though the natural
and obvious one, is not a necessary one, since, if there had been
no XIV. Amendment, the XV. would undoubtedly be held to create a
new right of suffrage. The argument, from the language used,
though not without very positive weight, can not be regarded as
decisive of the question, and the claim that women are entitled
to vote must rest essentially upon the construction of the XIV.
Amendment.

There is, however, an adverse claim that is made under the XV.
Amendment, which ought to be briefly considered. That claim is
that even if the XIV. Amendment gives the right to vote, yet the
XV., in prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude, impliedly
confers the right to prohibit it on all other grounds. Now, if it
has this effect, it does so merely by impliedly repealing that
clause of the XIV. Amendment which provides that the rights of
citizens shall not be abridged. But it is a well-established rule
of law that a repeal by implication is never favored, and will
not be sustained unless the implication is a clear and necessary
one. Much more would not such a repeal be sustained where the
clause claimed to be repealed was a part of a constitution, and
was intended as a security for human rights and liberty. The rule
that would favor a construction toward liberty of the XIV.
Amendment, would equally forbid a construction toward curtailment
of liberty of the XV.

But it will be said that the XV. Amendment becomes without
purpose and effect, and really as senseless as we claim the XIV.
Amendment to be under the construction which we oppose, if it is
to be regarded as operating only in the way claimed, and not as
conferring rights not previously existing. This is a point of
some force, and which can be replied to only by the fact that
there was an impression upon the minds of the legislators and of
the people, that the XIV. Amendment did not confer the right of
suffrage. That impression weighs nothing in now determining the
meaning of the XIV. Amendment; but it furnishes the explanation
that seems to be needed of the passage of the XV. Amendment. It
was in our view wholly unnecessary, but was generally thought to
be necessary. The difference in the two cases is that t