FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094  
1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109   1110   1111   1112   1113   1114   1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   >>   >|  
o 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
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094  
1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109   1110   1111   1112   1113   1114   1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

plaintiff

 

defendant

 
Missouri
 

entitled

 

Circuit

 

United

 

Constitution

 

judgment

 

Supreme

 

States


Because

 

affirming

 

petition

 

proper

 

register

 

effect

 
registered
 

qualified

 

ERRORS

 

Virginia


judiciary

 

contemplated

 

twenty

 

conflict

 
broadly
 

presented

 

section

 
February
 

supplemental

 
ASSIGNMENT

manifest
 
declaring
 

demurrer

 

record

 

sustaining

 

Henderson

 

Francis

 
election
 
mentioned
 

proceedings


records

 
attorneys
 
thereon
 

contends

 

registration

 

clause

 
denies
 

validity

 

articles

 

clauses