Section 1.--Every Male Citizen of the United States, and

every person of foreign birth who may have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, according to law, not less than one year nor more than five years before he offers to vote, who is over the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in this State one year next preceding his registration as a voter, and during the last sixty days of that period shall have resided in the county, city, or town where he seeks registration as a voter, who is not convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime, nor directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election for which such registration is made, nor serving at the time of such registration in the regular army or navy of the United States, shall be entitled to vote at such elections for all officers, State, county, or municipal, made elective by the people, or any other election held in pursuance of the laws of this State; but he shall not vote elsewhere than in the election district where his name is registered, except as provided in the twenty-first section of the second article of the Constitution.

SEC. 2.--The several clerks of the County Courts in this State shall provide a suitable registration book for each election district in their several counties, which shall have written or printed therein the following oath: "We the undersigned, do solemnly swear or affirm that we will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri."

SEC. 3.--On or before the 9th day of March, 1871, the several County Courts in this State shall appoint some competent person to act as Registrar in each election district in their respective counties, who shall have the qualifications of an elector in his election district, and who shall hold his office until the general election in 1872, and until his successor is elected and qualified. Said Registrar shall have authority to administer all oaths which may be necessary in the registration of voters.

SEC. 4.--Any person having the qualification of a voter as prescribed in the first section of this act, and who shall take and subscribe the oath required of voters by the second section of this act, and who applies for registration at the time and in the manner prescribed by law, and any naturalized citizen who shall subscribe to a written statement, under oath, before the Registrar, that he is naturalized according to the laws of the United States and of this State, and has resided in this State, according to the first section of this act, and that his naturalization papers or evidence of his citizenship have been lost or destroyed, or that the same are not accessible to him, and shall state where he was naturalized, shall be accepted by the registering officer, and duly registered as a qualified voter.

It is claimed, therefore, that the defendant was justified in refusing to register the plaintiff on account of her sex. The plaintiff, however, denies the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act based thereon, and contends that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and particularly to those articles and clauses thereof which she has specified in her petition.

It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a Registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector, in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated).

The question is thus broadly presented of a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as contemplated by the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, and the supplemental act of February 5, 1867.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.--And now comes Virginia L. Minor, the plaintiff in error in the above entitled cause, by her attorneys, John B. Henderson, John M. Krum, and Francis Minor, and says that in the records and proceedings in the above entitled cause, in said Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, there is manifest error in this, to wit:

1st. Because the said Supreme Court erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court--thereby, in effect, sustaining the demurrer filed in said Circuit Court by the defendant to the petition of the plaintiff.

2d. Because the said Supreme Court erred in its judgment affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court--thereby, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff in error was not entitled to vote at the election mentioned in the record.

3. Because the said Supreme Court of Missouri erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court--thereby, in effect, declaring that the Constitution and laws of Missouri, before recited, do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

STATEMENT.--This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, against the defendant, a registering officer, for refusing to register her as a lawful voter.

The defendant demurred to the petition, the defense, in substance, being based upon the Constitution of Missouri, which provides (Art 2, Sec. 18) that "every male citizen of the United States, etc., ... shall be entitled to vote";--and also upon the registration law of said State, approved March 10, 1871, to the same effect; and it was claimed, therefore, that the defendant was justified in refusing to register the plaintiff on account of her sex.

The plaintiff, however, denied the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act based thereon, and contended that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and particularly to those articles and clauses thereof which she had specified in her petition.

It was admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff was a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant was a Registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time, and in proper form, made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she was a female (and that she possessed the qualifications of an elector, in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated). The question was thus broadly presented of a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as contemplated by the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1789, and 5th February, 1867.

* * * * *

ARGUMENT AND BRIEF.--We think the chief difficulty in this case is one of fact rather than of law. The practice is against the plaintiff. The States, with one exception, which we shall notice hereafter more in detail, have uniformly claimed and exercised the right to act, as to the matter of suffrage, just as they pleased--to limit or extend it, as they saw proper. And this is the popular idea on the subject. Men accept it as a matter of fact, and take for granted it must be right. So in the days of African slavery, thousands believed it to be right--even a Divine institution. But this belief has passed away; and, in like manner, this doctrine of the right of the States to exercise unlimited and absolute control over the elective franchise of citizens of the United States, must and will give way to a truer and better understanding of the subject. The plaintiff's case is simply one of the means by which this end will ultimately be reached.

