown myself wittingly, it argues an act; and an act has three branches—it is to act, to do, and to perform. Argal, she drowned herself wittingly. Second Clown. Nay, but hear you good man, deliver. First Clown. Give me leave. Here lies the water, Good. Here stands the man. Good.
