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 exerci