We claim, and presume it will not be disputed, that the elective franchise is a privilege of citizenship within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. In order to get a clearer idea of the true meaning of this term citizenship, it may be well to recur for a moment to its first introduction and use in American law.

Before the colonists asserted their independence they were politically bound to the sovereign of Great Britain, by what is termed in English law, "allegiance"; and those from whom this allegiance was due were termed "subjects." But when these "bands," as they are termed in the Declaration of Independence, were dissolved, the political relation became changed, and we no longer hear in the United States the term "subject" and "allegiance," except the latter, which is used to express the paramount duty of our citizens to our own government. The term citizen was substituted for that of "subject." But this was not a mere change of name; the men who framed the Constitution of the United States had all been "subjects" of the English king, and they well knew the radical change wrought by the revolution.

In the new political sovereignty thus created, the feudal idea of dependence gave way to that of independence, and the people became their own sovereigns or rulers in the government of their own creation. Of this body politic, represented by the Constitution of the United States, all persons born or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are members; without distinction as to political rights or privileges, except that the head or chief of the new government must be native-born--and this exception the more strongly proves the rule. It is to this Constitution, therefore, we must look for the limitations, if any, that may be placed upon the political rights of the people or citizens of the United States. A limitation not found there, or authorized by that instrument, can not be legally exercised by any lesser or inferior jurisdiction.

But the subject of suffrage (or the qualifications of electors, as the Constitution terms it) is simply remitted to the States by the Constitution, to be regulated by them; not to limit or restrict the right of suffrage, but to carry the same fully into effect. It is impossible to believe that anything more than this was intended. In the first place, it would be inconsistent and at variance with the idea of the supremacy of the Federal government; and, next, if the absolute, ultimate, and unconditional control of the matter had been intended to be given to the States, it would have been so expressed. It would not have been left to doubt or implication. In so important a matter as suffrage, the chief of all political rights or privileges, by which, indeed, life, liberty, and all others are guarded and maintained, and without which they would be held completely at the mercy of others; we repeat, it is impossible to conceive that this was intended to be left wholly and entirely at the discretion of the States.

A right so important must not be the subject of implication. Some positive warrant or authority must be shown for it, and in the case at bar we challenge its production. There is another view of the subject that is important to be considered. There can be no division of citizenship, either of its rights or its duties. There can be no half-way citizenship. Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none. Only citizens are permitted to pre-empt land, obtain passports, etc., all of which woman can do; and, on the other hand, she is taxed (without her "consent") in further recognition of her citizenship; and yet, as to this chief privilege of all, she is forbidden to exercise it. We call upon the State to show its warrant for so doing--for inflicting upon the plaintiff and the class to which she belongs, the bar of perpetual disfranchisement, where no crime or offense is alleged or pretended, and without "due process of law."

We charge it as a "bill of attainder" of the most odious and oppressive character. The State can no more deprive a citizen of the United States of one privilege than of another, except by the "law of the land." There is no security for freedom if this be denied. To use the language of Mr. Madison, such a course "violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws, ought to have a voice in making them." (Madison Papers, vol. 3--appendix, p. 12.)

It is sometimes said this is one of the "reserved rights" of the States. But this can not be, for the simple reason that, as to the "privileges and immunities" of federal citizenship, they had no existence prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution; how then could they be reserved?

As Mr. Justice Story says: "The States can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the National Government, which the Constitution does not delegate to them.... No State can say that it has reserved what it never possessed." (Commentaries, §§ 624-627.)

We say, then, that the States may regulate, but they have no right to prohibit the franchise to citizens of the United States. They may prescribe the qualifications of the electors. They may require that they shall be of a certain age, be of sane mind, be free from crime, etc., because these are conditions for the good of the whole, and to which all citizens, sooner or later, may attain. But to single out a class of citizens and say to them, "Notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications, you shall never vote, or take part in your government," what is it but a bill of attainder?

