ave been potent. She would have said, an
attempt by a State to deny the right to vote because one is of a
particular sex, is expressly prohibited by that Amendment. The
Amendment, however, does not contain that word. It is limited to
race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Legislature
of the State of New York has seen fit to say, that the franchise
of voting shall be limited to the male sex. In saying this there
is, in my judgment, no violation of the letter or of the spirit
of the XIV. or of the XV. Amendment.

This view is assumed in the second section of the XIV. Amendment,
which enacts that if the right to vote for Federal officers is
denied by any State to any of the male inhabitants of such State,
except for crime, the basis of representation of such State shall
be reduced in proportion specified. Not only does this section
assume that the right of male inhabitants to vote was the
especial object of its protection, but it assumes and admits the
right of a State, notwithstanding the existence of that clause
under which the defendant claims to the contrary, to deny to
classes or portions of the male inhabitants the right to vote
which is allowed to other male inhabitants. The regulation of the
suffrage is thereby conceded to the States as a State's right.

The case of Myra Bradwell, decided at a recent term of the
Supreme Court of the United States, sustains both the positions
above put forth, viz: First, that the rights referred to in the
XIV. Amendment are those belonging to a person as a citizen of
the United States and not as a citizen of a State; and second,
that a right of the character here involved is not one connected
with citizenship of the United States. Mrs. Bradwell made
application to be admitted to practice as an attorney and
counselor-at-law in the Courts of Illinois. Her application was
denied, and upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, it was there held that to give jurisdiction under the
XIV. Amendment, the claim must be of a right pertaining to
citizenship of the United States, and that the claim made by her
did not come within that class of cases. Mr. Justice Bradley and
Mr. Justice Field held that a woman was not entitled to a license
to practice law. It does not appear that the other Jud