exercise of the right on the part of the States, to restrict
the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants.

We doubt if an instance can be found of a more complete
misconception of the meaning and intention of the law. So far
from its being a recognition of the right of the States to
restrict the right to suffrage of males, it has an exactly
opposite meaning. It was intended as a punishment on the States
if they did this thing. It is no more a justification or
authorization of the act than is the law punishing larceny an
authority for stealing! Its object was to punish the States as
such, which, but for this provision, could not have been done by
diminishing their representation accordingly; and it was designed
as a still further security for the rights of the colored
population. But, even if it could be held to recognize a right on
the part of the State to disfranchise any one, it would only
extend to "males," not to females. They, as "citizens of the
United States," are embraced in, and protected by, the broad
language of the Amendment; a right that is fundamental, can not
be taken away by implication. But more than this, the XIV.
Amendment was an addition to the organic law of a great nation,
intended to enlarge the area of human freedom, and secure more
firmly individual rights. It is absurd to impute to the
law-makers a design at the same time to restrict those rights.

Although the point is not alluded to by the Supreme Court of
Missouri, yet, as we desire to meet every possible objection, we
think this a proper place to notice an argument sometimes put
forward, based upon the XV. Amendment. It is of the nature of
what is termed in law a negative pregnant, or, the familiar maxim
of "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." As
this Amendment says, that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, it is claimed by some that it may be
abridged on other grounds. But, aside from the well-known history
of this Amendment, as shown by the debates in Congress, of which
this court will take notice when necessary, and which show that
the sole object and purpose of this Amendment