To show that the mere regulation of this matter of suffrage was left to the States for the purpose we have indicated, and not to their absolute and ultimate control, we will now quote the language of one of the framers of the Constitution, to whom, indeed, has been applied the epithet of "Father of the Constitution"--James Madison; and this, too, in reply to questions by Mr. Monroe, who sought an explanation on these very points. We quote from the debates in the Virginia convention upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution:

Mr. MONROE wished that the honorable gentleman who had been in the Federal Convention would give information respecting the clause concerning elections. He wished to know why Congress had an ultimate control over the time, place, and manner of elections of Representatives, and the time and manner of that of Senators, and also why there was an exception as to the place of electing Senators.

Mr. MADISON: Mr. Chairman, the reason of the exception was, that if Congress could fix the place of choosing the Senators, it might compel the State Legislatures to elect them in a different place from that of their usual sessions, which would produce some inconvenience, and was not necessary for the object of regulating the elections. But it was necessary to give the General Government a control over the time and manner of choosing the Senators, to prevent its own dissolution.

With respect to the other point, it was thought that the regulation of time, place, and manner of electing the Representatives should be uniform throughout the continent. Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of equality, and others might regulate them otherwise. This diversity would be obviously unjust. Elections are regulated now unequally in some States, particularly South Carolina, with respect to Charleston, which is represented by thirty members.

Should the people of any State by any means be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the General Government.

It was found impossible to fix the time, place, and manner of the election of Representatives in the Constitution. It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these, in the first place, to the State Government, as being best acquainted with the situation of the people, subject to the control of the General Government, in order to enable it to produce uniformity, and prevent its own dissolution. And, considering the State Governments and General Government as distinct bodies, acting in different and independent capacities for the people, it was thought the particular regulations should be submitted to the former and the general regulations to the latter. Were they exclusively under the control of the State Governments, the General Government might easily be dissolved. But if they be regulated properly by the State Legislature, the Congressional control will very properly never be exercised. The power appears to me satisfactory, and as unlikely to be abused as any part of the Constitution. (Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, pages 276-7.)

It seems to us that nothing can be clearer or plainer than this, coming to us, as it does, with all the weight and authority of Mr. Madison himself. But it may be asked: If this be so, why was not the question sooner raised? We answer, at that very time, and for nearly twenty years afterward, women did vote, unquestioned and undisputed, in one of the States (New Jersey). The men who framed the Constitution were then living--some of them in this very State; yet we hear no mention of its being unconstitutional, no objection made to it whatever.

It is true that subsequently this provision was omitted (about 1807) in the revisal of the State Constitution (as we think, very unjustly), but the fact remains of the unquestioned exercise of this privilege by women at the very time the Federal Constitution was adopted, and for years afterward. This fact is worth a thousand theories. Again, we think that one of the causes of the popular error on this subject arises from forgetting or overlooking the dual nature of our citizenship.

We are citizens of a State, as well as of the United States. This is alluded to in several of the early cases, and its importance is clearly pointed out. We quote, first, from Talbut vs. Jansen, 3 Dallas, Sup. Ct. Rep., 153 (1795), in which Mr. Justice Patterson says: "The act of the Legislature of Virginia does not apply. Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States. If the Legislature of Virginia pass an act specifying the causes of expatriation and prescribing the manner in which it is to be effected by the citizens of that State, what can be its operation on the citizens of the United States?"

If the act of Virginia affects Ballard's citizenship so far as respects that State, can it touch his citizenship so far as regards the United States? Allegiance to a particular State is one thing; allegiance to the United States is another. Will it be said that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the latter? The sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the right, too, may be different. Our situation being new, unavoidably creates new and intricate questions. We have sovereignties moving within a sovereignty.

Judge Cabell, also of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, alludes to it briefly in the case of Murray vs. McCarty, 2 Munford, 398. He says: "But although the Constitution of the United States has wisely given to the citizens of each State the privileges of a citizen of any other State, yet it clearly recognizes the distinction between the character of a citizen of the United States and a citizen of any individual State, and also of citizens of different States," etc. Or, if a still further and later authority be desired, we have it in the language of Chief-Justice Taney, who says, in the Dred Scott case:

In discussing this question we must not confound the rights of citizenship, which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.... But if he rank as a citizen of the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution clothes him as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a State, and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to maintain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation, and would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaning of the clause in question. It guarantees rights to the citizen, and the State can not withhold them. (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard's Rep., pp. 405 and 422.)

