l citizens the right to
rote, for what purpose was that grand old charter of the fathers
lumbered with its unwieldy proportions? The republican party, and Judges
Howard and Bingham, who drafted the document, pretended it was to do
something for black men; and if that something was not to secure them in
their right to vote and hold office, what could it have been? For, by
the thirteenth amendment, black men had become people, and hence were
entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the government,
precisely as were the women of the country, and foreign men not
naturalized. According to Associate Justice Washington, they already had
the
"Protection of the government, the enjoyment of life and liberty,
with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and
to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to such
restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general
welfare of the whole; the right of a citizen of one state to pass
through or to reside in any other state for the purpose of trade,
agriculture, professional pursuit, or otherwise; to claim the
benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, to institute and maintain
actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold, and
dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from
higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of
the state."
Thus, you see, those newly freed men were in possession of every
possible right, privilege and immunity of the government, except that of
suffrage, and hence, needed no constitutional amendment for any other
purpose. What right, I ask you, has the Irishman the day after he
receives his naturalization papers that he did not possess the day
before, save the right to vote and hold office? And the Chinamen, now
crowding our Pacific coast, are in precisely the same position. What
privilege or immunity has California or Oregon the constitutional right
to deny them, save that of the ballot? Clearly, then, if the fourteenth
amendment was not to secure to black men their right to vote, it did
nothing for them, since they possessed everything else before. But, if
it was meant to be a prohibition of the states, to deny or abridge their
right to vote--which I fully believe--then it did the same for all
persons, white women included, born or naturalized in the United States;
for the amendment does not say all male per
|