ons at law against her. But if the courts of
Illinois should refuse to exercise this summary jurisdiction, and
should hold that actions at law could not be maintained on
contracts between her and her clients, it might result that she
would not be as generally employed as she otherwise would be. But
that is no reason why she should be prohibited from appearing and
trying causes for clients who are willing to rely upon her
integrity and honor.

But let it not be supposed that, in trying to answer as to the
inconveniences imagined by the court below, I am at all departing
from the broad ground of constitutional right upon which I rest
this cause. I maintain that the XIV. Amendment opens to every
citizen of the United States, male or female, black or white,
married or single, the honorable professions as well as the
servile employments of life; and that no citizen can be excluded
from any one of them. Intelligence, integrity, and honor are the
only qualifications that can be prescribed as conditions
precedent to an entry upon any honorable pursuit or profitable
avocation, and all the privileges and immunities which I
vindicate to a colored citizen, I vindicate to our mothers, our
sisters, and our daughters. The inequalities of sex will
undoubtedly have their influence, and be considered by every
client desiring to employ counsel.

There may be cases in which a client's rights can only be rescued
by an exercise of the rough qualities possessed by men. There are
many cases in which the telling sympathy and the silver voice of
woman would accomplish more than the severity and sternness of
man could achieve. Of a bar composed of men and women of equal
integrity and learning, women might be more or less frequently
retained, as the taste or judgment of clients might dictate. But
the broad shield of the Constitution is over them all, and
protects each in that measure of success which his or her
individual merits may secure.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. _December Term_, 1872. Myra
Bradwell, Plaintiff in Error, _vs._ the State of Illinois. In
error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.

1. The Supreme Court of Illinois having refused to grant to
plaintiff a license to practice law in the courts of that
State,