Now, substitute in the above, for "persons of the African race," women, who are "citizens of the State and of the United States," and you have the key to the whole position. We will now consider the clauses of the Constitution before recited, somewhat in detail:

As to "bills of attainder," "due process of law," etc. "No State shall pass any bill of attainder," etc. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. In these cases the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it assumes, in the language of the text-book, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguards of trial; it determines the sufficiency of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise, and it fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense. These bills are generally directed against the individuals by name, but they may be directed against a whole class.

The theory upon which our political institutions rest, is, that all men have certain inalienable rights--that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that, in the pursuit of happiness, all avocations, all honors, all positions are alike open to every one, and that, in the protection of these rights, all are equal before the law. Any deprivation or suspension of any of these rights, for past conduct, is punishment, and can be in no otherwise defined.

Punishment not being therefore restricted, as contended by counsel, to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, but also embracing deprivation or suspension of political or civil rights, and the disabilities prescribed by the provisions of the Missouri Constitution being in effect punishment, we proceed to consider whether there is any inhibition in the Constitution of the United States against their enforcement.--(Cummings vs. The State of Missouri, 4 Wallace, 351-323, and ex parte Garland--same volume.)

We are aware that the Supreme Court of Missouri, in the case of Blair vs. Ridgley, hold a different view, but we submit that the cases differ in a most material point, to wit: In the Blair case he was merely required to take the oath taken by all voters; and, by refusing to do so, he virtually disfranchised himself. In this case, however, the disfranchisement of the plaintiff is arbitrary and insurmountable; and we further submit, that the arguments in this case present it in a different, and, we think, a broader view than was taken in the Blair case. But to show that we are not unsupported by authority in this matter, we will now quote from a New York case, very similar to the Blair case, where the elector was required, but refused to take the oath, etc.

MILLER, J.: This case involves the constitutional validity of that portion of the act to provide for a convention to revise and amend the Constitution of this State, which excludes from the privilege of voting all who refuse to take the test oath prescribed by the act in question.

I think that the oath in question was unconstitutional and invalid, for the reasons which I will proceed to state. The first subdivision of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States provides, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or laws impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." The provision of the act which is to be considered declares, that no person shall vote at the election for delegates to said convention who will not, if duly challenged, take and subscribe an oath that he has not done certain acts mentioned therein, and inflicts the penalty of political disfranchisement without any preliminary examination or trial, for a refusal to take said oath.

By this enactment the citizen is deprived, upon declining to conform to its mandate, of a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution and laws of the land, and one of the most inestimable and invaluable privileges of a free government. There can be no doubt, I think, that to deprive a citizen of the privileges of exercising the elective franchise, for any conduct of which he has previously been guilty, is to inflict a punishment for the act done.

It imposes upon him a severe penalty, which interferes with his privileges as a citizen, affects his respectability and standing in the community, degrades him in the estimation of his fellow-men, and reduces him below the level of those who constitute the great body of the people of which the Government is composed. It moreover inflicts a penalty which, by the laws of this State, is a part of the punishment inflicted for a felony, and which follows conviction for such a crime. It is one of the peculiar characteristics of our free institutions, that every citizen is permitted to enjoy certain rights and privileges, which place him upon an equality with his neighbors. Any law which takes away or abridges these rights, or suspends their exercise, is not only an infringement upon their enjoyment, but an actual punishment. That such is the practical effect of the test oath required by the act in question, can admit of no doubt, in my judgment. It arbitrarily and summarily, and without any of the forms of law, punishes for an offense created by the law itself. In the formation of our National Constitution, its framers designed to prevent and guard against the exercise of the power of the Legislature, by usurping judicial functions, and for the punishment of alleged offenses in advance of trial, for offenses unknown to the law, and by bill of attainder and ex post facto enactments, etc.--(Green vs. Shumway, 36 Howard's Practice Rep., pp. 7, 8.)

On the same subject, we will next quote from a decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada:

LEWIS, C. J.--The form of the law by which an individual is deprived of a constitutional right is immaterial. The test of its constitutionality is, whether it operates to deprive any person of a right guaranteed or given to him by the Constitution. If it does, it is a nullity, whatever may be its form. Surely a law which deprives a person of a right, by requiring him to take an oath which he can not take, is no less objectionable than one depriving him of such right in direct terms.

To make the enjoyment of a right depend upon an impossible condition, or upon the doing of that which can not legally be done, is equivalent to an absolute denial of the right under any condition. The effect, and not the language of the law, in such case, must determine its constitutionality. It would not be doubted for a moment that a law expressly denying the elective franchise to any person upon whom the Constitution confers it would be unconstitutional. Why, then, is a law less objectionable which, although not expressly and directly, yet no less certainly denies the right, etc.--(Davies vs. McKeeby, 5 Nevada Rep. 7,371.)

We quote next from a Tennessee case:

The elective franchise is a right which the law protects and enforces as jealously as it does property in chattels or lands. It matters not by what name it is designated--the right to vote, the elective franchise, or the privilege of the elective franchise--the person who, under the Constitution and laws of the State is entitled to it, has a property in it, which the law maintains and vindicates as vigorously as it does any right of any kind which men may have and enjoy.

The rules of law which guard against deprivation or injury, the rights of persons in corporeal properties, are alike and equally applicable to the elective franchise, and alike and equally guard persons invested with it against deprivation of or injury to it. Persons invested with it can not be deprived of it otherwise than by "due process of law." See

The State vs. Staten, 6 Caldwell's Rep., p. 243. See also Rison vs. Farr, 25 Ark. Rep., p. 173; Winehamer vs. People, 13 N. Y., 378; State vs. Symonds, 57 Maine, 150, 511; Huber vs. Riley, 53 Penn., 112; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations.

We conclude this list of references with Mr. Webster's celebrated definition in the Dartmouth College case (4 Wheaton, 581):

By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land. If this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man's estate to another, legislative judgments, decrees and forfeiture, in all possible forms, would be the law of the land.

Such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions of the highest importance completely inoperative and void. It would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the Legislature. There would be no general permanent law for courts to administer, or for men to live under. The administration of justice would be an empty form--an idle ceremony. Judges would sit to execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law, or to administer the justice of the country.

That the elective franchise is a privilege of citizenship, we have the authority of Judge Washington, for he says:

What are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What those fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.

They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of every kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or imposition than are paid by the citizens of the other State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or Constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised (Corfield vs. Corryell, 4 Wash. C.C., 380). Cited and approved in Dunham vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 276 (Mass.); Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin Rep., 72.

A proper construction of Art. 1, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States will further demonstrate the proposition we are endeavoring to uphold. That section is as follows:

ARTICLE 1, Section 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 for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.

This section consists of two clauses, but in neither is there a word as to the sex of the elector. He, or she, must be one of the people, or "citizens," as they are designated in the Constitution, that is all.--(Story's Comms. § 579.)

The "people" are to elect. This clause fixes the class of voters; the other clause is in subordination to that, and merely provides, that as touching qualifications, there shall be one and the same standard for the Federal and for the State elector. Both are mentioned and neither is or can be excluded by the other.

The right to vote is very different from the qualification necessary in a voter. A person may have the right to vote, and yet not possess the necessary qualifications for exercising it. In this case, the right to vote is derived from the Federal Constitution, which designates the class of persons who may exercise it, and provides that the Federal elector shall conform to the regulations of the State, so far as time, place, and manner of exercising it are concerned. But it is clear that under this authority the State has no right to lay down an arbitrary and impossible rule. As before stated by the Chief-Justice of Nevada: "To make the enjoyment of a right depend upon an impossible condition, is equivalent to an absolute denial of it under any condition."

In conclusion, we will consider, as briefly as possible, the points made by the Supreme Court of Missouri. We quote from the opinion:

The question presented then is, whether there is a conflict between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri on this subject. That the different States of the Union had a right, previous to the adoption of what is known as the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to limit the right to vote at election by their constitutions and laws to the male sex, I think can not at this day be questioned.

Undoubtedly the practice in the different States, as we have before said, is against the claim made by the plaintiff, although, as we shall show, in the early days of the Republic this practice was by no means universal. But when the Court states that the right of the States to do this can not be questioned, it assumes the very point in controversy, and it fails to notice the distinction between "the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union." (Chief-Justice Taney in Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 405.)

"The difference," says Judge Cooley (Story on Constitution,